Tag Archives: Romans

Uncategorized

Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Interdependence or Collapse

44 Comments

communityPaul’s letter to the Romans offers us a vision and model for Jewish-Gentile reconciliation. This is because Paul deals with the division between Jesus-believing Jews and Gentiles in his own day. Though Gentile believers were probably a majority in the church in Rome, they were theologically marginalized. For most of history that situation has been reversed, yet part of Romans addresses in advance even that problem.

-Craig Keener
“Chapter 17: Interdependence and Mutual Blessing in the Church” (pg 187)
Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations

In some ways, the problem briefly defined by Dr. Keener is one that hovers around the fringes of the Christian Hebrew Roots movement today. For the better part of two weeks, I’ve been writing a series of “mini-reviews” on the different chapters of Rudolph’s and Willitts’ book which address interrelated themes within larger Messianic Judaism. They have been received positively and even enthusiastically by most of my vocal readers but a few have perceived the information in a negative light. Accusations of inequality and even racism between Jews and Gentiles have been raised periodically, and I believe part of the underlying problem is a covert or even unconscious fear among these Gentile disciples of Jesus that Messianic Judaism seeks to “theologically marginalize” non-Jewish participants in the Messianic Jewish movement, which spills over into Hebrew Roots, since many of those who are involved also identify themselves as “Messianic Judaism.”

Is the Messianic Jewish movement seeking to marginalize and even to eliminate the Gentile Christian (Hebrew Roots) believers from their ranks and from coveted access to the Torah mitzvot? A casual observer (or one with a specific bias) might say “yes,” but let’s consider what we can learn from different analyses of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

In addition to Keener, Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Scott Hafemann also present their viewpoints on Romans to support the concept of interdependence between believing Jews and Gentiles. The ekklesia doesn’t function correctly and perhaps doesn’t even exist at all without the co-inhabitance and cooperation of both Jews and Gentiles in the body of Messiah. Perhaps that’s why, over the past two-thousand years or so, we haven’t been doing so well in certain areas, because Christianity historically has marginalized Jews theologically (and in just about every other way). It’s time to restore the balance.

Campbell, in “Chapter 18: The Relationship between Israel and the Church”, believes that Paul addressed his Roman letter only to the Gentiles and was speaking about Jews but not to Jews, which seems to be a minority opinion. Keener, on the other hand, presents the main focus of Paul’s letter as being on both Jews and Gentiles:

Although scholars have offered other reasonable proposals, the most widely accepted background for Paul’s letter to believers in Rome involves disagreement between Jesus-believing Jews and Gentiles regarding Jewish customs.

-Keener, pg 187

Apparently, when the Jewish population in the Messianic community in Rome began to dwindle, thanks to the emperor Claudius expelling some or most of the Jews (Acts 18:2), Gentiles began neglecting some or all of the Jewish religious customs they had been taught in relation to the worship of the God of Israel. This rather begs the question of just how much Torah did the Gentiles keep in those days, but does confirm that, for the most part, Gentiles weren’t very driven to Torah observance in the manner of their Jewish mentors (Acts 15:30-31).

For Keener, the primary message of Paul to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome was unity:

Unity was a frequent topic of exhortation in antiquity, and it is central to Paul’s plea for Jewish-Gentile reconciliation in Romans. This is clear and not least because he climaxes his larger argument by inviting unity (Romans 15:5-6) and inviting believers to welcome each other (Romans 15:7). He underscores this point by showing from Scripture that God’s plan includes faithful Gentiles (Romans 15:8-12). The letter’s final exhortation includes a warning against those who sow division (Romans 16:17).

-ibid, pg 188

PaulPaul issues warnings specifically to the Gentiles against fomenting division between them and the Jews and expresses his dismay that the Gentiles have neglected his warnings.

Relative to interdependence, Keener stresses that the Gentiles have a special role to play in relation to Israel to “provoke jealousy” because of the temporary state of Israel’s non-acceptance of the Gospels.

In Romans 11, however, we learn another divine strategy in Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Gentiles received mercy through Israel’s failure to embrace the gospel; now Gentiles would become a divine vehicle of bringing Jewish people to Christ. What did this reversal involve? Scripture promised that God would restore and exalt his people in the time of their ultimate repentance (e.g., Amos 9:7-15; Hosea 14:4-7).

They (Gentiles) would in turn help the Jewish people by provoking repentance.

-ibid, pp 190-1

Keener also emphasizes what he is not saying:

I am also not urging all Gentile Christians to join Messianic Jewish congregations. First, they would numerically overwhelm those congregations and their cultural identity. Second, Paul is clear that while Gentile believers in Jesus are spiritual proselytes to Judaism, they are responsible only for the moral heart of the law and not for Israel-distinctive elements.

-ibid, pg 191

(It should be noted that, at least in the United States, all of the Messianic Jewish congregations of which I’m aware, do have a majority membership of Gentiles, but are still designed and administrated as a Jewish religious and community space)

There’s a sort of balancing act involved in Gentiles pursuing their (our) mission of provoking Jewish people to repentance and not overly involving ourselves in Jewish communities to the point of overwriting Jewish identity. Also, Keener says that by over-emphasizing Gentile presence within the Messianic Jewish community for the sake of Jewish repentance, we would likely inhibit part of the Messianic Jewish mission, which is to act as a bridge into the larger Jewish world community.

Messianic Jews, in Keener’s view, depend on their Gentile counterparts to provide resources for the support of the Messianic Jewish community. This isn’t always by sending donations, as Paul did by taking up a collection among the Gentiles to carry to Jerusalem (although it can be), but to, in a larger sense, continue to acknowledge our kinship to our Jewish brothers in Messiah, and even humble ourselves by remembering that salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22) and that “the people whose heritage we share and from whom our faith springs (Romans 9:4-5), may help us surmount the past barriers of Gentile Christian anti-Semitism.” (idid, pg 193)

But while Keener addressed primarily how the Jews depend on the Gentile believers, Campbell, in Chapter 18, takes a different approach.

Their gentile arrogance is based on mistaken assumptions, and Paul gives no allowance to such misunderstandings of God’s purpose according to election (Romans 9:11). It is no accident that in Romans Paul stresses the order of priority, “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (Romans 2:10 KJV; cf. 1:16). This points to the identity of gentile Christ-followers not as an independent entity, but as interdependent on the call and identity of Israel, to whom as Ephesians 2:13 asserts they “have been brought near.” As Ian Rock asserts, “to affirm the lordship of Christ is to simultaneously recognize the preference of Israel. But to recognize the primacy of Israel is also to accept the importance of the Jews.

Campbell, pp 202-3

jewish-prayer_daveningThe flow of dependence is reversed. In addition to Jews depending on Gentiles to support their repentance and uphold their identity, it is the Gentiles who, without the Jews, are also without the promises, and thus have no independent connection to salvation or covenant with God. The covenants are through Israel and we Gentiles are able to enjoy the blessings only because of Israel.

They (Gentiles) could not really share if they had taken over Israel’s inheritance, as they would then be the sole inheritors. So Paul reminds the gentile Christ-followers, “Do not boast over the branches…remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you” (Romans 11:18 RSV).

-ibid, pg 203

Campbell concludes his chapter with an illuminating chronological construction of Romans 15:9b-13 which seems to say it all.

Because David’s past vindication establishes God’s promise to David’s seed (v.9b), therefore the Gentiles should not give up hope, but learn from the experience of disobedient Israel to rejoice in God alone (in the midst of the false security that comes from the nations’ current reign in the world) (v. 10);

specifically, the Gentiles should not give up hope, but learn from the experience of the faithful remnant to praise God for his truthfulness and mercy (in the midst of the adversity that comes from being part of God’s elect in the world) (v. 11),

because the future vindication of David’s seed in fulfillment of God’s promise is the hope of the nations (v. 12).

-ibid, pg 212

In “Chapter 19: The Redemption of Israel for the Sake of the Gentiles,” Dr. Hafemann returns to the Gentile’s dependence on Jewish Israel.

As Paul argues in Romans 15:7-13, God’s commitment to Israel for the sake of the nations forms the bedrock of the Church’s hope. Viewed from this perspective, Messianic Judaism reminds us not only of God’s faithfulness, demonstrated in Israel’s history, and of his grace, now magnified in the Messiah, but also of his promises for the future of his people, to be fulfilled in the final redemption of Jews and Gentiles.

-Hafemann, pg 206

So we see that God has been historically faithful to Israel for her own sake, but also for the sake of the Gentiles who will be saved through His promises to Israel. Again, we see that without Israel, the Gentile believers have no leg to stand on, so to speak, and that any covenant connection we have with God through Messiah vanishes like a morning mist under the summer sun if we dispense with Israel and the Jewish people. Not only must Israel continue but it must continue as the head of the nations as a wholly Jewish nation, unique and distinct from the people of the nations, we Gentiles, who need them for our hope in salvation.

The linkage is through Abraham, as I’m sure you realize by now:

Since God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles, both the “circumcised” and the “uncircumcised” will be justified “through [the] same faith” (3:29-30), the faith of Abraham, for “he is the father of us all” (4:16).

-ibid

By Gentiles desiring to supersede the Jews in the promises or to fuse our identity with theirs, creating a single Israel and eliminating our identity as the people of the nations called by God’s Name, we are disconnecting ourselves from the very salvation that we desire to claim only for ourselves. There is a wonderful eschatological promise for the Christian church, but only if there is a wonderful eschatological promise for the future of Israel as well.

Hafemann continues:

Paul’s chain of Scripture will therefore focus on the purpose of Israel’s redemptive history with regard to the Gentiles, rather than referring merely in a general sense to the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles within the church. The Gentiles are to glorify God for what he has promised to do for Israel (Romans 15:9a) since the future redemption of the nations, including the resurrection from the dead and redemption of the world (cf. Romans 5:17; 8:19-22, 31-39), is tied to the rescue of Israel (Romans 5:18; cf. 11:15). The current experience of Jews and Gentiles as distinct but equal identities within the Church therefore takes on significance precisely because it is a foretaste of the consummation yet to come for both Israel and the nations.

-ibid, pp 207-8

destruction_of_the_templeThis is something that Boaz Michael of First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) was trying to say during last year’s Sukkot conference. I wrote about it in a series of blog posts, including Redeeming the Heart of Israel, Part 1 and Part 2, but I was never clear on how this interdependence was rooted in scripture until this time. I see now, more clearly than ever, that any form of supersessionism damages not only Israel, but the hope of the nations for salvation and redemption, since our hope only comes from the Jews.

When the Church tries to replace Israel in the covenant promises or mistakenly chooses to believe they (we) are Israel, it is like a man who decides to cut off his legs in order to stand taller and straighter. Instead, he only causes great pain and permanently cripples himself.

It is said that in ancient days during Sukkot, Israel offered sacrifices at the Temple for the sake of the nations to atone for their (our) sins. When the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, they also stopped those sacrifices and thus the atonement Israel provided for the nations of the world. Basically, the Romans cut off their own legs when they destroyed the Temple, ravaged Jerusalem, and scattered the vast majority of the Jewish people to the four corners of the earth.

As Christians, when we dismiss Israel from the covenants and in one way or another, try to take their place, we are doing exactly the same thing. As it takes two healthy legs to support the body of a man, so the ekklesia requires the one “leg” of Messianic Judaism and the other “leg” of Gentile Christians. If we cut off the Jewish leg or if we try to fuse the Gentile leg and the Jewish leg into a single mutilated limb, the best the body can do is to hop around impotently. More likely, the ekklesia will just fall down and break apart.

We depend on each other, but we can only support the body of Christ by being two limbs of the body standing side by side, walking together.

154 days.

Uncategorized

Larry Hurtado on “A Muslim Reads Galatians”

50 Comments

paul-editedIn the course of the presentation, he drew contrasts between the more negative and even caustic references to “the circumcision party”, “Judaizers” and the Torah in Galatians (and also Philippians), and the more positive references to “Israel” and the Jewish people in Romans (esp. chaps. 9-11). But, of course, as I pointed out in the ensuing discussion, in Galatians (and Philippians too) Paul seems to be critical of fellow Jewish Christians, not because they were Jews, but because they were apparently seeking to impose Torah-observance (including male-circumcision) on Paul’s (former pagan) converts as an additional requirement for full recognition as co-religionists with them. It was this “Judaizing” stance, i.e., the view that baptized pagans had to become Jewish, that Paul opposed, and his opponents (I repeat) were Jewish believers in Jesus. So, because their stance seemed to Paul to call into question the sufficiency of Jesus, and because it also represented to him an interference in his gentile-mission (the terms of which he believed he had received directly from God), he went at the matter with full force (and in places some serious vituperation).

But in Romans (esp. 9-11), his subject is the Jewish people and their future in God’s redemptive plan, an altogether different subject.

-Larry Hurtado
Scholar of the New Testament and Christian Origins
“Paul, ‘Judaizers’ and Jews” (February 13, 2013)
from Larry Hurtado’s Blog

I don’t know what I can add to what Dr. Hurtado wrote on his blog yesterday (today, as I write this). I wanted to share it because it confirms everything I believe about what Paul was trying to say to us, especially in Romans and Galatians. Long time readers of my blog know that I am a staunch critic of traditional supersessionism in the church (also called “replacement theology,” “completion theology,” and “covenant theology”), and believe that the church did not replace Israel in God’s covenant promises, but rather that Israel and the Jewish people continue to have a vital role in God’s plan for humanity, both in this world and the world to come.

I also believe that God never intended the “grafted in” Gentile Christians to ever take on a Jewish identity by converting to Judaism (or to “Israel” if you prefer) en masse, and thus being compelled to perform the full list of Torah mitzvot in a Jewish manner as God requires of His people Israel.

PrayingDr. Hurtado, in the above-mentioned blog post, was describing a presentation he attended recently entitled, “A Muslim Reads Galatians,” given by Dr. Shabbir Akhtar (read Dr. Hurtado’s blog for the details). I suppose I should thank Dr. Akhtar in addition to Dr. Hurtado for providing a short and concise description of Paul’s views on the distinctions between Jewish and Gentile believers relative to conversion, Judaism as a religious practice, and Torah observance. Traditionally, Christians have believed that Paul abandoned Torah observance and encouraged both Jews and believing Gentiles (not that believing Gentiles had a history of Torah observance prior to coming to faith in Jesus) to abandon Torah as well. Hebrew Roots Christians (at least in some variants of the tradition) believe the opposite, that Paul continued to observe Torah, and encouraged both Jews and Gentile believers to observe the full yoke of Torah, and that all Christians today are obligated to Torah observance.

Dr. Hurtado ends his brief blog post with this statement:

Paul’s only critique of the Torah (Jewish Law) was when some fellow Jewish believers tried to impose it as an additional requirment (sic) for salvation upon his pagan converts. He had no problem with fellow Jews observing Torah, Jewish Christians included, so long as they didn’t try to impose full Torah-observance upon baptized pagans. He certainly seems to have insisted that Jews as well as pagans must recognize Jesus as God’s Son/Messiah, and held that Jewish failure to do so was a kind of unbelief and “hardening”. But he also believed that God would ultimately deliver fellow Jews from this stance (Romans 11:25-32), showing “mercy” to all, both pagans and Jews.

Wow! Hurtado, commenting on Akhtar, states that “he (Paul) had no problem with fellow Jews observing Torah, Jewish Christians included, so long as they didn’t try to impose full Torah-observance upon baptized pagans.” That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for a while now. That’s what much of Messianic Judaism (especially the articles and books published by First Fruits of Zion [FFOZ]) have been saying for years.

HeavenBoth Hurtado and Akhtar agree that Paul’s letter to the Romans (esp. Chapters 9-11) addresses God’s redemptive plan and the future of the Jewish people, which is not the same subject as Paul’s objections to “Judaizers” attempting to induce formerly pagan Gentiles to convert to Judaism and be bound to the full yoke of Torah as a condition of salvation. Paul held out a bright hope for Israel’s future redemption for the “fullness” of “all Israel.” We should grasp onto that hope as well.

I can’t think of a better way to start my day, especially after the last few days on the blogosphere, than to read this message of hope and encouragement for both Jewish and Gentile believers, including our roles and identities in God’s plan for the present and future, written in a blog post by this eminent New Testament scholar.

Kudos Dr. Hurtado and thank you.

“Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value.”

-Albert Einstein

Uncategorized

Debating Fulfillment Theology

141 Comments

This “logic” is plainly presented in Galatians 3. God had a very good reason to institute the Law of Moses and it has nothing to with “bait and switch.” It had to do with point and lead until the fulfillment of its goal. The emphasis of the salvation that was to come for all of mankind goes back to the promise made to Abraham.

-Eugene Adkins
in his January 27 comment on my blog post
The Lord’s Sabbath

This understanding of the function of a paidagogos clears up Galatians 3:23, where Paul says, “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed” (Galatians 3:23). The paidagogos was the child’s guardian, not his jailer. When we understand that the paidagogos was responsible for protecting, supervising, and directing a child, then we have a better understanding of how the Greek text of Galatians 3:23 should be rendered in English. The Greek word which the English Standard Version translates as “held captive” has a different connotation. It can also be rendered as “protected,” “kept safe,” or “guarded.” The word should be understood as speaking about how a pedagogue kept a child safe and out of trouble. Similarly, the Greek word which the ESV translates as “imprisoned” (the same word appears in 3:22) can be rendered as “kept in” or “enclosed” in a positive sense. The word should be understood as speaking about how a pedagogue kept a child inside for his school lessons. He did not allow the child to run off and follow his friends into trouble. He kept him shut up inside for the purpose of education and protection.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
“Sermon Eighteen: The Pedagogue (Galatians 3:19-26), pg 182
The Holy Epistle to the Galatians
First Fruits of Zion
August 2011

Ziesler, “Role of the Tenth Commandment,” p. 50, makes the important observation in Rom. 8:4 of the use of the singular…(“requirement”) in Paul’s conclusion: “having talked in 7.1-6 about dying to the Law, Paul now in a notably bald statement appears to bring us back to life again in relation to the Law, if not under it. We died to the Law in order to keep it better.” He further suggests that this singular reference keeps the singular sin of covetousness in perspective (pp.50-51).

Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence,” p. 107 states: “If the law is not involved in salvation, then sin is a victor because it defeated God’s law which was for life (7.12.10). But now the law is placed within the sphere of the Spirit (cf. 8.4), where it belongs (7.14). The law in the right sphere frees us from the tyranny of the law in the sphere of sin. I do not think we can ignore a reference to the OT law. It is through the law that Paul died to the law.”

Footnotes 55 and 56
from “Summary and Appendix I,” pp 365-66
in the Mark D. Nanos book
The Mystery of the Romans
Fortress Press (1996)

Important Note! Please read the first comment made by Eugene Adkins below, as he corrects some mistakes I made about his background and role. I apologize to Eugene and to everyone reading this for my errors.

I’ve been debating with Pastor Eugene Adkins in the comments section of my blog post The Lord’s Sabbath regarding what he refers to as “fulfillment theology” and what I consider supersessionism or “replacement theology” (see our series of comments on the aforementioned blog post for full details of this discussion and specifically Pastor Adkins’ comments submitted on Jan 27, 2012 @ 17:31 hours).

In response to some of Pastor Atkins’ points, I’ve quoted from both Lancaster’s recent Galatians book and the classic Nanos tome on Romans (or rather, some footnotes contained within the Nanos book). I’m doing this for several reasons. The first is that, unlike Pastor Adkins, I do not have a post-graduate degree in any form of religious studies (I assume as a Pastor that Adkins is so educated) and thus do not have skill sets equal to his own as far as debating the scriptures. In order to support my arguments, I must rely on the scholarship of external sources, namely the previously mentioned Lancaster and Nanos books.

Secondly, I want to introduce valid and scholarly sources that refute or at least bring into question the traditional Christian view that the Torah was only temporary for the Jewish people (and I have never said that the Law was intended to apply equally to the Jewish and Gentile disciples of Jesus in any equal fashion) and that once Christ lived, died, was resurrected, and ascended, that the Law became null and void (or “fulfilled” in the sense that its temporary purpose as completely satisfied and then ended), and wholly replaced by what Pastor Adkins refers to as Christ’s “international covenant” that applies uniformly to Jewish and non-Jewish disciples of Jesus. I’m trying to point out here that perhaps Pastor Adkins’ interpretation of scripture (which seems to be the interpretation of the church in general) is not the only possible way to understand what Paul was saying to the congregations of Rome and Galatia.

Finally, I want to be fair. There is a tremendous tendency for me to simply dig in my heels, say “you’re wrong,” and base my subsequent responses on my emotional states, particularly those that have to do with Christian supersessionism and its terrible (and often fatal) effect upon the Jewish people across 2,000 years of church history. But that’s not the right thing to do. I want to respond based not only on my spiritual “understanding” of God’s relationship with both Jews and Gentiles (which is completely subjective and therefore, unable to be objectively demonstrated) but on Biblical scholarship as well. The problem here is that I’m like Woody Allen trying to go a few rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson as far as our relative educational backgrounds go (well, probably not that bad).

I have two undergraduate degrees and a post-grad degree, but none of them are in subjects relevant to this conversation. Given my job, my book writing, and my family commitments, I don’t have the time or other resources to go back to school and take another degree, or to perform the necessary research to adequately respond to all of the specific points being brought up in this discussion in order to sufficiently represent my point of view. I believe I’m right based on everything I’ve learned thus far, but belief isn’t enough. I must have proof beyond what I have already demonstrated, both online and in print. Also, assuming that I can be wrong (and I know I can be), I need to either confirm or refute my current belief system using concrete evidence (or as “concrete” as anything gets in theological debates).

That’s where you, dear readers, come in. I’m calling for backup. Or I’m willing to be presented with irrefutable proof that the New Testament writings can be interpreted in one and only one, single manner, and that the one and only interpretation is held under lock and key by the 21st century evangelical Christian church. I personally don’t think it is, but like I said, I want to be fair.

I want to say to you personally Eugene, that I’m not writing this to try and be mean or unfeeling or offensive in any way. I know you are sincere and are representing the truth based on everything you’ve been taught and everything you believe, both intellectually and through your faith. I don’t have a problem with any of that. None of this is motivated by any dislike of or anger toward you. I respect your service to God and thank you for continuing to participate in our dialog rather than summarily “writing me off” as some sort of “religious nut.”

My problem with the traditional Christian position on supersessionism is that, even clothed in a pleasing and benign exterior, this “fulfillment theology” is a nearly 2,000 year old artifact that was first created when the schism between Jewish and non-Jewish believers began to develop and then exploded across the early history of the church, in order to artificially justify the ascension of the Gentiles over the Jews in Messiah, and to literally re-write the nature and character of Christian vs. Jewish “Messianism,” as we see in part here:

The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the subsequent expulsion of the majority of Jews from what would be called Palestine marked a disastrous shift in the Jewish authority over the Messianic community. Up until that time, the head of the Jerusalem leadership of the Messianic community, otherwise referred to as “the bishop of the church”, had always been Jewish. Once the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by Hadrian, for the first time a Gentile had to be elected into the role. As events moved forward from that point in time, the Gentile presence in the Messianic community grew dramatically while the Jewish leaders and worshipers of Yeshua struggled under the heartbreak of the loss of the Temple and the ejection from their land. Scant decades later, the failure of the Gentile “church” to support the Jewish revolt of Bar Koshba drove another significant wedge between the Jewish Messianic community and the body of Gentile believers.

With the Jewish population now scattered, humiliated, and fearing destruction at the hands of the Romans, the Gentile Messianics continued to secure their dominance and control of the worship of Yeshua. The self-identity of the Gentile Christians shifted from grafted-in to the root of Judaism through Abrahamic faith to the new inheritors of the Messiah, replacing Israel on a spiritual level. Origin of Alexandria and Justin Martyr were the earliest authors of this tradition and among the first to declare that the church had superseded Israel. Attached to this belief was the rise of Christian blame against the Jews for the murder of Jesus. The Jews became unworthy of their own Messiah and were pushed out of the worship of Yeshua by the Gentile disciples they had once taught and nurtured.

-James Pyles
Excerpt from “Origins of Supersessionism in the Church” (pp. 33-34)
Messiah Journal
Issue 109/Winter 2012

I previously said that I don’t have an advanced degree in religious studies, but as a published author, I do know how to do research, including delving into the history of how “the Way,” which started as a sect of Judaism inclusive of non-Jews but administered and guided by Jewish mentors who understood God and Messiah in a completely Jewish religious framework, into a newly created non-Jewish religion which found it necessary to eliminate any aspects of Judaism from its background.  In my review of the early church, I could see the early “church fathers” virtually reframe the letters of the early Jewish disciples, principally written by Paul, into words that would ultimately be used to discount and eventually all but exterminate the Jewish people.

I’m opening this blog post up for debate on the pros and cons of “fulfillment theology” and asking for those who are far wiser and much better educated and I in religious subjects to enter into the conversation. I do insist however, that this conversation remain polite and respectful. Disagreement is absolutely no excuse for undue emotionalism or any personalizing of conflict. Any apparent “attacks” on someone who differs from your point of view will not be tolerated and I, as the blog owner, reserve the right to edit or delete any offensive comments at my discretion.

This debate is specifically focused on the pros and cons of “supersessionism,” “replacement theology,” “fulfillment theology,” or whatever else you want to call it. It is NOT about One Law or Two House perspectives, so I am not inviting statements on those viewpoints to be presented here. If you find it necessary to disregard my wishes in this, your comments will be removed. Thank you.

With those disclaimers out of the way, please feel free to refer back to the full stream of comments on the “Sabbath” blog post, then return here and discuss how you support or refute my statements and Pastor Adkins’s statements. Please cite specific Biblical or other sources to support your arguments. I am asking for information, not unbridled passion.

One last thing before we begin. Eugene, you previously said:

How is lighting candles a confirmation of Jesus’ grace if that person doesn’t believe in Jesus to begin with?

Shabbat candlesI do have faith in Jesus, as you do Eugene. Watching the lighting the Shabbos candles is a beautiful and unique way of inviting him into my home and to experience something of a preview of his return to us, may it be soon and in our days. If perhaps, your comment were meant as a remark toward my wife who is Jewish but not a believer, I can only ask that you try to consider her with the same compassion and love that God has toward His am segulah; His “wondrous and treasured people” (Exodus 19:5). I can’t tell your attitude toward Jews and thus toward my wife and children through our “text-only” conversation, but if you cannot see them with the same compassion as God does, and believe God has discounted if not completely destroyed them, then I suppose my argument has already been made for me.

With that, I look forward to everyone’s contribution now and in the days ahead. I hope to learn a lot.