Tag Archives: messianic judaism

If I Should Ever Forget Your Torah

February 20, 2013 James Pyles 17 Comments

Rashi on the Chumash (Devarim 31:21) comments and says that this verse serves as a promise that the Torah will never be forgotten from the Jewish people totally – ‫.לגמרי‬

There is a discussion among the commentators how to interpret the meaning of this promise. When the verse says that “Torah” will not be forgotten, Rashi understands that we are assured that the song of Ha’azinu will never be forgotten. This song will remain as testimony for the Jewish people for all generations, and its lesson of the trials and tribulations of the nation and its destiny will accompany them on their trek through history. However, there never was a promise that the rest of the Torah would be remembered forever. This, then, is what Rashi alludes to when he comments that the Torah will never be forgotten “totally”, because the song of Ha’azinu will always remain. This is also how Maharsha understands the statement of Rebbe Shimon ben Yochai in our Gemara.

Maharshal understands that the promise in the verse refers to the written Torah. However, it is the oral teachings that are vulnerable, and there is a danger of their possibly being forgotten. This explanation fits into the narrative of the Gemara, where we find that the day will come when a woman will take a loaf of bread and circulate among the shuls and batei midrash to find out if the loaf is tamei or tahor, but no one will be able to answer her question. The Gemara then asks how this can be so, for the halachah of tum’ah of bread is explicit in the verse (Vayikra 11:34)! Now, if the written Torah itself is not guaranteed to be intact and remembered, it would still be possible for the explicit information of the verses to be forgotten. It must be, explains Maharshal, that the Gemara knows that the written Torah will always be remembered.

Yet even according to Rashi, although the promise of continuity was only made in reference to the song of Ha’azinu, the halachah is that this shira cannot be written by itself (Rambam, Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:1). Therefore, if the song of Ha’azinu will remain forever, it will necessarily require that the rest of the written Torah accompany it in the same scroll. Therefore, the promise of Ha’azinu never being forgotten automatically indicates that the rest of the written Torah, as well, will never be lost.

Daf Yomi Digest
Gemara Gem
“The Torah will never be forgotten”
Shabbos 138

My father writes in one of his letters: A single act is better than a thousand groans. Our G-d lives, and Torah and mitzvot are eternal; quit the groaning and work hard in actual avoda, and G-d will be gracious to you.

“Today’s Day”
Monday, Adar Sheini 8, 5703
Compiled by the Lubavitcher Rebbe
Translated by Yitschak Meir Kagan
Chabad.org

For the vast majority of Christians, reading what I’ve just quoted above won’t make a great deal of sense, especially when we focus on the sure promises we have through salvation in Jesus Christ, but since I’ve been talking about Jewish identity in the body of Messiah lately, I thought those words applied. More specifically, I think it’s important for we in the church to try to comprehend what a sense of identity as a Jew means to many Jewish people, including those who have accepted Jesus (Yeshua) as the Jewish Messiah. Most of Christian history has created a sort of “reflexive expectation” in the church that results in our anticipating that Jewish believers should look and act like the Gentile believers, and that the things of Judaism (lighting candles on Erev Shabbat, davening with a siddur while wearing a tallit gadol and laying tefillin, keeping glatt kosher, and so forth) should simply go “bye-bye.”

This is at the heart of much of the debate between the halachically Jewish members of Messianic Judaism, and the Christians in the church, as well as many Christians attending Hebrew Roots groups. We non-Jews keep asking ourselves and the Jews who revere the Master what’s the big rip-roaring deal about remaining distinctively Jewish? Didn’t Paul say it was no big deal for him?

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

–Philippians 3:4-11 (ESV)

OK, Paul wasn’t saying that he exchanged his Judaism for his faith in Jesus Christ, since they are hardly mutually exclusive. He was saying that being Jewish, in and of itself, didn’t make him a “big deal” and didn’t hold a candle to everything he had gained since he had come to knowledge and faith in the Jewish Messiah. The Messiah is the goal, he opens all the doors, he holds all the keys, and compared to that, no matter who you are, it doesn’t mean as much as everything Messiah means.

But it also doesn’t mean that Paul thought being Jewish was nothing, either. He never stopped being Jewish, never stopped acting Jewish, never stopped eating, sleeping, walking, and breathing Jewish until the day he died.

And for nearly 2,000 years, the vast, vast majority of Christianity has required, demanded, insisted, and red-in-the-face screamed at the Jewish people desiring to come to Messiah to stop being Jewish as a condition of becoming a “Christian.” (and I put that word in quotes because of how it has been used against the Jewish people who are just as Jewish as their King). If we demand that they forget the Torah, that they set aside their halachah, that they extinguish their Shabbos candles for the sake of Moshiach, how are we any different from all those generations of Christians who came before us and demanded the same things or worse?

But there’s something more to consider.

Sitting at a table in a non-kosher restaurant is a problem of “marit ayin,” which means that we have a responsibility to avoid creating a situation where others may draw the wrong conclusion – i.e. a passerby might see you and think that the restaurant is really kosher and it’s okay to eat there. Or others might think that since you (who purports to keep kosher) are lax in observance, then somehow it’s okay for them, too.

-From Ask the Rabbi
“Eating in Non-Kosher Restaurant”
Aish.com

Sounds a little bit like this sort of problem…that is, if the Jewish person in question was a believer.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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 2:11-13 (ESV)

You’d think that Peter would have gotten past this problem after his staying in the household of the Roman Cornelius back in Acts 10, but he still seemed to be worried about what some important Jewish men from James might think if they saw him eating with the non-Jewish brothers of the faith. Was it because Peter was enjoying a nice, big, juicy cut of pork or maybe a steaming hot bowl of prawns? Probably not, but that’s just a guess because the Bible doesn’t say what was on the menu. It’s more likely though, that whatever was being eaten was acceptable under the laws and accepted halachah involving kashrut, even if Peter was just having a salad, and he thought not all of the emissaries from James were totally on board with this whole “It’s OK to have table fellowship with the Gentile believers” thing.

Paul, for his part, was completely OK with it and the fact that these were supposed to be “important men” cut no ice with him at all (v. 6). As the Aish “Ask the Rabbi” writer says, Peter may have been concerned with “a problem of marit ayin.”

I recently read David H. Stern’s book Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel (2nd ed.) and one of the points Stern made was that a Jewish believer must continue to observe the mitzvot including the accepted halachah. Another of his points was that Jewish reluctance to share a meal with a Christian must not stand in the way of unity in the larger body of Messiah which includes both Jewish and non-Jewish “body parts.”

That’s a tough one, especially depending on the level of kashrut the Jewish believers are observing (I’ve seen some variability). Of course, it also depends on the level of kashrut being observed by the Gentile believers, but keeping kosher (in my opinion) is optional for non-Jews but (again, in my opinion) mandatory for Jews (particularly Jews considering themselves observant within the Messianic framework).

I should say at this point that it’s pretty cheeky of me to even suggest that I know what observant Messianic Jews should or shouldn’t do, except that I’ve been told on numerous occasions by a number of Jewish Messianic believers that this is how they think about kashrut as well.

In this particular blog post, I’m not going into what I think are the specific differences between how Torah should be applied to believing Jews vs. believing Gentiles, but I do want to suggest (again) that we Christians cannot expect or demand that Jews stop being observant Jews because we may not know how to operationalize “kosher” (for instance) or that we have issues with some of the halachah involved in kosher (or many other Jewish practices). Jews should be allowed to observe halachah as long as such practices don’t fly completely in the face of how the Bible describes the proper behavior for a disciples of Christ (and I realize I’m opening the door to various interpretations of “Biblically proper” here).

At this juncture, I can’t help but be reminded of this, particularly since it’s part of the blessings associated with the Birkat HaMazon.

If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!

–Psalm 137:5-6 (ESV)

And then, there’s this particular mitzvah.

In order that you remember and perform all My commandments.

–Numbers 15:40

Now we’re right back where we started: the commandment for the Jewish people not to forget the Torah. Of course, it’s not as if there haven’t been gaps when the Torah was not remembered let alone studied.

And when the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon the son of Micah, Shaphan the secretary, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying, “Go, inquire of the Lord for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that has been found. For great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out on us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do according to all that is written in this book.”

–2 Chronicles 34:19-21 (ESV)

But then again, it’s always been rediscovered, and Israel has always repented and returned to God and the Torah.

Whether we Christians always understand it or not, there is a bond between God, the Torah, and the Jewish people. That bond has existed for thousands of years, in spite of every effort of the nations opposing Israel and those persecuting the Jewish people to destroy that bond (often by burning synagogues, Torah scrolls, volumes of Talmud, and sometimes Jewish people). So when we Christians attempt to loosen the bond between Jew and Torah, which includes halachah, we can expect to see some resistance and even some push back. Expecting a Jew to forget Torah, at least because we’ve said they should, is like expecting a mother to forget her only child.

Memory is a unique Divine gift. Indeed, to this very day, neuropsychologists have not discovered the secret of exactly how memory operates. The turnover of the chemicals in our bodies is such that after a period of time not a single atom remains in the brain that was there several months earlier, yet a person’s brain retains memories for years, decades, a lifetime.

This unique gift should not be abused. Many times the Torah tells us what we should remember and cautions us against forgetting. The concepts and events that we must retain are goals that are vital to our spiritual well-being. Most siddurim list six verses of the Torah that we should recite each day to remind us of who we are and to caution us against idolatry and lashon hara (harmful talk).

However, if we use this wonderful gift to remember those who have offended us and to harbor grudges against them, or if we remember the favors we have done for others and expect them to be beholden to us, we are abusing this Divine gift.

The key to discerning what we should remember and what we should forget is contained in the above verse: “In order that you remember and perform all My commandments.” Any memory that does not assist us in working toward the ultimate goal of serving God does not deserve being retained.

Today I shall…

…try to retain in my mind only those things that contribute to my devotion to God, and dismiss those things that may deter me therefrom.

-Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski
“Growing Each Day, Adar 8”
Aish.com

I know someone out there is going to tell me how unfaithful the Jewish people have been to God throughout their history. I know someone is going to tell me that the majority of the world’s Jewish population is completely secular. Be that as it may, that doesn’t justify Christians requiring the believing Jews in our midst to also forget the Torah when they believe with great zeal that God has called them to always remember the mitzvot, to love God, and to obey Him, as He has long since taught His people Israel to do.

Uncategorized

Afraid of Church

February 13, 2013 James Pyles 32 Comments

Not a word is said in the “olive tree” passage (see Romans 11:11-24) or anywhere else in Scripture about splitting the promises into earthly ones for the Jews and heavenly ones for the Church. However, God has made two kinds of promises. In regard to the promises which relate to individual salvation, there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28), no distinction between them (Romans 10:12), no dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14-19). On the other hand, there remain promises to national Israel, the Jewish people, in which Gentile nations corporately and Gentile believers individually have no direct share – although it is worth noting that there are also promises to certain Gentile nations…

-David H. Stern, Ph.D
Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel: A Message for Christians
Chapter 2: “Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel,” pg 25.

The only reason I’m reading this book is because one of the Associate Pastors at my church asked me to read it and evaluate it for him. He’s obviously read it a number of times himself, because there is evidence of a great deal of note taking and underlining in its pages, so he must know its contents well. And yet, this charming, older gentleman from Oklahoma asked me if I’d read Stern’s small book and give him my opinion on how we can restore the Jewishness of the Gospel. Of course, I told him I’d be glad to.

But I was a little worried. My first introduction to Dr. David Stern was through his best known work, The Complete Jewish Bible and it was presented to me as a “real” Jewish Bible (New Testament, actually) within a Hebrew Roots (advertising itself as Messianic Judaism) congregation. I didn’t know any better and so I was thoroughly enthralled with what I read. Real “Hebrew” words were sprinkled among the English. Later, I found some Yiddish also anachronistically inserted within its pages. Ultimately though, I discovered that I desired a Bible that focused on accurate translation with no specific audience in mind.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand what Dr. Stern was trying to do, but there were already a number of New Testaments translated into Hebrew and many other Christian Bibles in English that would have served as well. Also, since I have separated myself from the “One Law” expression of the Hebrew Roots movement, Stern’s “Complete Jewish Bible” is a painful reminder of how incredibly naive I was once upon a time.

So in approaching Restoring, I was a little timid and figured what I was going to be reading would be “old school” Hebrew Roots at its finest.

Wow, was I surprised. The book is about 76 pages long, minus an appendix or two and I’m just on page 26 so far, but I was completely impressed. The writing and teaching is basic (but after all, Stern was trying to reach the widest possible Christian audience), but the ideas he documents are very close to what I’ve been trying to express. Given that I associate him with “One Law” and that his New Testament translation is still well-regarded in some Hebrew Roots circles, I just naturally believed his stance was in support of Hebrew Roots Christians rather than Messianic Jews.

Man, was I wrong.

I’m not writing this in any way as my response to the aforementioned Pastor, since he probably isn’t interested in this aspect of Stern’s book, but in recent conversations on Acts 15 commentary and why I go to church, I’ve entered a debate or two on why I believe (though it’s not as if I haven’t stated my reasoning many times before) that there are fundamental differences between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ relative to identity and covenant obligation.

But theologically, the Jews are unique because God chose them as the vehicle for bringing salvation to the world. The entire Hebrew Bible attests to that, as does the New Testament (see Yochanan [John] 4:22; Romans 3:2, 9:4-5). The Jews are God’s people in a sense that applies to no other people on earth. Because of this, the New Testament abounds with theological Scyllas and Charybdis rocky places that offer dangerous passage. What other people is faced with Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither Jew nor Greek”) or Ephesians 2:11-22 (“the middle wall of the partition”)?

-Stern, pp 12-13

Notice what Stern doesn’t say. He doesn’t say that the Jews are theologically unique and identical to the Gentile Christians who have joined their ranks. He doesn’t obliterate Jewish identity and, from the quote above, Stern supports a view that God made unique promises to the Jews that are not shared with Gentile believers just because Christ performed a unique service in the plan of God and allowed the Gentiles to also be saved.

Some of the debates I’ve been having in the comments sections of some of my other blog posts lately have to do with the following:

But many believers feel uneasy about restoring Jewishness to the Gospel and encouraging Messianic Jews to express their Jewish identity. They fear an elitism will arise in which Gentile Christians will be made to feel like second-class citizens of the Kingdom. This is a real pitfall, and Scripture warns against division between Jew and Gentile in the Body of the Messiah. However, the New Testament also gives assurance that both are one in Yeshua, serving one God by one Spirit. Therefore, let all believers, both Jewish and Gentile, work together to avoid invidious comparisons, which only serve the Adversary. Let every Messianic Jew and every Gentile Christian demonstrate in his own life those elements of Jewishness which arise from his own spiritual consciousness and identity, without feeling condemned for expressing either too much or too little.

-Stern, pg 14

That last paragraph might seem ambiguous in terms of how Stern sees the differences between believing Jews and Gentiles, but put together with the other quotes, we see his opinion develop. Both Jews and Gentiles are unique in God’s plan but not in identical ways. They are united in salvation but do not share a uniform identity. There is danger in forgetting the uniqueness of the Jews, especially in light of how some Christians interpret scriptures such as Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 2:11-22, as if the aforementioned uniqueness of the Jews was cast aside. Jewish believers must be allowed and encouraged to express a wholly lived Jewish identity by we Gentile Christians. To do that, we Christians must set aside our fears that the Jews will “take over” somehow, and cast the Gentiles out of their midst and “back into the churches.” Stern doesn’t seem to object to both Jews and Gentiles expressing “elements of Jewishness” (which should be a given for Jewish believers) but that which arise from “his own spiritual consciousness and identity (emph. mine).”

Recently I was chastised for my support of Boaz Michael’s book Tent of David (TOD), particularly as it inspired my own return to church. One of my (and Boaz Michael’s) especially passionate critics is Judah Himango, a long time blogger in the Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots space.

My interpretation of his response to me and particularly to Michael’s TOD book seems to be precisely what Stern predicts when he says, “…they fear an elitism will arise in which Gentile Christians will be made to feel like second-class citizens of the Kingdom.” Coupling TOD with the philosophy of “bilateral ecclesiology” presented in Mark Kinzer’s book Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, a portrait of a Messianic Judaism that is plotting the expulsion of all Gentile Christians from their ranks disguised as a benign attempt to reconnect “Messianic” non-Jewish believers to their counterparts in the “Church” begins to emerge.

Or is it what Stern wrote about in 1988 and earlier; that the fear of Jewish elitism by Gentile Christians in the Messianic/Hebrew Roots realm, is still very much alive and kicking (and I’ve got the metaphorical boot prints on my backside to prove it)?

But do Hebrew Roots Christians really have anything to be afraid of?

Yes and no.

OK, let’s be fair. The people and groups within the expression of Messianic Judaism I’m discussing very much support Jewish unique identity and distinction within the larger body of Messiah. Much of Stern’s book addresses this in an attempt to help its Christian audience understand that when a Jew becomes a disciple of Jesus, they are not only allowed, but obligated to remain a Jew relative to Torah and halachah (although again, to be fair, Stern hasn’t addressed halachah as of page 26). Messianic Judaism walks a fine line in terms of Stern, because on the one hand, he encourages Jews to continue living as Jews and as having the right to be a unique people chosen by God, but on the other hand, he is insistent that uniqueness and distinction absolutely not get in the way of unity between Jewish and Gentile believers.

So far, he hasn’t outlined his vision for how believing Jews and Gentiles are supposed to be separate and unique and yet also united, except to say that we share equality in salvation but the Jews are unique in certain national promises from God.

I’m not offering this as a solution, but as an explanation and a reminder that this problem has been around for at least a few decades and it’s not going away anytime soon. But we are talking about relationships and identity that are based on fear and on who your group is opposed to and struggling against. Both Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism feel victimized by the other. Hebrew Roots fears Jewish elitism and that the Jewish believers will seize sole possession of the Torah mitzvot, and Messianic Jews see the encroachment of Gentile Christians who demand a “Jewish identity” identical to the Jews as a form of replacement resulting in the obliteration of everything it means to be Jewish.

It’s fear that is at the very heart of Hebrew Roots opposition to Michael’s TOD book, as if somehow elitist Messianic Judaism will “force” or “trick” the Hebrew Roots Christians back into their “church ghettos.”

I’m not afraid because I’ve already come to terms with who I am in Christ and what it all means. I have also come to terms with what (to the best of my ability to comprehend) it means for a Jew to possess a unique Jewish identity and role, mainly just because I live with a Jewish wife and have three Jewish children (although their apprehension of their lived Jewish identity varies from one child to the next). I’ve learned what it is to be a Christian living with Jews without having to worry about the distinctions between their identity and mine. I can go to church and not lose anything and in fact, I actually gain quite a bit…and I still get to live with my Jewish family…and they still get to be Jews…and my Christianity doesn’t have to inhibit or interfere with that in any way.

What some of the “fine bloggers” who are deeply concerned with the implication of Michael’s TOD book are missing are the myriads of voices across the Internet who here and there are saying that TOD is changing their lives for the better. TOD is helping people overcome their “fear of church.” People who I’ve known for years and who I never thought would see the inside of a church again are seeking out Christian Bible studies and worship services…largely because they read or are reading TOD and listening to the voice of reconciliation and restoration.

David Stern speaks of restoring the original Jewishness of the Gospel so that both Jews and Christians can hear the voice of the Jewish Messiah King. Boaz Michael speaks of healing the vision of the “Messianic Gentile” or the Christian who has become or is in the process of becoming aware of the “Jewishness of the Gospel;” Stern’s primary message to us. Michael may as well have written the sub-title of his book as restoring the vision of the Christian and the Church. If minds and hearts and relationships really, really are being healed because of this book and the overarching vision it presents, who are you or I to say that’s a bad idea. People are perfectly free to reject the message of healing if they so choose because of fear, because of prejudice against Christians (and sometimes against Jews), or for whatever reason.

But for every blogger who protests, how many people who we may never see or hear from are beginning a journey that will transform isolation, loneliness, broken fellowship, and sometimes, broken families, into a path leading to reunification and reconciliation? Most likely (though I only have anecdotal information to go by), a lot more of them are out there than there are bloggers who oppose those Christians and their mission.

I’ve said this before, but I’ve seen that it’s gone unnoticed, so I’ll repeat the message. Author Boaz Michael and his wife Amber are “walking the walk,” so to speak. For the past several years, Boaz and Amber have been attending a small Baptist church in their community in Missouri. To the best of my knowledge, this church is their only regular worship venue, so they infrequently are able to visit a Messianic (or otherwise) Jewish synagogue. Again, to the best of my knowledge, Boaz and Amber haven’t lost a thing by attending this church, and in fact they’ve gained fellowship and belonging and have shared their unique vision with the Church.

If they aren’t afraid of losing who they are by “going to church,” how should the rest of us feel? I suppose anyway we want. But if we are afraid of church, then we should be honest and ask ourselves why. I was certainly afraid of what returning to church would mean to me, but with a lot of help, I set those feelings aside. And in returning to church, I found that I could also encounter God within its walls and with other Christians. That doesn’t have to be you if you don’t want it to be, but please, don’t let it be fear, animosity, or hostility that stops you from walking that path or causes you to disdain those of us who do.

If you are confident that G‑d will help you, why is anxiety written all across your face? If you are truly confident, show it and celebrate!

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“Celebrate”
Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe
Rabbi M. M. Schneerson
Chabad.org

Oh, and I’ll let you know how the rest of Stern’s book turns out.

Uncategorized

Why I Go To Church

February 11, 2013 James Pyles 29 Comments

I’m actually enjoying going to church. When I came to that realization last Sunday, no one was more surprised than I was.

Wait! Let me explain.

Starting last October, I created a “Days” series that was a countdown to the end of the year. I was planning to make a decision, both about whether or not to go back to church and whether or not to continue to blog in the “Christian” or “Messianic” or “religious” space, given the endless contention occurring in the blogosphere. I started at 78 days and worked my way down to zero. It should be obvious that I continued blogging after January 1st, and I not only continued to go to church regularly, but frequently meet with the Head Pastor.

Eleven months to the day before I published “Day Zero,” I wrote and published an article called Why I Don’t Go To Church. This was in response to both my internal angst (my favorite theme) and to Pastor Jacob Fronczak’s blog post Why I Go To Church. Even back then, I had returning to church in mind, but was undergoing what I’d consider classic approach-avoidance conflict (I was a psychotherapist and family counselor back in the day).

I’ve overcome my “fear of flying,” so to speak, but I was afraid that once I started attending church, I’d find not “niche” of my own and end up being bored. While it’s true, I don’t go to my particular church for the music, I am experiencing many other benefits and even on some small level, beginning to give back just a tad. What added momentum to my journey happened just five days before my countdown was to end. I was reminded that seeking fellowship with God’s people is seeking an encounter with God.

And in church, I have encountered Him.

Today, I did something I shouldn’t have done. There’s a “community” within Google+ called “Messianic Judaism” (for all I know, there could be more than one, but this is the one I belong to). Access is by invitation only, so posting a link to it wouldn’t let you see inside, but someone in the community posted a link to a book review and asked for opinions. Unfortunately, it struck a nerve, and even though I had already determined I wouldn’t address the review and what I believe it represents, I shot off my big mouth (figuratively speaking) and now I’m regretting it.

But the transaction had an interesting side effect. It (or rather someone) challenged my going back to church and further, criticized the church in a manner that resulted in my feeling defensive. Me? Really?

I’ve maintained a relationship with blogger Judah Himango for the past few years, and that relationship has, on occasion, been quite stormy. We still talk online periodically, and today was one of those “talks.” But what he said got under my skin. Here’s part of what he posted to me.

My concerns with Tent of David are that it purports to “heal the vision of the Messianic gentile” by sending them back to the church, which will inevitably lead to assimilation.

I asked, “assimilation into what?” and he responded:

Assimilation into the doctrines of the Church. Sabbath is done away with, the Church has replaced Israel, any non-moral mitzvah is no longer applicable to anyone.

Unfortunately (mea culpa) I missed a part of what Judah had said before I rapidly posted my reply (I think I need to switch to decaf):

There are indeed folks called to the church. But for many others, we’re called to Hebraic Roots congregations or Messianic congregations.

I certainly don’t advocate compelling people to “go to church” if they feel called elsewhere, but on the other hand, I do object to the church being seen as “inferior” or “anti-Biblical” compared to non-Jewish Christians who feel called to worship within a more “Jewish” framework. I’ve been one of those people before and for reasons too lengthy to relate here, I needed to seek my community of faith elsewhere.

Why do I go to church?

First of all, thanks to Boaz Michael and (my advanced reading of) his book Tent of David (TOD) and other influences, not the least of which is my Mom, I summoned the courage to overcome my own personal prejudices and start attending church again.

I was welcomed by lots and lots of people, but you’d kind of expect that in an authentic Christian setting. But what happened next, was unanticipated…I started making connections. I’ve had several interesting and compelling conversations with the Head Pastor and just last Sunday, I spent an hour talking to one of the Associate Pastors (when I should have been in Sunday School) in the church library. Not only that, but a number of people actually seem authentically glad to see me, not just because I’m a warm body showing up a church, but because of me as the person I am (or at least as they perceive me to be). In fact, I’m stunned that some of these connections have occurred so quickly and that I’m now even feeling a sense of belonging.

People have offered to pray for me. I’ve seen genuine caring and concern for the hungry, the sick, and the dying. They offer tangible, material support for the needy and for missionaries in many countries. There is a genuine heart for Israel and a desire for her posterity. It’s not just the occasional person, but to the best of my ability to tell, the human community within the church’s walls does look to Christ as Messiah and Israel’s King for salvation and sustenance.

In my talks with Pastor Randy (and they’re really quite candid), we don’t always see eye to eye, but you can’t believe what an incredible pleasure it is, even to disagree with someone and still have the encounter be illuminating, positive, refreshing, and friendly. Try doing that on the Internet!

I don’t know where all this is going to lead me, but for the first time in a long time, I not only have hope that I will find a place in the church and among the community of believers, but that the church itself is turning in a direction that will indeed be part of the healing between the Jewish and non-Jewish disciples of the Master.

I feel that I’ve failed in my comments on Google+ today and allowed my emotions to overcome my common sense. I could delete my comments, but they’ve already been read and responded to, so I might as well leave them up. In any event, God knows what I’ve said and done, so removing my annoyed comments won’t repair my relationship with Him.

But the realization, thanks to Judah’s statements (though he probably didn’t intend them the way I’ve taken them), that there really is hope for Christianity and a way forward in being part of “rebuilding David’s fallen tabernacle” is encouraging. It’s even better now that I realize it’s possible for me to have a small part in that “project” within the community of Christianity.

I don’t particularly mind if people don’t agree with my going back to church, and I understand that whenever you write and publish a book (such as Boaz Michael has), especially in such an emotionally explosive realm as religion, people are going to write critical book reviews. The only thing I mind about some of the criticism being leveled against Tent of David (and yes, I’ve read the reviews), is that it simply misses the overall vision Boaz is trying to communicate. I can appreciate people who have an eye for detail, and who may feel certain specific terms or other content wasn’t used with as much accuracy as they could have been, but look at the big picture.

In between the Gentile Christians going to church and those who have found a home in either a Hebrew Roots or Messianic Jewish congregation are just tons and tons and tons of people with little or no fellowship at all. Maybe they attend small home Bible studies or maybe they just worship with their families. Some, like me, may even seek fellowship over the Internet (which is problematic at best). But remember, seeking fellowship is seeking an encounter with God, and in my experience, many people who think of themselves as “Messianic Gentiles” are disconnected and isolated from other believers and, Heaven forbid, from the God who loves their souls.

Through bad teaching, bad leadership, or bad experiences, they’ve become convinced that “the Church” (whatever you imagine the term to mean) is bad, evil, awful, pagan, lost, apostate, anti-Law, and so on…I mean all Christian churches everywhere. And, for whatever reasons, they haven’t found an alternative or the alternative that they’ve found may be a group that defines itself solely on being “anti-Christian,” as opposed to a community dedicated to discipleship under Jesus Christ and a sincere desire to meet with God.

If even some of those people can find in Tent of David what I have, then maybe they don’t have to be alone, either. I don’t think you have to agree with each and every thing Boaz set forth in TOD, but you can embrace the vision and let it take you where God wants you to go.

I am beginning to “fit in” with this church. I probably wouldn’t fit in at most other churches in my area. The fact that a set of unlikely occurences led me to this church as the first stop in my search for community I believe indicates the hand of God at work in my life.

You don’t have to like the fact that I go to church. You don’t have to go to church if you don’t want to. Really, no one is holding a gun to your head. However, I’d like you to consider two things. The first is that there might be a reason God wants me to go to church. The second is that God might have a plan for you that you don’t agree with Him about. That was me once upon a time. Could it be you, too?

That’s not all about why I go to church…but it’s a start.

Uncategorized

Return to Jerusalem, Part 6

February 11, 2013 James Pyles 79 Comments

This is the sixth and final part of the Return to Jerusalem series where I’ve been examining the Torah Club, Vol. 6 commentary on Acts 15. I trust you’ve been following along since Part 1, but if not, please go back and read the previous submissions including Part 5 before continuing here.

Last time I asked, so what are the four prohibitions for Gentiles in the apostolic decree and what are their implications for the Christians in ancient times and today? To try to render a complete and detailed answer would invite simply copying and pasting everything in Lancaster’s lesson into this blog which, as I’ve said before, I’m not prepared to do. However, and this is particularly interesting to me, Lancaster borrows the status of the “resident alien” (“Ger” in Hebrew) from various portions of the Torah and applies it to the “resident alien” Gentile disciples worshiping the Messiah and the God of Israel in the midst of the Jewish community.

If indeed it is the case that in Christ these Gentiles have a portion in [Israel’s covenant membership and national eschatology], i.e. that they are saved as Gentiles, then it suffices to apply to them the same ethical principles that would in any case apply to righteous Gentiles living with the people of Israel, i.e. resident aliens.

-Markus Bockmuehl
“Jewish Law in Gentile Churches:
Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics”
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 165

But in citing Bockmuehl, Lancaster reintroduces a problem that flies in the face of his and FFOZ‘s official theological stance on Gentiles and the Torah. While the gerim in the days of Moses were not Israelites as such and did not obtain full membership status in the nation due to lack of tribal affiliation, they did observe a large number (majority? nearly-full obligation?) of the Torah mitzvot in the days of Moses and beyond. The argument of some branches of the Hebrew Roots movement is that the gerim status can be wholly transferred to the Gentile disciples of Jesus and be used to justify Gentile Christian obligation to the full yoke of Torah. Lancaster has spent considerable effort in his commentary to illustrate how James and the Council exempted the Gentiles from the full yoke of Torah because they were not born Jews or converts. Now, he apparently brings in an element in explaining the four prohibitions that could reverse his argument.

It doesn’t help that he explains the four prohibitions, which go well beyond the confines of the Noahide laws, as derived from Leviticus 17-18.

In those chapters, the Torah describes the sins of the Canaanites, warns the people of Israel against imitating their ways, and prescribes four prohibitions which both the Israelite and the stranger who dwells among the nation much keep. “These correspond to the four prohibitions of the apostolic decree, in the order in which they occur in the apostolic letter.” [Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in “The Book of Acts In Its Palestinian Setting, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 459]

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Mishpatim (“Judgments”) (pg 461)
Commentary on Acts 15:20-31

How was this all supposed to be lived out by the Gentile disciples of that day and what are the implications for modern Christians? As I’ve said in previous parts of this series, you’ll have to access the Torah Club (Vol. 6) studies relevant to Acts 15 for the full details, but it seems as if the four prohibitions were a significant subset of the Torah that was to be applied to Gentile believers above and beyond the Noahide laws of their day. That said, there is another source besides Lancaster who also discusses the same material and provides further illumination.

Toby Janicki wrote an article called The Gentile Believer’s Obligation to the Torah of Moses for issue 109 of Messiah Journal (Winter 2012), pp 45-62, and it provides a great amount of detail on the application of the four prohibitions.

I reviewed Toby’s article over a year ago and at the time, I recall being quite surprised when he suggested that our (i.e. Christians) obligation to the Torah of Moses went much further than I imagined, based on his analysis of the aforementioned prohibitions of the apostolic decree.

Toby’s article is still available in full in either print or PDF versions of Messiah Journal, 109 and I consider it required reading when attempting to delve into an understanding of the message of the Council to the Gentiles among the disciples of Messiah, both in the days of the Council and now.

As I’ve said, this message and how it was arrived at, remains very controversial in Christian/Hebrew Roots circles, but before attempting any sort of conclusion to today’s “meditation” and to this series, I want to remind you of how the Gentiles of that day received the “Jerusalem Letter” (Acts 15:22-29).

So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.

–Acts 15:30-32 (ESV)

In other words, it was really good news from the point of view of the Gentile God-fearing disciples. After what some of the Gentile believers may have experienced as “mixed messages” from different factions within “the Way” and/or between “the Way” and other sects of Judaism, it must have been a relief to have a final, definitive decision rendered by the Apostolic authority. Further, assuming we can accept Lancaster’s interpretation, it must also have been a relief to the Gentiles that they were not automatically required to convert to Judaism (some may have done so but many or most obviously did not) and thus come under the full weight of Jewish Torah observance and halachah. James had established a halachah for the Gentiles that “raised the bar” as far as behavioral expectations and observances of the Gentile believers, and was well above what was expected of the God-fearers who were not disciples of Messiah or members of universal humanity, but that bar was still not as high as the one God had set for the Jews that, according to Peter’s testimony, “neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.”

One of the functions of the four prohibitions acted to allow Jewish/Gentile fellowship and interaction within the Messianic community of believers “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” (Ephesians 2:15) Jewish believer Gene Shlomovich puts it this way:

“Where in the written Torah does it prohibit Jews from eating with Gentiles?”

Nowhere! However, many of the Torah laws, including kashrut, were designed, in part, to make Israelites “kadosh”, “separated” or “set aside” from the nations. Since nations all around them ate “treif” or idol-sacrificed food, no devout Israelite would sit down with idol worshippers at the same table, if only because of the appearance of sin. Not only that, eating with idolaters implied fellowship with them, and perhaps taking on their customs and even religions.

However, with the coming of Messiah, G-d reached out to the Gentiles without requiring them to take on the full Yoke of Torah and live in the manner of Jews. Jews, for their part, had to overcome their Torah and culture ingrained aversion to sharing (no doubt still kosher) food with former idolaters-turned followers of the Jewish Messiah. It is said that the leader of the Jerusalem community and brother of Jesus, Yaakov (James) never drank wine or ate meat, but only ate vegetables. This may be because he wanted to fellowship with Gentile disciples of Jesus around their tables without violating the laws of kashrut, to which Gentiles were not obligated nor were expected to be versed in.

I can’t say that Gene has “solved” the conundrum of Ephesians 2 and how the Messiah created “one new man” out of two (without obliterating the Torah and Jewish identity), but it is a nice summary that seems to lead in an interesting direction. We are “one in Christ,” just as men and women, and just as slaves and freemen are “one in Christ,” though obviously still possessing many differences.

If Jesus did reconcile the Jewish and Gentile believers “to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility,” (Ephesians 2:16) then the apostolic decree of James delivered to the body of faithful disciples of Messiah from among the Gentiles by letter and by emissaries, may have been the means to bring down “the dividing wall.”

The net result of my study of Acts 15 using the Torah Club, Vol 6 materials seems to be that we Gentile Christians owe a great debt to our Jewish “forefathers” and share a great heritage with our believing Jewish brothers and sisters. The most exciting part though, is that we are walking side-by-side together toward a future where we are united by a resurrected and returned Messiah King who will finish what we have been commanded to start: rebuilding the fallen tent of David, and restoring the glory of God on earth among both the Jews and the nations.

How do we resolve the matter of the ancient Ger as applied to the late Second Temple Gentile God-fearing disciple? Lancaster doesn’t make that clear, but based on my own reading, particularly of Cohen, the full role of a Ger as it existed in the days of Moses was to allow a non-Israelite to live among the people of God as permanent resident aliens without being able to formally become national citizens due to lack of tribal affiliation. After the Babylonian exile, a tribal basis for Israelite society was lost and affiliation by clan was emphasized. By the time of Jesus, this clan affiliation basis was too lost, and thus the rationale for the status of Ger as it was originally applied no longer was valid. A Gentile in the days of Jesus or later, who wanted to join the community of Israel, in most cases, would convert to Judaism, since becoming a Ger was not an option.

I can only conclude that James (and this is speculation), in establishing halachah for Gentile entry into the Way as Gentiles and equals to the Jewish disciples, was taking some aspect of the Ger status as the best method available to forge an identity of “alien” Gentile disciples living and worshiping among the Jews in their religious sect. I realize your opinion (and for all I know, Lancaster’s) may vary.

The Jewish role in serving God as we see it in the Bible seems all too clear, but we in the church must always remember that our blessings only come by fulfilling our own unique role as “Gentiles called by His Name.” We are not Jews and we are not expected to “act Jewish,” at least to the degree that we appear to be what we’re not. In fact, we rob ourselves of the path God has laid before us by adopting an identity that is not our own. Acts 15 was the starting point on that path and the beginning of that journey for the early Gentile disciples. It is also where we begin today to understand who we are as Christians and what we must do if we are to be considered faithful disciples of our Master and worthy sons and daughters of God.

I know this series has been challenging for some, largely because going against established doctrine (regardless of the doctrine to which you’re adhered) suggests change and nobody likes change. Maybe none of this will result in anyone thinking any differently, but I hope I at least got some people to think about what they believe and consider that there may yet be something new we can discover about ourselves in the Bible.

“If you want to make enemies, try to change something.”

-Woodrow Wilson, 28th U.S. president

So concludes the series Return to Jerusalem. I hope you enjoyed it. Please feel free to (politely) tell me what you think.

Blessings.

Uncategorized

Return to Jerusalem, Part 4

February 8, 2013 James Pyles Leave a comment

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God…For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

–Acts 15:19, 28-29 (ESV)

After presenting the proof text, James placed Simon Peter’s decision before the council. He declared, “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles.” That is to say, “We should not require circumcision and conversion as the criteria for salvation.” James referred to the God-fearing believers as those “turning to God from among the Gentiles.” The word “turning” corresponds to “repentance.” The Gentile believers responded to the gospel message, “Repent, the kingdom is near.”

The decision exempted the Gentiles from circumcision and the particular commandments that pertain specifically to Jewish identity. It prohibited the Jewish believers from forcing those issues on Gentiles. Nevertheless, the apostles did not forbid the Gentiles from voluntarily participating in the Sabbath, the dietary laws, or any aspect of Torah-life.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Yitro (“Jethro”) (pg 442-3)
Commentary on Acts 15:1-20

This is a continuation of the “Return to Jerusalem” series and I recommend that, unless you’ve done so already, you read part 1 through part 3 before continuing here.

We’ve seen the problem of whether or not Gentile disciples of Jesus should be compelled to convert to Judaism and conform to the full yoke of Torah brought before James and the Jerusalem Council. Each side of the debate has made its case and it appears that the testimony of Peter and his experiences with the Roman Cornelius and his household (see Acts 10) have weighed the debate heavily in one direction. James has presented Amos 9:11-12 as his proof text for allowing Gentiles to receive salvation and access to the Messianic promises without converting to Judaism and in accordance with Peter’s position on the matter.

And now we see what James is going to do about it.

For the Jewish disciples and apostles, the crux of their argument was if or how the Gentiles were to be admitted into discipleship. Should they convert and take on the full yoke of Torah or be allowed to remain Gentiles (not convert) and perhaps follow some other or abridged set of behavioral standards? It was the mechanism for admission that was the point for them, not whether or not Gentiles could/should follow the Torah.

However, I’ve received some comments lately on the earlier parts of this series about whether or not we non-Jewish disciples are obligated to the full list of Torah mitzvot (and arguably, all or much of the subsequent Rabbinic commentary on just how one performs the mitzvot) based on Acts 15 among other New Testament scriptures. Further, the question of whether or not the Jerusalem Council “cancelled the Torah” for Gentile and Jewish disciples of Jesus came up. To me, and especially after reading Lancaster, this is a no-brainer, but I keep forgetting that for most Christians, this raises a tremendous conflict in terms of what they’ve (we’ve) been taught (and as you can tell from my writing, I don’t always think like most Christians).

But I want to continue with my review/analysis of Lancaster’s Acts 15 commentary because I think it has a lot to say to both believing Gentiles and Jews. I won’t say that I believe every word Lancaster writes is undying Gospel (you should pardon the expression), but I do think we should take a serious look at what he says and see if there’s merit in what he’s teaching. I think we can learn much.

For instance, while Lancaster has said that Gentile believers are not obligated to the full yoke of Torah, and especially those mitzvot that have to do with Jewish identity (since they aren’t going to be converting to Judaism), he also says that “the apostles did not forbid the Gentiles from voluntarily participating in the Sabbath, the dietary laws, or any aspect of Torah-life.” But then how are we to separate Gentiles being limited to voluntarily participating in only certain elements of “a Torah-life” and “any aspect of Torah-life?”

I’ll address the specifics of what Lancaster defines as “Torah-life” for the Gentile later parts of this series. That said, Lancaster does give us a bit of a picture of what the “early Christians” were up to relative to the Torah, and maybe even a beginning of the answer to the question I just asked.

The God-fearing Gentile believers of the apostolic era were more Torah observant than most Messianic believers (Blogger’s note: or traditional Christians) today. They worshipped in synagogues in the midst of the Jewish community. They had no other days of worship or holidays other than those of the synagogue. They did not drive vehicles to get to their place of fellowship. To share table-fellowship with Jewish believers in the community, they maintained the biblical dietary laws. For all practical purposes, they looked Jewish already.

To support this claim, Lancaster quotes from Le Cornu’s and Shulam’s “A commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians” (Jerusalem, Israel: Akademon, 2005), 835:

This principle has obvious bearing on the language of “troubling” and “burdening” the Gentile believers. James’ ruling for the “majority” of the Gentiles who are now turning to God through Jesus: The Jewish community in Jerusalem will not impose anything on them which they will not be able to bear as a whole. This does not preclude their taking upon themselves additional observances according to their respective abilities and desires.

This lends a great deal of support to Lancaster’s and FFOZ’s position on Gentile Christians and the Torah. While obligation to all of the mitzvot is not imposed on the Gentile disciples as a whole, individuals among the Gentiles may choose to follow the path of Torah more fully and to varying degrees.

I’m going to skip over the “Four Essential Prohibitions” until next time and focus on how the Torah in general is applied to Jewish and Gentile believers. We see that, according to Lancaster and the Jews present at this debate, it was abundantly clear that Gentiles, if they do not convert to Judaism, are not obligated to the full yoke of Torah as a group. But what about the Jews? Did James really abolish Jewish observance of Torah in one fell stroke?

The apostles agreed that Gentile believers did not need to undergo circumcision and full obligation to the Torah as Jews. The obvious corollary requires that Jewish believers are obligated to observe the Torah. The thought that a Jewish believer might also be exempt from the whole yoke of Torah did not enter the minds of the apostles.

Traditional Christian interpretation, however, often assumes that Acts 15 releases both Jews and Gentiles from keeping the Torah’s ceremonial laws of circumcision, Sabbath, calendar, dietary laws, etc. On the contrary, the entire argument of the chapter presupposes that those obligations remain incumbent on the Jewish believer.

-Lancaster, pg 443

Lancaster then finishes off this point by citing some (to Christians, anyway) rather unusual authorities: both a believing Jewish commentator from the 19th century and two unbelieving Rabbis from the 15th and 18th centuries who also wrote scholarly opinions (amazingly enough) on Acts 15. For the full content of their writings as presented in the Torah Club, I encourage you to purchase Vol. 6, but I will briefly quote one source.

And it is forbidden for us to say: “If we have the righteousness of the Messiah unto eternal life, why do we need to observe the Torah, if this is not required for eternal life, for we are only saved by faith?” We are forbidden to speak this way, for who are we to annul it? The Messiah was not made the servant of sin. This is similar to what the Christians said: “Why do I need any longer to give alms to the poor or to do any other good deed, according to the New Testament? Is not my faith enough for me?” It is forbidden to speak like this, for he is a sinner who closes his fist, and the Messiah was not made the servant of sin. Therefore faith does not benefit him, as it says in the epistle of James 2:13, 1 John 3:3, and Paul himself in Romans 6:15. And James says (4:17): “One who knows to do good and does not do it, it is a sin for him,” for the omission is a sin. For when he repents and regrets the wickedness of his heart, then the faith by its power saves him, as Paul also says in Acts 26:20: “Return to God and perform deeds in keeping with repentance.” Then the faith is beneficial.

-Yechiel Tzvi Lichtenstein
“Commentary on the New Testament: The Acts of the Apostles”
(Unpublished, Marshfield, Mo: Vine of David, 2010),
on Acts 15; originally published in Hebrew: Beiur LeSiphrei Brit HaChadashah
(Leipzig: Professor G. Dahlman, 1897).

I am positive that this is the single most difficult message from Acts 15 for the vast majority of Christians to absorb. We have been taught that when it says Jesus is the goal of the Torah, it means the finale as opposed to the “gold standard” of obedience to God that the (Jewish) believers were to unservingly strive for. It is extremely acceptable to most Christians that we in the church are not subject to the “slavery” of the Law, but to believe that any Jewish person who is also a believer continues to be obligated to the Torah teachings is almost too much for us to bear.

I admit that given the scope of Lancaster’s commentary and the limitations of my already lengthy summary of his work, that I cannot indisputably prove that Gentiles have no obligation to Torah while Jews still do (although I think the point regarding Gentiles and Torah is reasonably well made). But in my meager attempts at study and to try to put myself in the place of the people witnessing the council debate this hotly contested (both then and now) issue, I think that Lancaster has made a good case for his conclusions. Again, space and time limitations prevent me from offering a more complete analysis and I don’t want to simply transcribe two weeks of Torah Club lessons into my blog (I’m already guilty of replicating a large portion of the two Acts 15 teachings from TC Vol. 6). Again, if you want to read the entire content of the work supporting these conclusions, you’ll have to consult the Torah Club Volume 6 lessons.

The remainder of this series will address the “Four Essential Prohibitions” and what they mean for Gentile believers, both in ancient and modern days. That’s where we’ll start in Part 5 of “Return to Jerusalem.”

Uncategorized

Shepherd, Pens, and Flock, Part 2

January 31, 2013 James Pyles 67 Comments

The reason for any lack of “overarching standards” for halakhah is that the rabbinical system was designed to be more flexible than that, and dependent on each generation of rabbis to apply a set of common standards from common principles. That having been said, the standards are a bit less ambiguous in the orthodox realm, which is still the standard by which other modern streams of Judaism must measure themselves even insofar as they wish to diverge from them to accommodate some perceived modern situation. I will refrain from offering any comment about how well or poorly they may achieve their goals, and I will offer the observation that Judaism has preserved in its literature numerous behaviors that may be deemed more or less applicable or enforceable in any given generation but that may be revived when appropriate. I have the greatest sympathy for the Jewish Christians in your church, though I would try to persuade them that the Hebrew-Christian model developed a century ago was a temporary accommodation whose purpose has passed, and that their well-being as Jews and contributors to the Jewish enterprise would be better served otherwise. History has shown that they will not survive as Jews in a Christian environment, certainly their children or grandchildren will not, and that they are contributing to the alienation of their Jewish families from the Messiah. If they have been mis-taught that these considerations are unimportant, I can only lament their loss.

The modern Reform and Conservative streams (not to neglect Reconstructionism and others) were formulated in response to historical circumstances, and modern MJ is still grappling with a selection of halakhot that meets its needs. One of these needs or desires is to somehow reclaim a first- or second-century CE outlook, while recognizing all the subsequent influences that have affected halakhic development so as to integrate as much of Jewish tradition as may be possible and applicable into our current circumstances. I suppose that characterizes them somewhere within the Conservative spectrum. At issue is not a “doing of religion” so much as the development of a lifestyle that incorporates and illustrates millennia of Jewish civilization. It is a practical corporate educational exercise that promotes the preservation of the Jewish people and our characteristic knowledge base that is still indispensible to understanding Rav Yeshua’s and Rav Shaul’s teachings. It remains to be seen whether the modern streams of Judaism will also become increasingly anachronistic, or if some of their insights may continue to be preserved. What is currently called Reform Judaism has become quite different from its origins, especially since the Holocaust and the resurgence of Israel, though it has not yet embraced halakhah. Conservative Judaism has always applied halakhah, though it tries to adjust it to modern circumstances. On the other hand, so does modern Orthodoxy, though with a stronger emphasis on maintaining historical connectivity.

Acts 15 is quite clear that the full body of Torah mitzvot is not incumbent upon non-Jews, though it was still recommended that they learn Torah in synagogues each Shabbat. This does carry some implications about what may be permitted for the more mature non-Jew to do voluntarily and without obligation, for all the extra merit that the rabbis assigned to non-Jews who pursue Torah even though it is not their obligation (based on Is.56, among other passages). Of course, Rav Shaul re-inforced en-passant in Gal.5:3 his view that Torah is fully binding upon Jews and circumcised proselytes (i.e., converts). In his time it was also especially important to emphasize to non-Jews not to allow coercive social forces to deprive them of that potential for extra merit by becoming circumcised, which is how the Acts 15 halakhah came to be formulated.

-ProclaimLiberty, 1/27/2013
as quoted from a comment in Love and Commentary

I know it’s a long quote but I just loved the “in-a-nutshell” summation ProclaimLiberty (PL) offered in reply to my blog post and my subsequent comments on the topic (and as a counterpoint to the topics I discuss in Part 1 of this article). Not only does PL succinctly describe the history and development of Jewish halachah over the centuries, but also brings in the issue of Gentile disciples as they entered “the Way” in the late Second Temple era and the Apostolic response to their presence. In reading the original comment, I felt as if a clear vision of a valid Jewish viewpoint in relation to how tradition and Torah obedience interrelate were presented to me. It’s difficult to work through a large set of tomes addressing my questions, and a few paragraphs that can reduce the arguments down to their basic essence is incredibly welcome.

I’m not saying there isn’t any possible rebuttal from Christianity or the other “Judaisms,” but at least we have a firm starting point as to how (and why) Messianic Jews must continue to live as observant Jews, and how halachah can be appropriately part of the modern expression of “the Way” within Jewish communities. It seems like there’s a certain amount of latitude regarding how each Jewish tradition (including the modern Messianic tradition) may select halakhot (although as PL says below, a great deal of selection may not be required) that meets its needs without running roughshod over the authority of the written Bible.

But PL has more to say:

Halakhah is the human response in the conversation with HaShem that begins with His Torah instructions. It is a re-iterated conversation that continues throughout our generations, so of course it is varied and flexible. Judaism is not constrained by a concept of “the Bible as the final sovereign word of G-d”. We view a hierarchy that begins with the Torah above all, followed by the authoritative interpretations of Torah from Israel’s appointed leaders and teachers, in the Torah-defined role of the “shoftim v’shotrim” (judges and magistrates). The Prophets decry failures to live up to the standards of Torah, but they do not contribute to any new interpretation of it. The Writings provide additional illustrations of how this plays out in history or even in hypothetical scenarios (as some might view some of the literature). The inter-testamental apocryphal writings take that farther, including some material that could be viewed virtually as “fantasy” (since it was a bit too early in history to consider science fiction), though even that period included historical records such as the Maccabbean revolt and the miracle of Hanukah. Subsequent to that we have a variety of Rabbinic literature and Responsa, of which the Rav Yeshua messianic writings are a fitting example, though a bit earlier than other Rabbinic codifications. So MJ is not required to choose a particular stream of tradition, though most of its current contributors to halakhic formulation have been influenced by the Conservative movement and its particular flexibility. The only “complication” for messianists is the desire to integrate the views of Rav Yeshua and Rav Shaul into their compilation of halakhah for a Jewish community that honors them at least as well as other rabbinic views are honored. Since there is not really any incompatibility here for the discerning halakhist, that need not present difficulty or disconnection from other halakhic compilations in other Jewish streams.

As to the difficulty of recapturing the 1rst-2nd-century worldview, more data seems to become available continually, but it is fair to say that MJ has devoted more attention to this than any other form of Judaism has done, because of its need to understand the teaching context of its primary rabbis. But from a modern halakhic standpoint, the issue is somewhat moot because of all that has happened in the past two millennia. So “… when [he] comes, will he find faith in the earth? (Luke 18:8). The linguistics of this also allow a more narrow colloquial reading asking whether he will find those who trust him in the land of Israel. Will he have any difficulty recognizing his sheep, either because of their halakhah or in spite of it? As long as MJ halakhists keep this question in mind, I’m reasonably confident of a positive response.

There is a midrash that depicts Moshe Rabbeinu as being carried by an angel across time and space to visit the Jewish Talmudic Academy of Babylon. He is terribly perplexed by the argumentation, of which he cannot make any sense. He is then consoled by its reference to the Mishnah and its quotation of the words of Torah from the mouth of Moshe. Now, while we know nothing of the conversation that occurred on the “Mount of Transfiguration” between Rav Yeshua, Moshe, and Eliahu, in some future midrashic conversation Moshe might council Rav Yeshua to be patient with his modern disciples for exactly similar reasons. And we would be similarly well advised.

-PL, 1/28/2013

I apologize for inserting large blocks of copied and pasted text, but the alternative would be for me to rework what PL has written and present those ideas in my words, and really, what’s the point? Better that you read what was presented in the original comments rather than risk my messing up the meaning or intent. All I really want to present are these ideas and my impressions of them.

Part 1 of this article was my continued understanding of how Torah does and doesn’t apply to Gentile Christians, including Jewish halachah. In this second part of my missive, I’m trying to show the opposite side of the coin, not so much about why Torah applies to Jews, because by definition, the entire body of Torah must apply, but how we can see the rulings and traditions of the sages as a natural extension of Torah, which includes the authority of the accepted teachers in Judaism to make such rulings.

I view Judaism as we know it today as valid and authoritative for the Jewish people. I also agree with Yeshua own words (in Matthew 23:3) that whatever (“everything”) those sitting in the seat of Moses (Jewish leaders) bid Jews to observe is bound on all Jews. He didn’t make an exception for Jewish disciples of Yeshua, but in fact was speaking to them when he said those words. He believed in the leadership of Israel, even if he condemned those who were hypocrites.

-Gene Shlomovich, 1/28/2013
as quoted from his comment in The Jewish Girl Who Saved Her Children

I’ve spent a great deal of time attempting to establish and confirm the validity and the authority of the ancient and more modern Jewish sages to establish halachah in Judaism including Messianic Judaism, such as in my recent blog post The Moshiach and the Rabbis, so I won’t go into a long tirade and repeat myself again at length, but I do want to try and tie together as many loose threads as possible.

If God is God over all and Jesus is the Jewish Messiah King and the Divine in the flesh who dwelt among us and who will do so again, then what are we to do with the post-Second Temple sages and the ancient and modern Jewish traditions and interpretations? Apparently, if you’re a Gentile Christian, you don’t have to do anything with them. As I have said on numerous occasions over the past few years, a Christian, in my opinion, is free to observe a wide variety of the mitzvot on a voluntary basis as a personal conviction and in solidarity with his or her Jewish fellows, as long as issues of Jewish identity don’t get stepped on, let alone walked all over. Saying all that, we don’t have to perform those mitzvot in obligatory obedience.

Since it’s impossible to observe the kosher laws, wear tzitzit, lay tefillin, or even daven from a siddur without encountering the sages and their judgments, any Gentile Christian who chooses to go down that path will have to make decisions about tradition as well (should I bind my tefillin by the Ashkenazi or Sefard tradition, or use the Chabad or another method?) Halachah, in this case, is unavoidable, even for the Gentile.

But for the observant Jew, it’s not a matter of whether or not to walk the steps of halachah, but to “grapple with a selection of halakhot that meets his or her needs.” God’s Word, in the final analysis, is absolute, but not necessarily halachah (of course, if you ask an Orthodox Jew about it, you might get a different answer).

Pastor Randy asked me recently if I thought it was possible for anyone to observe Torah perfectly? No, I sincerely doubt it, only because we human beings are bound to make mistakes sooner or later. So if Jews can’t keep the Torah perfectly, what’s the point of keeping it at all (James 2:10)? That’s like asking a Christian if he were to find himself looking at a woman in lust even on a single occasion, should he give up on remaining faithful to his wife, throw the Bible to the winds, and let himself be consumed by his desires for other women. It’s not about having perfect behavior, since no person is perfect, it’s about “perfecting” ourselves, continually turning away from sin, and turning more completely to God.

For a Jew, that includes striving to become more spiritually elevated by correcting transgressions and continuing to master the mitzvot one at a time in order to honor God as a Jew and to sustain a Jewish presence and identity today and for future generations.

I hope this makes some sort of sense to both my Jewish and my Christian readers. I don’t have a Jewish lived experience, so I suppose I’ve made a thousand mistakes and if so, I trust I’ll be gently corrected. As far as my Christian readers go, I don’t doubt you will have many points of disagreement, if only because especially in Protestantism, tradition and Bible generally don’t mix. But we aren’t looking at how Christians walk as disciples of the Jewish Messiah, we’re looking at how Jews walk as disciples, and if we are to honor the uniqueness of their relationship with HaShem, then we must also honor how Jews are to be Jews, both in their communities, and in the presence of God.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside waters of rest.
He restores my soul.
He leads me in right paths for his name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of deep darkness,
I will fear no evil, for you are with me;
your rod and your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Only goodness and steadfast love shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I return to dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days.

–Psalm 23 (ESV)

This conversation will continue in an “extra mediation” later today, based on some correspondence with PL whose insights I’m learning to appreciate. I hope I’ve laid a sufficient foundation upon which to base a dialog on these matters. The sheep are out of the pens and gathering together as a flock in the green meadow with our Good Shepherd. It is his voice we must listen to, and if we are his, we will follow where he leads.

One last thing I’d like to add is a short video made of Boaz Michael presenting the Gospels as the oldest written record of some of the Jewish oral traditions. I hope you’ll find this information as compelling as I do.

"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