Israel’s Story in the Bible

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of my book, called “Israel as the Vessel.”
……………………………
Get THE WORLD TO COME here.
To properly understand that Bible’s story, the canonical narrative, it is vital to realize something from the beginning. Creation was good, but not yet perfect.4

Sometimes people think God is restoring the world to the way it was before the Fall, before the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Actually, God had something better in mind from the beginning. Adam and Eve needed two things for sure: immortality and knowledge. So God planted two trees to provide them. He allowed them only to partake of immortality, but theologians have long suspected he had a plan to bring them knowledge in the course of time. God walked with Adam. He had some things to teach. There was more, but people were not yet ready.

Before this could happen, and none of this caught God by surprise, Adam and Eve brought the world further from consummation, not closer. The action of the first man and woman brought fundamental changes in Creation, changes rightly called the Fall.

After the Fall, the waywardness of humankind is obvious. Murder, lust, greed, and a desire for power and domination rule the earth. Even a flood only slows it down. Even scattering people and confusing their languages is only a stop-gap measure. God must have another plan.

Is God’s choice the one you or I would have made? Would we have had the wisdom to know that the best way to move into redemption and to consummate the world was to choose one man and create a human-proof plan?

God chose Abraham, a herdsman of some wealth and a pagan. If nothing else, the placement of the Abraham story should tell us that this is not an incidental, but a crucial step in God’s plan. God’s plan was to choose Israel as his vessel.

This may sound narrow, but here on earth, Israel is the vessel of God through which he is bringing redemption and consummation. Obviously, through Israel God already brought the scriptures and the Messiah. But God is not done. He is still using Israel as his vessel. Redemption is available through Israel’s Son, Yeshua, but redemption is not complete. God has more people and more of Creation yet to save. Further, God is not merely redeeming, but he is bringing all things to a world better than at Creation. The World to Come is greater than this world, and even greater than the world before the Fall.

How is God doing all this through Israel? Israel is his vessel. Israel is the priestly people, calling that is shared by Yeshua-followers but which is still not taken away from Israel. And Israel is at the center of all God’s covenants, his great and wise actions that bring redemption and consummation of all things.

God’s first formal covenant was with Noah, encompassing all of humankind. Yet there is nothing salvific in the covenant with Noah. It is with Abraham that redemption and consummation began to be worked out.

Through Abraham, God established a way of looking at humankind that remains to this day: Israel and the nations. In the covenant with Abraham, there are the descendants of Abraham, the blessed line, and all other peoples, blessed through Abraham’s line. God’s blessing comes through Abraham, through Israel, and through no other avenue.

God further advanced his covenant plan to redeem through the Sinai Covenant. The covenant given through Moses was about Israel being a priestly people, a people who showed God to the nations. You see this aspect of God’s plan not only in Exodus 19 but throughout the Psalms and prophets (do a concordance search on “the nations”).

Some people think the Sinai Covenant is over and done with. Israel failed and that covenant is nothing but a fossil. Yet, if you read the Sinai Covenant, you find that failure was built into the plan from the beginning.5

What few Christian readers know is that the next major covenant, the New Covenant, was also made with Israel. Just to be clear, Jeremiah says, “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”6 This is why the New Testament goes to great lengths dealing with Gentiles being “grafted in” and included in the promises through Yeshua.

Just in case anyone is unclear, and some in the early Roman church were unclear about this, Paul clarifies: God is still in covenant with Israel, yes, even non-believing Israel. Paul says, “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” and though “they are enemies of God for your sake” nonetheless “as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”7

Israel is God’s vessel, the lead actor in the canonical narrative. The canonical narrative is not finished. God has more to do. He has hinted at the future and we know what he has allowed us to glance at, but more of the story remains to be written. We should not be surprised that Israel is still the center of the story (don’t worry, the next chapter will be about the nations).
……………….
Notes
4 Jeremiah 31:3.
5 Hosea 11:8-9 (ESV).
6 Genesis 12:2.
7 Genesis 12:3 (ESV). There is some debate about whether the verb is passive (be blessed) or reflexive (bless themselves). Since Gen. 22:18 uses the reflexive (hitpa’el form), I presume that the ambiguous form in 12:3 (niphal) is passive.

Israel Uploads Video to YouTube: Truth About Kuntar

According to today’s Jerusalem Post, the following video was uploaded to YouTube by the Israeli government in response to the crowds in Lebanon cheering the release of mass-murderer Samir Kuntar yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS6NyrexKlk

Did CNN Make Improvements to this Story?

Maybe I am crazy, but when a thoughtful reader emailed to tell me I was wrong, I looked again at the CNN story about the Israeli-Hizbullah prisoner swap. The story now rightfully labels Samir Kuntar a murderer and not a militant. I notice the article says it was updated on July 17. I may be wrong, but perhaps CNN fixed their article. If so, kudos to them for getting it right in the end. If I am wrong and somehow missed it completely yesterday, then my apologies to CNN.

CNN’s Irresponsible Reporting: Goldwasser and Regev

I do not regularly read CNN.com and I don’t watch cable at all. So I make no claim to be a monitor or to know CNN’s record in reporting from long experience.

But I decided to check CNN’s reporting of the Goldwasser-Regev murders by Hizbullah while they were prisoners of war. The usual things I hear about CNN’s biased reporting seem to be true in this irresponsible article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/16/israel.swap/index.html

First, there is no mention that Goldwasser and Regev were murdered as prisoners of war. It is possible to deduce it from the article, since they say these Israelis were kidnapped (and thus not killed in action). Yet nowhere does the article mention, find a source to state outrage about, or clarify that Hizbullah murders its prisoners while Israel keeps them alive.

Second, the Hizbullah terrorists and even mass-murderer Samir Kuntar are called militants. If CNN had a commitment to integrity in reporting the news, they at the very least would not call Kuntar a militant. This man, in 1979, snuck into Israel, killed a policeman to avoid detection, and kidnapped a family. He shot Danny Haran in the back of the head while holding him hostage. He smashed four year old Einat Haran’s head on the rocks and killed her. Yael Haran was accidentally smothered by her own mother while hiding in terror and trying to keep the toddler quiet. Yet CNN calls this brave murderer of four year olds a militant. See more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

We’re not asking for much. We’re not asking for Israel to be given preference in reporting. We’re just asking that CNN would report the news.

See article above, “Did CNN Make Improvements to this Story?”

Arab-Muslim Brutality and the Murder of Regev and Goldwasser

Eldad Regev, killed while a prisoner of war.

The difference between Israel and her Muslim neighbors is starkly revealed yet again today in Israel. The Israeli government agreed to a foolish prisoner swap as they have done many times before, releasing mass murderer Samir Kuntar to the Hizbullah in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the war crimes of Hizbullah once again go unpunished.

Ehud Goldwasser, killed while a prisoner of war.

To understand this story, you have to know that the war with Lebanon was provoked by the abduction of Israeli soldiers, including Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, in July 2006. These soldiers were captured alive. International law dictates that prisoners of war should be kept alive and treated with basic human rights.

As of today, the families of Goldwasser and Regev were hoping to get their sons back, but certainly pessimistic about them being alive. Sure enough, when the time for the prisoner swap happened, the democratic state of Israel, which is constantly under fire for being too violent, returned the murderer Samir Kuntar alive. But Hizbullah returned two coffins with the mutilated bodies of their prisoners of war. The Goldwasser and Regev families are confirmed in their bereavement today.

And the Israeli government agreed to this prisoner swap, demonstrating a remarkable lack of will and common sense.

The liberal myth of potential peace with Islam takes yet another blow. Yet, as has been the case before, the truth will likely have no impact on world opinion. The world will still be talking about the aggression of Israel.

But a live murderer and two dead prisoners of war should tell us the real story.

Amy-Jill Levine Speaks Up for Messianic Jews

This article appeared in the July 14 web page for The Australian Jewish News (ajn.com.au), see article in original setting here. Many thanks to a reader, Glenn, who pointed me to the article.

Amy-Jill Levine is a professor at Vanderbilt. She is Jewish, liberal, academic, and an interesting person. I did a series of posts about her recent book, The Misunderstood Jew (get it here). Read the posts about Amy-Jill Levine here.

I appreciate a Jewish scholar of religion speaking up for Messianic Jews and Jewish Christians. Her comments will only appeal to liberal Jews, but that is a great start. She is not, of course, agreeing with Messianic Judaism by her comments, but confessing that Messianic Jews are not necessarily crackpots. Considering how many crackpots have given Jewish faith in Jesus a bad name over the years, this is a great start.

Here is the article by Peter Kohn writing for The Australian Jewish News, July 14…
……………………………………..
Scholar predicts softer line on messianic Jews
PETER KOHN

AN American Christian divinity scholar who is participating in an Australian Jewish study program has said the Jewish community may need to come to terms with Jews who believe in Jesus.

Professor Amy-Jill Levine trains Christian pastors at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and describes herself as “a Yankee-Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Protestant divinity school in the buckle of the Bible belt”.

Prof Levine and her partner Professor Jay Geller are lecturing at Monash University’s Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation Winter School program this month.

On the subject of messianic Jews, Prof Levine said that for many people there was a “dividing line here over which one cannot step” and “once the Jewish person accepts Jesus as lord and saviour, that person is no longer a Jew, but a Christian”.

Prof Levine said she respected that view but also looked at the subject from “the other side”.

Prof Levine said it was an “exceptionally complicated issue” because Jews who say they accept Jesus have “palpable and real” views.

“It’s often easier,” she said, “to simply say ‘I’m not a Jew for Jesus, I’m a Presbyterian or Lutheran or Catholic’, but what happens when they want to hang on to that Jewish identity, and what do we do with that individual’s family?

“One could look at them simply as a Christian, one could look at them from a traditional Jewish perspective as a ‘bad’ Jew or an apostate Jew, or a very confused Jew.

“On the other hand, if the argument is that they have a different way to the divine, a different pathway to God, then I can say the atheist Jew doesn’t care about God at all. Why would I accept one and not the other?”

Prof Levine said she was concerned at the impact on Jewish families. “Sometimes children of these marriages will say to their grandparents, ‘Gee, bubby and zaide, it’s too bad you’re going to hell’.”

Reflections on the World to Come

People who know me and hear my schtick on a regular basis probably tire of hearing them, but there are several rabbinic sayings about the World to Come that I repeat often because I find them foundational:

This world is like a vestibule to the World to Come; prepare yourself in the vestibule to enter the hall. (Pirkei Avot).

Better is one hour of blissfulness in the World to Come than the whole life of this world. (Pirkei Avot).

Not like this world will be the World to Come. I this world one has trouble to harvest grapes and to press them; but in the World to Come a person will bring a single grape in a wagon or a ship, store it in the corner of their house, and draw from it enough wine to fill a large flagon . . . there will not be a grape which will not yield thirty measures of wine. (Babylonian Talmud).

The following is a reflection on this inspiring, transforming topic . . .
…………………………………………

Get the book at Lederer’s site (here) or on amazon (here).

The World to Come has been on my mind for some time now. I spent several months working on my book. Now I am speaking about the World to Come in a variety of venues, in different ways and to audiences with different outlooks on the topic. Not long ago I was in a church in Arkansas where most of the people are senior citizens. I made the mistake of going for the sensational and being less than clear. I said, “If you think that following Jesus means you will go to heaven forever, you did not get that idea from the Bible.”

I went on to explain that heaven is our dwelling only in between death and the time of resurrection. But this crowd of dear people, nearly all of whom had lost loved ones, was too startled to hear my explanation. They only heard that our departed are not in heaven. I think they thought I meant the dead sleep until the time of resurrection. When the pastor explained this to me over lunch the next day, I was embarrassed and had to make a clarifying statement on that second night (good thing I was speaking for four nights in a row!).

I’ve taught about the World to Come in my small Messianic synagogue, among friends who know me well and hear me repeat myself sometimes. I’m preaching about the World to Come at a larger church where a pastor friend has just resigned.

In these different audiences with different issues and concerns and backgrounds, I am getting feedback and seeing just how the topic of life after death affects people.

I would say that I could distill the important lessons about the World to Come into a short list. The following is my attempt to do so.

First, I have learned that Bible readers have a variety of different blinders on. The most common blinder, and it especially affects this topic, is an inability to integrate the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament. The Christians I meet and talk with tend to know New Testament verse about the afterlife, but know little or nothing about the words of the prophets about the coming age of natural, agricultural paradise. There are a number of stunning surprises in store for these good people, not least of which is the prominence of wine in the World to Come. I confess to a depraved sense of joy in using the word wine as much as I can without seeming obvious when I teach in Baptist churches. And I think these good people are also unaware of the Jewish quality of the Bible’s descriptions of the life to come: Temple, statutes, ordinances, Torah, sacrifices, appointed festivals, and so on.

Second, I have learned that people fall into the trap of separating the physical and the spiritual. Even those who know in their head that the Biblical hope is resurrected bodies on a New Earth gravitate toward non-material images of the coming world. The color white dominates rather than the greens and browns of God’s good earth. It is as if we do not believe the God who said this was all good. That false dichotomy of spiritual and physical figures into much of Christian worship, as well (except in churches that have preserved a rich liturgical tradition). I can’t tell you how many times I have heard John 4 interpreted as a call to worship without physical observances (yikes). Few people really grasp, to alter the poetic phrase of William Blake, the marriage of heaven and earth.

Third, I have seen people’s light turn on when they realize that much that is in this world will also be in the World to Come. The World to Come is not some other planet or other dimension. It is this world transformed in a manner analogous to the transformation our bodies will undergo. The big realization we should get from this is that what we do here on this earth matters. In more ways than we can know or count, good done in this age will make a difference in the World to Come. God does not call for us to sit back and wait for him to redeem and perfect this world. Over and over again he calls us to repair the world with him, starting now. God’s kind of religion is described in several places:

Isaiah 58:6, “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?”
James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
Matthew 25:34-35, “Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink.”

Finally, I see that people need to know the endless source of inspiration we have available to us when we realize that this world will become the World to Come. That is why we are drawn to nature. That is why we hear the whisper of music in our soul. That is why the relative perfection of a young child awakens in us a kind of love we are helpless to resist. Heaven is calling to us from every perfect tree we admire to every stirring chord progression we surrender to. If we want to experience a foretaste of the World to Come, we only need to take a walk in a beautiful place or read about Middle Earth or Narnia or hold a young child in our arms.

It is as Paul said, “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair,” (2 Cor. 4: and yet, “we do not lose heart.” Why? Because: “Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:16-18).

Peter: Anti-Torah?

The idea has been mentioned by a Christian commenting to a recent post that Peter, in Acts 15:10-11 was affirming that Jewish obligation to the Torah of Moses had come to an end. The following is an attempt to test that hypothesis . . .
……………………………………………

The apostles hold an emergency session. How can the Yeshua-movement proceed? Non-Jews are responding to the call of Yeshua to the kingdom of God. Uncircumcised Romans and Greeks are in the congregations and following a Jewish Messiah. Shouldn’t these Gentiles convert (get circumcised and obey the Torah of Moses) in order to be followers of a Jewish Messiah? The idea seemed logical in Acts 15 and it was worthy of a meeting and of prayer.

Peter stands up to speak. God has dealt with him regarding non-Jews already (Acts 10-11). He defends the legitimacy of the uncircumcised followers of Yeshua. Then he says:

Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Yeshua, just as they will. (Acts 15:10-11).

What does Peter mean? Perhaps he meant something like the following:
1. We Jews are not so good at keeping Torah.
2. God, in Yeshua, came to show us that Torah is not the way, but grace is.
3. We Jews should abandon Torah, since grace is what really matters, and we should teach the Gentiles the same.

Anything like this above hypothesis faces some damning problems:
1. James and Paul were in agreement in Acts 21 that Torah and Jewish tradition were vital (Acts 21:21, 24).
2. The issue Peter was speaking to did not concern whether Jews should obey Torah, but whether Gentiles should.
3. The anti-Torah reading of Peter’s words goes beyond what is actually said.
4. No one in 2nd Temple Judaism was a Pelagian (thinking they were saved by their good works–this point has been thoroughly established and is the scholarly consensus).

Thus, I would suggest another reading of Peter’s statement, which keeps the focus on the question at hand, requirements for Gentiles:
1. We Jews have had difficulty keeping the boundary markers of Torah (Sabbath, dietary law, circumcision).
2. How could we get Romans to adopt a lifestyle that even Jews turn away from?
3. How could we win the world to Messiah if we must first get Gentiles to keep the boundary markers of Jewishness?
4. The boundary markers of Israel are not the main point, but the redeeming death of Yeshua.
5. So let’s not burden the Gentiles with a Jewish calling, but assume that following Messiah is sufficient for them.

Christian Missions to the Jews and Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism

So far I have not drawn any comments about PMJ from the Messianic Jews out there who read this blog. I listed twelve implications of Mark Kinzer’s book Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism and, thus far, only Christians who reject the obligation of Jewish believers to Torah have responded. I hope the conversation can include more diverse views at some point.

In light of the interaction so far, I want to comment on and excerpt a piece of Kinzer’s paper, “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later.”
…………………………………………………………..

I have for a long time had a question for the various Christian missions to the Jewish people, including Jews for Jesus and Chosen People Ministries and dozens of others. This question is not new and anyone who does this work has engaged it many times, I am sure.

The question: How important to God is continuing Jewish identity and how does your model of outreach handle identity?

Let me couch the question in Biblical terms. When God made a covenant with Abraham and declared that a people would come from him and bless the whole world, did God intend that a Messiah would come and bring an end to this covenant? Circumcision was to be the sign of identifying with these children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

How does the identity of being one of the descendants of Jacob get passed down?

The Jewish answer for quite a long time has been simple: Jews marry Jews and raise their children as Jews.

Is the answer of the Christian missions movement that this is no longer important? Does faith in the Jewish Messiah bring an end to the Jewish people? Should Jewish people assimilate into the larger Christian community and disappear?

I will excerpt a piece from Dr. Kinzer’s paper, add a few clarifying comments for those who might not understand his jargon, and leave the question out there for you:

Within the community of Christian missions to the Jews, I would hope for a willingness to pursue ecclesiological questions, and to see them as important in their own right and not only as subordinate matters related to missiology and soteriology. As should be clear from PMJ, I see Jewish communal identity as an ecclesial reality that is fundamental to the life and mission of the Christian Church. Some of the responses to PMJ from those in the missionary community have acknowledged the importance of these questions, and have summoned their colleagues to address them. To my knowledge this has not yet occurred, but the conversation has just begun.

In particular, I am eager to hear discussion among the missionaries concerning the importance of sustaining cross-generational Jewish life for their converts. Is it important that the grandchildren of Jewish believers in Yeshua also identify and live as Jews? If so, have traditional missionary methodsand models facilitated this goal, or hindered it? If bilateral ecclesiology in solidarity with Israel is not an option, how can this goal be achieved? Engagement with such issues will require that missionaries set aside atomistic approaches to ecclesiology, missiology, and soteriology, and think in more communal terms. In the process, they may discover neglected truths in a Bible that took shape in a world unfamiliar with modern Western individualism.

Clarifying a few terms:
1. Ecclesiological questions — Ecclesiology means our theology of congregation. What is a community of faith? How is it structured? What is its purpose? The ecclesiological questions most pertinent to Christian missions to the Jewish people are things like, “Should Jewish believers in Jesus be assimilated into churches?”

2. Missiology and soteriology — Missiology means the method of mission or outreach. Soteriology means theology of salvation.

3. Jewish Communal Identity — What does it mean to be a Jew? How does Jewish identity continue from generation to generation?

4. Bilateral ecclesiology — Kinzer’s own term for the idea that Jewish believers should form distinct communities rather than assimilate culturally into Christian communities. Bilateral means that Christian and Messianic Jewish communities are two wings of the same Jesus-movement, distinct, yet related by faith and a commitment to brotherhood.

5. atomistic approaches — Approaches to the kinds of questions raised here that are individualistic instead of creating community-wide solutions. An atomistic approach is sort of a “do what is right in your own eyes” solution instead of finding standards for the whole community to follow.

So, how about it? How will Jewish life continue among those Jews who believe in Jesus? Is God abolishing Jewish identity in Messiah? If not, how will the methods of Christian missions take seriously a need for continuing Jewish identity?

Video Chat with Derek Leman, July 14 and 18

Threads, the publishers of my recent book, Feast, are staging a Virtual Coffee Break on oovoo.com the week of July 14.

You can sign up to chat with me on video July 14 from 12-2 Eastern Standard Time or July 18 from 6-8 Eastern Standard Time. There are also some great authors of other books you can chat with during the week. To sign up go to: http://www.threadsmedia.com/index.php?/showcase/

If you are not familiar with Threads, you may want to be. If you would like to have Small Group study material that is relevant and captivating, check out threadsmedia.com

Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, 3 Yrs Later

As a Messianic author, I mean no disrespect to any other author when I say that thus far in our movement, we have had only one truly academic book published about Messianic Judaism. It is the 2005 volume Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement With the Jewish People by Mark Kinzer (get it HERE).

The fact that the book is academic has pluses and minuses. There are people who have read and will read the book specifically because it is by an academic press and written in the language of the academy. There are people who won’t read the book because it is written in this way. Many people simply will not make the effort to read an academic book (which is why I write in a more popular style–that and the fact that I don’t have a PhD and perhaps would not be able to get published by an academic press).

If the importance of Israel as a people is something you care deeply about and if you are a reader, both of which qualifications are likely what drew you to this blog in the first place, then I urge you to read this book. If you want to understand the future of Messianic Judaism, I believe Dr. Kinzer’s book is the beginning of that future.

Some have been put off by the title “post-missionary,” as if the title means we do not have a message to share with our Jewish people. Dr. Kinzer is quite clear about this. Of course we have a message. We have Messiah. But “missionary” refers to a certain stance Christians have taken toward the Jewish people, a stance which has promoted continued misunderstanding. The missionary stance is: (a) you Jewish people are wrong, (b) we Christians are right, (c) you Jewish people must listen to what we have to say.

In Jerusalem, at a recent lecture, Dr. Kinzer delivered a paper, “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later.” I am not aware at this time of the paper being available online. I will make it available on Messianic Musings if that becomes a possibility. At any rate, reading the article that follows should give you a good idea of the heart of Dr. Kinzer’s message.
……………………………………………………………………………………….

Speaking at “The Lindsey Lectures” in Jerusalem on July 1, 2008, Rabbi Dr. Mark Kinzer reflected on the review and discussion of his 2005 book, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism (get it HERE). Kinzer’s book has been discussed and reviewed in both academic and missionary publications. Naturally the reaction by the missionary world was unfavorable, as Kinzer’s book calls for a change beyond what mission agencies would be likely to consider. Thus, Kinzer summarizes the reaction of Rich Robinson of Jews for Jesus and Baruch Maoz, an Israeli Christian leader who opposes the very idea of Messianic Judaism:

Some readers have found PMJ deeply disturbing. One of the earliest reviews called it “profoundly defective“ and “unbiblical“ (Robinson 2005). Another asserted that “If Mr. Kinzer’s platform were to be adopted, the biblical faith of Jesus would be destroyed among both Jews and Gentiles“ (Maoz).

Quite helpfully, in this paper, Kinzer shines the spotlight on two main ideas in his book. The first idea is widely accepted in Messianic Judaism but is rarely accepted even by forward-thinking Christian theologians. The second idea is only narrowly accepted by a sub-movement within Messianic Judaism. What are these two seminal ideas?

1. Jewish followers of Yeshua have a covenantal obligation of faithfulness to the Torah which necessitates Messianic Jewish communities as distinct from yet related to Christian communities. These Messianic Jewish communities are a part of the larger Jewish community.

2. Jewish tradition has legitimate authority in defining Torah observance and God (and Yeshua) have been active in Jewish tradition, though this tradition is not infallible.

The case for Messianic Jewish faithfulness to Torah and for distinct congregations (as opposed to Jewish believers simply blending into churches) is simple. The New Testament upholds to obligation of Jewish believers to live as Jews bound by the Torah. Living the Torah must be done communally. The Torah life is not an individualistic life, but one that calls for mutual support and walking out commandments and observances together. It is impossible for Jews in non-Jewish communities to truly follow their calling as Jews. Assimilation is not an option for a faithful Jewish believer. Kinzer refers to the case he makes in his book:

In that chapter I examine how the Apostolic Writings deal with a set of Jewish practices rooted in the Torah which by the first-century had become crucial markers of Jewish identity: circumcision, Shabbat and holiday observance, and kashrut. I reach the
following conclusion:

Our survey of the New Testament teaching on Jewish practice (for Jews) has produced a surprising result. We have good grounds for upholding the view that the New Testament as a whole treats Jewish practice as obligatory for Jews. (95)

I do not assert here merely “that Messianic Jews lived Torah observant lives during the New Testament period“ (Glaser, 31). Instead, I contend that the Apostolic Writings consider such observance to be an obligatory expression of Jewish covenantal fidelity rooted in theological conviction rather than prudential judgment.

The final sentences of Chapter 2 demonstrate how I view the importance of this proposition:

This conclusion has profound theological implications. In many ways, the remainder of this book is an attempt to reflect on those implications and on their significance for the church and for the Jewish people. (96)

The discovery of an enduring requirement for a basic level of Torah observance for Yeshua-believing Jews is interesting and important in itself, and stands as a foundational principle of much of the Messianic Jewish congregational movement in the Diaspora.

This concept is widely (though not universally) accepted among Messianic Jewish congregations. Messianic Judaism is not about bagels and lox, but Shabbat and Torah. Messianic Judaism is more than another cultural expression. It is a distinct community within the body of Messiah, the Jewish wing of Yeshua’s global movement. Messianic Judaism’s roots are in the Jewish mission of Peter and James from the book of Acts.

Christian theologians, even those highly disposed toward Israel and Judaism, are reluctant to accept this idea. Even R. Kendall Soulen, author of The God of Israel and Christian Theology, expressed concern:

Kinzer’s vision of the church as a community of reconciliation between those who remain genuinely different left me with some lingering questions about how Kinzer would deal with the more traditional but nevertheless wholly justified ecclesial concern to express messianic peace through visible unity.

If the first of Kinzer’s seminal ideas is accepted in Messianic Judiasm but not so much by Christians, the second seminal idea is only narrowly accepted even in Messianic Judaism. Here is the idea described in Kinzer’s paper:

This sets the stage for the most radical and controversial chapter of PMJ. Having looked at the historical Christian “No“ to Israel, we now examine the historical Jewish “No“ to Yeshua. The underlying premise of both Chapters 6 and 7 is that Jewish practice requires a living tradition of communal application, and that any twenty-first century version of the Jewish ekklesia must recognize Jewish tradition as having some measure of
authority.

One cannot build a contemporary Judaism exclusively on either the Bible or modern (or postmodern) sensibility. Without some connection to the historical experience of the Jewish people, Judaism evaporates into thin air. (215)

But this raises the question, how can Yeshua-believers treat as in any sense authoritative a tradition that said No to Yeshua?

Kinzer’s answer to that question is yes. Messianic Judaism cannot make an end-run around Jewish tradition. While the rabbis did not believe in Yeshua, this does not mean that God, or even Yeshua, has been absent from their work. The Bible is filled with examples of God working through people and institutions that reject key components of God’s revelation (I might mention Balaam as one example and the magi of the New Testament as another).

Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism is a book calling for change. It is calling for Christians and Messianic Jews to recognize a new paradigm which can be summarized in the following points:

1. Jewish followers of Yeshua are a distinct group within the community of Yeshua in the world.
2. Unity and diversity are not contradictory and distinction within unity is both possible and necessary.
3. The New Testament affirms the Torah lifestyle for Jewish people, whether followers of Yeshua or not.
4. Jewish followers of Yeshua cannot effectively live out the mandate to be Torah-faithful Jews and at the same time assimilate into Christian communities.
5. The unity of Jew and Gentile in Messiah cannot mean blending and assimilating, but must mean a unity on a higher level, the practical implications of which greatly need to be discussed by Christians and Messianic Jews.
6. Faithfulness to God’s Torah means involvement in the people of the Torah, the larger Jewish community.
7. God has appointed judges in Israel to set standards for the community of Israel and the rabbis fulfill this function.
8. Accepting the authority of the rabbis decidedly does not mean conforming to various varieties of Orthodox Judaism (anyone knowledgeable about Judaism knows the wide variety of opinions).
9. Where there is a large consensus within Israel about how the community keeps the Torah, Messianic Jews are duty-bound to follow in order to be faithful to Torah in its communal sense.
10. Private Biblical interpretation is very important, but must not be allowed to separate Messianic Jews from the larger Jewish community.
11. Messianic Jews must work toward the vision of being a voice in the Jewish community and a voice in determining community standards (we are far from realizing this dream–but keep in mind promises of a great turning to Yeshua in the future within the Jewish people).
12. Messianic Judaism must represent Yeshua within Judaism and not as a voice from the outside.

I would like to hear from you, especially regarding the twelve points above. What do you think? Please comment (reasonably short comments please). If possible, refer to one of the twelve points above as you express agreement, objection, or a need for further clarification.

Notes in Impurity/Uncleanness

I decided to wait on the posts about “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later” until Sunday or Monday.

No point opening up such an important topic when everybody is partying and not in a theology frame of mind. I’m sure everyone will be more serious by Monday after all the partying.

These are some notes I wrote to explain the Biblical laws of purity and impurity. They are, of course, only a summary, but I think you might enjoy thinking about them . . .
…………………………………..
Summary
It is no sin to be unclean. A woman who has a baby becomes unclean. A son who cares for his father’s dead body becomes unclean. Sometimes it is a sin not to become unclean. Yet God taught Israel that certain things made them unclean and gave them procedures to cleanse themselves. He said it was a sin not to cleanse themselves (Lev. 15:31; Num. 19:13), but he never said it was a sin to be unclean.

What, then, does it mean to be unclean? Every cause of uncleanness is symbolic of either death or loss of life. (Note: I discovered these truths from the commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor series by Jacob Milgrom.)

Explanation
Lev. 12: Childbirth. Loss of blood is a loss of life.
Lev. 13: Skin Disease. Causes a person to look like a corpse (whitened skin).
Lev. 14: 33ff. Mildew. Mildew grows on dead things.
Lev. 15: Semen, Menstruation, and other genital discharges. Loss of semen or blood is loss of life.
Num. 19: Touching a corpse. A corpse is death itself and touching a corpse makes one unclean for seven days.
Lev. 11: Eating any meat other than the allowed animals. Restricted death to a handful of species in Israel, so that the land would not be a land of death.

Symbolic impurities, that represented death, polluted God’s sanctuary along with sins of the people. God’s does not desire for his presence to dwell in the midst of sin and death.

Death was God’s punishment for our sin in the Garden. God originally created us for life. Sin is what causes death, and is repugnant to God.

Uncleanness, if not cleansed, polluted God’s Temple (Lev. 15:31; Num. 19:13).

When a woman in the northernmost part of Israel gave birth to a child, her loss of blood symbolically caused pollution at the sanctuary. When a man in the southern regions of Israel cheated his neighbor on a sale, the sanctuary was polluted. It required a cleansing. If the sanctuary was not cleansed often, then God’s presence would have to withdraw from the sanctuary and from Israel. That is exactly what happened in the end, in 586 B.C.E., when the sin of Israel hit the breaking point and God abandoned the temple. After that, the Babylonians destroyed the temple and sent the people into exile.

Essential Books: Messianic Judaism, Israel, and Christianity

There are several books I consider must-haves for those who want to get into the theology of Messianic Judaism, Israel, and Christianity. Of course it is important to have books on Biblical studies and Biblical commentary. It is important to have books on rabbinic thought, tradition, and prayer. It is vital to have books on Church History, Jewish History, and Christian Theology.

But when it comes to Messianic Judaism, Israel, and Christianity, I have a short list of books I would not want any informed person to be without:
1. Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple
2. Oskar Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries
3. R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology
4. David Stern, Messianic Judaism, formerly known as Messianic Jewish Manifesto
5. Mark Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism

Coming tomorrow and in days ahead, I will be commenting on a paper just delivered by Rabbi Mark Kinzer called, “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later.”

The book is academic theology written for people who regularly read academic theology. Thus, when I recommended it to a very bright member of our congregation, she came back and said, “This book is hard and it is taking me forever.”

I will explain the basics of Rabbi Kinzer’s book and those who don’t read academic theology should be able to understand my explanation easily enough.

But having said that: don’t think you should not buy this book simply because it might have jargon or be a little over your head. If you are up to a challenge and you care deeply about this Messianic Jewish movement, you need to read Rabbi Kinzer’s book. It will challenge you and it will open your mind to new things.

Seven Developments in Resurrection From Judaism to Yeshua

I have said many times that my favorite New Testament scholar, by far, is N.T. Wright. And this is despite the fact that I find his view on Israel and Jewish people sadly deficient. He is a conundrum on this point, a man who knows his Judaism better than almost any Christian scholar and yet who continues to cling to an Anglican supersessionism (the common Christian view that the church replaces Israel).

Anyway, in this article, I am explaining just another little piece of brilliance from Wright . . .
………………………………….

In December 2007, N.T. Wright delivered a lecture called, “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?” The article is brilliant without being difficult, a rare balance of clarity and genius. In other words, it’s the kind of thing we have come to expect from N.T. Wright. Access the full article by Wright HERE.

In one portion of his paper, Wright explains seven developments in the concept of resurrection from Judaism to the New Testament. What I will do is list and briefly summarize these seven developments and then include Wright’s own words for your reading pleasure.

To meditate on these seven developments will expand your concept of resurrection and bring you into the pleasures of good theology.

Listing and Describing the Seven Developments

1. Moving from Judaism’s diversity of resurrection concepts to the unified theology of resurrection in the New Testament. Whereas Second Temple period (500 B.C.E to 70 C.E.) Jewish texts record varying concepts about the details of resurrection, the New Testament concept of resurrection is remarkably unified and detailed.

2. The vastly increased importance of resurrection for Yeshua’s followers as compared to its lesser importance in Second Temple Judaism. Resurrection is not a frequent or central topic in ancient Jewish texts, but is the backbone of New Testament faith.

3. Moving from an unspecified view of the resurrection body to a specific view: that we will have transformed bodies both continuous and discontinuous with our present bodies. The key text is 1 Corinthians 15, where we learn the resurrection body will be perfected, sinless, and immortal as well as the concept that it will be a spiritual body (Wright interprets this as a body animated in a different fashion, by the Spirit). By contrast, Second Temple Jewish texts show variation about the kind of body we will have.

4. Moving from a one-stage resurrection to one that is two-stage. Whereas Judaism anticipated a general resurrection at the end of the age, the New Testament introduces a novel development: Yeshua first and the rest of the redeemed at the end of the age. This would have been a surprising twist, for example, for Paul when he heard Yeshua’s voice on the road to Damascus.

5. Moving from the not-yet resurrection of ancient Judaism to the now-and-not-yet resurrection of the New Testament. Since Yeshua has already inaugurated the age to come, his followers believed that God had called them to make this world better in the present. This is nearly identical to the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, but I believe Wright is saying that the New Testament thought of the concept first.

6. The development of a metaphorical use for resurrection. Just as in Ezekiel 37, where resurrection is a metaphor for the nation of Israel being reborn, so in the New Testament, resurrection is used metaphorically for the new life a person lives when following Yeshua.

7. The development of resurrection as a cardinal doctrine of Messiahship. As Paul says in Romans 1, Yeshua was “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection.” In ancient Judaism, there was no idea that Messiah would die and be raised. Though this concept is in Isaiah 53, it was not fleshed out in Jewish texts from the Second Temple period and never became part of Judaism. It is in the New Testament that resurrection and Messiahship come together, so that the resurrection is the primary evidence that Yeshua is Messiah.

Wright’s Own Words
The following excerpt is from N.T. Wright’s paper (mentioned above):

The first modification is that there is virtually no spectrum of belief on this subject within early Christianity. The early Christians came from many strands within Judaism and from widely differing backgrounds within paganism, and hence from circles which must have held very different beliefs about life beyond death. But they have all modified that belief to focus on one point on the spectrum. Christianity looks, to this extent, like a variety of Pharisaic Judaism. There is no trace of a Sadducean view, or of that of Philo. For almost all the first two centuries resurrection, in the traditional sense, holds not only centre stage in Christian belief about the ultimate future but the whole stage.

This leads to the second mutation. In second-Temple Judaism, resurrection is important but not that important. Lots of lengthy works never mention the question, let alone this answer. It is still difficult to be sure what the Dead Sea Scrolls thought on the topic. But in early Christianity resurrection has moved from the circumference to the centre. You can’t imagine Paul’s thought without it. You shouldn’t imagine John’s thought without it, though some have tried. Take away the stories of Jesus’ birth, and all you lose is four chapters of the gospels. Take away the resurrection and you lose the entire New Testament, and most of the second century fathers as well.

The third mutation has to do with what precisely resurrection means. In Judaism it is usually left vague as to what sort of a body the resurrected will possess; some see it as a resuscitated but basically identical body, while others think of it as a shining star. But from the start the early Christians believed that the resurrection body, though it would certainly be a body in the sense of a physical object, would be a transformed body, a body whose material, created from the old material, would have new properties. That is what Paul means by the ‘spiritual body’: not a body made out of non-physical spirit, but a physical body animated by the Spirit, a Spirit-driven body if you like: still what we would call ‘physical’, but differently animated. And the point about this body is that, whereas the present flesh and blood is corruptible, doomed to decay and die, the new body will be incorruptible. 1 Corinthians 15, one of Paul’s longest sustained discussions and the climax of the whole letter, is about the creator god remaking the creation, not abandoning it as Platonists of all sorts, including the gnostics, would have wanted.

The fourth surprising mutation within the early Christian resurrection belief is that ‘the resurrection’, as an event, has split into two. No first-century Jew, prior to Easter, expected ‘the resurrection’ to be anything other than a large-scale event happening to all God’s people, or perhaps to the entire human race, at the very end. There were, of course, other Jewish movements which held some kind of inaugurated eschatology. But we never find outside Christianity what becomes a central feature within it: the belief that the resurrection itself has happened to one person in the middle of history, anticipating and guaranteeing the final resurrection of his people at the end of history.

I am indebted to Dominic Crossan for highlighting what I now list as the fifth mutation within Jewish resurrection belief. In a public debate in New Orleans in March 2005, Crossan spoke of ‘collaborative eschatology’. Because the early Christians believed that ‘resurrection’ had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed also that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness. If Jesus, the Messiah, was God’s future arriving in person in the present, then those who belonged to Jesus and followed him in the power of his Spirit were charged with transforming the present, as far as they were able, in the light of that future.

The sixth mutation within the Jewish belief is the new metaphorical use of ‘resurrection’. I have written about that elsewhere. Basically, in the Old Testament ‘resurrection’ functions once, famously, as a metaphor for return from exile (Ezekiel 37). In the New Testament that has disappeared, and a new metaphorical use has emerged, with ‘resurrection’ used in relation to baptism and holiness (Romans 6, Colossians 2—3), though without, importantly, affecting the concrete referent of a future resurrection itself (Romans 8).

The seventh and final mutation from within the Jewish resurrection belief was its association with Messiahship. Nobody in Judaism had expected the Messiah to die, and therefore naturally nobody had imagined the Messiah rising from the dead. This leads us to the remarkable modification not just of resurrection belief but of Messianic belief itself. Where messianic speculations existed (again, by no means all Jewish texts spoke of a Messiah, but the notion became central in early Christianity), the Messiah was supposed to fight God’s victorious battle against the wicked pagans; to rebuild or cleanse the Temple; and to bring God’s justice to the world. Jesus, it appeared, had done none of these things. No Jew with any idea of how the language of Messiahship worked at the time could have possibly imagined, after his crucifixion, that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Lord’s anointed. But from very early on, as witnessed by what may be pre-Pauline fragments of early credal belief such as Romans 1.3f., the Christians affirmed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, precisely because of his resurrection.

Dating the Afterlife

If you somehow thought I typed the title wrong and meant “dating IN the afterlife,” you came to the wrong place.

These thoughts sprang from a little reading in Simcha Paull Raphael’s Jewish Views of the Afterlife. It’s an interesting book, marred in my opinion by questionable assumptions, but useful because of the nice summaries and citations from literature all the way from Bible to modern Judaism.

What I have below is really not some final product or well thought out paper, but some notes I decided to make about dates for various key texts in the development of the Jewish view of the afterlife in Second Temple Judaism (516 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. plus or minus).

The impetus for doing this was my sense that Raphael was not being careful in putting references in 1 Enoch in their likely chronological order.

What might interest you, the reader, is to think about approximate dates for the emergence of certain ideas. Just how old are various ideas about the afterlife (inasmuch as we can tell from the writings that have survived to date).
………………………………………………..

The Origins of Resurrection
First, how soon did the idea emerge in the Biblical era that life goes on after death? Aside from a few possible hints, such as in Ecclesiastes 12:7 (”the spirit returns to God who made it,” but the date of Ecclesiastes is debated) and perhaps certain ideas about Sheol or being “gathered to his fathers,” the first clear mention of the afterlife is in Isaiah:

Isaiah 26:19 (c. 740 B.C.E.) “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy. For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead.”

Arguably, since many scholars think Daniel was written in or after the time of the Maccabees (I don’t), the next mention is in Daniel:

Daniel 12:1-2 (c. 535 B.C.E) “Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake–some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.”

Resurrection, which means a bodily afterlife, is a unique idea to the Jewish people. The Greeks developed non-material views of the afterlife, disembodied souls in a kind of spiritual paradise. Only Israel believed the physical is good (see Genesis 1) and that afterlife is physical existence on a renewed earth.

A Word about 1 Enoch
The book we call 1 Enoch survives primarily in fairly modern manuscripts in Ethiopic. The earliest complete copies are from the 1400’s or so. Some Greek fragments go back to about the 700’s. Most importantly, some Aramaic fragments have been found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls (before 70 C.E. to be sure).

Yet 1 Enoch is not one book written during one period of time. Evidence is rather good that Enoch is a collection of writings from different periods. No one can say for sure what was written when, so dating Enoch is not a lot better than a shot in the dark. The dates I will give for various parts of Enoch are from the Charlesworth edition of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and the article on it by E. Isaac:
–1 Enoch 1-5, Late Pre-Christian (say 100 or later B.C.E.).
–1 Enoch 6-11, Late Pre-Maccabean (say 200 B.C.E.).
–1 Enoch 12-16, Early Pre-Maccabean (say 400-200 B.C.E.)
–1 Enoch 18-19, 104-105 B.C.E.
–1 Enoch 37-71, 104-63 B.C.E. with some earlier texts incorporated within
–1 Enoch 72-82, 110 B.C.E.
–1 Enoch 83-90, 165-161 B.C.E.
–1 Enoch 91-107, 104-105 B.C.E. with some earlier texts incorporated within

Paradise: The Garden
The word paradise comes from a Persian word (pardes) meaning a garden. The idea of a garden of God, either a return to Eden or a new and better Eden, goes back to 1 Enoch:

1 Enoch 61:12 (c. 104-63 B.C.E.), “All the holy ones who are in heaven will bless him, and all the elect who dwell in the Garden of life.”
1 Enoch 77:3 (c. 110 B.C.E.), “…garden of righteousness…”
1 Enoch 90:23 (c. 165-161 B.C.E.) “…the garden of the righteous…”

Resurrection in 1 Enoch
1 Enoch really doesn’t make new ground here, but it affirms resurrection, as in Isaiah and Daniel, and even the separate destinies of the righteous and wicked at the resurrection, as in Daniel:

1 Enoch 51:1-3 (c.104-63 B.C.E.), “In those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she had and Hades will give back all that it owes. And he shall choose the righteous and holy ones from among the risen dead, for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived.”

Denial of Resurrection in 1 Enoch?
Raphael gets it wrong here. He writes as if Enoch also contains a denial of the resurrection. However, the following quote is what sinners will taunt the righteous with at death. Therefore Enoch is affirming resurrection here also. Nonetheless, it is likely that different opinions existed, just as later with the Sadducees (no resurrection) and Pharisees (definitely resurrection):

1 Enoch 102:6-8 (c.104-105 B.C.E.), “As we die, so do the righteous die. What then have they gained by their deeds? Behold, like us they have died in grief and darkness, and what have they more than we? From now on we have become equal . . . from now on they shall never see light forever.”