Tag Archives: D Thomas Lancaster

Return to Jerusalem, Part 3

February 7, 2013 James Pyles 28 Comments

After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.

–Acts 15:13-14 (ESV)

After Paul and Barnabas concluded their testimony, James the brother of the Master took the floor and addressed the assembly. He prepared to offer a formal declaration based upon the consensus that emerged around Simon Peter’s testimony

James summarized the arguments, both for and against, and then recapitulated Simon Peter’s testimony regarding Cornelius the Gentile. That story carried extra weight because it implied a halachic case precedent – something that had already been accepted and established by the assembly. Compelling Gentile believers to accept circumcision required overturning the endorsement they had granted the household of Cornelius.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Yitro (“Jethro”) (pg 440)
Commentary on Acts 15:1-20

If you have read Part 1 and Part 2 of this series (and if you haven’t, I recommend you do so before continuing here), you know the direction this is taking. Paul and Barnabas brought with them some “opponents” from the synagogue in Syrian Antioch to the Council of Apostles in Jerusalem to settle a matter of great importance. In granting the Gentiles discipleship under the Messiah in the Jewish sect “the Way,” should the Gentiles be required to convert to Judaism and consequently, take on the full yoke of Torah, as do the people born as Jews?

Many arguments, for and against have been presented before James and the Council of Apostles and elders. Peter recounted his own experiences with the Roman Cornelius and his household of God-fearers and how they too received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews had, but without first being circumcised and converting to Judaism. They were subsequently baptized in water. God had granted the Gentiles the Spirit as He did the Jews, but He did not require that the Gentiles convert to being Jews. And it absolutely never occurred to any of the Jewish witnesses present or the Apostles that any Gentile disciple must fulfill the full body of Torah mitzvot if they remained Gentiles and did not convert.

Now James, as head of the Council, is about to establish the official halachah on this matter, and it will become binding on the Messianic community from this time forth. It this decision a “slam dunk,” so to speak?

Simon Peter based his argument on the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit that accompanied the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Blogger’s Note: “conversion” is a poor word to use in my opinion, since Cornelius maintained his status as Gentile, but was accepted by the Holy Spirit as “a Gentile called by God’s Name,” see below). Paul and Barnabas added supporting anecdotes. Despite the weight of such stories, the sages do not determine halachah on the basis of miraculous signs. Before he could issue a ruling, James needed to provide a definitive proof text to support the decision. (b.Baba Metzia 59b.) In rabbinic disputation, a legal ruling is almost always paired with supporting proof text.

-ibid

At this point, some of your reading this may be crying “foul!” How can Lancaster use a Talmudic reference in defining the process by which James would make his determination, when the Talmud wouldn’t be documented for centuries? It is said that a significant portion of the process of rabbinic examination and judgment of issues predated even Jesus. For instance, we know that the teachings of Hillel and Shammai existed a generation or more before Jesus and those teachings are with us today in the Pirkei Avot. Lancaster may be taking a few liberties with his application, but it’s not entirely unreasonable to believe James was employing (even for that day) time-honored processes and traditions in the matter of judging halachah; traditions that were later recorded by the Rabbis and preserved for Jewish communities throughout the ages and until this day.

Assuming for the moment that Lancaster is correct in his description of what James is preparing to do (and a detailed discussion on Lancaster’s opinions regarding ancient halachah is beyond the scope of my blog post), what was the “proof text” to be used to establish the aforementioned halachah for allowing Gentile’s entry into the Way as disciples of the Master?

“After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant [rest] of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”

–Acts 15:16-18 (ESV)

In this case, James has chosen Amos 9:11-12 as his proof text, a passage of scripture that describes the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty, placing Messiah, Son of David upon the throne of Israel, and the presence of the Gentiles from the nations in the Messianic age seeking the Lord.

But how does that prove anything?

The phrase “all the nations/Gentiles who are called by my Name” employs a common biblical Hebrew idiom for ownership. Ordinarily, Israel is the people “called by God’s name” (see Deut. 28:10, 2 Chron. 7:14, and Jer.14:9 for example). Ordinarily, the Gentiles are “those who are not called by your name” (Isaiah 63:19). Therefore, the Amos prophesy implies that in the Messianic Era, there will be Gentiles who belong to God in the same sense that the Jewish people belong to God.

-ibid, pg 441

Lancaster offers a very detailed analysis of Amos 9:11-12 in this Torah Club study, and I encourage you to get a copy and read it for the full details. More than that, Boaz Michael’s recent book, Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile, goes into exquisite detail about how James, his proof text, and the subsequent halalaic decision regarding the admission of Gentiles into the discipleship of the Messiah, applies to all Christians today, particularly those of us who are “hebraically-aware” and who find ourselves drawn to a Jewish perspective on the Bible, Messiah, and God.

From Lancaster’s perspective, James delivers a midrash on Amos 9, rather than simply quoting the text, that predicts Messiah rebuilding the fallen Temple in Jerusalem from where he will continue the Davidic dynasty, and where God will once again place His Presence. Once the fallen “sukkah” of David has been re-established, the Gentiles among the nations will seek out God in Jerusalem.

(References are numerous: Isaiah 2:2-3, 25:6, 56:6-7, 60:6-7, 66:23; Jeremiah 3:17; Micah 4:1-2; Zechariah 14:16, and also in many of the Psalms where the nations are called to worship God, according to Lancaster’s notes).

Lancaster further states that James’s words, “After this,” or “After these things,” (Acts 15:16) utilize a prophetic formula that alludes to various prophesies of the Messianic Age (see Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 12:15-16; also Isaiah 45:20-22).

Based on what you’ve read so far, you may be convinced that God indeed allows Gentiles to enter into covenant relationship with Him through Messiah without converting to Judaism (and most Christians believe this), but some may be asking themselves, “What is it here that says the ‘Gentiles who are called by His name’ are not obligated to the same Torah mitzvot as the Jewish disciples?” Good question, though keep in mind that Part 1 and Part 2 of this series already established that only born Jews or converts to Judaism have an obligation to the “full yoke of Torah.” Lancaster asks something very similar.

Before proceeding with Lancaster, I should say at this point that we non-Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah are not completely “unyoked” from Torah, but rather not “yoked” fully in the manner of the Jews, or as Derek Leman recently said (scroll down to the comments section), The “Father’s instructions” might be different for Jews and non-Jews. Something to consider. Much of what Jesus taught and what is practiced in many churches today comes directly from the Torah, so we are not “lawless.” The law is simply applied differently to us, and I hope to describe that a little better later on in this series. Now, back to Lancaster’s commentary.

How does this passage legitimize the decision of James and the Jerusalem Council? In what way does this passage justify a Gentile exemption from circumcision, conversion to Judaism, and full liability to the laws of the Torah?

To James and the believers in Jerusalem, David’s restored booth represented Yeshua (Jesus), the Davidic king who comes to rebuild the monarchy of Israel. He is the repairer of the broken places, the restorer of the ruins, who will rebuild the house of David and establish the Temple in the Messianic Era. According to the Amos passage, the restored Davidic kingdom will include Gentiles who bear God’s name, i.e., they belong to God.

The God-fearing Gentile believers fit the description: Gentiles from the nations who identified themselves with God’s name and sought after God because of the revelation of the Davidic Messiah. If the apostles required those same Gentiles to become legally Jewish, however, they would cease to be “Gentiles who are called by God’s Name.” They would be Jews. They would fail to fulfill the prophesy because a literal fulfillment of the Amos prophesy requires that both Jews and Gentiles must exist in the Messianic Era.

-ibid, pg 442

If the Council required the Gentiles to all convert to Judaism as a condition of being called by God’s Name, they would all be Jews who are called by God’s Name, not Gentiles. Not only would the Council be frustrating the Amos prophesy, but they would be robbing the Gentiles of their (our) reward and their (our) destiny in the Messianic Age.

Notice there’s still a piece or two missing. The actual decision of the Council and how it was to be expressed (in this case, by writing a letter). But for the sake of space and not requiring you to read a “meditation” that is prohibitively lengthy, I’ll save that for Part 4 of “Return to Jerusalem.”

Uncategorized

Return to Jerusalem, Part 2

February 6, 2013 James Pyles 17 Comments

For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

–Deuteronomy 30:11-14 (ESV)

Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

–Acts 15:10 (ESV)

Peter’s statement, which seems to disparage the Torah, presents no difficulty for traditional Christian interpretation. Gentile Christianity has always taken a dim view of Torah and is glad to dismiss “Old Testament law” as an unbearable yoke. Disdain for the Torah is not a Jewish perspective. Instead, the apostles teach that “the Torah is spiritual,” “the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good,” and most pertinent to Peter’s so-called deprecation, God’s commandments are not unbearable: “His commandments are not burdensome.”

Given this positive view of the Torah and the fact that 1 John 5:3 explicitly says that God’s commandments are not burdensome, could Simon Peter have referred to the Torah as a yoke “that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?”

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Yitro (“Jethro”) (pg 437)
Commentary on Acts 15:1-20

This is Part 2 of this multi-part series on Acts 15 and its implications for Christians and Jews today. If you haven’t done so already, please read Part 1 before continuing here.

So how could Peter believe that the Torah was too difficult for his Jewish fathers (ancestors) and his Jewish people to bear and still presumably believe that the Torah was good, spiritual, holy, and righteous?

In some of my previous talks with my Pastor about Jewish obligation to Torah, one of the areas we discussed was whether or not it was possible to obey the Law perfectly. Pastor Randy says “no” and I tend to agree with him because as Paul has said, ” for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) I may upset some of my Jewish readers, but personally, I don’t think that any Jewish person (let alone any non-Jew who has ever tried) has ever perfectly performed all of the mitzvot, from the day it was given by God to the Children of Israel through Moses, forward to the present.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

–James 2:10 (ESV)

Funny that James should write such a thing, when he was also present with the council of Apostles listening to Peter speak about how much of a burden Torah is. James seems to be saying that it is impossible to keep the Torah because there are so many difficult commandments, and this verse, along with Peter’s statement, are part of the scriptures many Christians use to justify how the Law is now dead (and sometimes Judaism along with it) and has been replaced by grace (and sometimes replaced by Christians).

Is there an alternate way of understanding all of this and also preserving Jewish devotion to Torah for the Messianic Apostles and disciples? Lancaster in his commentary on Acts 15 seemed to think so.

To insist that Simon Peter could not have referred to the Torah’s obligations as a difficult burden simply because other texts contradict that sentiment denies a literal reading of Scripture. Peter was able to articulate the idea that, though the Torah is a source of blessing and holiness, it is also difficult. A naive, rigid, theological reading, which cannot tolerate tension between one passage and another, will find this difficult, but the Jewish voice, following the contour of Hebraic thought, would find no difficulty in admitting it.

-ibid, pp 437-8

Nevertheless, some commentators have attempted to reduce the “tension” Lancaster mentions by insisting that the “Torah” Peter was speaking of was the “Oral Law of the Pharisees,” even though Acts 15:5 specifically references the “law of Moses.”

But Peter, as a Jew who had lived in the Jewish homeland all his life, and had observed the mitzvot and halachah all of his life, knew what he was talking about, and so did his Jewish audience. If Peter had required that the Gentile disciples all convert to Judaism, he would be requiring them to be obligated to the full weight of the Torah. While it is an honor to serve God and to walk in His ways as a Jew, it is not easy.

A yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear…

–Acts 15:10

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

–Galatians 5:1-2

Paul echos Peter’s statement and describes a state in which, should a Gentile disciple convert and be bound to Torah, he or she will be obligated unrelentingly to the full weight of the yoke of the Law. According to Lancaster this includes the following:

Previous generations of Jewish history had already proven the Torah to be an unbearable duty for sinful human beings. The Torah is a source of blessing, but outside the Messiah’s righteousness, it is also a source of curse. All men sin and fall short of the glory of God and incur his wrath. “The law brings wrath.” (Romans 4:15). Peter only means to point out that obligation to the Torah (Jewish status) is not an avenue to salvation.

In addition to the theological ramifications of forcing Gentile believers to become Jewish and keep the whole yoke of Torah, the apostles also had in mind the very practical implications of such a decision. If the Gentile believers took on halalaic Jewish status, they placed themselves under the authority of the Torah courts (including the Sanhedrin, which was at the time, hostile to believers)…

-ibid, pg 438

Lancaster may be reading between the lines about what the Apostles were and weren’t thinking about, but it’s a reasonable assumption. If the Gentiles could only be saved by converting to Judaism and converting to Judaism meant full halalaic obligation to Torah and the traditions, then any theological and legal consequences for failure to perform the mitzvot correctly landed right on their shoulders. This also means that any particular blessings Gentiles are intended to receive because they are Gentiles attaching themselves to God, would be lost when they converted.

Before we continue, I want to point out something special Lancaster said:

The Torah is a source of blessing, but outside the Messiah’s righteousness, it is also a source of curse.

If the Torah has always been too difficult to obey, and outside of Messiah, it is a source of both blessings and curses, why did God give the Torah at one point in history and bring the Messiah much later?

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

–Romans 4:1-3

Faith in God and God’s graciousness to humanity was always the foundation. Paul made a point to tell that to the Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome. The Torah does not justify you. It never did. Torah was never the mechanism by which an individual or the nation of Israel was justified before God. It was by faith. The mitzvot were, in many ways, given originally to be sort of the “national constitution” of ancient Israel, and a description of the way of life the Israelites were to live because they were God’s chosen ones. Yes, part of the Torah was to enable Israel to be a light to the nations and to attract them (us) to God, but Torah didn’t exist for its own sake, at least not according to Paul.

What did Peter have to say about this?

But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

–Acts 15:11

His response to those Jews who believed the Gentiles must convert to Judaism to be saved was to say that by placing the Torah upon the Gentiles, it would be an unbearable yoke for them…and for the Gentiles, who after all were not standing there with the Israelites at Sinai, conversion and full Torah obligation wasn’t necessary. Like the Jews, they were also saved through the grace of Christ. Both Jewish and Gentile believers were and are saved only through the grace of Messiah, but the Jews retain additional obligations under the yoke of Torah, which they can bear because of Moshiach’s righteousness.

But where does Peter get off making such a decision (or at least arguing for making such a decision) for the Gentiles?

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

–Matthew 16:18-19

You may have your own opinion on what you think Christ giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom” means. Here’s Lancaster’s interpretation:

“Since the elders agreed with what had been said by Peter, the whole assembly kept quiet.” (see Acts 15:12) The Master had given Simon Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven,” the halachic authority to bind and to loose in matters concerning His assembly. Simon’s testimony made it clear that he loosed the Gentiles from the obligation of circumcision and coming under the yoke of Torah as Jews.

-ibid, pg 439

In other words, Jesus personally gave Peter halalaic authority to make binding decisions for the disciples, Jews and Gentiles, who were members of the sect “the Way.”

I’ll stop here and pick up with James and his summation of the arguments that had been presented in the next part of this series, but I do want to make clear what’s been said so far. Although many Jews did not comprehend how the Gentile disciples could become disciples without conversion to Judaism, Peter (see Part 1) reminded the assembly that Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit and were baptized but were not circumcised, thus illustrating that salvation was also available to the Gentiles without converting to Judaism.

We have to go to Galatians to support Peter’s argument that only being born Jewish or converting to Judaism required a person to be obligated to perform the full body of Torah mitzvot. This was apparently a common understanding among all of the Jews present and no one disputed it.

Peter had the halalaic authority to make such decisions or at least to seriously suggest them before the council (and James was the head of the council, so his response is still required before any conclusions can be made), so that, plus his experience with Cornelius, made him more than qualified to say that the Gentile disciples should not be made to convert to Judaism and it would be “testing God” (see Luke 4:12) to do otherwise.

But the final decision hasn’t been made. We still need to review James’s response to all of the testimony presented and then his (and the Holy Spirit’s) final decision on the matter. We’ll begin with the response of James in Part 3.

Uncategorized

Return to Jerusalem, Part 1

February 5, 2013 James Pyles 3 Comments

Paul and Barnabas appeals to the ruling given by the pillars, James, Simon Peter, and John. The newcomers questioned the ruling and the circumstances around it. Did the apostles really mean that the Gentile believers should remain as Gentile believers indefinitely? Surely not! Surely they only intended a grace-period during which the Gentiles could learn Torah. The newcomers raised practical questions:

“Do the Gentile disciples need to keep the commandments of the Torah at all then? Are they free to do as they please? Did not our Master teach us that whoever breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least? Is it not sufficient for a disciple to be like his teacher? If our Master kept the Torah, should not His disciples keep the same commandments?”

Paul argued, “The whole Torah is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'” (Galatians 5:14). He said, “The deeds of the flesh are evident!” (Galatians 5:19). On the other hand, he argued resolutely that those commandments which he styled “works of the Law,” i.e., circumcision and Jewish identity-markers, should not be required from Gentile believers.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Yitro (“Jethro”) (pg 432)
Commentary on Acts 15:1-20

Paul and Barnabas seem to have a real problem here and so do we. It has been argued by some that the Jewish “newcomers” who Paul and Barnabas were debating in the Jewish community in Syrian Antioch were correct, at least in part, that the Gentile believers, both in ancient days and in the present, should do everything that Jesus did in living a lifestyle consistent with our Jewish Master as his Jewish disciples. After all, the short definition of a disciple is one who learns from his or her Master through imitation. If we’re not imitating the practices of our Master down to the last detail, how can we be said to be his disciples?

On the other hand, the Jewish people arguing with Paul and Barnabas on this point saw no other way for the Gentiles to be disciples and imitators of Jesus than to become circumcised (the males) and to become full converts to Judaism. In their way of thinking, having Gentiles who were disciples and fully under the “yoke of Torah” was an impossible thought. One was either a Jew or not. There was no middle ground.

Paul was arguing strenuously for Gentile inclusion as disciples without conversion to Judaism, but how was such a thing to be done? The questions brought forth by the “newcomers” are indeed valid. We don’t consider such questions today in most of the church and in some ways, that represents the tremendous “disconnect” between most 21st century Christians and the origins of our faith. We have become unconscious of the “Jewishness” of our very first teachers, the Apostles and the Jewish disciples of our Jewish Messiah. Most of us, when we read Acts 15, interpret the scripture the way we’ve been taught rather than reading what the Apostles were actually saying.

Also, Paul’s argument, as Lancaster presents it, offers another problem. How can you truly reduce the Torah down to a single commandment and how were the Gentiles to enact “loving their neighbors as themselves” without obeying all, or at least very significant portions of the mitzvot and halachah as they were understood in that day? Lancaster separates out the “works of the Law” or “Jewish identity markers” from the larger body of mitzvot, but is that understanding taken directly from scripture or a theological interpretation of the writer and FFOZ? If the Torah could be “reduced” to a single, basic commandment for the sake of the Gentiles, why wasn’t it reduced for the Jewish disciples as well?

To answer all those questions, we must do what Paul and Barnabas did: take it to the council of Apostles in Jerusalem.

So they decreed that Polos and Bar-Nabba along with some others would go up to Yerushalayim to the shilichim and the elders concerning this question.

–Ma’asei HaShlichim (Acts) 14:2
from an unpublished translation based on Delitzsch

Lancaster’s commentary provides a variety of details about Paul’s and Barnabas’ journey to Jerusalem and the preliminaries about how they were received that I’m not going to discuss, both because of the length and because I have no intention of recreating the full body of Torah Club commentary on Acts 15 here (You can read Vol. 6 of the Torah Club to get the full analysis).

However, Lancaster does present a very handy outline of the Acts 15 problem that I think we should review before getting into the details of the matter.

The Original Question: Must the Gentiles be circumcised (become Jewish) in order to be saved? (15:1)

The Charge: The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Torah of Moses (in order to be saved). (15:5)

The Rebuttal: Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are. (15:10-11)

The Proof Text: Amos 9:11-12 (David’s Fallen Tabernacle). (15:16-18)

The Decision: It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles… (15:19)

The Four Essential Prohibitions: But what we write to them that they abstain

from things contaminated by idols

from fornication

from what is strangled

from blood. (15:19-20)

The Explanation of the Decision: For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. (15:21)

-ibid, pg 433

Luke compresses the arguments presented before James and the Jerusalem Apostles so that they appear very brief, but according to Lancaster, the discussion may have lasted for days, as argument and counter-argument was presented by one side and then the other. The arguments against Gentile inclusion without conversion, using the words of the Master himself, must have been compelling:

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine. Do not go in the way of the Gentiles…but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

-ibid
see Matthew 7:6, 10:5, 15:24, 15:26

The argument, as we read it from a modern Christian perspective, is not without its irony. In today’s church, Jewish people (or anyone else) cannot be saved unless they totally surrender their “Jewishness” and convert to (Gentile) Christianity. The Jewish identity and everything else about what it is to be a Jew, including the Torah of Moses, must be totally excised from the Jewish convert to Christianity. Yet in this hearing before the Jerusalem council, it is being strongly argued that a Gentile (anyone who is not Jewish) cannot be a valid disciple and follower of our (Jewish) Lord Jesus Christ unless he or she totally gives up their pagan ways and their Gentile identity and converts to Judaism.

But then Peter spoke:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

–Acts 15:7-9 (ESV)

Peter is, of course, referring to his encounter with the Roman Centurion Cornelius and his household:

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.

–Acts 10:44-16 (ESV)

Taken one way, Peter could be saying to the Council that the Holy Spirit destroyed any and all distinctions between the Jewish and Gentile disciples of Messiah, creating “one new man,” and indeed this is exactly what the vast majority of Christians believe today. However Lancaster, reverses this and says that Simon Peter’s argument hinges on the necessity of maintaining a clear distinction between Jews and Gentile believers. According to Lancaster, Peter was not speaking in overly general terms and was specifically describing eligibility for salvation rather than defining legal identity, nationality, or covenantal obligations. Paul seems to echo this in his most famous statement in his epistle to the Galatians.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

–Galatians 3:28

Applying Lancaster’s understanding of Peter’s statement to what Paul wrote, we then see that Jews and Greeks, slaves and free men, men and women, though different in status, class, nationality, ethnicity, and gender, all have identical access to salvation through Jesus Christ. Discipleship under Messiah doesn’t blur or destroy distinctiveness, including the specifics of Jewish covenant distinctiveness, but it does destroy any barriers between all humans and the salvation of God.

Naturally, this is going to be a lengthy discussion and analysis and Lancaster’s commentary covers a lot of ground, so yes, this the first part of another multi-part series. We’ll pick up with Simon Peter and “the unbearable yoke of the Law” in Part 2 of “Return to Jerusalem” tomorrow.

Uncategorized

Collision and Recoil, Part 1

January 21, 2013 James Pyles 3 Comments

For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” And all who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called upon this name? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

–Acts 9:19-25 (ESV)

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.

–Acts 13:48-50 (ESV)

This becomes a familiar refrain in Paul’s life. Always someone is condemning him for his message or what it implies in their lives. As you may recall from yesterday’s “morning meditation,” when, in Acts 9:23, it says that “the Jews plotted to kill him,” the word we read in English as “Jews” in Greek is “Ioudaioi,” which specifically refers to the Jewish religious leaders and those who support them, not the Jewish people in general (according to the commentary in my ESV Bible, anyway). We see the same word used in Acts 13:50 when it also says, “But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas…”

I’ve been reading D. Thomas Lancaster’s Torah Club 6: Chronicles of the Apostles, specifically his commentary on Acts 13 (pp 379-405) which is intended to be read during the week that Torah Portion Bo (“Come”) is studied. I really wish that all of you reading this blog (and everyone else) could read this particular lesson on chapter 13 of Acts, because it is illuminating in many ways, presenting the message of salvation to Jews, Jewish converts, and everyone else in such a clear manner. Space on this blog prevents me from replicating Lancaster’s arguments in full and besides, if I simply “copied and pasted” the lesson here, I would be depriving you of the pleasure of studying from the Torah Club.

Nevertheless, there is some important territory to cover. For instance, why does Chapter 13 end with the Jewish religious leaders of Antioch (and according to Lancaster,“thanks to the Seleucid dynasty, more than fifteen cities in the Roman world bore the name Antioch”), conspiring with “a few prominent, God-fearing, Gentile women who were friendly with the Jewish community” to drive Paul and Barnabas out of their area? I mean, the whole thing started out so well. After Paul’s brilliant teaching as we read in Acts 13:16-41.

When they went out [from the synagogue] they requested of them to speak these things to them the following Shabbat. When the assembly was dismissed, many individuals from the Yehudim and righteous converts followed Polos and Bar Nabba, who spoke to their heartfelt need and warned them to stand in the kindness of God

–Ma’asei HaShlichim 13:42-43 (As quoted from Torah Club, vol 6, pg 393)

The above version of Acts 13:42-43 is taken from an unpublished translation based upon the work of the nineteenth-century Christian scholar Franz Delitzsch (a translation of the Gospels based on Delitzsch’s work is currently available). Let me present the same verses in a form that might be more familiar to you.

As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.

–Acts 13:42-43 (ESV)

Now, according to Lancaster, here’s the Jewish reaction to what Paul had taught the Jews, converts, and Gentile God-fearers about the risen Messiah:

The synagogue of Pisidian Antioch received Paul’s message enthusiastically. The synagogue heads asked Paul and Barnabas to return the following Sabbath and present more teaching about the man from Nazareth, His messianic claims, His resurrection from the dead, and the evidence from the prophets. After the Sabbath services concluded, an excited group of Jewish people (both Jews and proselytes) gathered around Paul and Barnabas. They followed them back to where they were staying and asked for more teaching and stories about the Master. The apostles spent the remainder of the Sabbath instructing them further in the message of the gospel and the teaching of Yeshua. They “were urging them to continue the grace of God.”

-Lancaster, pp 393-4

I’m not sure where Lancaster found that level of detail about what happened between the Jewish and proselytes from the synagogue and Paul for the rest of the Shabbat, but I can see how it could be true. Certainly it is evident that Paul’s message sparked a tremendous amount of excitement from his audience, it was received enthusiastically, and they couldn’t wait to hear more. This hardly seems like the sort of atmosphere that would abruptly turn to the local Jews experiencing “the offense of the cross” as some modern Christians might put it.

What happened?

Well, let’s back up a little bit.

Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation.

–Acts 13:26 (ESV)

Before proceeding, let me present the same verse from the Delitzsch translation to give it a more Judaic context:

Men, brothers, sons of Avraham’s family and God-fearers who are among you: to [us] this word of salvation was sent.

–Ma’asei HaShlichim 13:26

And now Lancaster’s explanation:

Paul finished his historical review with the prophecies of John the Immerser. Before going on to present the story of Yeshua, his suffering, and resurrection, he stopped to appeal directly to the people present in the synagogue. He declared, “To us the message of this salvation has been sent.”

Paul’s first person, plural pronoun “us” included all three types of people he addressed that day in the synagogue: “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God” (Acts 13:26). “Brethren” referred to his fellow Jews. “Sons of Abraham” referred to proselytes. (Proselytes take the patronymic “son of Abraham” at the time of their conversion.) “You who fear God” referred to the God-fearing Gentiles present that day in the synagogue. The God-fearing Gentiles were not accustomed to being acknowledged in such addresses, and they had never been included in the promises of Messianic redemption or covenant privilege.

-Lancaster, pg 390

That’s absolutely true. God-fearers, such as the Roman Centurion Cornelius and his household who we met in Acts 10, acknowledged the sole sovereignty of the God of Israel and denied all other Gods, but they had no covenant status to connect them to God as did the Jews. There was only the covenant God made with Abraham, but it was unrealized as far as the Jews and God-fearers who were listening to Paul knew.

I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan, Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

–Genesis 12:3-7 (ESV)

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.

–Galatians 3:16 (ESV)

For the first time, as Paul addressed all those present at that synagogue in Antioch, he “hot wired” the connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the Jewish Messiah who he revealed was Yeshua of Nazareth, Son of David, who was born, died, and resurrected, and who carried the promise of salvation to the Jew, the Jewish convert, and yes, even to the Gentiles of the nations who feared God.

We’ve already seen how the Jews and proselytes reacted with great joy, but what was the response of the Gentiles who heard this message?

We’ll pick up with the answer to that question and more in Part 2 presented in tomorrow’s “morning meditation.”

Uncategorized

Practicing Messianic What?

January 15, 2013 James Pyles 16 Comments

By now, most Christians have at least heard of “Messianic Jews,” that is, Jewish believers in Yeshua of Nazareth who have retained their Jewish identity and continue to observe the Torah and practice Judaism in loyalty to Yeshua and their biblical heritage.

Less well known and less understood are what we can call “Messianic Gentiles.” I identify myself as a Messianic Gentile, and I am not alone. There are a lot of us, and our numbers are growing, but what exactly is a Messianic Gentile?

The Messianic Gentile is a Sabbatarian and Torah-keeper practicing Messianic Judaism, not as a wanna-be Jew, but as a Gentile. The holy Torah of Moses has commandments for both Jews and Gentiles. Judaism is a universal religion. It is naturally centered around the Jewish people (and the Jewish Messiah), but its scriptures and practices extend out to all nations, encompassing all of us in the final consummation of the Messianic Era. A Messianic Gentile lives for the Messianic Era, an idea that our Master called “the kingdom of heaven.”

-D Thomas Lancaster
“I’m a Messianic Gentile” (June 26, 2011)
FFOZ Blogs

You probably think I’m crazy even asking if Christians practice any form of Judaism. The vast, vast majority of both Christians and Jews would answer a resounding “no.” Only a tiny population of Jews and non-Jews in what is referred to as the Messianic Jewish and Hebrew Roots movements (they overlap somewhat but are hardly the same thing) even ask such a question. Moreover, only some of the people inside of those movements are considering or confused by the answer.

But why even ask such a ridiculous question? First of all, I recently read such a question as it was floating by in the blogoverse and was intrigued by its audacity. One such church-going (non-Jewish) Christian says he regularly tells other people in his church that he practices “Messianic Judaism”. This is just a hair off from his possibly telling other Christians that he’s a “Messianic Jew”. I don’t want to be unfair or inaccurate, and this person did not refer to himself as a Jew, Messianic or any other kind.

-from my blog post
Do Christians Practice Judaism (October 17, 2012)

Well, color me chagrined. I seem to have run headlong into a contradiction. Boaz Michael, President and Founder of First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) posted a link to Lancaster’s “Messianic Gentile” blog on Facebook recently (though I can’t seem to find it on Facebook again), and I registered my embarrassment in a comment there as well (this is related to Michael’s recently published book, Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile).

But I felt the issue needed more exposure so of course, I’m blogging about it.

I really don’t think that a Christian can practice Judaism as such because it seems to muddy the waters between practicing Judaism and being a Jew. Don’t only Jews practice Judaism? It’s confusing because Judaism is more than just a religious movement (Christianity is a religious movement). It’s a people group, a culture or collection of related cultures, a lifestyle, and when factoring in Israel, it’s not just a piece of geography, but the Jewish people and the Jewish nation as well.

If you’re not Jewish, how do you “practice” all that?

According to Lancaster, a “Messianic Gentile” such as he, practices Messianic Judaism by keeping the Shabbat and keeping Torah, “not as a wanna-be-Jew, but as a Gentile.”

My Jewish wife once called me a “Jewish wannabe” in the heat of a discussion and among many other events, it has “inspired” me to attempt to embrace my identity as a Christian for the sake of clarity and as a sign that I’m “backing away from her turf.” That Lancaster calls Judaism a “universal religion” doesn’t mean (in my opinion, but I don’t have even the beginnings of the educational and experiential background in religious and Bible studies that Lancaster possesses) that it can be universally appropriated and practiced by anyone anywhere.

There’s a fine line to be drawn here. On the one hand, Gentiles dressing frum and wearing payot would be offensive to Jews and even look kind of crazy, but on the other hand, Isaiah did relate the words of God when he said:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

–Isaiah 49:6 ESV

This goes back to something more basic we find in the Torah:

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?

–Deuteronomy 4:5-8 (ESV)

Israel, in a sense, was supposed to be an example to the rest of the world by how it obeyed God and adhered to the standards of the Torah mitzvot. The rest of us were and are supposed to observe, be really impressed, and allow Israel’s idealized example influence our nations to become more just, more compassionate, and for all of us to leave our “idols” behind and embrace ethical monotheism.

Maimonidies (Moshe Ben-Chaim) Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12 (Capach Edition): “[10] …Can there be a greater stumbling block than this (Christianity)? That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel and save them, and gather their dispersed and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this (one, i.e., Jesus) caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, and exchanged the Torah, and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord. [11] Nevertheless, the thoughts of the Creator of the world are not within the power of man to reach them, ‘for our ways are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His thoughts.’ And all these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and that of the Ishmaelite who arose after him are only to straighten the way of the king Messiah and to fix the entire world, to serve God as one, as it is stated (Zephaniah 3:9), “For then I will turn to the peoples (into) clear speech, to all call in the name of G-d and serve Him unanimously. [12] How (will this come about)? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of the Messiah, with words of Torah and words of mitzvos and these matters have spread to the furthermost isles, to many nations of uncircumcised hearts, and they discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah. Some say: “These mitzvoth are true, but were already nullified in the present age and are not applicable for all time.” Others say: “Hidden matters are in them (mitzvos) and they are not to be taken literally, and the messiah has already come and revealed their hidden (meanings). And when the true Messiah stands, and he is successful and is raised and exalted, immediately they all will retract and will know that fallacy they inherited from their fathers, and that their prophets and fathers caused them to err.”

-quoted from mesora.org

Commentary on this quote found at mesora follows:

With respect, the point is, I think, that although Christianity and Islam are not true, they have played a part in the Divine scheme for the redemption of the whole of humanity by spreading some sort of ethical monotheism involving an albeit incorrect idea of Messiah, Torah and Mitzvot. Although Islam and Christianity are part of the overall process leading to the redemption their imperfect ethical monotheism will be rectified through the adoption of the seven laws.

Naturally, neither Judaism in general nor Maimonides in specific, support Christianity nor the idea that God intended our faith as a mechanism for spreading knowledge of God, and the opinions expressed at the mesora website reflect this. Nevertheless, we can see that Judaism has had a great influence on the world (like it or not) as expressed through Christianity and Islam.

But does “influence” equal “practicing Judaism?” Again, most Christians and certainly most if not all Muslims will strongly deny practicing Judaism in any way or form, but returning to the Messianic Gentile, what about them?

I mainly see “Messianic Gentiles” as having a different perspective than more traditional Christians (which isn’t to say that a self-identified Christian in a church couldn’t have the same point of view). As Lancaster says, they “believe that the Torah is not cancelled, and it contains laws and commandments that apply to both Jews and Gentiles. We keep those laws and commandments as we seek the kingdom.” He further states that:

The idea of practicing Messianic Judaism as a Gentile is not a new thing. Paul’s readers were doing it almost 2000 years ago.

However, in my reading of many of Lancaster’s other works, I don’t believe he is saying that we Christians are all obligated to practice Judaism nor commanded to imitate Jews in every detail in their halalach lifestyle. I don’t think you can find the early Christians who were established by Paul living in such a manner, although I admit that they did live more like the Jews of their day than we Gentile believers do today. I don’t doubt they kept a kind of kosher for table fellowship with Jews, perhaps kept Shabbos as they were able (early Gentile Christianity, unlike Judaism, was not a recognized religion by the Roman empire and Gentiles would not have been absolved from working on Shabbos as the Jews were), davened at the set times of prayer, and even observed some of the festivals (Passover would have been particularly meaningful).

But were even the ancient Christians at the end of the Second Temple era “practicing Judaism?”

A few days ago, I wrote a meditation that outlined the struggles Jewish and Gentile believers had with each other in the days of James, Peter, and Paul due to conflicts in what the Gentiles should and shouldn’t be practicing, and what sort of social bonds (if any) should form between Jewish and non-Jewish disciples of the Master…all based on Lancaster’s commentaries.

I don’t think this is an easy issue to deal with. It wasn’t 2,000 years ago, and it doesn’t seem to be in the present. But if the early Christians in their religious life weren’t “practicing Judaism,” what were they doing? “Christianity” as a discrete entity did not yet exist. Were these Gentiles acting as some sort of “quasi-converts” or “amplified God-fearers?” I think the New Testament was struggling with trying to identify who and what the Gentiles were as they entered into “the Way” and never got around to answering the question.

I’m not sure the question has been answered today, either. Some Hebrew Roots supporters have jumped from A to Z and declared that Messianic Judaism is (supposed to be) all-inclusive and there are no distinctions allowed. Gentiles entering the movement acquire a covenant status that’s not only equal to the Jews in the movement, but identical to them in every conceivable detail. A “Messianic Gentile” is just a “Messianic Jew” without a particular string of DNA and (in the case of males) a circumcision.

I’m not trying to be disagreeable to Lancaster, Boaz, or anyone else, but my opinion is that we use the phrase “Messianic Gentile” as a way to describe a Christian who has a very specific view of Jews, Judaism, the Torah, and God, all relating back to what the movement teaches. But does that mean whatever Messianic Judaism is allows both Jews and Gentiles to practice Judaism as a religious or worship form? If my wife and I go to one of the local synagogues and worship together, am I practicing Judaism?

While my viewpoints and attitudes probably identify me as a “Messianic Gentile” by Lancaster’s definition, I tend not to use the label for a variety of personal reasons. My wife thinks of me as a Christian and I can only imagine that everyone who sees me at church doesn’t give my being a Christian (as opposed to being a Messianic Gentile) a second thought. Of course, at this stage of my life, I don’t observe anything that even resembles a Shabbat and my level of kashrut is what the Chabad Rabbi in our community would call “kosher style.” If I wanted to truly be “Messianic,” I’d have a long way to go.

I don’t lay tefillin, I don’t pray while wearing a tallit gadol, I only wear a kippah if I’m actually going to shul (since all men are required to, Jewish or not), I pray with a siddur very sparingly, I can’t pray in Hebrew (languages are not one of the things I’m good at), and in many, many other ways, I’m not a “Messianic” anything. I certainly don’t practice Judaism, Messianic or otherwise.

I can’t tell D. Thomas Lancaster or anyone else that they aren’t practicing Messianic Judaism, but on the other hand, in my own life, I can’t see how a Christian like me could ever do such a thing. I suppose this is where opinions differ and possibilities for some of us are yet to be realized. Even if my wife and daughter were to suddenly become shomer shabbos and kasher our kitchen, and I were to daven at the set times of prayer, who would I be and what would I be practicing?

I tend not to think that it’s any form of Judaism, in spite of the obvious similarities, but on the other hand, I don’t really know what to call it. One thing’s for sure, especially with the recent issues involving Gentiles at the Kotel and the lack of respect we’ve been showing at this most Holy site, I feel once again diminished (it’s so sad some Christians can’t treat Jews with respect) and I know for certain that we sure aren’t Jews.

Uncategorized

Distinctions

January 13, 2013 James Pyles 2 Comments

For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

–Galatians 2:12-13 (ESV)

Who were these certain men from James? In the Greek of the period, the term “a certain man” usually indicates someone of prestige. By saying that they were certain men from James, Saul (Paul) indicated that they were from the Evyoinim, the Jerusalem community fo believers. The “certain men” from James must have been prestigious members of Jerusalem’s community, perhaps apostles, members of the Twelve, or even members of the Master’s extended family such as sons of Clopas. Whoever they were, their approval or disapproval seems to have carried weight.

Luke does not tell us why they came to Antioch, but when they arrived, they expressed their disapproval about the free intermingling of Jewish and Gentile believers. Saul referred to them as “the circumcision,” a term he uses to indicate Jewish believers.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Va’era (“and I appeared”) (pp 366)
Commentary on Galatians 2:1-18, Acts 12:25

One of the things I’ve been trying to communicate lately is that no religious or faith community is perfect and free from conflict. As we see above, that includes the early community of “the Way” as Paul was taking the message of the Jewish Messiah to the non-Jews in the diaspora. While Paul obviously felt very strongly about his mission to the goyim, there were apparent difficulties, one being the “free intermingling of Jewish and Gentile believers.” Peter himself was instrumental in bringing the first household of Gentiles into full covenant relationship with Jesus (Acts 10) and yet, when “certain men from James” came to Antioch, Peter, who had previously felt comfortable eating with the Gentile believers, suddenly became intimidated and drew back from them. According to Lancaster’s interpretation, there was a difference of opinion among the “high-ranking” Jews of the Way as to the appropriate level of contact (or lack thereof) between Jews and non-Jews who shared a faith in the Christ; the Moshiach.

One of the things I sometimes hear from folks in the Hebrew Roots movement is that there was originally a sort of “super-unity” between the First Century Jewish and Gentile believers, and that, apart from a string of DNA indicating that one had Hebrew lineage and another did not, they became identical “co-heirs” in the Kingdom, sharing everything, including covenant identity and covenant responsibilities relative to the Torah mitzvot. While I agree that the early Gentile Christians, those who lived in the day of James, Peter, and Paul, most likely did live a worship and daily lifestyle that appeared far more “Jewish” than we Christians do today, it is obvious from this section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and Lancaster’s commentary on the matter (which he no doubt borrowed from his “must have” book on the topic The Holy Epistle to the Galatians) that there was already “trouble in paradise.”

Lancaster, referencing material from Magnus Zetterholm’s book Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (Fortress Press, 2009) states the following:

The Jewish believers from James argued that, if the Gentile believers were fellowshipping and worshipping and eating within Jewish space, they should go the full distance and become Jewish. If they chose not to do so, they should be set outside the Jewish community – quarantined, so to speak – so that the distinction between Jew and Gentile remained perfectly clear. In expressing that opinion, they may or may not have been expressing the opinion of James, the brother of the Master.

-Lancaster, pg 367

Not only does Lancaster introduce the idea that representatives of James did not approve of a completely free intermingling between Jews and Gentiles in the movement and advocated for a separation between the two groups socially, we see strong signs of disagreement on this very matter between different groups of Jews in the apostolic community.

But what about Paul? According to Lancaster:

Saul saw that the separation could only result, ultimately, in two different faith communities, two different religions, and two different peoples: a Gentile ekklesia and a Jewish ekklesia, and he did not care for that prospect. He took a bold step; he even stepped out of line and rebuked Simon Peter.

-ibid

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

–Galatians 2:11 (ESV)

Paul called Peter out on his hypocrisy in having table fellowship with Gentiles when the “big wigs” weren’t around but shying away from his Gentile brothers when they were. Paul doesn’t seem to be a person who really cared about appearances and he had a lot invested in his relationship with the Gentiles he mentored.

James, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Jewish apostles and believers were Jews who lived a halakhic Jewish lifestyle consistent with that period of time and who maintained that their faith in the God of Israel through the Jewish Messiah was wholly Jewish. Integrating non-Jews without requiring them to convert to Judaism (and Peter knew this since he deliberately did not have Cornelius and his household circumcised after receiving the Holy Spirit and before baptism by water – see Acts 10:44-47) was an amazingly difficult task. How was it to be done?

While the men from James felt that the Gentiles should either be circumcised and convert to Judaism or be completely segregated from the Jewish community, Paul had grave misgivings about the separation of believing Jews and Gentiles, and yet, this is the same Paul who likely foresaw just such an event.

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved…

–Romans 11:25-26 (ESV)

As much as he may have resisted it and even dreaded it, Paul could very well have known that the Gentiles and Jews would ultimately travel divergent trajectories across future history and indeed, that is exactly what has happened.

After all, Paul came to forcefully realize the depth of the Jewish struggle in attempting to accept Gentiles within a Jewish religious and identity context:

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

–Acts 21:27-29 (ESV)

When I was reading this part of Lancaster’s commentary on Galatians 2, I couldn’t help but think of the struggles in the modern Messianic Jewish and Hebrew Roots communities over the very same matters. How are Jews and Gentiles supposed to interact with each other within a Hebraic worship context? What role should a Gentile Christian take in a Messianic Jewish fellowship? Should Jews and Gentiles all say the same prayers? Should we all wear tzitzit? Will a Jewish Cantor or Rabbi call a Gentile worshiper up to an aliyah to read a Torah Portion during Shabbat services?

I know I mine this particular nugget of information often, but Rabbi Dr. Michael Schiffman’s article Messianic Judaism and Christianity: Two Religions With The Same Messiah speaks volumes about the current struggle that we also find in Paul’s letter to the ancient Galatians.

I’m not sure what to do about it but then again, I’m in no position to do anything about it. I’m not in charge of any aspect of any movement that would allow me to take a definitive action impacting Jewish and Gentile relationships within the Hebrew/Jewish Roots or Messianic Jewish communities (or the larger traditional Christian communities for that matter). According to Lancaster, Paul desired a unity that extended up to the level of table-fellowship, but it seems unlikely that he would have advocated for a complete fusing of Jewish/Gentile identities. He never advocated for Gentiles becoming fully Jewish:

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

–Galatians 5:2-3 (ESV)

On the other hand, Lancaster said this of Paul:

Saul pointed out that, if Simon Peter, of all people, built a sharp division between Jew and Gentile by removing himself from table-fellowship with Gentiles, he was rebuilding the barrier that he had originally torn down (see Galatians 2:18)…If he agreed that Jews and Gentile believers should limit their social and table interaction, then he had erred by tearing down that wall of division in the first place and proved himself to have been living in sin and transgression.

-Lancaster, pg 369

Let me tell you a story.

I heard this story very recently and I was impressed.

A certain Christian was traveling with a tour group in Israel led by a number of Jews. Each morning, the Jews would rise early and form a minyan to pray shacharit. The Christian would also rise early to pray, but never approached the Jewish minyan. He sat in the back of the room where the minyan had gathered, reading his Bible and praying. When the minyan was finished with prayers, the Christian was finished with prayers and they joined each other for breakfast. In a way you might not expect, this formed a bond between the Jewish men and the Christian, one of mutual respect and perhaps even a realization that Jew and Christian mutually shared a devotion to God.

The Christian now lives in America and still keeps in touch with some of the Jewish men he traveled with in Israel based, in part, on what they “shared” in morning prayers.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that a complete division between believing Jews and Gentiles is the way to go. Paul seemed to believe there should be some sort of interaction between the two groups, though how far he would have taken it is questionable. Jewish believers such as Rabbi Dr Schiffman recognize that Jews and Christians must maintain separate religions, as the emissaries from James supported, to preserve Jewish covenant identity. Yet like Paul (and Lancaster), there are other groups within Messianic Judaism where Jews and Gentiles do worship together and share table-fellowship in peace.

Halalaic Jews in the movement of Messianic Judaism are still a minority population, with the majority of worshipers and leaders being non-Jews. But there are enough Jews present to beg the questions we see expressed in Galatians 2. We debate back and forth and occasionally, arguments become heated, but the struggle in which we’re engaged is very old. I don’t know if Paul ever solved his dilemma or if he and James (or the men he sent to Antioch) ever came to an agreement on the matter. I only know what Peter finally concluded as he addressed James and the Council.

And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

–Acts 15:8-9 (ESV)

May we who possess the Spirit of God within us and who humbly attempt to walk in the dust of the footsteps of our Master be granted wisdom and fellowship in the presence of Christ, the Messiah.

"When you awake in the morning, learn something to inspire you and mediate upon it, then plunge forward full of light with which to illuminate the darkness." -Rabbi Tzvi Freeman