Book Review: Holy Subversion

HOLY SUBVERSION by Trevin Wax. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

The idea of subversion is undermining. God wants to undermine power structures, to subvert conventions, and undercut assurance. The attitude of any man or woman who allows God to subvert the norms in their life is surrender. As Wax helpfully discusses from an experience in his life in the churches of Romania, surrender is the essence of our response to God.

My only two complaints about Holy Subversion are the prose style and the missed potential of the book’s final chapter. The prose style is easy to read and engaging in many ways. Wax uses experiences from the five years he lived in Romania and served churches there, getting to know a people tempered by suffering into a deep and abiding faith. The prose style also benefits from several memorable and powerful ideas which I will describe in more detail below. But for all that, the style is sermonic, the language of a certain segment of Christian preaching. I wish Wax had felt free to speak in ordinary language and not use terminology like “pulpit time” or outlines that look like preaching points.

As for the final chapter, in my opinion, it started well and I hoped it would crescendo to the heights of Ephesians and the vision of all things united in Messiah. The final chapter is on “Subversive Evangelism.” Given the book’s emphasis on a bigger gospel, one centered on Messiah and not the self, I’d hoped this would be fleshed out more. The weak gospel Wax is combatting needs to be called out more clearly. Instead, Wax finished the book with what seems to me to be a capitulation to Baptist orthodoxy: insisting that the final destinies of individuals can be discerned simply by their present reaction to Christ. Any doubt about final destinies is dismissed by Wax as compromise.

Even if he is right, and I am not going to say that there is assurance of a good final destiny apart from explicit faith in Messiah, this is not the issue the book needs to close with. Wax did not write Holy Subversion to get a pat on the back from his Baptist colleagues, but to subvert the weak gospel the evangelical churches have been preaching for far too many decades.

Having gotten my complaints out of the way, let me explain why I think this book is very useful for Messianic Jews. Yes, I think a book by a Baptist pastor, from Shelbyville, Tennessee (where I’m guessing the Jewish population is near zero), is useful for Messianic Judaism.

The idea of a bigger gospel is vital to Messianic Judaism. If the “Four Spiritual Laws” are what Jesus came to teach, the Messianic Judaism is never going to appeal to the Jewish community where a culture of intellectual depth has been cultivated. You can’t sell an intellectual with an infomercial, and the gospel in evangelicalism has for too long been an offer comparable to the old Ginsu knives instead of a vision of cosmic redemption and the uniting of all things in God and his Messiah.

Wax gives some memorable and powerful pictures of the vastness of the gospel. It’s not, “God has a wonderful plan for your life,” as in the old Campus Crusade pamphlet. I would summarize the gospel as Wax explains it this way, “God has a boundless and sublime plan to redeem all things; Messiah is the center of that plan; and to surrender to the good news of Messiah is to join God in redeeming and healing yourself and others.”

I am completely taken with a bit of genius in Wax’s presentation, a bit of schtick I plan to use again and again in my conversations with Christians. Many who have been in Christian circles for any length of time are familiar with the “Romans Road,” a series of verses from Romans put together as a sort of evangelism tool. The problem with the Romans Road is that it focuses on too narrow a segment of the message of God. Romans says a lot more than the Romans Road presentations make it out to say. The cross and resurrection are about a heck of a lot more than just your personal sin-guilt.

So, in a stroke of brilliance, Wax devises an alternative, the “Ephesians Road.” In Ephesians 1 and 2, Paul succinctly describes are much bigger vision (this vision is also in Romans, but is spread out over more verbiage and more complicated). The Ephesians Road is a simple way to explain to Christians that the good news is centered on Messiah, not us; the amazing thing is God’s mercy and grace, not our salvation; and joining with Messiah is not passive, but active, calling for life transformation, participation in God’s healing work, and living out love and good deeds. The gospel in Ephesians is ultimately about God’s “plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10).

There are other great illustrations and talking points in Holy Subversion. I like one image in which Wax asks if we want to be more like sinks or faucets. Sinks are receptacles. Faucets give out cleansing and life-giving water. God doesn’t save us to collect, but to give. Those who settle for personal salvation as the model for the gospel are not joining the King, but passively receiving some fringe benefits and missing the glory of Messiah.

Messianic Judaism is a community in relation to churches and Christians. I believe that we need better relations with churches, who can easily misunderstand and be suspicious of our practices, motives, and methods. The primary boundary churches have drawn between Judaism and Christianity is the alleged problem of legalism. The weak gospel of older evangelicalism is suspicious of mitzvot (works, good deeds, following commandments). There is a dangerous quietism (just sit back and be saved, let go and let God).

Holy Subversion is a great book to help people in evangelical Christian circles understand the bigger picture of the gospel, that it is joining Messiah in his good works and that this in no way is putting ourselves “under the Law” in Pauline terms. Wax’s short and simple book is also a great way for us to understand how to communicate the idea of holistic salvation. And many in Messianic Judaism need a course in integrating faith and works, which Holy Subversion does very well.

Torah and Messianic Judaism

I’m skipping over to chapter 6 in my review and discussion of MMJT (search Richard Harvey to easily find this whole series of posts). Chapter 5 is about various MJ Christological views. We’ve covered a lot of that in discussing the recent Hashivenu Forum. Also, the subject of Yeshua, deity, and Trinity has brought along a few commenters whose views I’m not really interested in engaging with (they reject most of the New Testament, say Yeshua is simply the ultimate Tzaddik, and say they are Messianic). I’d rather move on to other issues, though Harvey’s chapter 6 is likely to bring on controversy and discussion as well.

MAPPING MESSIANIC JEWISH THEOLOGY: A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH
Richard Harvey, Paternoster, 2009

Check here to find MMJT on Paternoster and here to find it on amazon. My review of MMJT is merely a summary and a list of some questions raised and not a replacement for owning the book. MMJT is a significant challenge for more work to be done in Messianic Jewish theology as well as a wonderful summary of what has come before. The value of owning this book is first to see the diversity already within the movement and second to imagine the future.

Harvey’s sixth chapter is the first of two about MJ, Torah, and the tradition of Judaism. Chapter six deals more with the theoretical and chapter seven will deal with the practical outworkings of Torah in various segments of MJ.

Torah and MJ: Framing the Issue
Harvey gives a helpful introduction, brief but illuminating, to the meanings and parameters of Torah. It is especially important to consider three normative views of Torah in broader Judaism:

(1) Orthodox: “strict in their observance of the laws of the Pentateuch, which are further expanded, interpreted and applied by rabbinic tradition.”

(2) Conservative: “modify this traditional observance in light of modern thought.”

(3) Reform/Liberal/Reconstructionist: “adopt a humanist and revisionist position that looks to Torah for moral principles and cultural norms, but these may be negotiated and there are few absolutes.”

I find Harvey’s short definitions to be accurate and illuminating. I’d place myself in the middle category, with a Conservative but not Orthodox approach.

Messianic Jews are, for the most part, Torah positive (though Harvey surveys some Torah negative views as well). MJ walks in a tension between the Church which often views Torah observance as legalism and observant Judaism which often assumes that MJ’s do not keep Torah.

A variety of Christian theologies inform the diverse approaches to MJ and Torah. Some MJ groups formed out of Lutheran and Reformed backgrounds or Dispensationalism, and these tend to be Torah negative (Harvey doesn’t exactly make the point this way). Other MJ groups assume something like the New Perspective on Paul (again, Harvey doesn’t say it this way) and are Torah positive. What Harvey does say here, and this is helpful for discussion and reflection, is that Torah is approached in a number of ways by various MJ related groups:

–Torah observance by MJ’s is for the sake of witness to Jewish relatives and friends but is not inherently required.

–Torah observance by MJ’s is for the sake of cultural identification, in order to pass on Jewish identity to the children, but is not inherently required.

–Torah observance by MJ’s is imitation of Yeshua and is dissociated from the authority of Jewish tradition.

–Torah is the “grounds for the life of the covenant people…preserving the witness of Israel to her God.”

It wouldn’t be hard to guess, I fall into the last category, that Torah is the way of life for Israel and that Yeshua and the apostles affirmed Torah and the general thrust of the tradition (though tradition leaves much room for variation, disagreement, and streams of halakha).

Torah Views From Most Negative to Most Positive
For many readers, chapter six will be the most enjoyable read in the whole book. Harvey has done a great service in laying out the spectrum of Torah views in various MJ groups. I will summarize them very briefly here and encourage you to read and engage with all of these ideas.

–”Messiah, Not Moses” — based on Dispensationalism (search this term here on Messianic Jewish Musings to find posts describing Dispensationalism), this view says that Torah is inoperative, a defunct covenant and way of life. Torah may be kept for reasons of witness (Fruchtenbaum is the primary advocate).

–”Jewishness, Not Judaism” –based on Reformed Christian thought, this stream sees Jewish identity as rooted in something other than Torah. Rabbinic Judaism denies Messiah and is a false religion. Everything is now kosher. For cultural identification, some Torah observance is a good thing, but in freedom, not obligation (Baruch Maoz is the primary advocate).

–”Biblical but Not Rabbinic” –an Israeli theology which views Israel separately from Judaism. MJ must not look to rabbinic Judaism, but form its own halakha independently (Gershon Nerel is the primary advocate). Ariel Berkowitz writes a similar view which Harvey curiously lists, IMO, out of its order in the spectrum.

–David Stern –writing in the formative period of MJ, David Stern does not present a coherent and complete approach. He points to Christian scholarship rejecting older ideas about the Law being in some way harmful. He references Oral Torah, says that Yeshua and the apostles revised some traditions of Oral Torah, and is ambiguous about exactly what MJ Torah observance should look like (Stern wrote as a pioneer and broke ground).

–”My Law on Your Heart” –Oral Torah has authority like the civil laws of a nation but must be corrected in cases where Yeshua disagrees (Arye Powlison is the primary advocate).

–”Variety with Guidelines” –applies Dispensationalism to a Torah positive view. Oral Law must be considered with three guidelines: much of it can be used, some can be adapted, some must be discarded. Only moral laws and the sacrificial system are inherently authoritative for today, with sacrifices being subsumed in Messiah’s death. The Mosaic is done away with, but much of it comes back in the New Covenant. Torah observance is based on the idea of a New Torah, mostly but not completely the same as the Old (Louis Goldberg is the primary advocate).

–”New Covenant Halacha” –Dan Juster provides another approach seeking to formulate a New Covenant Torah practice in continuity with the Mosaic, but not identical. The coming of Yeshua and his teaching has rendered some changes in Torah and MJ is to formulate a halacha based on study of every commandment integrated with apostolic teaching. Oral Law is a mixed bag and must be part of the halakhic process, but not as absolute authority. Michael Rudolph developed a Taryag Mitzvot attempting to apply this method.

–”Torah Re-Appropriated” –Michael Schiffman wrote about this in 1990 (I suspect his views are quite different now). He advocates a now-and-not-yet interpretation. Torah is fulfilled, but as the kingdom is not fully here, MJ’s are to live Torah out of freedom, not obligation, in order to demonstrate faithfulness to God and be part of the Jewish community. This view is complex and perhaps not coherent (sorry, Michael, my good friend — I’d love to see your thoughts now after twenty more years of reflection).

–”Yeshua Kept Halacha” –John Fischer represents a school of thought seeing Yeshua maximally in agreement with Pharisaism. Even in the trend in scholarship to see Yeshua as a Jew, Fischer’s position is toward the maximal end of continuity. Fischer is careful to note that Written Torah takes priority over Oral Torah and notes that conflicts do occur and must always favor the Written.

–”Messianic and Conservative Halacha” –Mark Kinzer advocates a Messianic halakha which is in continuity with that of the larger Jewish community. Kinzer emphasizes (in a point sometimes misunderstood, but which if people were honest they would realize is true) that scripture can only be fully interpreted communally and in conversation with a tradition. Israel has a normative tradition with streams and variations, but which MJ halakha must follow. Any conflicts between Yeshua’s teaching and some aspects of Oral Law / normative tradition are handled by the flexibility of the tradition and not by rejecting it. The Torah should be interpreted as it presents itself: as a document intended to be supplemented by the judges of the nation a la Deuteronomy.

It is not difficult to imagine that my own views align with those of Mark Kinzer. I think, however, that Harvey’s categories (which I abridge a little) show us the potential for much variety in MJ approaches to Torah.

How does this list of positions reveal new possibilities to you? Which of these have you considered or lived out? Which have you rejected?

I hope we can have discussion, not arguments (see Ethics of Discussion page, a tab at the top of the blog home page). The issue of Torah and MJ is one which could rightly occupy us in intense discussion for a long time. I’d like to see more MJ’s, Christians, and Jews understand the subtleties of being Yeshua-followers as Jews and this is one of the heart matters of Messianic Jewish faith and practice.

Book Notes, Feb 5, 2010

I’m reading so many books right now I feel I could run four or five blogs. I’ll only mention a few of them here. I’m interested to know if other Messianic Jewish Musings readers have read any of these or if there are ant great books burning on your soul right now.

The Last of the Just, by Andre Schwarz-Bart
Okay, I should be done with this one by now, but I tend to read fiction slowly, a little each day, unless I am reading a page-burner.

This is difficult though brief fiction. I am considering it as a selection in the upcoming Jewish Book of the Month Club here on MJM. I want to get a whole lot of you reading books together and discussing them (it may fail as an experiment, though I’ve already been told by one person they intend to get a group at their synagogue all participating). We’ll launch sometime around Passover.

The problem with Schwarz-Bart’s book is that sometimes the prose is unclear. Did that really happen or was the character imagining it? What exactly happened in that part? Sometimes I’ll read a paragraph five times and not understand it. Other times I’ll read a dozen pages with no problem. He needed a better editor, IMO. But the powerful parts are unforgettable.

Maybe it will be a selection a little further down the road in the book club, after people have had time to get into reading the great Jewish books and will not be put off easily by a little difficult prose.

The Last of the Just is a different kind of Holocaust story, tracing a family back a thousand years in a line of Lamed-Vovniks (the thirty-six righteous sufferers in Israel whose righteous suffering keeps God from judging the world — an idea that is not too distant from the vicarious suffering of Yeshua).

Holy Subversion, by Trevin Wax
A Baptist pastor from Tennessee writes a simple but effective book explaining the gospel in holistic terms. I am delighted with the idea of an Ephesians Road, a variation and subversion of the Romans Road which for a previous generation made the gospel a weak message of life after death, all but irrelevant to living now. This is a great book to give to those who need to see a bigger idea than “God has a wonderful plan for your life.” God has a wonderful plan for the cosmos, and if you’re smart and humble, you’ll lay down everything to join in the Tikkun Olam.

I will review it next week here on MJM.

Divine Reversal: The Transforming Ethics of Jesus, by Russ Resnik
This is a major book for the MJ movement. I hope entire synagogues will read it.

Russ Resnik, longtime Messianic pioneer and Executive Director of the UMJC, shares with Jewish wisdom the ethics of Yeshua. Ethics is an area we need a great deal more of in our movement. Russ blogs about this and gives you a taste of what the book is about at rebrez.wordpress.com.

The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, by Dale Allison Jr.
My podcast yesterday and the one next week are about this book.

Dale Allison is a top-shelf New Testament scholar. He develops the theory that Matthew emphasizes the Moses theme in order to protest a movement in his time to remove the Way of Yeshua from Judaism. Matthew, he says, sees Yeshua in completely Jewish terms.

How about you? What are you reading? Have you read any of these? What books do you recommend for the book of the month club?

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – The New Moses, Pt 1

Once, when Yeshua was accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, he said something that sounds a bit odd to modern ears, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).

Though that might sound odd to me and you, it was not so odd to Yeshua’s hearers. They lived and moved in the world of the Hebrew scriptures. The words “finger of God” would easily call to mind a story of Moses. When Moses was working signs and wonders for Pharaoh, the Egyptian magicians kept doing the same signs to discredit him. But when Moses was able to bring huge clouds of gnats swarming in the Egyptian air, the magicians were stymied. They said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Exod 8:19).

And when Moses brought down from Sinai two tablets with the Ten Words, or the Ten Commandments, on them, the writing was said to be done by the finger of God (Exod 31:18).

There is a prevalent theme in Matthew’s version of the Yeshua story. He shows us Yeshua as the New Moses. Dale Allison writes at length about it in his book, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology.

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

My book Yeshua in Context: Sketches of the Life and Times of Yeshua the Messiah will be released later in 2010. Stay tuned for news and some ways to be involved.

Wrapping Hashivenu and Answering Judah Gabriel

Today I am traveling home from the Hashivenu Forum in L.A. It has been an intense experience, both in terms of the theological papers and discussion on the one hand and the late night conversation on the other.

I am encouraged to see the depth and quality of our small movement. Scholars and leaders of outstanding ability are being followed by a promising young generation of thinkers and leaders. As many as are here at Hashivenu, there are at least as many more who could be here (I say that based on attending for five years in a row and seeing those who come some years and not others). That tells me our movement is well equipped with leaders, doers, and thinkers.

In the brief time I have to write this morning, I want to cover two things: (1) an inadequate summary of Carl Kinbar’s excellent paper reflecting on the Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs) Midrash and the place of Messianic Judaism between the worlds of Christianity and Judaism and (2) answering a strong objection posted by blogger Judah Gabriel to one of Mark Kinzer’s ideas.

Carl Kinbar’s “Israel, Interpretation, and the Knowledge of God”
Rabbi Carl Kinbar is the first Messianic Jewish leader I am aware of getting a doctorate focused on rabbinic literature (anyone know someone else?). It is vital, of course, that we have more as MJ progresses.

Kinbar’s paper does many things — explaining the essence of midrash, exploring the type of thought found in it, and more. But what I most appreciate is his discussion of the Messianic Jewish way of thinking about Bible, Torah, halakha, and theology. We are a community in tension between Judaism and Christianity, what Mark Kinzer calls “dialectic ecclesial continuity.”

There is an irony to our position in relation to Judaism and Christianity. Although we identify with Judaism and the Jewish people, we find more acceptance within Christianity. Synagogues often eject us when we seek to be part of the Torah learning process from within. Churches, in spite of red flags about our Torah observance and in spite of their supersessionist assumptions, are less likely to eject us.

Torah learning is the lifestyle inculcated in Jewish tradition. It is a communal thing. Reading Rashi at home is great, but engaging study together, of Torah, Talmud, midrash, and so on, is vital. This internal learning is part of being with klal Yisrael.

Yet, in many cases, we are limited to external engagement, not allowed inside. MJ in many cases is going to have to develop Torah learning within our own circles, not being allowed to join the larger community.

This means we are going to have to develop our own internal Torah learning, fostering a culture of learning alongside the rest of Judaism, while not giving up on joining the larger community when possible. The sad reality is intolerance and the people who usually eject us are not the educated leaders and rabbis, but board members reacting out of ignorance and fear of boundaries being blurred.

It will be harder to sort of go it alone, but we have to build up our Torah learning culture in spite of the difficulties.

Answering Judah Gabriel
Over at the Kineti l’Tziyon blog, Judah Gabriel picked up on my summary of Mark Kinzer’s paper and he objected to one line in particular that I wrote: “If MJ is never credited as a Judaism, but is always regarded as avodah zara [idolatry], then we will likely fade away in time.”

Gabriel reacts as follows:

Kinzer is saying if Messianic Judaism is never credited as an authentic Judaism by the mainstream Jewish world, the Messianic movement will perish. To put it another way, our survival depends on approval of Jewish religious leadership.

You can read his full response to me here.

Gabriel’s stance is that MJ should not desire to be recognized by the wider Jewish community as a Judaism.

What are the underlying assumptions? That Jews who do not follow Yeshua have no legitimacy before God? That Klal Yisrael does not matter? That the Messianic movement replaces Israel?

It matters that MJ finds acceptance by Christianity and Judaism. Our identity is wrapped up completely in one community, the Jewish people, and we are in relationship with the other, Christianity, for mutual blessing.

What will happen in MJ continues to be rejected as idolatry? We will never be part of the internal life of Israel, always pushed out to the margins. We will find it hard as a small movement to keep going generation to generation. Our movement is insular already, in need of broader engagement. We will likely dissipate in a few generations.

Gabriel objects that God would not let this happen. He already has let it happen in past history, as Jewish followers of Yeshua fizzled out by the sixth century. Arguments that we don’t need to think about such things but simply trust in God are insufficient. The work of God and people are both important.

But if we do gain wider acceptance in Judaism, what will happen? We will be able to engage internally as part of Klal Yisrael. We will be known not as heretics, but by our love, by our goodness, and by our fervor for Yeshua.

The Nicene Creed and MJ

This is day 2 of the Hashivenu Forum in Los Angeles (see yesterday’s post for more about Hashivenu). We heard a paper today by Mark Kinzer, “Finding Our Way Through Nicaea: The Deity of Yeshua, Bilateral Ecclesiology, and Redemptive Encounter With the Living God.” We also had a great deal of discussion about Rabbi Kinzer’s paper, including responses from two other scholars, Darrell Bock and Paul Saal.

The Nicene Creed is recited in many churches, but as someone brought up in discussion, is little understood. When you ask the question, “Is it right to say that Yeshua is God?” you will find a number of misunderstandings whether you say yes or no.

If you say yes, someone will object, “There is more to God than Yeshua.”

If you say no, someone will object, “But the deity of Yeshua is part of apostolic faith.”

What Mark Kinzer does in his paper is explore Christian and Jewish thought and suggest that we, as Messianic Jews, stand in between and can possibly take the “two communal traditions as one ruptured whole” and “perform a tikkun — a repair of what was broken.”

Messianic Jews cannot simply accept the Nicene Creed at face value. Neither can we reject its truth claims out of hand.

The Nicene Creed has problems for us:
(1) The role played by Constantine is problematic, bringing political ends into a theological discussion.
(2) The Nicene Creed is unilateral, bringing the voice of the multi-national church to the table, but excluding the Jewish followers of Yeshua of that time from the discussion.
(3) The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) made statements of a blatantly anti-Jewish tenor.
(4) The Nicene Creed is structurally supersessionist, omitting Israel from the story completely.

Yet, the Nicene Creed set about to deny some things we too, as Messianic Jews, would want to deny:
(1) That Yeshua is not eternal, but has a beginning.
(2) That he was created.
(3) That he is of a different nature than God.
(4) That he is changing and mutable.

The Nicene Creed is about the church’s struggle with Arianism. The Arians were committed philosophically to a completely transcendent God. But such a God cannot enter into human history and something like the incarnation is impossible when your view of deity admits of no immanence. Another way to say that is that if God is wholly other, absolutely beyond time and space, then God cannot be present with us. Thus, the Arians had to believe Yeshua was not God, but a created being sent by God.

Kinzer uses one simple text to show how the apostles dealt with the mystery of Yeshua’s relationship with the Father:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This passage, from 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, is known in much literature as the New Testament Shema. It is Paul adopting the language of Deuteronomy 6:4 to express the relationship between Yeshua and the Father. The Shema is expanded to include Yeshua in “a differentiated but singular deity.”

One God – the Father – from whom . . .

One Lord – Yeshua – through whom . . .

In other words, existence comes from the Father but is carried out through the Son. Paul uses God and Lord (Lord here is the usual way in Greek the apostles denote God’s name). The Father is God and Yeshua is the Lord (confusion creeps in here because Lord does not always mean deity, but it is almost certainly meant here).

The idea is that the Father is transcendent and the source of all things and the Son is the agent through whom the Father’s work is done and the two are one. Hebrews 1:3 says it well:

The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things.

Kinzer’s paper goes into much more depth, but I am trying to be both brief and to simplify the language here.

What will surprise many readers is to know that Judaism, not only in the Second Temple period, but also throughout the Middle Ages, deals with a controversy that is parallel to that of Nicaea.

It wasn’t until the Middle Ages that it was pronounced to be avodah zara to believe in Yeshua’s deity and in the Trinity.

But even after that, and certainly before it, Judaism has had discussions at great length and of tremendous importance trying to balance the idea of a transcendent/separate/wholly other God and an immanent/present God.

One example is the medieval battle between the Karaites and normative Jews. The Karaites were against the rabbinic writings but believed the written Torah. They were rivals and often debated and criticized the rabbis. Rabbinic literature has many anthropomorphisms of God.

One of the clearest and most unusual is talk of God laying tefillin (wearing phylacteries) and holding arguments about Torah matters with the angels and so on.

The Karaites criticized this kind of talk making God to be comparable to a man. Saadia Gaon and others retreated to a sort of philosophical God. They said that the Shekhina and other mediate forms of deity (angel of the Lord, Wisdom, the Word, the Glory, etc.) were created forms without the substance of God. They were more like holograms, as we might say, than emanations of God.

But this means that God has never actually been present. So the mystics and kabbalists reacted against this sanitized God. They ultimately came up with something that is very familiar to anyone who knows a little kabbalah:
(1) The Ein Sof is God in his actual being, unknowable, separate, and wholly other.
(2) But the Ein Sof sends out emanations, the sefirot. They come in gradually lesser degrees of holiness, which are classically numbered at ten.

There is evidence in the Hebrew Bible that something like what the mystics describe really is going on.

So the controversy in rabbinic Judaism is such that outside criticism caused some rabbis to propose something similar to the Arians whom the Council of Nicaea opposed. These rationalists described a wholly other God who cannot be present with us. Just as the Nicene Creed found a solution in a binitarian view of Father and Son, one and distinct, the Son radiating from the Father, so the mystics of Judaism proposed sefirot emanating from the direct, unknowable being of God.

It is common in Christian circles for people not to understand the relationship of Father and Son. Many people confuse Yeshua with the Father and fail to see a clear differentiation. Yeshua mediates the Father but does not replace. Yeshua is subordinate to the Father, but not because he is of a lower kind of deity.

Paul Saal demonstrated how in popular discussion people can be unaware of the differentiation of Father and Son and can cry heresy when someone is simply restating what the Nicene Creed affirms. He once explained to someone that Yeshua is not God in the sense of being the Ein Sof. Rather, Yeshua is like the sum of all the sefirot. The person claimed that Saal did not then actually believe in the deity of Yeshua! Yet Saal’s description mirrors not only the Nicene Creed, but also Hebrews 1:3.

Kinzer’s paper wraps up with a description of Messianic Jewish theology as a protest against the boundary drawn by mainstream Judaism against the deity of Yeshua. There are other boundary breakers too, such as the Lubavitch who believe their deceased rebbe is divine.

Kinzer says that MJ will only survive if we succeed in our protest against the boundaries. If MJ is never credited as a Judaism, but is always regarded as avodah zara, then we will likely fade away in time.

We are repairing the broken pieces, standing between church creeds and rabbinic discussions, and trying to make them whole. We are looking for a way to express what Nicaea affirms and what it denies in Jewish language. Our commitment to Yeshua’s lordship must not diminish and hiding our belief in it from public view will not serve us. At the risk of being misunderstood by our Jewish people, we have to affirm that Yeshua is God, even when we don’t have time to explain all the possible misunderstandings. And the idea of a divine Messiah is something difficult to describe in Jewish language because of the many centuries of boundary drawing. We pray for tikkun olam.

Live-blogging Hashivenu 2010

Hashivenu is a renewal movement within Messianic Judaism (see hashivenu.org). 2010 marks the 12th annual Hashivenu Forum in L.A., an invitation-only event. As someone remarked, we are a marginal part of a marginal movement of a marginal people. But in spite of our small size, we are a catalyst for something bigger.

Hashivenu has become the term for our stream of Messianic Judaism, the observant, traditional branch of the wider Messianic Jewish movement. Hashivenu has been criticized and misunderstood. Some have said we are liberal (a perennially bad word to evangelical and charismatic Christians). Some have said we are too Jewish and not Christian enough (although, ironically, Hashivenu participants tend to be quite centered on Yeshua and have a high view of his identity as the Word made flesh and so on).

I think if many Jews came to a Hashivenu meeting, they would see we are a Jewish movement.

I think if Christians from many backgrounds came, they would see we share the faith of the apostles.

I think if many of our critics from within Messianic Judaism and related groups came, they would be surprised to find a great deal of agreement with the ideas we discuss.

Hashivenu Messianic Judaism is open-minded, but faithful; contemporary, but traditional; broad, but focused; authentic, but forgiving; we’re old and young; rebellious and conventional.

We are committed to a bilateral ecclesliology, the idea that Christians and Messianic Jews represent the two distinct parts of the unified congregation of Messiah. Messianic Jews are called to be Jews, remaining within our people, and partnering with our Christian brothers and sisters. Our communities are distinct, but our Messiah is the same. We share a bond, but there are differences in identity and way of life. We are a bridge people.

In my opinion, Hashivenu is the future of Messianic Judaism and the beginning of a new day in the unbordered land between Judaism and Christianity. Welcome to a place that defies boundaries.

Hashivenu is a spiritual and intellectual retreat for me.

I participated a Shabbaton as a prelude to the Hashivenu Forum, a small gathering of older and younger leaders discussing some highly relevant questions which interest all of the Hashivenu participants. We gathered early to have an intergenerational interchange about some things critical to the future of Messianic Judaism.

In short, we prayed in innovative minyans and discussed the following questions:

–What are the greatest challenges facing MJ in the future?
–How do you conceive of the place of MJ in the larger Jewish world? Christian world?
–What has been / will be the role of MJ synagogues?
–How do we in MJ relate to the imperative of aliyah (the covenantal obligation to immigrate to Israel)?
–What role does halakha (our set of norms for walking out the Torah) play in the future of MJ?

And we kicked off the Hashivenu Forum, a larger gathering of about 80 leaders (not all rabbis, but all leaders), with three book reviews. We had reviews and discussions centered around the issue of the divinity of Messiah on the following books:

–Oskar Skarsaune’s Incarnation: Myth or Fact?
–Daniel Boyarin’s Borderlines
–David Berger’s The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference

These three books, two of them positively and one negatively, explore the compatibility of the idea of divine Messiah in Jewish and Christian thought. One Jewish scholar and one Christian demonstrate that prior to a bitter split between the church and synagogue in the fourth century, it was possible to speak of a divine agent (the Word, Wisdom, the Memra, the Dibur, the Shekhinah, the Logos) carrying out the work of God and being equal with God. The third scholar, a Jew, denounces the messianism of the Chabad movement and their talk about the deceased Rebbe being divine. These three books represent an exploration of the borders or lack of actual borders between Jewish and Christian thought.

Hashivenu is the forum you wish you had come to. If you care about Jewish-Christian relations, what’s going on in the future of Jewish Yeshua-faith, and the observant, traditional side of Messianic Judaism, we are a large part of it.

We’re working on being about our faith in such a way that Jews will see us as good Jews and Christians will see us as good Christ-followers. As a bridge people, we are committed to the good of klal Yisrael and the Church. We witness and embody the reality that the Son of Abraham caused to grow a fresh vine in the Israelite vineyard and cultivated as well the grafted in shoots of wild grapes among the nations. Without a Jewish contingent in the congregation of Messiah, the authenticity of the whole enterprise is questionable. If Jesus did not raise up from his own people a movement, then the Church is rootless and an alien movement without a connection in history to the working of Jesus, the seeker of Israel’s lost sheep.

MJ Musings Gets a Little Love

It’s a neat world we live in. Jewish-Christian relations are improving in many places. A Jewish studies professor can even mention in a positive light a Messianic Jewish blog sometimes. Here is a link where Rebecca Lesses, professor of Jewish Studies at Ithaca College in New York has something nice to say about Messianic Jewish Musings. Please note, her views do not represent Ithaca College:

http://mystical-politics.blogspot.com/2010/01/some-links-history-jacobo-timerman-and.html

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Yeshua the Healer

The healing miracles of Yeshua are sort of a paradox. On the one hand, Yeshua did not want the wrong ideas about his identity as Messiah to spread too quickly. On the other hand, the healings he worked brought large crowds of people to follow him and spread his fame more than anything else he did. There is something about healing that is so vital to the aims of Yeshua that he healed in spite of the potential drawbacks.

What is the nature of Yeshua’s healing miracles? Why are they so important to his aims? What do they say about Yeshua’s identity and mission?

John Meier, a Catholic scholar, his a series of volumes on the historical Jesus called A Marginal Jew. In volume 2, he explores the healing miracles and other miracles of Yeshua in depth, about a thousand pages of detailed considerations of previous studies and comparative literature on miracles in the ancient world and so on.

He addresses early on a question that must come to the mind of many people reading the gospels: is it possible for us as modern people to believe in miracles like the ones reported in the gospels?

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

My book Yeshua in Context: Sketches of the Life and Times of Yeshua the Messiah will be released later in 2010. Stay tuned for news and some ways to be involved.

Surreptitious Supersessionism

Supersessionism can be sneaky (if you don’t know what supersessionism is, check here).

A commenter on the Jesus Creed blog, where I guest-posted recently about Richard Harvey’s book, Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology, said that someone asked N.T. Wright (famed scholar of the New Testament) if he was supersessionist. Wright said that he was not.

The thing you can learn from a good book on the subject (we’ll be learning from a great one, Soulen’s The God of Israel and Christian Theology) is that supersessionism is not just overt anti-Judaism. Supersessionism is far more pervasive in Christian theology and far more surreptitious (that means sneaky). My guess is that Wright thought to himself, “I am very sensitive to Jewish issues, I am sympathetic to Judaism, and therefore, my ideas are not supersessionist in nature.”

Yet, the sad truth is, Wright is a supersessionist, even if he doesn’t realize it. He sees Judaism as subsumed in Christ and that there is not an ongoing, active role for Israel as the freely elected, irrevocably chosen people of God.

How does someone who understands Judaism so well and who writes some of the best historical sketches of Second Temple Judaism in all of academic literature wind up nonetheless being a supersessionist?

The very idea of supersessionism is just so darn hard to shake from within Christian theology.

R. Kendall Soulen’s The God of Israel and Christian Theology is a book that stands out from the crowd of books on the subject. This is the singular most intelligent, constructive, and incisive treatment of the topic.

On pg. 29, Soulen cites one example of supersessionism, from Melito of Sardis, the second century church father:

The people Israel was precious before the church arose,
and the law was marvelous before the gospel was elucidated.
But when the church arose
and the gospel took precedence
the model was made void, conceding its power to the reality . . .
the people was made void when the church arose.
From On Pascha

This little theological poem is an example of economic supersessionism: the idea that Israel is subsumed and made obsolete under the new economy of Christianity (or New Covenant or however you would like to express the new economy brought to us in Christ).

Economic supersessionism need not be anti-Judaic. You can admire a fossil. You can write about its history, the beauty of the creature that became the fossil. You can even say charitable things about those who continue to exist according to the pattern of the fossilized creature. But you believe nonetheless that the being that gave arise to the fossil can only continue meaningfully by switching to the new economy.

Often hand in hand with economic supersessionism is punitive supersessionism: Israel’s place is surrendered due to lack of faith in Christ. The “punitive” in punitive supersessionism does not always indicate that the church punishes Israel (though historically, this happened more often than not in numerous slaughters, burnings, pogroms, and eventually the ovens of the Nazi party). Rather, punitive indicates that the removal of Israel from its place as the covenant people of God is a punishment for failure to believe in and follow Christ. However, the church often took it upon itself to be the avenging agent of God against the Jews.

Melito of Sardis has a poem about this as well:

Therefore, O Israel,
you did not quake in the presence of the Lord,
so you quaked at the assault of foes . . .
you did not lament over the Lord,
so you lamented over your firstborn;
You did not tear your clothes when the Lord was hung,
so you tore them over those who were slain. . .
you did not accept the Lord,
you were not pitied by him. . .
-From On Pascha

You might possible eradicate economic supersessionism from your theology and expunge every trace of punitive supersessionism and still have a problem. You can say all day long, “I continue to believe Israel is God’s chosen people,” and yet be a supersessionist in a subtle and pervasive way.

How is this so?

The most pervasive, subtle, and sneaky form of supersessionism is structural supersessionism: reading the overarching narrative of the Bible in such a way that Israel is a footnote in history.

Soulen introduces a concept called the canonical narrative. It means the way you see the big story arc of the Bible, the metanarrative, the overarching tale.

The topic deserves its own blog post, but I’ll briefly describe the standard canonical narrative of the church, which Soulen documents as a second century production. Many modern theologians have not progressed from the second century on this most important matter. The SCN or standard canonical narrative is as follows:

Creation

Fall

Redemption

Consummation (a fancy word for bringing top completion, perfection)

God created us. We fell away from him. He sent a redeemer to bring us back. The redeemer will return to consummate all things.

Consider how the SCN makes use of the Bible:

Creation – Genesis 1-2

Fall – Genesis 3

Redemption – Gospels and Epistles

Consummation – Revelation

The Bible of the SCN is greatly abridged. You could take your Christian Bible, cut out Genesis 4 through Malachi 4, and not lose a drop. Copies of the New Testament could be printed with Genesis 1-3 as an introduction and a selection of Messianic prophecies appended, and little would be lost.

The SCN is structural supersessionism because in the very structure of its understanding of the Bible, Israel is a footnote.

We would do well to ask ourselves, why didn’t God bring the redeemer right away, before Abraham and Moses and all that inconvenient stuff?

At the very least, we need to embrace a canonical narrative that recognizes God sunk his presence into the “carnal soil” of history (the term was coined by Michael Wyschogrod, an Orthodox Jewish theologian, and is used by Soulen). Israel is the carnal soil into which God’s presence was placed in human history. To make a long story short, in a foolproof manner, not dependent on complete faithfulness from Israel, God’s presence on earth, his incarnation, was through the people Israel.

Ultimately the incarnation settled in its ultimate form in a son of Israel.

Our canonical narrative at the very least needs one more step, and creative ways of restructuring it should be thought out:

Creation

Fall

Covenant

Redemption

Consummation

So, if you want to develop a theology which rids itself of all supersessionism, which assumes that God did not waste anything in his economy of redemption, that nothing is purposeless in the Biblical story arc, you need not only to get rid of economic and punitive supersessionism, but also structural.

And this is a paradigm change in theology. I suggest Soulen’s book as one great attempt on the way. I find his rebuilding of the canonical narrative persuasive. Others are possible.

Discussion Starter
Are you prepared to accept the three levels of supersessionism (punitive, economic, structural)?

What Biblical ideas persuade you that supersessionism is not true theology? Or, conversely, if you think supersessionism is valid, what points persuade you of that? (I promise, this is dialogue, not a chance to gang up on those who do not share my own theology).

What is the continuing role of the Jewish people in a theology that eliminates supersessionism?

The Nature of God in MJT

MAPPING MESSIANIC JEWISH THEOLOGY: A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH
Richard Harvey, Paternoster, 2009

This is our Messianic Jewish Musings survey of chapter 4 of Richard Harvey’s newly published study. MJT stands for Messianic Jewish Theology. See here to find MMJT on Paternoster and here to find it on amazon.

The following excerpt from the introduction to Harvey’s fourth chapter captures a great deal of what follows in his rather detailed survey of MJT on the nature of God. I will abridge Harvey’s comments as noted by the ellipses, but I include his remarks at length because they are so informative:

Messianic Jews have yet to develop a full ‘Doctrine of God’, for three reasons. First, Messianic Jews work without a developed theological and philosophical tradition, whereas ‘mainstream’ Judaism and Christianity have centuries’ worth of systematic and philosophical reflection about ‘God’, worked out in diverse historical contexts, upon which they can draw. And whilst the 19th an 20th century forbears of the modern Messianic movement such a Joseph Rabinowitz, Paul Levertoff and Jacob Jocz were concerned with such issues, their works are not generally referred to by contemporary Messianic leaders.

Secondly, Messianic Jews have focused on issues relevant to their own particular apologetic, pastoral and cultural needs. Where Messianic Jews have discussed God, the emphasis has been on the Trinity and the Incarnation . . .

Thirdly, the task of investigating both Jewish and Christian theological traditions, then synthesizing them creatively and coherently into a new theologoumenon is a challenge. It is relatively easy to map the theological trajectories of Judaism and Christianity, demonstrating points of comparison, similarity, contrast and mutual influence or contra-distinction. But there have been few attempts to construct a doctrine of God that produces a coherent statement from a study of the two traditions.

Harvey, in his survey of Messianic documents concerning the nature of God makes the following observations:

(1) When Messianic groups use a doctrinal statement, these are always aligned with Christian views of God and are careful to be orthodox. (Note: Doctrinal statements are more common in Messianic organizations tied to support from Christian organizations and are not a Jewish phenomenon.)

(2) A few have used Christian ideas and Hebrew terminology in a simple attempt to synthesize the two streams.

(3) In a number of studies of the nature of divine revelation, most are reflective of Reformation, Protestant, and evangelical ideas. One unpublished study, the lectures of Mark Kinzer for Messianic Jewish Theological Institute, also reflects a wider array of concerns, including historical critical views of the Bible, the role of tradition and community, and the priority of halakha (practice) over aggadah (story).

(4) A few studies attempt to correlate the Trinity to Jewish concepts (more below about this).

(5) A few studies treat the doctrine of God in light of special Jewish concerns, such as Louis Goldberg’s reflections on the problem of the Holocaust and the nature of God (in God, Torah, Messiah, the posthumous book of his theological writings edited by Rich Robinson of Jews for Jesus and available here).

(6) In his conclusion, Harvey suggests that the doctrine of God is an area in need of much work in MJT. Most studies take the common ground between Judaism and Christianity for granted, but do not get into the nuances of difference, variety, and so on. Harvey lays out a few requirements for a fuller MJT on this topic.

Some MJT Reflections on Trinity in Light of Jewish Traditions
At different levels of complexity, a few Messianic writers have tackled the topic of God’s unity with a view to bridge Jewish and Christian conceptions.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum has written about Maimonides’ use of yachid rather than echad, when formulating his Thirteen Principles of Faith in Judaism. Fruchtenbaum argues that yachid is a stricter kind of unity used by Maimonides in preference over the Biblical word echad in order to more clearly exclude the Christian idea of a Triune God.

David Stern has discussed avoiding the errors of unitarianism (one God, undifferentiated) on the one hand and tritheism (three gods, related) on the other. Stern argues that there is not a need to get too specific in answering the mysteries of God’s plural nature, but to accept it as revelation.

Louis Goldberg has argued that the Hebrew Bible does not rule out the plural nature of God and cites Rashi on Metatron in Exodus 23:20 (Metatron is a late rabbinic conception of the angel of the Lord). Goldberg argues that there is room, even in strictly monotheistic writings for a complexity in God’s unity.

Mark Kinzer, in an MJTI lecture for “The Shape of Messianic Jewish Theology,” speaks of differentiation within the Godhead. God’s creation is characterized by unity in tension with differentiation (for example, man and woman). Kinzer argues that the man/wife relationship is an analogy to the God/Messiah relationship. We should expect to see differentiation in God’s nature and realize God’s own complex nature is reflected in the diverse unity of his creation.

In Harvey’s fifth chapter, dealing with the nature of Yeshua (Christology in Christian theological terms), he will explore the writings of Tsvi Sadan, an Israeli Messianic scholar who explores kabbalah as a paradigm for understanding a differentiated unity of God. (Note: while many have a knee-jerk reaction against kabbalah, it should be noted that some aspects of kabbalah are very closely related to Biblical texts).

Discussion Starters
What Messianic descriptions of the Trinity have you heard and found wanting?

What is your take on the idea of Trinity (please, no dissertations)?

Is the concept of Trinity compatible with Judaism?

Is Judaism’s view of God characterized by deliberate protection against any concept of plural unity in God’s nature?

How has the issue of the Trinity impacted your community or someone you know? Has it been a source of controversy?

From PDEP

We need a reappraisal of Paul because Paul did not say what many people have preached for years that he said. We need a reappraisal of Paul because he has been read as superseding all previous scripture. We need a reappraisal of Paul because understanding Paul in light of the rest of the Bible will only help us understand this faithful apostle better.

–From Paul Didn’t Eat Pork, p. 20. See it here on amazon.

What is Supersessionism?

I got a wonderful opportunity this weekend to guest blog on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog (see my post here and the Jesus Creed blog here). Jesus Creed is one of the most widely read Christian blogs and Scot McKnight is a theologian whose thoughts are worth following (try reading his books The Blue Parakeet and A Community Called Atonement if you’d like to experience some of his work).

My post was about Richard Harvey’s Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology, which I am reviewing here chapter by chapter. The reason it thrilled me to review Harvey’s book on Jesus Creed is that I want to see more Christians interact with the idea of the Jewish response to Yeshua.

One thing always to be kept in mind in Jewish-Christian relations is that people saturated with church theology and culture often will take a less than glorious view of the present and future role of Israel in God’s ongoing work of completing and redeeming his creation.

Another thing to keep in mind is patience and a charitable attitude. It is not as if Christians, including those who are very bright and well-read, have an animus against Jewish people, per se. Rather, the defeat and obsolescence of Judaism at the hands of a triumphant and superseding Christianity is embedded into the core ideas of most Christian theologies. To root out supersessionism requires questioning core ideas and commitments, rethinking and reconfiguring the very canonical narrative that supports most Christian theology.

Supersessionism comes from the word supersede (also spelled supercessionism in some places). To supersede means to replace, take the place of, take over from, succeed; supplant, displace, oust, overthrow, remove, unseat. Supersessionism is more popularly known as replacement theology. It is the idea, which comes in many forms, that the Church has replaced the Jewish people as the people of God.

One of the things my blog post on Jesus Creed revealed is that even among the exceptionally bright and informed of the Christian community, supersessionism remains an unexamined assumption of life and theology. And I am not condemning any of the commenters from Jesus Creed, all of whom (except perhaps one) commented with the measured humility that is fitting for all of us who dwell in the shadow of the Almighty.

I would also say in defense of the Jesus Creed community that these people are caring for widows and orphans and the issue of the Jewish people has not risen to the forefront for many. I will also say that a few commenters already did get it and not all Christians by any means retain supersessionist assumptions.

I will be blogging about supersessionism along with other topics (such as continuing my review of Harvey’s Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology.

For one thing, I will introduce readers to the definitive book on the subject, The God of Israel and Christian Theology by R. Kendall Soulen. If I could require all budding theologians to spend a week in the woods with only a Bible and Soulen’s book, I am ashamed to say I would usurp dictatorial powers to make it so.

I will post this week, for example, about three kinds of supersessionism. One commenter on Jesus Creed mentioned that supersessionism should be defined only as “the OT promises to the Jews have devolved upon the Church, and the Church should continue to expect that God will treat the Church the same way as the Jews before Jesus, with the same privileges, etc.” If supersessionism only means this sort of thinking, then, it was argued, other views such as the idea that Judaism was fulfilled in Jesus and no more expresses God’s will, would be free of the taint of supersessionism.

I will examine Soulen’s three categories of supersessionism and suggest practical examples of these working out in church theologies and popular statements about the Bible, the work of Messiah, and the future.

I will also examine what Christian theology freed from the mess of supersessionism looks like.

Meanwhile, if anyone would like to discuss the issue, here is a conversation starter:

If you are involved in Messianic Judaism, how widespread do you feel supersessionism is and how damaging is its influence? Specific examples are helpful. Language respectful of churches and denominations is preferred as we in Messianic Judaism are no better in God’s sight even if in one area of theology we might have grasped an essential truth. So, if you can gently and humbly answer this question and discuss it, we will all profit.

If you are a Christian and not so involved in Messianic Judaism, what things cause you to question the prevailing tide of opinion that Christianity has superseded Judaism and Christians have superseded Jews as God’s people?

If you are a Jew and not involved in either Christianity or Messianic Judaism, how has the Christian attitude toward Jewish people affected you? Does the word triumphalism register with you? Are you optimistic about improvement in Jewish-Christian relations in the future?

Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology, ch 3

MAPPING MESSIANIC JEWISH THEOLOGY: A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH
Richard Harvey, Paternoster, 2009

Buy the book here or here. My review of MMJT is merely a summary and a list of some questions raised and not a replacement for owning the book. MMJT is a significant challenge for more work to be done in Messianic Jewish theology as well as a wonderful summary of what has come before. The value of owning this book is, first, to see the diversity already within the movement and, second, to imagine the future.

In Harvey’s third chapter, he summarizes previous studies of Messianic Jewish theology and does so in two sections. The first section is studies of the state of Messianic Jewish theology and the second is writers directly proposing Messianic Jewish theology.

The State of MJ Theology: Previous Studies
If anything, this part of Harvey’s book shows the inadequacy of previous studies in this area. The few studies of the state of MJ theology that exist are by those not involved in the congregational movement of Messianic Judaism.

Arthur Glasser was a missiologist at Fuller Seminary. In several writings from the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, Glasser describes what he sees in the movement at the time. He viewed MJ as an indigenous form of Christian expression, seeing three necessary developments in every ethnic subgroup of the church: (1) native musical forms, (2) organization around evangelistic priorities, and (3) theology contextualizing the concerns of the group.

In two studies focusing on the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), Robert Winer and Ruth Fleischer-Snow describe Messianic Judaism as the eschatological (last days) return of Jewish faith in Yeshua.

In a 2002 Yale study, Gabriela Reason compares the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) and the MJAA and their stance toward their evangelical Christian roots. She notes that the UMJC has moved further beyond these roots, identifying more with the Jewish community. Reason prefers MJ to remain evangelical.

Rich Robinson of Jews for Jesus wrote a 2005 field guide for Messianic congregations. He notes the development of a Hashivenu style Messianic Judaism, aligning more closely with Judaism and branching away from evangelical roots. Robinson defines as “healthy” expressions which remain more closely allied with evangelicalism (as Jews for Jesus is an evangelical parachurch ministry).

As can be seen from this summary, previous studies of MJ theology have not investigated the merits of deeper reflection on being Jews with faith in Yeshua. The need for Messianic Jewish congregations to navigate Jewish life and Yeshua faith, being related in different ways to Christian theology and history and Jewish theology and history. If anything, Harvey shows why a book like his was so needed.

Some Emerging Theologies of Messianic Judaism
The second part of chapter 3 is more fruitful. Harvey summarizes David Stern’s Messianic Jewish Manifesto (now available updated as Messianic Judaism), Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s Hebrew Christianity, and Mark Kinzer’s theology, some of which is found in his book Postmissionary Messianic Judaism.

Harvey argues that MJ theology has for the most part followed a populist model, producing popular level books and remaining close to evangelical concerns. Few, other than Mark Kinzer, have branched out into serious engagement with Christian and Jewish theologians.

MJ Theology to Date and in the Future
My take, after reading Harvey’s summary of previous work on MJ theology, is that we are on the verge of something great.

I say this because it is apparent that much that has come before has been limited by the small size of our movement, by a need in the early decades for many to remain close to evangelical Christian roots, and by an emphasis on the practical and popular.

But I know, because I work with and read the work of many great emerging scholars, that Messianic Judaism is coming of age. We have a plethora of theologians and scholars poised to make new contributions to theology from a Messianic Jewish perspective.

In relation to Christian theology, MJ theology offers a number of promising advancements. MJ theology offers a chance to reconfigure theological categories without supersessionism (the idea that the church replaces Israel as the people of God). MJ theology offers to Christian theology the tools of a more diverse Jewish hermeneutic (method of interpreting the Biblical texts). MJ theology offers more of an insider view of the apostles as men of Israel and not just men of the church.

In relation to Jewish theology, MJ theology offers a new perspective centered in Yeshua. Jewish theology is every bit as diverse as Christian theology and from the many streams there is potential for investigation of Yeshua within the existing structures.

My judgment is that Harvey’s MMJT comes when we are on the cusp of much development. MMJT encourages this development and will go on to suggest some directions as well.

Devekut: Deuteronomy 4:4

My daughter made a painting for me featuring this verse, a good one to keep in mind all day.

You who cling to Hashem, your God, you are all alive today.