Tag Archives: FFOZ

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.

Uncategorized

The Evolution of Judaism, Part 6: Evolutions

January 6, 2013 James Pyles 2 Comments

The best evidence that the temple was the locus of prayer during the First and Second Temple periods is the book of Psalms. Virtually all the biblical psalms, even those that lament personal or national catastrophes or that hail a king at this coronation, are hymns of praise to God. They range in date from the period of the monarchy, if not earlier (some of them are Israelite versions of Canaanite or Egyptian hymns), to that of the Maccabees.

All these texts imply that the recitation of prayers was a prominent feature of Jewish piety, not just for sectarians like the Jews of Qumran but also for plain folk. Jews who lived in or near Jerusalem prayed regularly at the temple. This is the plausible claim of Luke 1:10, “Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside [the temple],” and Acts 3:1, “One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon.”

By the third century BCE, diaspora Jews began to build special proseuchai, which literally means “prayers” but probably should be translated “prayer-houses.” Instead of “prayer-houses,” the Jews of the land of Israel had synagogai, which literally means “gatherings” but probably should be translated “meeting-houses.” Whether they prayed regularly in their “meeting-houses,” which are not attested before the first century CE, is not entirely clear.

The history of this (Amidah or Eighteen Benedictions) prayer is immensely complicated, but its basic contours were established no later than the second century CE, and its nucleus certainly derives from the latter part of the Second Temple times. It bears obvious similarities to the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4).

…by the end of the Second Temple period, sections of the Torah were read publicly in synagogues every week.

The purpose of all these rituals was, as the Torah repeatedly says, to make Israel a “holy” people (Exod. 19:6; Lev. 19:2; Deut. 7:6). To better achieve this objective, the Jews of the Second Temple period developed new rituals, broadened the application of many of the laws of the Torah, and in general intensified the life of service to God.

After the destruction of the temple, the petition was changed from a prayer for acceptability of the sacrifices to a prayer for their restoration, and the petition entered the Eighteen Benedictions. In rabbinic times, the prayer was still in flux.

This practice is based on the idea that God can be worshiped through the study of his revealed word.

-Shaye J.D. Cohen
Chapter 3: The Jewish “Religion:” Practices and Beliefs
From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2nd Ed.

Forgive the rather lengthy history lesson from different portions of this chapter in Cohen’s landmark book, but as I’ve continued to read from his work, I’ve been struck by how Judaism developed significantly in practice and in its comprehension of a life of devotion to God from the days of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) in the desert to the post-Second Temple era. Some time ago, I began a series of blog posts intended to outline the evolution of Judaism as it applies to Yeshua (Jesus), halakhah, and the “acceptability” of the various Judaisms in any given age and across time to the God who established Israel as a nation. You can follow the link at the end of Part 1 of the series to review all of my comments to date, which ends at Part 5. I had intended for Messiah in the Jewish Writings, Part 1 to be the “sixth” part of the series, but it was pointed out to me that certain “weaknesses” in the scholarship of the material from which I was quoting made it unsuitable for that purpose.

Before proceeding, you should probably review Noel S. Rabbinowitz’s paper “Matthew 23:2-4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse their Halakhah?” which can be found as a PDF as published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:3 (September 2003): 423-47. That, along with reading the other “Evolution” blog posts in this series, should provide the foundation for continuing (and ultimately concluding) the discussion here.

In providing the series of quotes from Cohen’s book, I intended to illustrate how what was acceptable Jewish practice in worship, Temple sacrifice, and prayer developed over time and was never a single, static set of religious rules and procedures that perfectly reflected the intent of the Torah and God in the life of Israel. Sometimes in certain corners of Christianity and its variants, we find people who sincerely are seeking a more authentic method of practicing their faith, based on some sort of idealized and perfect template or model that was established, either by Moses or Jesus. Somehow that particular set of behaviors is believed to be what God wants us to do and is the only valid model by which we should construct our faith practices in the present age.

But as the title of this series implies, perhaps the human practice of worshiping God can never be static nor was it ever intended to be a single set of rigid rules and concrete regulations that never modified in the slightest across the long centuries between Sinai and the present.

I don’t mean that right and wrong don’t have timeless value and that God changes His requirements for humanity at a whim, but humanity changes, circumstances change, and what seems right to do at one point in human history seems very much different at another point on the timeline of existence. Surely how Solomon viewed what was proper worship differed greatly from what the Rambam might have considered right Jewish practice, and yet can we say that either one of them (or both) was wrong? They were both certainly convinced that they were doing what God required, but who they were, where they lived, and the demands of history upon both of these men (and the untold scores that lived before and since) were radically dissimilar.

But while you may understand this relative to the history of the Jewish people, what at all does this have to do with believers in Jesus and who we are in Christ?

Agrippa’s first full year as king over Judea (41/42 CE) was a Sabbatical year. Drought had already begun to hamper the land. The people were gathered for Sukkot to pray for rain and to hear the new king read from the Torah (see Deut. 31:10-11). The apostles and the disciples of Yeshua were present along with the rest of the pious of Israel to witness the historic event. Their hearts burned within them, jealous for the Master. They longed for the day when King Messiah will stand in the Temple and read the Torah aloud to the assembly of Israel.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Shemot (“Names”) (pg 329)
Commentary on Acts 12:1-24

Lancaster is no doubt taking a bit of poetic license in describing whether or not the hearts of the apostles were “burning” on this occasion, but it does cast the early Jewish disciples of “the Way” in a light that integrates them with overall Jewish religious and social participation. In the church, we tend to think of the “early Christians” as a body wholly apart from the various Judaisms that surrounded them, but as I’ve mentioned before, the Jews who were devoted to the Messiah as part of “the Way,” were just as much a valid sect of Judaism as any of the other Judaisms (Pharisees, Essenes, and so on) with which they co-existed.

In fact, the Jewish disciples of the Master in the days recorded by Luke in the book of Acts can only be separated from overall, normative Judaism anachronistically.

The King James Version of Acts 12:4 translates the Greek “pascha” as “Easter.”

The Greek word “pascha” (which transliterates the Hebrew “pesach”) occurs 27 times in the New Testament. In every instance except Acts 12:4, the King James translators rendered it as “Passover.” In Acts 12:4, they retained William Tynsdale’s anachronistic, Christian rendering and translated it as “Easter.”

The translation betrays a theological bias. It assumes Christianity replaced Judaism. Christ cancelled the Torah, and the Christian Jews would not have been keeping Passover any longer. In reality, the apostles had never heard of a festival called Easter. They had no special Christian festivals. They kept the Passover along with all Israel in remembrance of the Master, just as He had instructed them… (Luke 22:19)

-Lancaster, pg 338

Lancaster continues in his commentary, explaining that the separate Christian observance of Easter wouldn’t be established until the Second Century CE as the Gentile believers in Rome began to neglect observing Passover, but began to revere the Sunday that fell during the week of Unleavened bread as the day of Christ’s resurrection. As you can see, the passage of time and the demands of history have resulted in both Judaism and Christianity evolving and changing how they practice their divergent methods of worshiping God. In fact, the divergence of “the Way” from the rest of the Judaisms post-Second Temple is likely part of those historical requirements.

Is all this desirable? Probably not. That is, it would be great to have a Christianity that actually remained a normative part of Judaism and was able to include Gentile practitioners who came to faith in the Messiah, but such was not to be.

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.

–Romans 11:25 (ESV)

Paul seems to be telling us that the schism between the Gentile and Jewish believers was inevitable for the sake of the Gentiles and that, referencing Isaiah 59 and Jeremiah 31, by doing so, all Israel will be saved. (see Romans 11:26-27)

If Judaism was practiced differently and in fact, in radically different ways between the ancient times of Moses, David, and Solomon, the time of the Babylonian exile, the time of Herod, the Second Temple, and the rise of “the Way,” and in the post-Second Temple rabbinic period, can we say that all of these Judaisms are “valid?” I don’t think we have much of a choice but to say that they are. If you disagree, then you have to point to some place in history and say “here’s where the Jews made their big mistake.” I know that many Christians will point to Jesus and say that the Jewish rejection of their own Messiah caused them to become lost and gave rise to the “age of the Gentiles,” but be careful. For the first fifteen years post-ascension, only Jews were disciples of Jesus Christ. Even after Peter’s fateful meeting with Cornelius and the subsequent mission of Paul to the Gentiles of the diaspora, Jews remained in total control of the “Jesus movement” within Judaism until the fall of Jerusalem and the scattering of the vast majority of the Jewish population among the nations (there has always been a remnant of Jews living in the Land). It is rumored that there were Jews in synagogues acknowledging Yeshua as Messiah into the second, third, and possibly even up to the fifth century CE or later.

Rabbi Joshua Brumbach wrote a blog post called Rabbis Who Thought for Themselves which records the lives of a number of prominent 19th century Rabbis who all came to the knowledge and faith of the Messiah in the person of Yeshua (Jesus), and we know of a remnant of Jews in the 21st century who also have come to faith and yet have lives that are completely consistent with modern Jewish halakhah.

At no one point in history will you find the quintessential moment where you can say “that is the true Judaism” or for that matter, “that is the true Christianity.” Humanity in all our forms has been struggling with our relationship with God, what it means, and how to live it out since the days when God walked with Adam in the Garden. We never get it quite right because we live in a broken world and our vision of who we are, who God is, and what it all means is fractured and distorted, even with the Spirit of God residing with us as a guide.

We can look at the mistakes we have made and are making even now, but we cannot say that “at such and thus time, we got it all right.” We never got it right, we just made different mistakes. But faith and devotion have been a constant thread running through the tapestry and that is what we can find tied to our own heartstrings. We can then grab hold of that thread and pull ourselves along the line, touching the lives of the saints and tzaddikim who came before us, who like us, got some things right and some things wrong, but who like us, did their very best to serve the God of Heaven.

It’s easy to point a finger at history and at men who have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years, and vilify them in order to make ourselves look better, but in reality, they were no different from us in the important ways of how human beings work. Our only constant is love of God and of each other. We look to God to be the unchanging part of our own ever-changing universe. And we wait for the day when King Messiah will stand before Israel in Jerusalem and before the body of believers from the nations, and read the Torah aloud, and we will all hear his voice, and we will all know that we are his.

Uncategorized

Tent of David: Returning to Faith

January 3, 2013 James Pyles 20 Comments

First, the Christian church has forgotten that Jesus was and is a practicing Jew. Second, Christians have forgotten the centrality of Israel in God’s plan to redeem the world and her continued covenant status as God’s chosen people. Third, Christianity has an extremely low view of the Torah itself and the commandments God gave to the Jewish people. Fourth, the Christian gospel message, having replaced the broad and majestic vision of the kingdom of heaven with a knowledge-based individualistic salvation, has been emptied of its power.

-Boaz Michael
Chapter 2: The Church Needs to Change (pg 61)
Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile

If anything in the above-quoted paragraph shocked you as a Christian, then you probably need to get a copy of Boaz’s book and read it all the way through. However, I’m not writing this “meditation” today to shock you, but to remind you of something.

One of the objections I hear about “going to church” from believers who are not church-goers is that the church gives a whitewashed, “feel good” message, that doesn’t communicate the reality of the Bible, sin, and salvation. That may be true in other churches but it wasn’t in the one I attended last Sunday. It was anything but “whitewashed, feel-good.” The quote I opened this “meditation” with is part of that message. The message is that just because you believe, you may not have a terrifically realistic grip on the consequences of your belief. If you call yourself a Christian or a believer, but still can violate the Word of God with no feelings of guilt, anguish, or remorse, what you have may not even be what is called “faith.” Believing isn’t enough.

-from Day Zero

I mentioned in my last “church report” blog that Pastor Randy delivered anything but a “feel good” sermon about Christians and salvation. In fact, he was very pointed that “just believing” was not enough. We have to remember who Christ is and who we are in him and above all, why he had to die.

Interestingly enough, Boaz’s point about the Christian gospel message being emptied of its power seems to connect quite well to the Pastor’s sermon. Boaz continues.

Yeshua (Jesus) surely preached the gospel; his message – “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” – is just as much “the gospel” today as it was two thousand years ago. When Peter adjured the crowds after the coming of the Spirit on Shavuoat in Acts 2:38-39, his message was not “believe in Jesus; go to heaven.” It was “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

-Michael, pg 87

Admittedly, Peter was delivering this message, the message of salvation, to a totally Jewish audience, and so there is no misunderstanding, let me verify that this message is for the “rest of us” who once were far off.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

–Ephesians 2:11-13 (ESV)

We non-Jews were also once “far off,” as Peter said, but now we too have been brought near thanks to the Messiah, the Christ.

But if Peter says “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” what does that mean? Does it mean what you think it means?

That is the gospel message. Repent – change the way you live and your life and begin to obey the commandments of God. For the kingdom of heaven is at hand – you can, in some way, bring God’s rule down to earth through your actions; it is possible to “live now for the realization of this Messianic Age” (quoting Levertoff, “Love and the Messianic Age” (Marshfield, Mo: Vine of David, 2009), 32).

-Michael, pg 89

That’s probably not quite what Pastor Randy was getting at in his sermon last Sunday. Pastor was talking about people who have made an intellectual assertion that Jesus is Lord without ever incorporating that knowledge into an actual, lived faith…without any realization that Jesus died for my sins and that I have a personal responsibility to repent and beg for forgiveness.

That’s not the wrong thing to do of course, but looking at what Boaz is writing, salvation means more than just the saving of individual upon individual by giving out “go to heaven free” cards. The kingdom of heaven isn’t heaven, according to Boaz, and it has little to do with personal salvation as such, at least not as much as most of us were led to believe. Making a commitment of faith to God through Christ is an entire change of lifestyle in the here and now that has the power to change everything in the here and now. Salvation isn’t just the promise that we’ll go to heaven, it’s the promise that we’ll receive the power to, in some sense, bring heaven to earth.

As Boaz says, Yeshua didn’t simply teach “believe in me and go to heaven when you die.” If you read the Gospels carefully, you’ll see that he doesn’t really mention anything about what happens to you when you die. He mentions what happens to you when you live, if you repent and come to a true and saving faith.

The church needs to change, but not because the church is bad or that Christians are bad. The church needs to change because much of Christianity has taken the message of the Gospel and reduced it down to a simple “get saved” footnote and missed the larger point of what happens while we’re alive. No, it’s not a “works-based” salvation, but one of Pastor Randy’s scripture examples in last Sunday’s sermon was from James.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

–James 2:14-26 (ESV)

You cannot have a true and saving faith unless it has changed your life. If your every action does not conform to the message of James and you are not behaving in a manner that reflects faith, then you probably should ask yourself if you ever repented at all when you “confessed Christ.” And beyond the “generic” helping to repair the world, as I learned recently (and this is also echoed in Boaz’s book), when we are adjured to help the needy, we in the church have a special duty to assist the poor, the sick, and the needy of Israel as it is said:

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

–Matthew 25:34-46 (ESV)

I know I’ve said a lot of this before, but I want to illustrate that Boaz Michael’s book has a much broader scope than you may have gathered from my previous review. It’s not just directed at those non-Jewish “Messianic” believers who are in the church or who are contemplating returning to church…it’s a message for all believers everywhere who may not have a complete understanding of what the Gospel is trying to tell us.

This is a message about who we are, who we are in Christ, and most importantly, what to do with the rest of our lives. It’s not a message about packing our bags and getting ready for the trip to heaven, it’s about what we do as disciples of the Master and sons and daughters of the living God. Where do we find God? Why are we needed by other people? How do we inspire hope in the world around us and be a light in the darkness?

This is the kingdom of heaven being drawn near to us and to the people around us…by who we are in our faith.

Uncategorized

Tent of David: Return of the Christian

December 27, 2012 James Pyles 19 Comments

Yet even before delving into an appraisal of the institutional church, it is important to recognize the common ground on which we stand. By any biblical definition, all believers in Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) are part of one body, the ecclesia of God. All who have made Yeshua their master are subjects of one kingdom, the kingdom of heaven.

I believe the term “Messianic” is an easy-to-understand descriptor that helps Christians who understand their Jewish roots to find a concrete identity and definition. Yet to be a “Messianic Gentile” does not make one something other than “Christian.”

-Boaz Michael
“Chapter One: The Church is Good,” pg 36
Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile

I started my somewhat unique review of Boaz’s book in yesterday’s extra meditation so you may want to go back and read it before continuing here. I’m only “sort of” reviewing the book, as I’m not presenting my assessment in a single chunk, nor am I trying to look at it with an objective eye. The book is primarily intended to impact the Christian already in the church who has become somewhat “Judaically-aware.” That doesn’t describe me, since I left the church for many years and have only recently returned, and I am writing my response to Tent of David from the viewpoint of my personal experience as a church “returnee.”

Boaz continues to talk about the definition of a Christian in relation to being a “Messianic Gentile,” which he began in the Introduction of his book. I think identity is very important because so many people have left behind the church and the identity of “Christian” out of a sense of disillusionment, seeking something more authentic in other realms, particularly that venue we tend to call Messianic Judaism.

I’ve received quite a bit of encouragement to return to the church recently, both from a friend and from my Mom (hi, Mom). I’ve concluded that God must want me in the church, regardless how I may feel about it and that there is some intended good in my returning there, and perhaps even in the particular church I currently attend. Of course it’s important, as Boaz points out in the first chapter of his book, to remember that there is much good in the Christian church, even if you’ve been told otherwise.

The first good mentioned is community, but the nature and scope of that community may not be what you expect. In the quote above, Boaz mentioned that everyone who is a believer in Jesus Christ is a member of the ecclesia of God. But just who is that exactly?

As a Messianic Jew, I am a Jewish follower of the Jewish Messiah; Gentile believers have also attached themselves to the same Messiah. So we are all Christians according to the word’s original, lexical meaning – Christ-followers. God forbid, that the term “Messianic” should foster an “us vs. them” mentality toward Christians who do not accept the Messianic viewpoint; this attitude is counterproductive, unbiblical, and unnecessary.

-Michael, pg 37

Boaz means to communicate that those Christians who consider themselves (ourselves) “Messianic” should not allow their (our) identity to separate them (us) from Christians who do not necessarily see themselves in the same light, relative to the Torah, the mitzvot, and Jewish practice. However he uses himself as a Messianic Jew in the example and that might not fit the metaphor, at least not according to Rabbi Dr. Michael Schiffman in his blog post Messianic Judaism and Christianity: Two Religions With The Same Messiah.

Messianic Judaism affirms that the Jewish people, believing in Yeshua or not, have been, are, and will always be the chosen people of God. The only nation God ever linked His name to in Scripture is Israel, calling Himself, the God of Israel. Scripture tells us His promises to Israel are eternal, and extend to the sons of Jacob, the House of Israel, known today as the Jewish People. Those leaders of the church did not affirm this. To them, 2000 years of post-Yeshua Jewish history, a history of spirituality and suffering for being Jewish, was worthless. In their view, 2000 years of Jewish unbelief in Yeshua means Twenty centuries of Jews went to hell. I have to confess that the concept doesn’t sit well with me. For Yeshua to be the Messiah of Israel, he would have to be good for the Jews. If his coming resulted in twenty centuries of Jewish people going to hell, the bottom line is, he wasn’t very good for the Jews. Either he wasn’t the Messiah, or the doctrinal understanding is wrong. I believe the latter. Yeshua brings salvation, but is that the only reason to believe in Him; for something we get? I think we should believe in Him because he is the Messiah, and being in relationship to Him brings us closer to God, and increases our kavvanah, or spiritual connection with God.

What they don’t grasp, is the idea put forth by R. Kendall Soulen in his book, The God Of Israel In Christian Theology, that after the first century, the Jewish Yeshua was virtually unrecognizable as a Jew, and therefore, as the Messiah. Jewish rejection of Yeshua was not an act of infidelity towards Yeshua, as much as it was an act of fidelity towards His Father.

While Rabbi Dr. Schiffman has assured me that his writings were not intended to be anti-Gentile, they do draw a sharp distinction between what Jews do and who Jews are within a Messianic Jewish context, and what Gentile Christians do and who we are (Messianic Gentiles or otherwise) within a church or other primarily Gentile believing context. One God, One Messiah, two religions.

If I were to return to Boaz’s definition, then I’d have to believe that at some “meta-religious” level, both the Jewish and Gentile believers of the Jewish Messiah King must belong to the “Kingdom of God,” however you want to define it (In a recent conversation with Boaz, he talked about devoting a great deal of First Fruits of Zion’s (FFOZ’s) resources to address the nature of the Kingdom of God in the coming year. You can get a preview of what he’s talking about at tv.ffoz.org).

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

–Ephesians 2:13-22 (ESV)

Is this where Paul tries to describe that “meta-level” where both the Jewish and Gentile disciples of the Master exist in some sort of common framework? If so, then I have to conclude, going back to Rabbi Dr. Schiffman, that said-framework is virtual, spiritual, supernatural, or even mystical, since a united platform of Jews and Gentiles as believers cannot exist and yet maintain two separate and distinct religious identities.

In any event, that meta-level can’t really help me right now if I must adopt a specific Christian persona within a traditional church context. And yet the concept of identity gets complicated even if we just stick to Christians.

It is not anyone’s place to pass judgment on those who are infants in their faith, who have not taken on this or that mitzvah. James wrote in his epistle (4:11-12), “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

In essence, this passage communicates to us that the pace of someone else’s spiritual development is God’s concern alone…God has not appointed us to judge someone else based on his or her level of observance; to do so is tantamount to judging the law itself. James even goes so far as to say that one who judges another’s level of observance has ceased to observe the Torah himself.

-Michael, pg 38

I know Boaz intended to address the “Messianic Gentile” in the church or returning to the church, but that person isn’t me. In the past several weeks, Christians have shown me where I am immature in my faith. I have no judgment to offer anyone in the church, who have been performing the “weightier matters of the law” for much longer than I’ve even been considering them. Heck, on Christmas, I found out that one of the local Boise restaurants volunteered free meals to the hundreds and even thousands of homeless. My wife told me someone she works with volunteers for this project every year. Imagine that. I didn’t even know about it. Organizations such as the Boise Rescue Mission, Lighthouse Rescue Mission, City Light Home for Women and Children and Interfaith Sanctuary Housing Service, the CraftWorks Foundation, and others in the local Boise community regularly perform these “mitzvot,” so I along with many others, should be careful who we judge. I certainly have no room to say that who I am and what I do is better than any of these people and agencies.

That’s a rather humbling realization (I’ve been having a lot of them lately) when facing the daunting task of returning to God’s ecclesia and trying to find a place among them.

But “levels of spiritual development” aren’t always a simple set of stairs. For me, the different spiritual paths of the people around me and my own path look like a set of divergent vectors, different not only in level, but in character, trajectory, and “texture.”

In his book, Boaz says that some people who become “Judaically-aware” modify their trajectory to adapt their new experiences within the church context, but others allow it to drive their entire course, altering it so drastically, that it carries them completely out of the church and out of Christian fellowship. Of the former group, Boaz has this to say.

I know a number of Christian pastors who have seen the merit in Messianic theology and practice, and have embraced the feasts and even the dietary law on some level, but have no desire to leave their denominations, or their particular theological and cultural distinctiveness, behind. One, an Independent Fundamental Baptist, restricts himself to clean meat and attends Erev Shabbat dinners, yet still puts on his suit and tie for church every Sunday morning and evening, and goes door-to-door every Saturday. Another, a Methodist, erected a sukkah in his backyard last year, yet proudly supports his denomination at the state and national level.

-Michael pp 46-7

These people are the opposite of me. Instead of being in the church as my “home” and extending myself outward toward some modest Judaic awareness, I’m trying to reinsert my Judaically-aware self back into the church and discovering, much to my shock, that I’ve been terribly wrong about a good many things. It isn’t the church that has been resisting me, but rather me resisting the church, and from what I’ve been able to tell so far, they know a great deal more about the “weightier matters of Torah” than I do.

The Christians who, throughout the ages, have propagated this message and tried to soothe the hurting, feed the hungry, and speak to social injustice have been keeping the weightier matters of the Torah. Both Yeshua (Mark 12:31) and the Sages (Rabbi Hillel in b.Shabbat 31a and Rabbi Akiva in Sifra, Kedoshim 4:12) taught that love of neighbor is the essence of Torah. These are non-trivial accomplishments which speak to the robust, biblical ethical system which many devout Christians have embraced.

-Michael, pg 49

The one thing Boaz doesn’t do, and this is where I will have to watch my balance, is he doesn’t “chase the Gentiles back into church” with no inherit connection to the origins of our faith as it was born in ancient Judaism.

One thing Messianic Gentiles must learn is that they do not have a direct, unmediated relationship with God. Jews have many covenants with God by virtue of their very existence as descendants of the Patriarchs. In contrast, Ephesians 2:12-13 describes the state of Gentiles as “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope with out God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brough near by the blood of Christ.”

-Michael, pg 50

I know I quoted from Ephesians 2 earlier but Boaz uses it in a different manner. He’s talking about what links the Gentile to Messiah and God and that link only exists through the covenants God established with Israel and the Jewish people. Without them, we Gentiles would have no connection to Jesus and to God. I’ve tried to explore this in my own covenants series, but it’s a very complex and elusive topic of investigation. Even trying to isolate and examine Ephesians 2 led to a divisive “discussion.”

Nevertheless, Boaz tells us that going back to the basis of our faith, the Jewish Messiah King, and his Jewish apostles, we see that we owe a debt of gratitude to them and their inheritors.

Pirkei Avot 6:3 contains a profound teaching that is particularly relevant here:

One who learns from his fellow a single chapter, or a single law, or a single verse, or a single word, or even a single letter, he must treat him with respect. For so we find with David, king of Israel, who did not learn anything from Achitofel except for two things alone, yet he called him his “master,” his “guide” and his “intimate,” as is stated, “And you are a man of my worth, my guide and intimate friend.” [Psalm 55:13] Surely we can infer a fortiori: if David, king of Israel, who learned nothing from Achitofel except for two things alone, nevertheless referred to him as his master, guide and intimate, it certainly goes without saying that one who learns from his fellow a single chapter, a law, a verse, a saying, or even a single letter, is obligated to revere him. And there is no reverence but Torah, as is stated “The sages shall inherit honor” [Proverbs 3:35] “and the integral shall inherit good” [Proverbs 28:10]; and there is no good but Torah, as is stated, “I have given you a good purchase; My Torah, do not forsake it.” [Proverbs 4:2]

Messianic Gentiles would do well to heed the teaching of this mishnah. Showing reverence towards one’s teacher, even if what they learned was small – a single letter or verse – is showing reverence toward God and the Torah. Conversely, dishonoring one’s teacher is in fact dishonoring God’s work in one’s life.

Michael, pp 51-2

For me, the door swings both ways. Not only must I maintain a sense of honoring my ancient and modern Jewish teachers (since I often quote from modern Jewish teachers and scholars), but I must also sustain my respect and honor for the Pastors and Bible teachers at the church I’m attending. That can extend to Christian friends with whom I meet and from whom I learn a great deal.

I suppose in addition to this being a commentary on one of the chapters in the Tent of David book, it could also be part of my “Days” series (though I haven’t titled it as such), but it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point that I’ll be going back to church next Sunday and continuing to go in coming year. But while Tent of David may be a guide for Pastors who build a sukkah or who have decided to eat kosher meat, I don’t know if is particularly aimed at me. Boaz told me that between the preliminary drafts, which I previously reviewed, and the current, final publication, the intended audience shifted from people like me who left and are now returning (or considering returning) to church, to those Christians who are currently in the church and part of its culture, and who have also recently become aware of the Jewish origins of Christianity and the significance of Torah as the foundation of Christian faith.

It’s not like I’m without a guide and in fact, I may even have found a mentor of sorts, but I am unlikely to be able to use Boaz’s book as a direct mapping to my own, personal experience. As I continue to read what he’s written, attend services at church, and record my experiences a chapter at a time, I will share that with you and we will see together how accurate my prediction is…and where I go from here.

Uncategorized

Tales of the Early Church and Judaism

December 13, 2012 James Pyles 2 Comments

While the apostles in Jerusalem debated about whether or not to receive Cornelius the God-fearer and his household into the Way, the message was already spreading to Gentiles in other places. Gentiles in the faraway kingdoms of Adiabene and Osroene were learning about the God of the Jews and His Messiah.

The Syriac-speaking kingdom of Adiabene, with its capital at Arbela (modern Arbil, Iraq), straddled the highlands of what is today the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Armenia, and northern Iran. Adiabene was part of the Assyrian province of the Parthian Empire.

Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Miketz (“From the end”) (pg 259)
Commentary on Acts 11:19-20
Additional Reading: Josephus, Antiquities 20:17-96/ii-iv; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.13

One of the objections I read about Volume 6 of Torah Club recently was its use of non-Biblical information sources. Apparently, this is a big deal for some people who previously found the Torah Club material very illuminating. I guess author D. Thomas Lancaster isn’t supposed to consider other historical documentation when writing about the late Second Temple period and the events surrounding the early church.

That’s pretty strange, since all competent historians and historical theologians review a wide variety of documents and artifacts when studying a specific topic and those documents are frequently referenced by such scholars when they publish their findings. All you have to do is read blogs by theologians such as the one maintained by New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado to see this process in operation. (Additionally, there are many scholars and students who caution us regarding taking everything we read in the Bible as literal fact)

King Abennerig welcomed the young prince into his court and the capital city of Charax Spasinu. Izates quickly won the affection of his host who gave him his daughter Samachos (Sumaqa, Aramaic for “Red”) in marriage and appointed him governor of one of his provinces.

Izates soon learned that Samachos had fallen under the influence of a Jewish teacher. She introduced him to a Jew named Ananias (Chananyah) and the religion of Judaism.

-Lancaster, pg 250

The conversion of Izates to Judaism is a rather well-known story , and it occurred more or less at the same time the Jewish apostle Paul was spreading the Gospel among the Jews and Gentiles in the diaspora. We know that Izates became a God-fearer and student of Judaism and eventually became circumcised and converted to Judaism, however, according to Lancaster, there is some speculation as to whether or not Ananias might have been a disciple of Jesus and a member of the Way. Some have even thought that Ananias might have been the same person we find here.

Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”

–Acts 9:10-12 (ESV)

But unless there’s something more compelling than these two individuals having the same name, I’m not inclined to automatically believe they are the same person. Lancaster seems to take the reader down a particular road, not presenting it as fact, but rather as interesting speculation.

Readers of Josephus have often wondered if Ananias might not have been a believer. His type of active and aggressive proselytism seems more consistent with the disciples of Yeshua than it does with the rest of first-century Judaism. Like the Pauline school of thought, Ananias did not encourage Izates or any of his converts to undergo a formal conversion to become Jewish. He counseled Izates against doing so and encouraged him to remain uncircumcised.

Robert Eisenman speculates that Ananias the merchant is the same as Ananias of Damascus whom Paul encountered. Eisenman also mentions Armenian Christian sources that claim Izates and his mother converted to Christianity – not Judaism. At that early time, “Christianity” was still a sect of Judaism, not an independent religion that could have been defined outside of Judaism. Josephus would not have made the distinction.

Even if Ananias was not a believer or one of the apostles, he taught a type of Judaism for Gentiles similar to the teaching of the apostles.

Like Paul’s converts, Izates became an adherent of Judaism but not Jewish – not a proselyte either. He became a God-fearer.

-Lancaster, pg 250

This certainly throws a monkey-wrench into the machine. Was Ananias a follower of the Way or not? Even if he wasn’t, he (apparently) was not converting Gentiles to Judaism but instead, going out of his way to make God-fearers and to teach them Judaism.

Again, and I can’t stress this strongly enough, all this is speculation and should be taken with more than a grain of salt. But then again, we have a lack of information regarding the “early church” and the spread of the various Judaisms of that day through their “apostles,” so when operating in a vacuum, we tend to fill the gap with our imagination, stringing the bits of scattered facts together with the thread of our personalities.

Izates ultimately ascended to the throne and his mother also became a student of Judaism (actually, before Izates did and without his knowledge). But while Ananias was content and even insistent that the King and his household not convert to Judaism, other Jews were not.

Sometime later, however, a certain Galilean Jew named Eleazar arrived in Adiabene. He was a sage and Torah scholar. King Izates heard about the arrival of the sage and invited him to visit the royal court. When Eleazar entered the palace, he found Izates seated, reading the Torah of Moses. Like Paul’s theological opponents, Eleazar of Galilee dismissed the God-fearer status as illegitimate. He had some sharp words for the uncircumcised king:

Have you never considered, O King, that you unjustly violate the rule of those laws you are studying, and you are an insult to God himself by omitting to be circumcised. For you should not merely study the commandments; more importantly, you should do what they tell you to do. How long will you continue to be uncircumcised? But if you have not yet read the law about circumcision, and if you are unaware of how great an impiety you are guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.

The king sent immediately for a surgeon. Izates completed his formal conversion to Judaism at Eleazar’s behest and under his supervision. His mother did so as well.

-Lancaster, pg 251

According to Lancaster’s sources, Izates and his mother Helena built palaces for themselves in Jerusalem as well as preparing tombs for themselves so after their eventual demise, they could be interned in the holy city. In fact, some part of this has been substantiated, as the “Tomb of the Kings” in East Jerusalem, north of the Old City walls, has been identified as the tomb of Queen Helena and her sons.

In reading this Torah Club commentary…

Helena submitted herself completely to the authority of the sages. Izates and Helena contributed vast sums toward the Temple…(Queen Helena) also had a golden tablet made and inscribed with the words of the vow of the bitter water for the woman suspected of adultery.

-Lancaster, pg 252

All of this is interesting to be sure, but what does it have to do with us? Even if we choose to buy the speculation that Izates and Helena were followers of the Way and converted to that particular sect of Judaism, since that time, Christianity and Judaism have diverged into radically different trajectories so that one has little to do with the other.

In the Hebrew/Jewish Roots movement and its variants, there is a particular interest in just how non-Jews were integrated into that sect of Judaism that eventually became known as “Christianity.” I mentioned in Part 1 and Part 2 of my previous commentary on the Torah Club that the “conversion” of Cornelius and his household omitted any actual conversion to Judaism. Like Izates, Cornelius was taught Judaism but not circumcised. There’s no evidence that Peter deliberately discouraged Cornelius from a full conversion, but we don’t know what sort of decision making process occurred among the apostles between Peter’s encounter with Cornelius and Ananias’ encounter with Izates (and we have no real reason to assume that Ananias was also an apostle of the Way).

What we do know is that Izates did keep significant portions of Torah, adhering to Jewish customs and practices which we assume could have included keeping kosher, observing Shabbat, and performing the daily prayers. We certainly have evidence that Izates and Helena, before and after formal conversion, were generous to the Jews and donated to the Temple. This includes Helena purchasing vast quantities of grain and paying for it to be transported on ships to feed the hungry among Israel when she discovered a famine in Jerusalem and Judea (I can’t help but recall Joseph in Egypt in this instance).

Cornelius was also a devout man who observed the set times of prayer, donated funds for the benefit of the Jews, and that these acts were considered by God as a memorial (sacrifice) before him (see Acts 10:1-4). Given that Peter and the other Jews in his party spent several days in the home of Cornelius and likely ate with him and his household, Cornelius probably had kosher food available and maybe even kept a form of kosher himself.

In all this we can construct a model of what it was like (though facts are sparse) to be an early Gentile participant in the sects of Judaism including the Way. We have examples of Gentiles studying Torah and observing some of the mitzvot and either being discouraged when they expressed a desire to convert (Izates) or the option of conversion simply never arising (Cornelius). As we saw above, even Josephus was unlikely to have considered “the Way” as anything separate from the other Jewish sects of the late first century in which some Gentiles were partaking. It is on this basis that many 21st century Gentile believers are adopting some of the modern expressions of the mitzvot, including forms of observing Shabbat, keeping kosher, and davening at the set times of prayer.

Although 2,000 years have passed, there seems to be a hunger among some believers to try to recapture the flavor of the early Gentile disciples of the Way in order to access something they believe is more authentic about their faith. But while observing some of the mitzvot made perfect sense in a religious practice that was completely Jewish in the days of Peter and Paul, does it make any sort of sense now?

I don’t know. Theologically, I don’t think we can really say “no,” since we have precedent in the Bible and other sources, but on the other hand, the Bible and these other sources do not give us a clear picture of Gentiles who had not undergone full conversion observing the mitzvot in the same manner as the born-Jew. In fact, we see in the example of Izates and Eleazar, a definite Jewish objection to an uncircumcised Gentile studying the Torah without actually obeying it by converting to Judaism. This certainly suggests that some sects of Judaism required a Gentile to undergo full conversion prior to observance of the mitzvot, which apparently included even studying the Torah of Moses.

But as I’ve said repeatedly, information is sketchy. We’re not that certain of our facts. Which is a very, very good reason for people who believe they are certain that modern Christians must observe the full Torah mitzvot like a born-Jew or Jewish convert to re-examine their material and their assumptions. I believe Lancaster in this Torah Club commentary took liberties with his information and made certain assumptions to stimulate the imagination of his audience and to get us thinking “outside of the box.” But that’s a long way from saying that his assumptions are facts and that we must treat them as such, altering our faith and our observance accordingly.

It’s interesting and even fun to take what little information we have available to us about the early church and to play a game of “what if.” It’s erroneous and even dangerous to forget that we’re just imagining and to believe the stories we’re building for ourselves. A life of faith is a life of exploration and discovery, but determining the difference between a bit of iron pyrite and a gold nugget is quite a bit harder than we might think.

A final word. If you are a Christian who feels drawn to certain of the mitzvot, if you are inspired by davening with a siddur, by observing the set times of prayer, by lighting the Shabbos candles, by giving tzedakah to the poor among Israel, I can see no reason to object to this. It is what Cornelius would have done. It is what Izates and Helena would have done. But unless you undergo formal conversion through a recognized Jewish authority (which includes circumcision if you are male), it does not make you Jewish nor does it obligate you to keep all of the Torah mitzvot.

While history records that King Izates and his mother fully converted to Judaism and accepted a life of Torah upon themselves, we have no knowledge that Cornelius or any of his household also did so. While Cornelius and his household observed certain of the mitzvot, we have no information that he considered this observance an “obligation” or a “right” but simply a matter of drawing nearer to the God of the Jews, who he came to know as the One God. If we choose to look at our own religious practice as a “drawing nearer” so that we may know God rather than something that is “owed” to us, then perhaps God will hear our prayers and bring us into His Presence in peace.

"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