What is a good way to say it?

Just finished my final exam today for “The Shape of Messianic Jewish Theology,” a class I am taking online and through DVD from the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute (mjti.org). MJTI is associated with the UMJC (umjc.net). It was a tough course with sophisticated reading and a kicker of a final. Sixteen pages of theology-packed prose later, I am alive.

I thought of an interesting blog topic while feverishly finishing my final. Most of my final exam paper involves analysis and comparison of four rather heavy books. You would need a lot of context to understand most of what is being said. I’m not insulting your intelligence; just saying a concise blog would not do it justice.

But here is a simple topic derived from one part of my conclusion in the paper:
What is the best way to say the good message (the gospel)?

Is it . . .

1. You must be saved from your sins by faith apart from works?

2. Believe in Jesus so you can go to heaven?

3. God has a wonderful plan for your life; he sent his Son to die on the cross so you can have eternal life?

4. Believe in this set of doctrines (virgin birth, deity of Christ, depravity of man, atonement by blood) and you will live forever?

5. You are separated from God but Jesus made a way back to God, so receive him by faith now?

I think you get the idea. My answer would be that none of these is complete. And they focus on the wrong thing. They are sort of a consumer-driven way of explaining the good news for one thing. “I have some good news for you, something that is free which you will want to buy into right away. The benefits are outstanding…” Of these choices I like #5 the best.

But are any of these adequate in bringing someone to faith in the God of the Bible, the Messiah of the Bible? Is afterlife the main point of the good news or just the best selling point?

I want to advocate a holistic gospel, one that captures the essence of what God is doing in the whole Bible.

God is not merely some nice deity who just popped up recently to offer us an afterlife. He is the God of creation and the God of covenant who revealed himself to the world through Israel. He is the God who has a plan to bring this world to perfection in a world to come. That world to come centers around the people of Israel and the land of Israel. It is no wonder so few Christians know about Israel and the future when we omit it from our gospel.

I know, some of you right now are saying, how will you put that in a short message? How will that be biblical?

Well, sorry, but I saved the sucker punch for last. We should explain the gospel the way Jesus did: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” All the right elements are there:

Repent: Turn from the sin that separates you from God and, by the way, God provides only one way to be forgiven.

Kingdom of heaven: The world to come will be centered in Israel and reflect the paradise shown to us millennia ago by the Jewish prophets. Israel’s God is moving all things in this direction and you want to be on board before it comes.

Thoughts?

Pt 5: Thoughts From Levine’s 3rd Chapter

This is part of a series of blogs on Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, just released by Harper San Francisco. Amy-Jill Levine teaches New Testament at Vanderbilt and is an Orthodox Jew, though a progressive and a feminist (how’s that for a contradictory list of identifiers!). My musings on her book may range from using her as a springboard for topics to critiquing her work or allowing her work to critique myself and others.

Finally, back to some reviews and reflections from Levine’s book.

Let me say that I am not completely happy with this book. I don’t think my unhappiness is merely due to difference in point of view. I recognize that Levine is not coming from the same point of view as me.

I am sympathetic to Judaism and to Christianity. I live as a Messianic Jew. I am frequently with Christians and frequently with Jews. I understand some of the issues from both sides. I am critical of both sides.

Levine is also critical of both sides. Her beliefs as a Jew peek through the pages and look to be on the left side of Orthodoxy. If she wrote a book on the Orthodox movement today I have no doubt there would be sharp criticism as well as respect. She is critical of Christianity as well. The way she reads the New Testament would be offensive in places to Christians who love the text. Anyone reading the Torah with the same critical attitude she applies to the New Testament would be offensive to Jews who love the text (and should be to Christians also).

For example, and with great irony, in a chapter where Levine is answering the question, ‘Is the New Testament anti-Jewish?’ she belittles a New Testament text. I won’t bother with specifics (this portion is on page 113), but does anyone like to hear about a text they venerate: “This story makes no sense from any historical perspective”? Maybe we should ask the question, “Is Levine anti-Christian?” Maybe we should ask, “Isn’t everybody anti-something-they-are-not?”

If you are an traditional Jew, you may be unhappy with Levine’s sympathetic treatment of the New Testament. If you are a Christian or Messianic Jew, you may be unhappy with Levine’s critical treatment of the New Testament.

As I review and reflect on themes in her book, I am tempted to go in one of two directions:
1. I will bring up issues in which I agree with her and use them to argue against either my Christian friends who make no place for Jewish identity in the gospel or my Jewish friends who make no room for a Messiah like Yeshua in their belief, or
2. I will bring up issues in which I disagree with her and use them to argue against a sort of liberal reading of the Jewish-Christian dialogue.

I’ll probably be guilty of doing a little of both. But for today, I just want close with one more example of something I did not like in Levine’s argument. It is the way she handles one text in particular, but it is typical of other treatments as well.

The text is Galatians 3:16, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” Now, this is a great Pauline midrash (a kind of reading common in Judaism). Paul is applying Genesis 12:7 to his readers: “To your seed I will give this land.” The same phrase occurs numerous times as God repeats the promise.

Here is one way midrashic interpetation works: you find something unusual in a text and you go beyond the literal interpretation. No one thinks you are saying what the text literally means. You make an application that is legitimate from a fanciful reading of an anomaly in the text. The anomaly in Genesis 12:7 is simple: “seed” could be singular or plural since it is a collective noun. It is like our word “seed,” which can mean one seed or many (“I spread seed all over the yard.”).

Paul is not denying the literal meaning, that the blessing to Abraham will pass on through Abraham’s abundant seed, the people of Israel. In Romans 4:13 he uses it in this literal sense. Paul is rather adding to the literal sense a midrashic one. The promise is both to a plural (seeds) and a singular (seed). Who is this singular seed of Abraham who passes on the Abrahamic blessing? It is Yeshua.

Levine surely knows Midrash (better than I do, I presume). Yet she approaches Paul as a scholar not versed in Jewish thought would approach him. She simply looks for the literal meaning of Genesis 12:7 and says that Paul does not measure up: “The interpretation [by Paul in Galatians 3:16] is clever, but it does fly against the plain sense of the verse. . . . Paul would need better ammunition” (p.79).

Levine is a New Testament scholar and views these texts over and over again through the years. She is certainly not new to the interpretation of and literature about Galatians 3:16. She is well-versed in midrashic interpretation. I can only speculate why she overlooks, purposefully or not, the natural Jewish understanding of Paul’s midrash.

Sabbath Meditation: Strangers and Natives

Okay, it’s about to be Shabbat. If you are observant, I hope you have laid out your best white tablecloth, set up your candles, and gotten ready your challah loaf and bottle of Manischewitz Concord Grape (or any suitable Merlot will do). I hope you are sanctifying the time and connecting to tradition.

I had thought to write a Sabbath meditation that would take us away from the topic most commonly discussed on the blog: Jews, Gentiles, and Torah. I thought a little food for the soul would be good and also that people might be tired of this topic coming up so often.

But then I thought about the parasha [the portion of scripture traditionally read this Shabbat]. It is Parashat Bo, Exodus 10:1-13:16. It contains some verses that I see as foundational to the issue of Jewish identity and Torah.

1. Exodus 12:49 The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.

2. Exodus 12:43 This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it;

3. Exodus 12:48 But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

The first verse I listed, Exod. 12:49, is often used by my friends who believe that Gentiles in Messiah inherit the Torah and become obligated to keep it. The King James uses the phrase “one law” instead of “same law.” So some people categorize those who belive this way as the One-Law movement. I respect this movement and have found a great deal of godliness in its adherents. But I respectfully disagree.

The second verse I quote here, Exod. 12:43, might confuse some people. It is not a law against Gentiles having a Passover Seder (with the ritual foods such as horseradish and parsley) but is a law against Gentiles eating the sanctified meat of Passover lambs whose blood has been applied in the temple. Still, and this is the crucial point: God distinguishes between Jew and Gentile in matters of Torah.

Finally, the third verse I quote, Exod. 12:48, is a liberating one for people like me. I was not born a Jew. I realize that there is nothing wrong with being born a Gentile. It is not preferable in God’s eyes for me to be a Jew. Yet I have felt such an attraction to the Jewish people and to Judaism. I have identified with Jewish life increasingly for twenty years. And Exodus 12:48 tells me that a sort of conversion was always part of the Torah.

Many are vehemently against a follower of Yeshua converting (even though one of the seven deacons of Acts was a convert, check Acts 6:5). Some of my friends in the One-Law movement have told me that there is no conversion in Exodus 12:43. But consider: a stranger who cannot eat the Passover converts into one like a native-born who can. Some of my friends in Christian, and even Messianic Jewish, congregations have told me that conversion goes against the gospel (and Galatians). But that was forced conversion or conversion with the idea that it is necessary to convert in order to be saved.

Well, enough of the debate. Here is a meditation for the Sabbath.

Are you a native-born? Are you a foreigner? Are you a stranger in the gates? God’s promises are for all. He does distinguish between Jews and Gentiles, but it is not better to be one or the other.

If you are a Gentile and you love Jewish customs and you love Jewish people, you can be like Cornelius and other God-fearers. They worshiped in synagogues and gave alms to Jewish causes. Cornelius was a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually (Acts 10:2).

If you are a Gentile and your calling is not so much with the Jewish people, do not fear. Your calling was also foretold long before the New Testament. You need not spread a Sabbath tablecloth and follow Jewish customs. Let me use the same verse that james used in Acts 15 to show that God foreordained Gentiles to come in large numbers into the kingdom without becoming Jews: And all the nations who are called by My name (Amos 9:12). It is not just Jews who are called by God’s name, but also Gentiles as Gentiles. Every time you see the word nations used in a promise from the Hebrew Bible, you are reading about yourself. God’s plan is to bless all the nations (Gentiles) through Israel.

If you are Jewish, spread your tablecloth and rejoice. If you are like me, a Gentile by birth and a Jew by choice, rejoice because your calling is also ordained.

Brief Thought: Soulen and the SCN

Those interested in hearing more about Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, please be patient. I will get more on here about it. I have so much other reading I have to do for my final exam and for some freelance writing assignments, I’m a little behind. If you keep checking, you will see a lot more and at a faster rate about Levine’s book.

Today, I’m going back to R. Kendall Soulen’s God of Israel and Christian Theology, a book I recommend to anyone interested in theology and the Jewish people. As you may find out in future posts, I vehemently disagree with his proposals for a new way of understanding the Bible and the the Jewish people, but I love his diagnosis of the problem and find him simply brilliant.

A brief quote followed by a paraphrase and my thoughts:
Part one [of the book] examined the logic and limitations of the church’s standard canonical narrative [SCN, see below for definition]. The standard model provides narrative construal of the Christian Bible that gives powerful expression to the church’s central confession: the God of Hebrew Scriptures acted in Jesus of Nazareth for all the world. Nevertheless, we have seen that the church’s model does this in a manner that is profoundly supersessionist [see below for definition] in both doctrinal and structural ways. Doctrinally, the model depicts carnal Israel’s role in the economy of redemption as essentially transient by virtue of the spiritualizing and universalizing impetus of God’s salvific will. Structurally, the model renders God’s identity as the God of Israel largely indecisive for shaping theological conclusions about how God works as Consummator [perfecter of Creation] and Redeemer [savior of Creation] engage creation in universal and enduring ways.

First, two quick definitions, then a paraphrase, and then a few thoughts.

Standard Canonical Narrative: A canonical narrative is an explanation of how the story of the Bible hangs together. What unites the Bible from Genesis to Revelation? The SCN is: 1. Creation, 2. Fall, 3. Redemption in Christ, and 4. Consummation or Perfecting the World for Eternity. The problem with the SCN is that Israel is left out and only Genesis 1-3 and the New Testament need even be in the Bible!

Supersessionism: The idea that the church supercedes Israel or replaces Israel. Israel no longer has a place in God’s economy. Israel served its purpose and is now on the shelf. The church is happening. Israel is a has-been.

My paraphrase of Soulen’s excellent quote:
The SCN of the church does justice to Jesus but fails to account for the majority of the Bible. If Israel is relegated to the back shelf, then it is hard to take God seriously. It would rather seem as though the history of Israel was a trivial game leading to the true goal: saving everyone through Jesus. If God’s purposes for Israel are not complete then we need a new canonical narrative that explains how Israel is central to God’s plan to perfect and redeem this world.

Some will fault my paraphrase, but regardless, here are a few thoughts:
1. 80% of the Bible is the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Shouldn’t it play a much larger role in our theology?
2. Paul said scripture was God-breathed and to him scripture was the Hebrew Bible (all the scripture there was at the time).
3. The Hebrew Bible makes Israel the center of God’s plan for the nations.
4. It is a myth that Gentiles are passed over in the Hebrew Bible. From Deuteronomy 32 to the prophets, Gentiles are very much part of God’s plan.
5. The prophets promise Israel a glorious and unrealized future. It cheapens the Bible to say a magic word and turn those promises into a picture of the church instead of Israel.
6. If God plays those kind of games we should all be afraid because he might decide he likes somebody else better than Christians someday. After all, the church has a checkered history and has so many issues of shallowness, sin, corruption, and error in our present day that it is laughable to say the church is doing better than historic Israel.
7. So don’t cling to your theology as an immovable rock, but let the scriptures be a fresh wind always blowing through the mental sands and reshaping them into God’s beautiful truth.

Derek

Jacob (James) the Brother of Messiah

Here is a topic-du-jour not related to the Amy-Jill Levine book, which we will continue to review and discuss in future posts. The subject of James came up in my life yesterday as I was writing a freelance assignment. I had to quote the words of Josephus about James the brother of Yeshua. His name was actually Jacob (Ya’akov). James is simply a misnomer from the Greek Iakobos, Jacob. Does anyone out there know if King James had anything to do with Iakobos becoming “James”?

Josephus was a Galilean who served as commander of the Jewish forces in the first Roman revolt (66-70 C.E.). Josephus was captured and became a bit of a traitor, helping the Romans translate in their negotiations with the Jews. He was taken care of by the emperor after the war and sought to redeem himself by writing favorably about the Jewish people for a Roman audience.

Numerous characters come up in Josephus. It is what makes reading him so hard. There are so many details and so many characters, it makes Lord of the Rings seem like a one-act play.

The account about James in Josephus serves mainly as an illustration of how cruel the high priest Ananus was and how he became unpopular with the people. His execution of James was one major reason the people ceased to support him:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that which he had already done was not to be justified. (Ant. 20.9.1).

Did you catch that? The significance of this portrayal of James is great for understanding his character. The people, especially the devout, were not happy about James’ execution. They considered James, the Messianic Jew, a righteous man. Josephus makes a point to show that the Sanhedrin could only execute him while the Roman government was temporarily without a leader. Josephus also shows that the people sided with James against the Sanhedrin.

In a time when Jews were so divided over the issue of Yeshua, what made James so popular with the people? After all, he was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem according to Acts.

There are several clues in the New Testament and in early Christian writing that can help us understand his popularity. First, from the book of James it is easy to see that James was: (1) a champion of the poor (1:10-11; 2:2-6; 5:1-6), (2) a man concerned with keeping the Torah properly and in the spirit of love (1:22, 25; 2:8, 12), and (3) a man skilled in teaching Jewish wisdom (James 3). James was a man so righteous, filled with the teaching of Moses and the prophets, and so full of love and wisdom, even those who disbelieved in Yeshua could not accuse him of any wrong.

Eusebius, an early Christian historian, quotes an even earlier historian, Hegesippus, about James. According to Hegesippus, James was known as “camel-knees” because he prayed often and knelt in prayer. James prayed, furthermore, in the temple, with other Jews, and did not separate himself from his Jewish brothers.

I would like to suggest that James is a great paradigm for Messianic Judaism today. We need to be:
1. In the Jewish community (as James was praying at the temple) without compromising our faith in Yeshua.
2. So identified with righteousness, love, and concern for the poor (as James’ writing and reputation reflect) that we cannot be discredited.

Father, may our spirits be like the spirit of James, champion of the poor, lover of his people, and keeper of Torah.

Pt 4: An Issue from Levine’s 2nd Chapter

This is part of a series of blogs on Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, just released by Harper San Francisco. Amy-Jill Levine teaches New Testament at Vanderbilt and is an Orthodox Jew, though a progressive and a feminist (how’s that for a contradictory list of identifiers!). My musings on her book may range from using her as a springboard for topics to critiquing her work or allowing her work to critique myself and others.

First, let me say thanks to a reader who encouraged me to be more careful about lumping Christians together when the truth is that many Christians today love Israel and want to have a pro-Israel theology. Please do constructively criticize. It helps me learn.

Second, let me remind you that I am not as thrilled with Levine’s second chapter as I was with her first one. It is rather unimpressive. I hope he won’t mind me quoting him, but Rich Robinson characterized it as: the second chapter seemed too often a breezy rehash of Discovery-Channel caliber about the history of the early church (everyone was apocalyptic; when Jesus didn’t reappear, they adjusted their religion; Paul divided the world into those who believed the right things and those who were damned). There was no real attempt to understand the early church “sympathetically” and no nod to alternative ways to read early church history. Rich has a blog you may want to check out: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/blog/20070119TheMisunderstoodJew. (I think it is important to say that I have some problems with the philosophy and practices of Jews for Jesus, but I respect Rich and many others in the organization as great thinkers).

So, enough of that. Now on to the issue du jour. Levine raises a good issue in her second chapter: how did the Jewish movement called the Way become the Gentile movement known as the church. She has her own answer to the issue called “The Failed Two-Track System.” Here is my summary. If you’re out there, Dr. Levine, I invite you to correct me if I misspeak for you:

1. The original movement was completely Jewish and Torah-Observant. For those not initiated in such discussions, Torah-Observance comes down practically to three practices not found in traditional Christianity: Sabbath observance on Saturday and by Jewish standards, circumcision of sons, and dietary law (no pork, shellfish, etc., and other regulations not found directly in the Bible).

2. Then the mission to the Gentiles developed and many Gentiles became followers of Yeshua.

3. Peter and James devised a plan she calls the Two-Part Track: the Jews would be Torah-Observant and the Gentiles would not, with both groups remaining separate.

4. Paul initially agreed with this approach. He said, “To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win Jews . . . to those that are without Torah [Law] as without Torah” (1 Cor. 9:20-21). That is, Paul kept Torah when he was with Jews, but enjoyed pork chops and grilled lobster at First Ephesus.

5. Then, more and more, the congregations became mixed groups of Jews and Gentiles.

6. So, in response, Paul’s ecclesiology [theology of how to do church] changed to a one-body-of-Messiah model. That is, there were no longer Jews or Gentiles but all were to be one new man. Practically, this meant no one would be Torah-Observant. In this model, the Jews had to lose their identity for the sake of the Gentiles (the common practice for 2,000 years of Christianity).

7. Paul sought to eliminate Jewish distinction in the congregations and to proclaim a lawless gospel in Christ. Numerous Christian interpreters of Paul use this term, “lawless gospel” or “law-free gospel.”

Now, practically, many Christians would agree with the outcome of Levine’s view but would have problems with such ideas as: (a) Paul had to change his theology as the situation changed and (b) Peter and James believed in Torah-Observance. So here is a similar model that I have heard from many Christian thinkers:
1. Original church was Jewish and kept Jewish customs (same as law, but only did them as a custom).
2. Mission to the Gentiles developed and the church sought answers from God about what to do.
3. Paul, Peter, and James understood that there would be two tracks, one Jewish and one Gentile, but the Torah observance in the Jewish track was merely custom and as a transition (Augustine espoused this view).
4. Paul kept Jewish customs only to win Jews but did not keep the Torah as a matter of principle.
5. The need for Jews and Gentiles to be together in one body meant Jewish customs had to be eliminated or greatly reduced.

I could argue for paragraphs about a lot of details, but I try to keep these posts readable and brief. So let me simply suggest a model I find more compelling:
1. Original movement was Jewish and Torah-Observant.
2. Mission to Gentiles developed and Paul, Peter, and James realized early that Torah-Observance was not required for Gentiles.
3. There were two-tracks in the movement with mixing gradually increasing. The solution was unity in diversity. That is, Jews remained Jews and Gentiles remained Gentiles. The only Jewish customs that had to be forbidden were non-biblical traditions such as forbidding Jews and Gentiles eating at the same table. Sharing a common table, however, in no way meant Jews giving up dietary law.
4. The intention of the apostles was that the movement would continue on two tracks with permeable borders. Gentiles could worship in predominantly Jewish congregations but would have to respect Jewish distinctives. Jews could worship in Gentile congregations (witness John and Paul) but without abandoning Jewish distinctives.

Finally, one little argument: the frequent interpretation of 1 Cor 9:20-22 that Paul was kosher with Jews and a pepperoni-eater with Gentiles is absurd. First, it would be the utmost hypocrisy to keep kosher as a ruse to win Jews. Second, Paul was against inconsistency and opposed Peter in Galatians 2 for that very reason. Third, it is easily possible to understand Paul’s stance on this without resorting to making him a hypocrite. If you wonder how [***warning***commercial plug***], try reading my book, Paul Didn’t Eat Pork, available at hopeofdavid.com.

Pt 3: A Question from Levine’s Second Chapter

This is part of a series of blogs on Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, just released by Harper San Francisco. Amy-Jill Levine teaches New Testament at Vanderbilt and is an Orthodox Jew, though a progressive and a feminist (how’s that for a contradictory list of identifiers!). My musings on her book may range from using her as a springboard for topics to critiquing her work or allowing her work to critique myself and others.

First the bad news and then the good news. Levine’s second chapter is a little dry. Nothing revolutionary here. It is called “From Jewish Sect to Gentile Church.” Could have been interesting, but in the first place it was a little too basic. I guess it was written for benefit of readers who are not well-read in New Testament background and Second Temple Judaism.

Anyway, one annoying feature–she makes a dozen or so attempts to color the early Messianic community as a Marxist movement. She uses a bizarre collection of unrelated verses in the New Testament to paint a picture of a movement that rejected traditional family values (“neither married nor given in marriage” Mk 12:25) and that canceled all private and public debt (“they had all things in common” Acts 2:44). These things will work in the Age to Come because sin will be dealt with, but they are naively utopian in this age. For the record, Marxism has never worked.

Second, the good news. Levine does raise a few interesting issues in this chapter. The one that caught my attention was this one: Why Paul persecuted the church is a matter of some speculation. was he concerned that members of the Way were seeking to replace the Torah with Jesus? . . . Had he heard that the followers of the Way were teaching that the Law was unimportant or marginal or somehow replaced by Jesus? . . . Could Paul have been worried about the safety of his fellow diaspora Jews [because this new movement was viewed as Jewish and was bound to clash with the Romans]? . . . Or had Paul heard that Jesus and his followers uttered threats against the Temple? . . . Or perhaps Paul had heard that these messianists were praying to Jesus or through Jesus, for that practice may have suggested a second God . . .

This is an interesting question to raise. Why was Paul persecuting the Yeshua-followers?

Too often, it is assumed that Paul was a sort of proto-Pelagian before Christ. Pelagius believed man was essentially good and that we could earn merit by keeping God’s commandments. We can save ourselves. Supposedly, this is what Judaism, especially Pharisaism, believed. Thus, Paul went from being a saved-by-keeping-the-law Pharisee to a saved-by-faith-apart-from-the-law Christian. Much of this view comes from Luther’s reading and Luther read Paul in light of his own struggle with the Catholic church and indulgences.

Just today I was reading from a Christian missiology book (Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology And Mission by Dean E. Flemming) which gave this exact (minus the word Lutheran) portrayal of Paul’s “conversion.” It is a terrible misunderstanding and oversimplification.

Jews like the pre-Yeshua Paul were not worried about “getting in.” They were already in. They were Jews and they did not fall away from God’s covenant. They did not think every time they gave a denarius in alms they got closer to earning a ticket to heaven.

So Paul probably had no qualms about a community of Jews who followed the teachings of a man like Yeshua who kept the law. The Messianic Jews were known for keeping the law. Paul did not persecute the Yeshua-followers over the issue of Torah.

N.T. Wright has made a case that Paul was a Shammaite Pharisee (What St. Paul Really Said, a book with many flaws, but worth reading). He was part of a movement motivated by zeal like Phinehas in the Torah. He believed that he could help bring Messiah if he would rid the land of heretics.

What made the Yeshua-followers heretics? It is impossible to say with certainty since Paul’s complaint is never spelled out in detail. Yet the obvious answer would seem to be that: (a) they claimed their leader was the Messiah though he did not fulfill the expectations of Messiah (defeating Rome, restoring Israel, ruling the world in peace), (b) they claimed that Yeshua was divine, and (c) they claimed the Messianic Age had already begun.

Paul certainly had a different idea of the Messianic Age. It was the same as the idea of the Zealots, who sought to overthrow Rome with violence and assassination. Yet Paul’s method was zeal for Torah and purifying the land. Paul wanted to see Rome overthrown, but the way to make it happen was to bring Israel into forced obedience to Torah (don’t laugh, Hezekiah and Josiah had been praised by God for doing just that).

So, what happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus? Did he finally see that the Torah was obsolete and the new way of the lawless gospel was God’s answer? No, he saw that he was wrong about Messiah and the Messianic Age. He found out that a notorious Jew executed for claiming Messiahship had been raised from the dead. The Age to Come had already started, just as these followers of the Way proclaimed. The resurrection of the dead had already started in Yeshua. And the Gentiles were already being included as the prophets had foretold. His previous vision of messianism was wrong.

Paul started as a Jew and ended as a Messianic Jew. Plain and simple.

El Shaddai and HaShem (Shabbat Meditation)

Hope many of you are settling down for Shabbat (the Sabbath). We have delightful smells coming from the kitchen. The house is quiet before the big night. Shabbat soup, chicken, wheat challah, and other foods will soon be eaten.

It is a Jewish custom [I'm saying this for readers who might not know] to read selected portions of the books of Moses each week. This week’s portion is Va’eira (“I appeared,” from Exod. 6:3).

Exodus 6:3 is a verse often used by those who do not believe Moses wrote the five books attributed to him. There is a theory called the Documentary Hypothesis. Here is a short explanation of the theory if you are unfamiliar: Modern scholars often assert that Elohim is the preferred name for God in one of the alleged sources of the Torah (most suggest five sources, J, E, P, D, and H). In this theory, J and E are earlier versions of the stories written anonymously. J prefers God’s name and E prefers Elohim. P (priestly), D (deuteronomist), and H (holiness) are later editors who added sections and made modifications based on their own theological ideas.

The way some people read Exodus 6:3, God revealed his name for the first time to Moses and to anyone in this story. Abraham and the other patriarchs did not actually know God’s name. The stories of the patriarchs contain God’s name only because a later editor inserted them.

First a quick explanation about God’s name. In Judaism, God’s name is not spoken. Indeed, we do not really know the vowels for certain, but only the four consonants. We say Lord, Adonai, or HaShem (the Name) instead. The New Testament follows a similar practice using kurios, Lord, in place of God’s name.

Now, let’s look at Exodus 6:3 and consider what God might mean: I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by My name, HaShem, I did not make Myself known to them.

I am following the insight of Umberto Cassuto here in explaining what God means. Cassuto was an Italian Jewish scholar during the 1940’s and 1950’s with a tremendous knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern sources, the Hebrew language, and rabbinic interpretation.

Cassuto points out that El Shaddai is God’s name in all the verses where he blesses the people with fruitfulness. Check the blessings in Genesis and you will see this is true. So El Shaddai represents God’s nature as a God of blessing.

HaShem, on the other hand, is explained in Exodus 3 as being God’s name related to his fulfilling his promises (you simply must read Cassuto’s commentary–there are rabbinic interpreters with the same insight). So HaShem represents God as the keeper of covenant promises.

Now we are prepared to see what God means in Exodus 6:3. He is saying to Moses, “I am HaShem. The patriarchs knew me as the Blesser, El Shaddai, and I did not make myself known to the them as the Fulfiller, HaShem. But I am about to make myself know to you in that way.” The patriarchs received the promises, but did not experience them being carried out.

This Shabbat, my prayer for you is that you may know him as El Shaddai and HaShem. May El Shaddai bless you and make you fruitful. May HaShem fulfill his covenant promises in our day, speedily and soon. Amen.

A Quotation (In Place of an Article)

I’ve had a crazy-busy week with appointments and extra studying for a class I’m taking at the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute from Dr. Mark Kinzer (mjti.org). So, while I am still reading Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, I keep have not had time to write a review and musings on her second chapter.

So I thought I would share a quote from a very good book, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism by Mark Kinzer (are you reading this, Dr. Kinzer? A little brown-nosing at exam time can’t hurt, right?).

The following quote is a piece about the life of a great Messianic Jewish pioneer, Isak Lichtenstein:
…Isak Lichtenstein (1824-1909), a Hungarian rabbi who became a Yeshua-believer in 1883…but did not publicly announce his faith for several years. He resigned from his position as officiating rabbi in 1892. Like [Joseph] Rabinowitz, he was a controversial figure among missionaries and Hebrew Christians [Christians of Jewish descent in the days when Torah-observance was not conceived of as a valid part of Jewish faith in Jesus]. This was the case for three reasons. First, he refused to be baptized (though he reputedly baptized himself in the name of Yeshua in a Jewish ritual bath). He made this decision in order to retain his religious status as a Jew, with the rights and privileges it entailed in the Jewish world (e.g., burial in a Jewish cemetery). Second, Lichtenstein continued to live in a pious Orthodox manner. If the basic Torah observance of Rabinowitz provoked heated discussion, one can imagine the response to the traditional practice of Lichtenstein! Third, as a contemporary writer reported, Lichtenstein refused “to attach himself to any agency that brings converts into membership in denominational churches.” Lichtenstein himself lived as a Jew among Jews, and he would not ally himself with missionaries whose efforts resulted in fellow Jews taking a different course. (Kinzer, p.278).

Musings:
1. Many would say Lichtenstein’s decision not to be baptized was a betrayal of Yeshua. I do not agree. I think it resulted from a faulty understanding (not by Lichtenstein alone, but by most Christians) that baptism signifies membership in a particular church or denomination. He wanted to be a Jew and not a Baptist-Methodist-Presbyterian-Episcopalian-or-whatever.
2. Lichtenstein’s stance as a Jew with faith in Jesus and membership neither in a synagogue or church was a stance of the greatest courage. It is extraordinarily difficult to stand alone against universal opposition and misunderstanding.
3. Lichtenstein was a pioneer, a man far ahead of his time. He saw that there was no future in Jewish faith without Jewish identity.
4. Taking a stance like Lichtenstein does not necessitate antagonism to the church. I do not know what view he held about the church, but it is possible to remain separate and have mutual respect.
5. Lichtenstein’s story is a narrative that challenges Messianic Jews today to consider Jewish identity’s proper place. If God continues to have a covenant relationship with Israel, if Jewish mission agencies (e.g., Jews for Jesus) and Christian denominations see little or no place for Jewish identity, then we can have respect while remaining separate. We can gently oppose the efforts of Jewish mission agencies to “get Jews saved” without reference to continuing Jewish identity.

Thoughts? Comments?

Derek

Pt. 2: Musings on Levine New Book, Ch. 1

This is part of a series of blogs on Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, just released by Harper San Francisco. Amy-Jill Levine teaches New Testament at Vanderbilt and is an Orthodox Jew, though a progressive and a feminist (how’s that for a contradictory list of identifiers!). My musings on her book may range from using her as a springboard for topics to critiquing her work or allowing her work to critique myself and others.

Sometimes I know I sound like a broken record, repeating again and again, “Our faith is Jewish . . . Messiah is Jewish . . . God’s covenant is with the Jewish people and through them to the nations . . . Jesus was Jewish . . . Jewish this and Jewish that.”

There surely are many other important things to discuss in theology and biblical studies. And even on this blog we will cover a diversity of topics related to Messianic Jewish theology and the Jewish background of the Bible. But we will come again and again to the topic of Judaism and faith in Messiah Yeshua. It is precious to us and we have a long way to go to get equal time with the history of de-Judaized theological talk amongst the followers of Jesus.

So it is with great joy that I discuss Levine’s first chapter, called “Jesus and Judaism.” For the initiated there is much here that is familiar. Let me briefly summarize many of the connections she finds (not revolutionary, but nice reading):
–“Jesus’ connections to the basic Jewish teachings were right on target” (p.21). He listed the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5) as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29-30). He connected the loving neighbor command with the loving God command as some contemporary Jewish literature also did. He taught a golden rule very similar to a maxim of Hillel’s. He wore tzit-tzit, the ritual fringes which are today a part of the tallit (prayer shawl) of Judaism (cf. Mark 6:56 and Num. 15:37-40).
–Against the frequent charge that Jesus opposed the traditions of the teachers (the Oral Law), Levine rightly notes that these traditions were: (a) not fully formed and (b) not of one voice, but held many diverse opinions within them and had room for disagreement.
–Jesus kept the Sabbath (cf. Luke 4:16ff).
–When Jesus met opposition for healing on the Sabbath, the majority of his Jewish onlookers agreed with Jesus and not the strict opponents.

She goes on to speak of the edginess of Jesus’ parable in their original context. Her example is the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee. Levine rightly catches reverse self-righteousness in the traditional interpretation:
A. The tax collector was a bad sinner, but he repented honestly.
B. The Pharisee was a hyprocrite who in his self-righteousness thanked God for not being like the tax collector.
C. Now we have been caught in a trap because we catch ourselves saying, “Thank you God that I am not like the Pharisee.”
Rightly, Levine challenges the idea that Pharisees were all hypocrites.

Levine adds a juicy possibility that I invite those who have more time and more skill at Greek syntax to check out. She says Luke 18:14 may read, “I tell that this one [tax collector] went down to his house more justified than the other” instead of “rather than the other.” That’s right: Jesus may have said that the Pharisee was also forgiven, but that his prayer was not received as well as the tax collector’s. That should be good news for us, since we have all been in the shoes of that Pharisee and should hope for undeserved favor too.

Levine has a lengthy section examining the Lord’s Prayer and its many connections to Jewish thought. I give her mixed reviews in this section. If you are unfamiliar with Jewish literature, take her comments with a grain of salt, though many of her points are solid. Jesus gave his disciples a prayer that is very Jewish (with possible allusions to prayers from the synagogue in his time).

One of her concluding thoughts is well-phrased: “Jesus of Nazareth dressed like a Jew, prayed like a Jew (and most likely in Aramaic), instructed other Jews on how best to live according to the commandments given by God to Moses, taught like a Jew, argued like a Jew with other Jews, and died like thousands of other Jews on a Roman cross.”

Levine in places has an annoying tendency to reduce things to a liberal notion of utopia. I suppose others might say that traditional interpretations have an annoying tendency to ignore social justice. Nonetheless, I cannot affirm that the primary meaning of God’s kingdom is “a time when all debts are forgiven, when we stop judging others . . .”

But let me close with another strong challenge that springs from Levine’s writing. She notes that, on the one hand, “the fact that Jesus was a Jew has not gone unrecognized”, but on the other, “the claim that ‘Jesus was a Jew’. . . is not central to the teaching of the church” (p.18). Jesus still “remains defined . . . as ‘against’ the Law . . . as ‘against’ the Temple” (p.19). “Christianity follows Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Cleveland or Jesus of Mexico City” (p.20).

I urge followers of Yeshua the Nazarene reading this to take it to heart. The fact that Yeshua wore fringes as commanded in the Law (Num. 15:37-40, cf. Mark 6:56) “mandates that respect for Jewish custom be maintained and that Jesus’ own Jewish practices be honored, even by the Gentile church that does not follow those practices” (p.24). If you are teaching or preaching, do not speak negatively of Jewish things. When Yeshua speaks negatively of his Pharisaic, priestly, and scribal opponents, remember he also found much in common with them and sometimes praised them. Take time to learn what he meant in his criticism and don’t paint Judaism with a broad brush.

Musings on Levine’s New Book, Introduction

This begins a series musing on and, to some degree, reviewing Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew, just released by Harper San Francisco. Amy-Jill Levine teaches New Testament at Vanderbilt and is an Orthodox Jew, though a progressive and a feminist (how’s that for a contradictory list of identifiers!). My musings on her book may range from using her as a springboard for topics to critiquing her work or allowing her work to critique myself and others.

In the introduction Levine tells us a bit of her story, growing up Jewish and fascinated with Christianity. It is a theme familiar to many of us in Messianic Judaism. We hear the stories of our congregants and many of us hear stories of childhood fascination with the “other” religion: Christianity.

Levine was so fascinated that she told her friends she would soon have her first communion. Her Jewish parents, of course, would not allow that to happen. So she dressed a Ken doll like a priest and put Barbie in a new white dress to take her first communion in.

After this brief attraction to Christianity, imagine Levine’s surprise when a Catholic schoolmate said to her, “You killed my Lord.” The local priest had preached an anti-Semitic sermon. Levine’s parents complained to the diocese and the issue was taken seriously. The local church changed its teaching after that.

This too is a theme we often hear in Messianic Judaism. When I explain to a church audience the history of Christian anti-Semitism, most are horrified. They had no idea the depth and pervasive atrocity of the church’s history of insulting, persecuting, and killing Jews. Even now I imagine a reader saying, “But those were Catholics and they aren’t real Christians.”

If you aren’t familiar, I urge you to find out about Luther’s “Treatise Against the Jews and Their Lies” as well as the church’s complicity in the Holocaust.

Levine began attending classes at the local Catholic church, learning the stories of the New Testament. She discovered many connections between the New Testament and her faith. Matthew 2-7 certainly reminded her of Exodus and the story of Israel:
–Jesus survives when babies are being slaughtered
–Jesus went into Egypt and came back
–Jesus crossed a body of water in a divine experience
–Jesus experienced temptation in the wilderness
–Jesus went up a mountain and taught the law.

The suffering and death of Jesus reminded Levine of stories told in synagogue about Jewish martyrs like Rabbi Akiba.

As an adult, Levine read and studied the New Testament, becoming a New Testament scholar. She concluded that the New Testament did have some anti-Jewish parts as well (it is possible to be Jewish and be anti-Jewish). Yet she also decided the New Testament need not be read as an anti-Jewish book.

Levine urges interfaith dialogue between Christians and Jews. If Christians will study Judaism and vice-versa, the two will not merge into one religion, but a lot of prejudice may disappear on both sides. To some degree I agree with Levine. Interfaith dialogue has produced some beautiful thoughts. Pinchas Lapide’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective and Michael Wyschogrod’s Body of Faith are wonderful books.

Yet I have one problem with interfaith dialogue: Messianic Jews are never invited to the table. It is fine for a Jew to find connections with Christianity as long as he or she does not decide you can be a Jew and believe in Jesus. On the other side, for Christians it is fine to find beauty in Judaism as long as you don’t think you can believe in Jesus and still be Jewish.

That leads me to a challenge for my Christian readers, especially pastors, teachers, and leaders: You can believe in Jesus and still be Jewish! I mean dietary law and all. There is a quote by Levine I’d like us to ponder together: “Christian teaching from the pulpit continues to present a negative picture of Judaism.” I concur. Well-meaning pastors who love Israel still consider words like Law and Pharisee to be bad words.

Just today I sat across the table from two pastors who argued that when a Jew becomes a Christian it no longer matters to God that they remain Jewish (they are Christians now and that is better!). More than once, these gentle men referred to me as promoting “Pharisaism.” And these are kind, biblically literate leaders who love Israel!

Here is a challenge to pastors and teachers: Do you speak in a negative tone about the Law and the Pharisees? Have you taken time to understand them? Do you know the ways that Jesus agreed with his Pharisee opponents as well as the ways he disagreed? Or do you just repeat what you heard in not-thoroughly-researched classes and sermons?

So far, I think Levine’s book is stimulating. I have been forewarned by a friend that there will be problems with her thought as I keep reading. I will point to her flaws as well as her well-turned phrases. Meanwhile, let’s grasp the basic thrust of her introduction: the New Testament and Judaism are not so far apart as many people think.

Incarnation: Is it Jewish?

Today I will share a thought from Orthodox Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod. His recommended books include Abraham’s Promise and The Body of Faith. He is very biblical and prioritizes the Bible over tradition. His thought sometimes approaches Messianic Judaism, but he does not believe that Yeshua is Messiah and does not accept the New Testament as scripture.

Coming soon, a multi-part series on a book I am now reading by Amy-Jill Levine, an Orthodox Jewish New Testament professor (yes, you read that correctly). She has just written a book called The Misunderstood Jew. It promises to be an exciting series. I have just started the book, so look for the series to start next week.

Meanwhile, back to a thought from Michael Wyschogrod. This is from a book called Religion and Intellectual Life 3, written in 1986. Wyschogrod is saying that, while he does not accept the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus, the idea is not incompatible with Judaism:

[God's covenant with Israel] depicts a drawing together of God and Israel. In some sense . . . it can be said to involve a certain indwelling of God in the people of Israel whose status as a holy people may be said to derive from this indwelling. Understood in this sense, the divinity of Jesus is not radically different–though perhaps more concentrated–than the holiness of the Jewish people.

The incarnation is the New Testament doctrine of God becoming a man so that Messiah is literally the God-man, both divine and human. Wyschogrod likens the incarnation doctrine to the theme in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) of God being in the midst of Israel. It is not that men and women in Israel are divine, but that God dwells in the midst of his people. This is a repeated theme in the Bible, with the glory of God dwelling in the sanctuary in the midst of the people. It is also evident in the prophets who said that God would still be with Israel in the nations to which they are scattered.

For Wyschogrod, and I would argue this is biblical, God indwells Israel as a nation in a manner similar to the way God indwells New Testament believers. He is not talking about the New Testament doctrine of the Holy Spirit per se, but the fact that God is in the midst of his people.

I believe this too. It is true of New Testament believers in some different and more specific ways, but it is also true of Israel and the Jewish people today. In the Holocaust, it was Yeshua suffering with the millions of murdered Jews. In the Crusades and Inquisitions the church was persecuting Yeshua along with the Jewish people. God has not abandoned his covenants with Israel after Yeshua any more than he would have before Yeshua (Rom. 11:28-29). God is present in Israel even in Israel’s rejection of Yeshua.

I think it is noteworthy that a Jewish theologian says the doctrine of the incarnation is not a stumbling block to Jewish faith in Yeshua. He has given us Messianic Jews a way to speak to Jewish hearers about the divinity of Messiah. We can compare the idea to God’s dwelling in the midst of Israel. Yeshua, we can affirm, is the ideal Israelite, the one of Israel who was perfectly faithful to God and who lived his life as a summation (but not cessation) of Israel. He too went into Egypt during a slaughter of babies. He too came out of Egypt, came through the waters, was tempted in the wilderness, taught the law (Sermon on the Mount), and suffered the curse of the Torah to free Israel and the nations from death.

The fact that God became a man in the person of Yeshua is not antithetical to Jewish ideas, to ideas from the Hebrew Bible. Everything God did in the New Testament came out of the Hebrew Bible in perfect harmony.

———————————
Note: It is worth noting that the deity of Messiah is NOT foretold in the Hebrew Bible. Many use Isaiah 9:6 as a prooftext that Messiah would be divine. This is based on faulty translation and wishful thinking. Many times traditional interpretations of Messianic prophecy were more wishful thinking than fact. Isaiah 9:6 should NOT read, “His name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’.” It SHOULD read, “His name will be called, ‘A wonderful counselor is Almighty God; the everlasting Father is a prince of peace.’”

A Thought About Messianic Jewish Prayer and a Prayer

I’m offering two things for your reading today. First, I want to pass on a thought about Messianic Jewish prayer that made an impact on me at this year’s Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations conference (umjc.net). Then I want to offer a prayer that came out of a sermon I am writing on Revelation 4. Maybe you will use the prayer. You can see my sermons (with a few week delay after I deliver them) at hopeofdavid.com.

Rabbi Michael Schiffman was speaking on Messianic Jewish prayer. He noted that many people have trouble integrating the Siddur (Jewish prayer book) with their faith in Yeshua. For some, years of praying in evangelical churches before coming into Messianic Judaism causes a disconnect. Evangelical prayer is generally spontaneous and has its own unwritten liturgy (e.g. begin with and frequently repeat your traditional prayer title for God (e.g. Lord God), end with “in Jesus’ name, amen!”).

The evangelical praying the Siddur finds it difficult that the prayers do not reference Yeshua directly. It almost seems they are not real prayers. For many, the Siddur’s use in the service is part of the Jewish flavor spread thin over the service. The real prayers are when we depart from the Siddur and pray spontaneously in Jesus’ name (or in Yeshua’s name).

For others, an uncomfortable relationship with the Siddur can be summed up by the simple question: where is Yeshua in it?

Rabbi Schiffman said something that went inside my spirit and stuck, enhancing my prayer life ever since. In Messianic Jewish doctrine, Yeshua is God the Son, part of the total being of God. He is the Word who was with and who is God (Jn 1:1). He is the first and the last (Isa. 41:4 compare Rev. 1:17). When we pray to HaShem, we are praying to Yeshua along with the Father and Spirit. Yeshua is right in the Siddur. We praise the Creator in the Siddur and we are praising Yeshua. We exalt the King and we are exalting King Messiah along with our Father in Heaven who is King over all.

A mature Messianic Judaism finds Yeshua in Judaism. Immature Messianic Judaism sees it as Judaism with Yeshua added. Let this principle guide our prayer life and let the Siddur richly bless our prayer.

******************************
Now, for a prayer. I was meditating on Revelation 4:1-11, which I am speaking on this Shabbat. Early in my thoughts I struggled with this sermon. I was busy and had little time to think. What kept occurring to me was, “People want application, not just theology in a sermon. The concept of God’s throne is more theology than application. How will I do a good job of bringing the throne of God into daily life?”

My creative processes were not yet going. Then I had an experience of God that can only result from driving alone in a car (for rare silent time) and listening to one of my favorite poet-musicians (Keith Green). The details of how I was able to connect with God do not matter, but the point is that we all need to get some silent time apart from the usual distractions.

As I began thinking, I started writing (not while I was driving, though I’ve done that before). At the end of some writing, a prayer came to mind. I offer it for whatever it is worth. Perhaps you would like to pray it along with me:

God of Israel, you are the Mighty King.
You rule the Cosmos and you are Master of my life.
I am not innocent before you.
Have mercy, my King.
I am not wise with your wisdom.
Show me your way, my King.
I am not entitled to blessing and peace.
Grant me undeserved blessing, my King.
I cannot save myself and the world.
Send your Messiah, my King.

Derek

Wyschogrod on Jewish Distinction and Christianity

Hate to make excuses, but I have been pulled in twenty directions at once this week. Want to make sure those who check the blog get something worth looking at often (daily if I can). So, I’ll rely on what has been a repeated standby lately…quotes from other people’s thinking.

Here is a gem from Wyschogrod’s book Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations:

“Had the church believed that it was God’s will that the seed of Abraham not disappear from the world, she would have insisted on Jews retaining their separateness, even in the church. The fact that Paul asserts that ‘in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor freeman, neither male nor female’ (Gal. 3:28) does not rule out a special role for the children of ancient Israel in the church, just as the abolition in Christ of the difference between man and woman does not prevent Paul from insisting that women remain silent in the assembly. Even in Christ, men are men and women are women; only in an ultimate, perhaps eschatological, sense are they one. The church should have asserted the same of the difference between Jew and Gentile.” (pp.183-184).

I sometimes say something similar, though in language far less magnificent: Sure, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but every church I’ve been in has men’s and women’s restrooms. So let’s not pretend that Jews are supposed to stop being Jews and become Gentiles in order to follow a Messiah who lived his life as a Jew. One new man in Messiah does not mean a lack of roles and distinctions.

For those who might not be familiar with the debate about Jewish identity and Torah observance by Jewish followers of Yeshua, this is the reason for Messianic Judaism. Jews who believed in Jesus had no option for most of the past 2,000 years but to revoke their Jewishness. It became a test of true faith for a Jew to eat a ham sandwich or join the church work party on a Saturday. Only legalism would make someone refuse to eat ham. (Meanwhile, “non-legalistic” Christians forbade drinking alcohol even though Jesus drank wine daily and Paul even recommended it to Timothy).

If you read my post from a few days ago on Why Messianic Jews Must Be Jews, then you know that I am encouraged by the number of Christians who do get it. I am constantly running into believers who read their Bible and know that Israel is not put out to God’s pasture, but is the center of God’s plan in the world today. In spite of years of hearing anti-Torah preaching by well-meaning pastors who actually don’t really hate the Torah either (they just confuse terms and issues), many Christians understand that a Jew who believes in Jesus has a covenantal obligation to remain Jewish in diet, circumcision, and Sabbath (just as Jesus and Paul did).

Derek

The Jewish Death of Yeshua

I was planning to write on something else tonight, but I am tired. I wanted to explain the lack of contradiction between John and the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) about the Last Supper, the Passover, and the timing of the crucifixion. I read yet another scholar I respect today (N.T. Wright) this time, saying that the Last Supper was not the correct night of Passover. I disagree. This is a familiar issue to many and I will write about it soon (b’ezrat HaShem).

Anyway, in a desire to keep material on the blog on a regular basis, sometimes I may simply write up cool ideas I found in my reading. Here is a cool thought from Michael Wyschogrod’s The Body of Faith:

“Because the body is not an extraneous outer garment, Judaism views death as a calamity. If we are not convinced of this, we need only compare the calm and detached death of Socrates with the agony of Jesus’ very Jewish death.” (p.177).

Wyschogrod is pointing out in this section the difference between Judaism and many forms of Christian theology as well as many other forms of religious thought. Many make the “spiritual” supreme and the physical inferior. Judaism views the body and soul as united and physicality as part of the image of God.

Socrates believed his soul needed liberation from his body. He viewed death (at least theoretically, but inside I bet he wanted to wet his tunic) as a good thing.

Yeshua hated death. He cured it whenever he saw it. Death was never God’s desire. The laws of impurity in the Torah all have to do with death or loss of life (blood and semen equal loss of life, corpses are highly unclean, skin disease makes one look like a corpse and is unclean, etc.). God is a God of life and not of death. He takes no pleasure in the death even of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23). So Yeshua railed against death. He chose to allow himself to be killed. Yet in the experience of it he railed against it (“Eli, eli, lama sabachtani”). His was a Jewish death.

And Michael Wyschogrod, an Orthodox Jewish scholar, points that out nicely for us. It reminds me of Pinchas’ Lapide’s book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective.

Anyway, all I am trying to say is this: Yeshua is in every way an authentic Jew. The New Testament is a surprisingly Jewish book. It is surprising because so many people have read it without the foggiest notion of the Jewish ideas it contains. So let’s enjoy it when Orthodox Jewish scholars do our work for us and help us see the death and resurrection of Yeshua through the Jewish eyes they were originally intended for.

Derek