The Jesus-Tomb Deception

Right now there is a deception going on that will fool millions. I teach English as a Second Language and my Japanese and Korean students had heard on CNN that the tomb of Jesus had been found. What are average uninformed Americans to think when CNN and Discovery Channel and James Cameron seem to be saying the bones of Jesus have been discovered and Christianity is based on a myth and a lie?

The story is set to air on the Discovery Channel Sunday, March 4 at 9 pm. It is a collaboration of James Cameron, director of Titanic has produced the documentary. It is called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”

What is this evidence that the tomb of Jesus has been found? In 1980, archaeologist Amos Kloner was called in to excavate a tomb discovered during construction. It turned out to be a middle class tomb from the first century, the right time for a tomb for Jesus if there was one.

The Talpiot tomb contained ossuaries, boxes used to hold the bones of the deceased which were gathered after decomposition in a cave. This was the common burial custom for those who could afford a tomb.

Inside they found an ossuary which said “Yeshua bar Yosef,” or “Jesus son of Joseph.” They also found other names such as “Judah son of Jesus.”

Why didn’t the news media trumpet the demise of faith in Jesus at that time? Because the archaeologist, Amos Kloner, and others argued that:

(1) There was no evidence this was the Jesus of the New Testament. In fact, three ossuaries have been discovered to date that have the name “Jesus son of Joseph.”

(2) This tomb was not a fit for the family of Jesus as it was from a family of greater wealth than they had according to the gospels. This was not a lower class tomb for a Galilean family, but a middle class Judean tomb.

You can read an interview with Professor Amos Kloner, who excavated this tomb and stringently denies the claims of the documentary: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894527185&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

What is happening is this, a famous director has a chance to make a big splash with a controversial documentary. Don’t believe everything you hear. Use your critical thinking ability and a healthy dose of skepticism as you watch. I will post a review of the documentary here after it happens.

In case the link to the article by Professor Kloner gets broken, here is the text:
Jerusalem Post
Feb. 27, 2007 3:33
Kloner: A great story, but nonsense
By DAVID HOROVITZ
Prof. Amos Kloner oversaw the archeological work at the Talpiot tomb when it was discovered during construction in 1980.

What do you make of the assertion that Jesus and his family were buried there?

It makes a great story for a TV film. But it’s completely impossible. It’s nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle class family from the 1st century CE.

But there is apparently such a confluence of resonant names.

The name “Jesus son of Joseph” has been found on three or four ossuaries. These are common names. There were huge headlines in the 1940s surrounding another Jesus ossuary, cited as the first evidence of Christianity. There was another Jesus tomb. Months later it was dismissed. Give me scientific evidence, and I’ll grapple with it. But this is manufactured.

What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the “James” ossuary?

Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum).

Why, if you dismiss the claims, has the IAA loaned out ossuaries to the filmmakers?

I don’t care what the IAA gets up to. I don’t work for the IAA anymore. but it’s very foolish. The left hand there doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.”

Standing in the Pouring Rain

If you are not a follower of Yeshua, in a way I hope you read this and in a way I hope you don’t. I hope you read it because — against all hope — I hope to communicate something to you of our hope. I hope you don’t read it because I fear the point cannot be communicated across the lines of experience.

If you are a follower of Yeshua, I definitely hope you read this. I want to imagine I see your smile of affirmation across the fiber optic cables that separate us in space.

Anyway, the whole thought started with a great quote by N.T. Wright, a New Testament scholar of unusual depth (yes, I know he believes in supersessionism, but he is so insightful, I learn from him anyway):

It is natural to say “I believe it is raining” when indoors with the curtains shut, but it would be odd to say it, except in orony, standing on a hillside in a downpour. For many Christians, much of the time, knowing Jesus is more like the latter: being drenched in his love and the challenge of his call, not merely imagining we hear him like raindrops on a distant windowpane. (The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, p.25).

In other words, we often wonder why the whole Yeshua-faith thing is difficult to communicate. Those being communicated to often do not see it. Those doing the communicating often wonder why they cannot see it.

It is like explaining true and lasting love to someone who isn’t in love at the moment and cannot relate.

When we say we believe in Yeshua, we do not mean it is a theory, like forecasting rain through closed window blinds. We mean we sometimes stand in the pouring rain and we know the rain continues. We have felt it and tasted it on our parched tongues.

Yeshua is more than a theological theory for us. He is an experiential reality.

Wright describes it as being “aware of Jesus’ presence, his love, his guidance, his consolation, his rebuke, and even perhaps his laughter.”

Paul has the same idea when he says: But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Corinthians 2:14).

So are we making excuses? Are we saying that you cannot grasp Yeshua unless you believe in him? Not exactly. We are saying that if you will open your mind, if you will suspend disbelief long enough to think about it, you may hear his call. Until you have loved Yeshua, please don’t judge those of us who do as silly. We are not intoxicated with Marxian opiate. We just may be experiencing a connection across the boundary from the spatiotemporal world into a nonspatiotemporal world into which we have access and across which Yeshua is present with us.

Messiah Yeshua, Part 2

Last time we talked about Reality A and Reality B, the reality of separation from God and the reality of Israel’s future union with God. The reality of separation is Israel standing outside the tent sanctuary while God’s presence, not God in person, dwells inside behind the tent and behind a veil. The reality of separation is further enhanced by the fact that blood must cleanse the altar morning and evening through the perpetual offering (tamid). The reality of union with God is described in Deuteronomy 30 as a day when all Israel will have circumcised hearts and love God perfectly.

Between Reality A and Reality B there is a great gulf. The separation is explained in the Torah as uncleanness, impurity. The impurity separating man and God is described as coming from sins and certain conditions that cause impurity which are not sin (bleeding, loss of semen, contact with a corpse, etc.). The burnt offering is described as necessary to “make a cleansing on his behalf” (Lev. 1:4). The cleansing is needed because the sins and impurities of the people defiles God’s dwelling place (Lev. 15:31). The blood cleanses not the person but the dwelling place of God from the people’s impurities (Lev. 16:16). In order for God to remain present amongst the people, even behind a tent and a veil and with only his presence, not his actual person, this cleansing must be constant.

But the reality of union with God is much more glorious. At a future time, after Israel has experienced blessing and curse, after Israel has been scattered to the nations, outcast to the uttermost parts of heaven, then Israel will be regathered and experience union. Israel will obey the Torah once again and this will lead God to circumcise the hearts of the people so that they will love perfectly.

It is important to realize that having a circumcised heart is not something man has ever achieved. No one in the Torah or the prophets is said to have a circumcised heart. Moses commands the people to circumcise their hearts in Deuteronomy 10:16 as does Jeremiah in 4:4. Yet the reality is that God does the circumcising at the end of the age and that is the only time when heart circumcision is actually accomplished (Deut. 30:6). Moses and Jeremiah command it in the general sense, like saying “soften your heart.” God accomplishes it in the ultimate sense, with not just softened hearts but hearts that perfectly love HaShem.

So the situation in the Torah is separation and the inability of the people to approach God. But the reality of the Age to Come will be union with God and no separation. In case this implication of Deuteronomy 30 is doubted, the prophets make it abundantly clear. Jeremiah says the whole Torah will be written on the heart and everyone will know God (31:31-34). Ezekiel says Israel will be sprinkled clean, receiving new hearts and the Spirit of God (36:25-26). In the great temple of the Age to Come, God says he will dwell in the midst of Israel forever and Israel will never again defile his presence (Ezekiel 43:7-9).

But how will Israel come to this point where God dwells with the nation and there is no more defilement? Something must happen in between. That something which must happen should be consistent with the way God has worked in the Torah.

The first principle of God’s cleansing and transforming work is that blood, because of life, is required. This principle is stated in Leviticus 17:11, but is also made clear in the entire system of sacrifices and in the history of the patriarchs:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation. (JPS Tanakh)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ (New American Standard)

That blood was required for Israel to approach God is undeniable. Sometimes critics of Yeshua look for exceptions, such as the burnt offering of grain. But these approached depend on the Torah-ignorance of the audience to make them believable. Anyone who knows Torah knows that every morning and evening a lamb was offered as a burnt offering–the first and last sacrifice of each day. These lambs, known as the tamid or perpetual offering, have their blood dashed against the altar (Num. 28:1-8; Lev. 1:5). These two lambs and their blood made the entire temple worship possible.

The Torah formula is simple: the people are unclean because of sin and impurity, God is holy and will not allow himself to be defiled, the sins of the people defile the altar and the sanctuary, and the blood of animals cleanses the altar and sanctuary so God’s presence can dwell in the holy tent. No blood, no cleansing. No blood, no presence of God in the midst of Israel. Blood is indispensable. The blood cleanses because of the life, as Leviticus 17:11 declares.

The second Torah principle is substitution. The blood of an animal cleanses because of the life. That life is a substitute for the life of the worshiper. When Abraham was restrained from sacrificing Isaac, he did not simply walk away from the altar. God arranged a miracle–a ram caught in a thicket. The purpose of God’s miracle was to provide a substitute to die in Isaac’s place. When Israel was freed from the tenth plague in Egypt, the price of redemption was a lamb–a lamb in place of the firstborn of Israel.

Blood cleansing and substitutionary sacrifice are the way of the Torah. They are also the way of Yeshua. If we are asking the question, “Is Yeshua the Messiah?” one part of that question is this: is his action to redeem Israel consistent with the Torah? Note that we are not saying by this that Yeshua is thereby proven to be the Messiah. We are merely asking if his action to redeem Israel was consistent with the Torah.

The answer is yes. Yeshua’s act to redeem Israel (and the nations) was a blood sacrifice intended as a substitution. As he himself put it:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45).

A ransom is a payment substituting one thing–Yeshua’s life–for another–the punishment Israel and the nations deserve.

In the principles of blood cleansing and substitution in the Torah, we see that Yeshua’s sacrifice is consistent. We also see that Yeshua’s sacrifice could possibly be the action with takes Israel from Reality A to Reality B. Since Reality B–the reality of Israel’s union with God–is not yet here, this case is not yet proven. There are many more things to consider.

Next time: The root of the Messiah concept and the Davidic King.

Messiah Yeshua, Part 1

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

I won’t presume the be able to recover the scriptural outline of Yeshua’s famous talk on the road to Emmaus. Yet the puzzle is one worth playing at a solution. Where do the Torah and prophets point to Yeshua?

I am not satisfied with the commonly suggested answers in which little sayings are taken as codes predicting Messiah. A star here, a scepter there, and a snake bite do not seem to me to get to the real heart of why we believe Yeshua is Messiah.

Let me start with what I think is the clearest evidence for a Messiah like Yeshua in the Torah. Some will not be satisfied because this case is more about themes and generalities than specifics. But, I submit, it is far more accurate than the commonly offered Messianic codes.

What I mean is this: the reality of separation from God in the Torah is juxtaposed with a future of total union between Israel and God. In order for Israel to move from point A to point B, something (or someone) has to come in the middle.

Let’s start with what I call the reality of separation, which is what we see in the Torah. To properly understand the reality of separation, you have to understand the way the sacrificial system and sanctuary worship functioned.

Stated briefly, the reality of separation is this: Israel could not get close to God at all. At best, the people could come as close as the altar with God’s presence inside the tent and also behind a veil. Even this nearness was only possible because of constant cleansing with blood applied twice a day at the very least to the altar in front of the tent. And even this presence of God was far removed from God’s actual presence, being only a low-level manifestation of his being.

To better understand these realities, if you are interested, you may wish to read two articles on our congregation website: “The Tabernacle of Israel: Meaning and Function” (get it here) and “Understanding the Sacrifices” (get it here).

So, in the Torah we have the reality of separation. But there is another ideal presented in the Torah. It is presented in the primary eschatological passage of the Torah: Deuteronomy 30:1-6. Moses foretells the future history of Israel. Israel will sin, be cast out of the land, receive all the curses of the Torah, and at the end of the age be called back from every land to Israel.

Then, the reality of Israel’s union with God will begin. Israel will have circumcised hearts causing the people to love God will all their heart and obey HaShem completely. A circumcised heart is not something that man can achieve by his own effort. The union between God and Israel is not something man has ever achieved or ever will achieve on his own. I offer as evidence for this assertion the past and present history of Israel.

So the first part of understanding how the Torah points to something like Yeshua is to realize that Israel must move from the reality of separation to the reality of union with God. Some great act of God must come in between. What will that act of God look like? Can there be a satisfying answer without Yeshua? Is Yeshua the only possible answer or, as I think, is he the only revealed answer?

In Part 2, we will look at hints in the Torah and prophets about what God’s great action might look like. We will ask the questions: is this consistent with what Yeshua did? Is this consistent with how Yeshua saw himself? Is Yeshua’s action to unite Israel and God contradictory or consistent with the Torah?

Deuteronomy 11:22 — A Shabbat Meditation

May God bless your Shabbat. To my non-Jewish readers, may your worship this weekend be blessed as well.

My devotional thought for the weekend is from Deuteronomy 11:22:

For if you are careful to keep all this commandment which I am commanding you to do, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and hold fast to Him…

I know it is not even a complete sentence. So why quote it? I want to focus on the phrase “hold fast to him.”

Moses already told his audience to love and walk with HaShem. Why add to that “hold fast to him?” In addition to loving God and following his commandments, we need to know God is a resource for us. He is not only the king who demands, but the savior who gives us what we need. How does he do this?

He expects us to cling to him, to hold fast, to cleave emotionally, and this is our relationship with him. We cleave because he is the source of all help in need.

The Hasidim speak of devekut, cleaving to God, from the same word used in Deuteronomy 11:22. It is the goal of Hasidic spirituality and Messianic Jews and Christians could learn from it. I don’t advocate the whole kabbalistic world-view, but I do advocate some of the spiritual beauty in Hasidic Judaism.

According to Yitzhak Buxbaum (Jewish Spiritual Practices, a book of only 750 pages!) devekut has two parts:

1. “The intensification of love for God until that love is so strong that you cleave to him without separation.”
2. “Direct awareness of God.”

In Christian spirituality, I would compare this to “practicing God’s presence,” the spiritual discipline made famous by Brother Lawrence.

Loving him so intently that you do not become separated means cultivating and emotional attachment to God that fuels obedience and devotion. It means growing so emotionally attached that disobeying becomes too unpleasant to contemplate. It is a love so intense “that you are not separated from God for even a moment.”

Direct awareness of God means God is always in your thoughts no matter what you are doing. God is not relegated to a prayer time. God is in the world, everywhere we go. We never leave his presence, so we should cleave to his presence instead.

This devekut also describes what I see as the spirituality of the Psalmist. David, a man’s man by any definition, wrote in forthright emotion about God: “my soul waits,” “in the shadow of your wings,” “zeal for your house has consumed me,” and “my soul thirsts for you,” to quote just a few of his emotional expressions.

So this holy Shabbat, cleave to the Holy One, blessed be he.

The Fine Art of Church-Bashing

A reader commented recently:

I fear, though, that you’re shutting most out by “the Church has it wrong” rhetoric.

I am sensitive to comments like that. I know sometimes I am guilty of using negative rhetoric to make a point more interesting. We do live in a culture of pop-media where it takes a little controversy to get interest.

You can find church-bashing in Messianic Judaism and on Messianic Jewish websites. Sometimes those engaging in the church-bashing are from a very immature theology (and not what I would consider real Messianic Judaism). Some want the church to start keeping the Sabbath and dietary law. Some want the church to become Jewish. Some say the church was corrupted by Constantine and claim that Messianic Judaism is a return to pure Yeshua-faith.

I don’t feel this way at all. I am part of the church. “Church” is not the term I prefer (it is an Old English word and has no relationship to biblical terminology–it has plenty of wrong connotations). There is in the Bible an entity known as “the congregation” (Matt. 16:18). There is also the “body of Christ/Messiah” (Eph. 4:12). Other names include “the congregation of God” (1 Cor. 11:22).

I prefer the term “the congregation of Yeshua.” What many call “the church” is the timeless community of the redeemed. Israel and the church overlap. Jews and Gentiles together are in the church–one faith, one Lord, one baptism. I affirm all this.

I believe the Jewish and Gentile missions of the church are distinct, but with much overlap. I believe the apostles intended for the Jewish and Gentile mission to remain distinct, though there would always be Jews in Gentile congregations and vice-versa. I do not believe in one generic church culture that all men are supposed to meld into. I certainly do not believe in Jews abandoning their Jewish identity, including Torah-observance.

Meanwhile, I love the church. I love various forms of worship. I can be moved not only by the intonation of the Kaddish, but also by a soulful “Amazing Grace” or a meditative communion service. I love to read some theologians who were terrible on the subject of the Jews, but wonderful in other ways (I am a major fan of Augustine, though we disagree about many things).

Yet even though I love the church, or perhaps especially because of it, I am critical of various issued and trends in the church. I dislike the shallowness of modern evangelicalism. I abhor the formulaic revival of the revivalist movement. I distrust the self-defined miracles of the charismatic movement. I loathe supersessionism (replacement theology) and negativity toward the Torah is most churches. Hey, I don’t have to just pick on the Gentile churches. I also have disdain for many things I have seen in Messianic Judaism. I dislike a superior attitude sometimes seen in Messianic Judaism. I prefer love and unity to superiority.

So, I will critique sectors of the church. I do so in order to prick the conscience and stimulate the brain. I do so in order to represent what I love–God, Messiah, Israel, and the Torah.

A Jewish Writer’s Unflattering View of Christianity

I have been reviewing Duties of the Soul, edited by Niles Goldstein and Peter Knobels. In the second chapter of the book, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf makes two comments that amount to what I consider an unflattering, but too often true, picture of Christian theology.

The topic of the chapter is bringing Reform Judaism to a deeper sense of obligation to God’s commandments. Wolf identifies the “original sin” of Reform Judaism as elevating human freedom of choice above divine commandment.

In that context, Wolf makes this comment about Jesus:

We do not agree with the New Testament passage in which Jesus says that not what goes into one’s mouth but only what comes out is important.

A little later in the discussion he says about Paul:

Reform Judaism must surrender once and for all any elements of a fatal Pauline anomism that denies value to obedience and it must accept Jewish authenticity.

Well, Rabbi Wolf assesses the situation this way: Christianity’s founder, Jesus, and main propagater, Paul, were both anti-Torah. And most Christian commentators agree. I cannot tell you how many times I have found intelligent Christian interpreters, whom I respect in many ways, making the case that Jesus overturned the Law. Even now I am reading Craig Blomberg’s commentary on Matthew, and he repeatedly makes this assertion.

Let me attempt to clarify both points:
1. Jesus did not repeal the dietary law in Mark 7 or anywhere else.
2. Paul was not an antinomian (anti-Law).

First, Jesus and Mark 7. I won’t thoroughly exegete the passage, but make a few simple comments.
1. The issue in Mark 7 is not the dietary law from Leviticus 11, but the issue of ritual handwashing before eating.
2. In ritual handwashing, the concern is secondary defilement–I might touch someone who has touched something unclean and then touch my food and ingest something unclean.
3. This type of defilement is not directly taught in Torah, but is derived through one interpretation of Torah.
4. Yeshua did not agree with requiring handwashing and his some of his disciples did not practice it (though Yeshua apparently did).
5. Yeshua in a few instances disagreed with the traditions of the elders, even on some issues that became fixed halakhah at a later point.
6. Mark 7:19 DOES NOT say as the NIV translates, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean.’” It does not even say, as the NASB translates, “Thus He declared all foods clean.”

What does Mark 7:19 say? “…because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated, cleansing all foods.” The NIV, without telling the reader, inserts quite a few words not in the text, even the name Jesus!! The NASB inserts the phrase “thus he declared.” The clause has been taken by commentators for a long time as a parenthetical comment, as Mark adding a comment to the words of Yeshua. But it could just as easily be taken as part of Yeshua’s own statement. In fact, it makes perfect sense as part of the logic of Yeshua’s statement. The natural reading is: “…because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated, cleansing all foods.”

Yeshua’s logic is simple. You don’t need to worry about secondary defilement from touching food because you eat the food and pass out the indigestible parts. Any uncleanness would pass out of you. This is not an argument for eliminating God’s commandments concerning which meats Israel can eat since even touching unclean meats defiles. Read Leviticus 11 if you don’t believe me.

Yet Christian interpreters for many centuries have been willing to affirm with Paul on the one hand that Yeshua was born under the law and yet affirm on the other hand that he taught his disciples to break it. This is contradictory and harmful. This is not the Yeshua of the Bible.

As for his saying that it is what comes out of our mouth, not what goes in, that makes us unclean: this is typical hyperbole from the mouth of Yeshua. His point could be summed up this way: Instead of making regulations to prevent esoteric possibilities of defilement, you ought to quit slandering and sinning with your mouths.

Finally, about Paul being an antinomian–this is a misunderstanding. No short article can deal with this issue fully. I wrote an entire book explaining Paul’s stance on the Law (Paul Didn’t Eat Pork, get it here). But in order to give you something to chew on, here are a few thoughts:
1. Paul wrote mostly to Gentiles who, according to Acts 15, did not have to keep all of the Torah as Jews do.
2. Paul’s words to Gentiles stating their freedom from the Torah should not be construed as making Torah obsolete.
3. The Torah itself limits certain commands to Israel (dietary law, Sabbath, circumcision–see my book for details).
4. Paul also declared us free, including Jews, from the curse of the Torah and its ability to deal death. In Yeshua, we are set free, not from the Law, but from the law of sin and death–the curse of the Torah, not the commandments of the Torah.
5. The books of Acts declares emphatically Paul’s continuing practice of Torah, especially Acts 21:20-24.
6. 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 cannot be interpreted as saying that Paul eats bacon with Gentiles and recites Kaddish with Jews. Read my book for details.

Here is my big point: if we in Messianic Judaism and our friends in the church want Jewish people to consider Yeshua, then we have got to get our theology of the Law of Moses in order. We cannot expect Jews to respond to a gospel that says, “IN ORDER TO BE SAVED, YOU MUST DISOBEY GOD AND START BELIEVING IN JESUS.” As Mark Kinzer has said, when a Jew says no to Yeshua, it is frequently a ‘yes’ to God, because we have presented Yeshua as the opposite of the Law of Moses which every Jew has been commanded to follow.

Jewish Renewal: A Book Review in Parts, #4

The topic du jour is discovering the commandments and a Jewish view of Christian theology that is not flattering. This is the fourth in a series on Duties of the Soul edited by Niles Goldstein and Peter Knobels. It is a book by the Reform Roundtable, a group of Reform rabbis considering the need for a commandment-based Judaism (renewal of tradition in Reform).

In chapter 2, author Arnold Jacob Wolf’s topic is, “Back to the Future: On Rediscovering Commandments.” He opens with a wonderful line:

Only something that offends us will define Judaism.

What is the something that offends? It is better to do something under command than by choice. He means by this that living for God should be about giving up our freedom to live under the greater freedom of commandments. This is opposed to classical Reform Judaism in which human freedom takes priority over divine commandment. It is also opposed to a lot of easy-grace forms of Christianity (not all Christianity by any means). Finally, this is opposed to a lot of so-called Messianic Jewish congregations where Torah-observance is (as Boaz Michael eloquently put it) silly and self-defined.

Wolf notes that Reform Judaism has always had people who were mitzvah-based. His family, five generations of Reform Jews, never once ate on Yom Kippur or had bread during Passover. But observance only went so far. There are many technical mitzvot, more obscure observances, that his family never kept. He gives as examples sha’atnetz (restrictions on mixed-fiber clothing) and taharat hamishpachah (family purity, especially regarding menstruation).

Why did his family fast on Yom Kippur but feel free to ignore other mitzvot?

In the interpretation of lay Reform Jews, obedience is largely a matter of pick-and-choose. We will decide which mitzvot we accept and which ones we don’t. We are in charge of our own religious lives. This, I believe, is the original sin of Reform Judaism. . . . The whole point of an ethic is that it comes to you. It is discovered; it is not chosen.

This should be plastered on the doors of every Messianic synagogue in the world. Who are we to pick and choose?

Wolf’s suggestion going forward to Reform Judaism is to “ritualize the ethical commandments and ethicize the ritual.” This is a fairly difficult concept for many Messianics and Christians to grasp. We are so caught up in freedom that we deemphasize obligation. What he means is this:

1. We need to make ethical observances a matter of habit. It is a flat rule not to talk about others (lashon hara, slander) so habituate the act of not talking about other people. It is a flat rule not to look on others with lust, so habituate keeping your eyes to yourself. It is a flat rule to eat only what is permitted in Torah, so habituate your eating.

2. We need to make or follow rituals for honoring Shabbat and holy days. We need to have rituals to add intentionality to observances that are not directly moral. We need to use prayers and blessings to mark our observances as holy.

Next post: We will see the unflattering picture of Christianity that Wolf has and ask where this picture came from.

Jewish Renewal: A Book Review in Parts, #3

This is part 3 of a review of Duties of the Soul, edited by Niles Goldstein and Peter Knobels.

In Part 2 I summarized (following the first chapter of the book) part of the history of Reform Judaism. We saw how a group of rabbis came to the place where they would eat shrimp, crab, and clams at a banquet. We saw the Pittsburgh Platform, a historic position of Reform Judaism.

In the 1930’s Reform Judaism matured. Enchantment with the Enlightenment perhaps faded a bit and the reality of anti-Semitism set in. This immigration quotas of 1924 reflected the anti-Semitic spirit in America. Nazism rose in the 1930’s and that began to change American Jewish attitudes.

In 1935, the CCAR (Central Conference of American Rabbis) issued the Columbus Platform. This document was more open to the binding force of the Torah, stating:

Every age has the obligation to adapt the teachings of the Torah to its basic needs in consonance with the genius of Judaism.

The Sabbath, festivals, holy days, and ceremonies of Judaism became important.

Needless to say, after the Holocaust, Jews were more unified by the horror of what could happen to any Jew. In 1951 there was talk of Conservative and Reform Judaism merging, though it obviously did not happen. A number of rabbis wrote guides for Reform Jews on how to practice the commandments and rituals of Judaism, though none were considered authoritative.

In 1976 the San Francisco Platform further strengthened the Reform view of mitzvot (commandments, deeds). The mitzvot were to be seen as a duty, an obligation. Yet this was weakened by a statement that each Jew must exercise individual autonomy.

That leads me to a reflection: human autonomy and divine commandments do not go well together. Are we free to do as we choose? That is what Adam and Eve thought. And they were free to choose, but so went their destiny (and ours).

I wonder how much of the antinomian streak in evangelical Christianity today isn’t just individual autonomy taking priority over divine commandment. Giving up freedom for the divine commandment isn’t bad if God is good.

Must we balance divine commandments with our personal freedom? Why should we? If the mitzvot are from God, then the greatest freedom of all comes in following them. My rabbi said, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments” (John 14:15).

The author of chapter 1 of Duties of the Soul put it this way:

The retention of individual religious freedom is seemingly inconsistent with full participation in an authoritative, mitzvah-based system of Judaism.

Amen. Let me put this in different terms for my Christian readers: The retention of individual religious freedom is seemingly inconsistent with full participation in discipleship with Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you want to fully participate in God’s plan and Yeshua’s plan for you? Put your sense of freedom on the altar and immerse yourself in the commandments of God. Obedience and grace are not opposites. Grace empowers obedience.

Is Dispensationalism Liberal?

Okay, forgive the sensationalist title. But it got you to look, didn’t it?

My short answer is no, dispensationalists love the Bible and are famously conservative. But in an ironic way, their position on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) agrees with strange liberal bedfellows.

What am I talking about? I am talking about a similarity between Reform Jews and Dispensationalist Christians. Who would ever put the two together?

I will put them together relating two incidents at very different times, one involving Reform rabbis and the other a Messianic Jewish rabbi. I will also put them together based on one aspect of their hermeneutic (the way they interpret the Bible).

First, the two incidents. One happened in 1883. The other happened in recent years, exact date unknown. In the first incident, known as the Terefah Banquet, a group of rabbis from the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) served shrimp, clams, and crab at a rabbis’ dinner to deliberately make a statement. What statement did they intend to make? That modern Judaism, Judaism going into the future, would hold to the moral commandments of Torah that could be derived by eternal principles and not to the Torah as a whole. (Note: “Terefah” means food not permitted by the Torah and Jewish law).

The second incident is described on Rabbi Stuart Dauermann’s blog for February 18 (http://www.rabbenu.blogspot.com/). This second incident involved a Messianic rabbi (in name only) who made a point of eating shrimp at a Messianic conference in order to make a theological point. What was his theological point? Namely a dispensationalist one, that the Torah has been abolished and replaced by the New Testament. Therefore the dietary laws are irrelevant.

The Terefah Banquet and what shall heretofore be know as “The Messianic Terefah Demonstration” are acts coming from a similar hermeneutic. Technically, Reform Judaism’s stance on the Law resembles even more closely the views of Reformed Christianity (see my post, “Can We Subdivide the Law?”). Yet, both Dispensationalists and Reform Jews from the time of the Terefah banquet agree: the Torah is obsolete.

For the Dispensationalist the Torah has been replaced by a new book: the New Testament. For Reform Jews from the era of the Terefah banquet, the Torah has been replaced by human reason.

I’ll certainly grant you that the latter is more liberal than the former. So why make the comparison?

I want to make my Dispensationalist friends think for a moment, to give them pause. A conservative view of the Bible should be, as Dispensationalists would admit, to uphold it in all its parts. God makes no mistakes. Scripture is without error (discounting textual variants).

I am calling Dispensationalists to consistency. The Torah and the Prophets cannot be done away with without assuming they are mistaken. The Torah and the Prophets say again and again that their word is eternal. The Torah and the Prophets speak of the Torah being in the Age to Come. If you read the text literally (a Dispensationalist requirement) and assuming it to be without error, only scriptural gymnastics enables you to ignore 3/4 of the Bible (the Old Testament) and follow 1/4 (the New Testament).

Are Dispensationalists liberal? Not really. But the Dispensationalist reading of the Hebrew Bible has strange parallels to liberal Judaism.

Sabbath Meditation, Psalm 23

I’ve been more blessed than I can describe by Psalm 23 for the past month. I didn’t set out on a program to repeat Psalm 23 numerous times each day or to think about it first thing in the morning and last thing before bed, but that is how it has been. The shepherd psalm has been functioning as a stress reliever and source of inspiration for me.

In reality, Psalm 23 is no easy poem. Just because everyone in the Western world has heard it repeatedly doesn’t mean it is the easiest of the psalms to understand.

As you prepare for Shabbat (or if you don’t observe Shabbat, perhaps this could just be for the weekend), I hope this meditation will bless you.

The key to understanding Psalm 23 is that this is David’s experience.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
This is a remarkable statement for two reasons: (1) David was a shepherd and (2) David led a hard life. As for the first, David knew the work of shepherding in the rough Judean hills. Most of the year it is blazing hot and dry, since Israel nearly a desert (and some parts are). As for the second, that David could say God never left him wanting is amazing. David experienced years of hiding from Saul and, after his great sin, saw his own family try to end his life and steal his throne. Yet, through it all, he knew God was with him.

He makes me lie down in green pastures; he leads me beside still waters.
This is what the shepherd does for the sheep. Southern Israel is not exactly green Ireland. The shepherd leads the flock to find enough grass to survive on. And water is not abundant, but the shepherd knows the sources in the Judean hills. David saw that, despite all his troubles, God brought him back to life and peace.

He restores my life and guides my paths in righteousness for his name’s sake.
The sheep become parched and famished in the hills, but the shepherd gets them to food and water and restores their lives. So David was brought back to places of blessing after hard times.

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will not fear, you are with me; your rod and your staff comfort me.
The valleys in the Judean desert are steep and treacherous. The Jordan valley is spectacular and dangerous. David spent time in the Judean desert hiding from Saul. Yet in that fearful place, he knew God’s nearness. The rod and staff are sometimes used to discipline the sheep. David experienced God’s discipline, yet he was comforted. Better a rebuke from God than silence.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
David had many enemies, but God blessed him in front of them. God was faithful to David and brought justice. A man like David knows enemies can be a major problem. Yet God kept David on the throne, as the anointed king. David could look at the hard times and blessings and say, “You overflowed my cup with goodness–I am blessed more than I deserve.”

Surely goodness and covenant loyalty will follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord the length of my days.
The kindness of the Lord and his covenant loyalty (khesed, often mistranslated mercy) would never leave David. Likewise, David would never stop going to prostrate himself in gratitude before God at the sanctuary.

I guess what blesses me is the realistic joy of Psalm 23. This is not naive faith. This is seasoned faith and joy from a man who led a hard life and found God always there, ready to rescue, discipline, and give rest.

Jewish Renewal: A Book Review in Parts, #2

This is part 2 of a review of Niles Goldstein and Peter Knobel’s Duties of the Soul, which you can get here.

As I said yesterday, this is a book review that should have interest for Christian, Jewish, and Messianic Jewish readers. For Messianic Judaism, this book has a lot to make us think about halakhah (practical guidelines for keeping Torah). For Christians this book has some challenges to the way people view God’s commandments and our freedom.

The first chapter is by Daniel Bronstein, a fellow rabbi with Goldstein and Knobels in the Reform Roundtable. It is about Reform Judaism and Mitzvot (commandments, deeds).

Starting with a brief explanation of why there was never a chief rabbinate in North America, he gives a brief history of Reform Judaism and evolving positions on commandments. I will cover just the beginning of that history, through the Classical Reform era in America, and then comment on the view of the law espoused by Reform Judaism:

I. Early American Judaism showed innovation, such as Jacksonian-era congregations who prayed in English, preached in English, and modified the Siddur (Jewish prayer book).

II. Classical Period (1880-1935) is defined as that period before the Columbus Platform (explained below). There was a sense of unity in Reform and mitzvot or at least a system of halakhah was not an issue. Used the term “mission of Israel” instead of “mitzvah.” Concerned with social justice and ethics, not God’s commandments. A secularizing view of law as social duty. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC) and Hebrew Union College formed. Hopes were for one Judaism for all of America, and that was Reform. On July 11, 1883, a group of rabbis held a banquet called known now as “the Terefah Banquet,” meaning a banquet of unkosher foods (in this case, clams, crab, shrimp). This outraged observant Jews. It was the spirit of Reform Judaism, which saw ceremonial law as unimportant (like many Christian views of the law). Then there was the Pittsburgh Platform, a statement by the CCAR (Central Conference of American Rabbis) which said, “we accept as binding only the moral laws” (sounds like Reformed Christianity). They looked to the Torah for eternal principles, not literal commandments.

To understand Reform Judaism, you have to understand the Haskalah in Europe. Jews had been ostracized and killed for centuries in Europe. With the Enlightenment, many Jews saw a hope that with intellectual achievement and by abandoning God’s covenant signs (Sabbath, dietary law, circumcision) they could be accepted by society. Many converted to Christianity, most without any sincere intent other than advancing their social position. It was a dream that failed as made clear when the Nazis murdered all Jews, even those who had converted and been baptized in Christian churches.

Classical Reform Judaism was a counterpart to liberal Protestantism. There was a lot of mimicking, with Jewish services being held more and more on Sundays and with a pipe organ and hymns (Jewish ones, not “Amazing Grace”).

And what did these Jewish leaders see as immediately necessary to get along with the “Christian” world and to be true to “evolutionary” science: abandoning God’s call for Israel to be distinct.

In Duties of the Soul, the concern is to show Reform Judaism’s changing views on the meaning of commandment. This raises a question for all Christians, Jews, and Messianic Jews: what does a commandment from God mean? Are some of them moral and others we can disregard as outdated ceremony? If God commands a certain diet for Israel, can a Jew say it is obsolete since it is not moral?

The book will go on to give some profound insights into the power of commandment and obedience. From this inauspicious beginning, where it may seem that Reform Judaism has nothing to teach us, we will see that Reform is saying powerful things, in some circles, today.

Next part: The Columbus Platform – Reform grows up.

Jewish Renewal: A Book Review in Parts, #1

I am reading a book for an upcoming class in Messianic Jewish Spirituality (an ironic title since Jewish life expresses the reality of the physical and avoids separating the spirit from the body). The book is called Duties of the Soul and is edited by Niles Goldstein and Peter Knobel (1999, UAHC Press, get it here).

This is a book by a group of Reform rabbis on the subject of renewal in the Reform movement and Judaism in general.

This review should be of interest to all who read this blog. Messianic leaders and members, this book has a lot to say that can help our movement in thinking through issues. Christian leaders, there is much in here about the nature of God’s commandments and expectations of us that should interest you as well.

In this opening post, I will simply introduce the book and get into the meat in future posts.

Goldstein and Knobel say in the introduction that “the future of Jewish practice and culture is in serious doubt.” He refers to intermarriage and assimilation of Jews into the American culture that has been threatening to erase Jewish life. Many Jews have seen Judaism as irrelevant, a tragedy not helped by liberal Judaism’s lack of depth.

Duties of the Soul is addressing the heart of the matter: Jewish ambivalence to commandment and tradition.

I would say evangelical Christianity suffers from a similar problem: why obey God when forgiveness is so cheap and when forgiveness is all we hear in preaching and teaching? Are we surprised to read surveys by George Barna and find that evangelical Christians are more likely to divorce than the general population (and similar negative realities)?

Thus, I think what Niles Goldstein, Peter Knobel, and the other contributors to this book have to say will be of interest to Messianic Jews and Christians as well as the Reform Jews it was written for.

Stay tuned for the following issues from the introduction and first two chapters:
1. A Brief History of Reform Judaism and How it Got Where it Is
2. Reform Judaism and Reformed Christianity: A Surprising Similarity Regarding the Law
3. Our Freedom and God’s Authority
4. Jewish Perception of Jesus and Paul
5. Creating, not Imitating (with pointers for halakhah)

There were two posts today–don’t forget to scroll down and read “Messianic Jewish Identity.”

Messianic Jewish Identity

While taking a shower (TMI, I know) I had a thought. I hope it is as interesting on the blog as it seemed in the aroma of Irish Spring Aloe Deodorant soap and hot steam.

I was thinking about Messianic Jewish identity–who we are and who we are not.

As for who we are, I refer you to the UMJC statement:

Messianic Judaism is a movement of Jewish congregations and congregation-like groupings committed to Yeshua the Messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of Jewish life and identity rooted in Torah, expressed in tradition, renewed and applied in the context of the New Covenant.

(see umjc.net for more).

As for who we are not, I think this is very important. I know there are disadvantages to being defined negatively, but there is so much confusion, I think this is vital:

We are not Dispensationalist Christianity.
We are not Charismatic Christianity.
We are not Orthodox Judaism.
We are not Reform or Conservative Judaism.
We are not the Hebrew Roots Movement.

Let me define and explain a little about each of these.

Dispensationalist Christianity is in some ways the closest evangelicals come to Messianic Judaism. Dispensationalism loves Israel and abolishes Torah. Thus, Dispensationalism gets it about half right. These are our greatest friends in Christendom. It is easy for a Messianic leader to be a Dispensationalist and not a Messianic. Dispensationalism is a movement started in the late nineteenth century and emphasizes God’s work coming in different historical dispensations or periods with different methods of God’s working and our response. Progressive Dispensationalism is the newest form and is in some ways closer to Messianic Judaism and in others farther away. Dispensationalists believe the Old Testament is not normative, but is the Old Covenant replaced by the New. By contrast, Messianic Judaism upholds both Israel and Torah, not just Israel.

Charismatic Christianity is a movement tied to an earlier movement, Pentecostalism. Charismatic Christianity is not merely the practice of speaking in tongues (languages) but is a movement defined by experiential experimentation given divine authority. Charismatic Christianity is not all bad. Charismatics, like Dispensationalists, are among our best friends in Christendom. Charismatics love Israel (and many own shofars and prayer shawls, which, unfortunately, they desecrate by misuse). Charismatics have a few practices and principles I find troublesome: silly and self-defined miraculous experiences, authoritative teachers whose teachings need not demonstrate biblical fidelity to be adhered to, and theological naiveness. For example, a fad that is only now fading from popularity in Charismatic circles is the gold-dust phenomenon. Supposedly in specially “anointed” worship, God causes gold-dust to magically appear in the sanctuary. Many Charismatics probably hate this silliness as much as I do, but it is systemic in the movement (animal noises, holy laughter, ordaining people as prophets who have no proven word from the Lord, etc). Messianic Judaism is not Charismatic Christianity and Jews who come to Charismatic Messianic services are generally going to think it is all meshuggenah, which it is.

Reform and Conservative Judaism are probably the closest forms of Judaism to Messianic. That is because they, like us, resist the pressure to conform to Orthodox halakhah (practice) and to seek a rationale for Jewish practice rooted in something more solid. You can learn more about Reform Judaism in a series of book reviews I am about to post here called “Jewish Renewal.” In spite of some similarities in halakhic thought, Messianic Judaism is not Reform or Conservative, for Yeshua is central, not peripheral, to who we are.

Orthodox Judaism is not nearly so uniform as people imagine. Here in Atlanta, Beth Jacob, Beth Tefillah, and Young Israel are three very different congregations. Halakhah is even different (especially regarding women). Orthodox Judaism in general has the most detailed halakhah. Few are aware of the detailed practices for an Orthodox Shabbat or for Orthodox dietary law (where there is also disagreement between kosher and glatt kosher). Messianic Judaism is closest to Orthodox in taking the Bible literally, but in halakhah we are very different. Messianic Judaism is not Orthodox, for Yeshua is central and halakhah needs a great deal more latitude and interpretation than Orthodox are willing to give.

The Hebrew Roots Movement is often found in congregations that use the term Messianic. In fact, many Messianic congregations are influenced by their ideas. The Hebrew Roots Movement is more about Torah than Israel and the Jewish people. This is an easy temptation for Messianic congregations, since having many Gentile members is important for numbers, budgets, and survival. Having Gentile members is not the problem. The problem is when Messianic congregations become about Torah and Jewish customs, but not about Jewish people. First Fruits of Zion is an organization representing the best of the Hebrew Roots Movement and progress is being made in issues of Jewish identity. But for now, the Hebrew Roots Movement is about a Torah revival for Gentiles (these groups cannot endorse the churches since the churches do not practice Sabbath, dietary law, and circumcision). Messianic Judaism differs from the Hebrew Roots Movement because we see a distinction between Jews and Gentiles and how they relate to Torah.

Thoughts? Criticisms. Challenges? Post a comment.

Musings on Levine, Pt. 8

I am almost finished with Amy-Jill Levine’s The Misunderstood Jew (get it here).

It seems that her main purpose in writing is to encourage interfaith dialogue. I think interfaith discussions between Jews and Christians in academia can have value. I certainly like to see the influence of Judaism on Christian theology. I love what R. Kendall Soulen and others have done. I love the trend of taking Judaism more seriously and not making Judaism a foil or a Pelagian straw-man. I also like to see Christian theology influence Jewish thinkers, like Michael Wyschograd.

I think interfaith dialogue has limited value. Levine recognizes this and says that interfaith talk should not make Christians or Jews give up distinctives.

Starting on page 210, Levine talks about “interfaith possibilities.” She mentions statements by mainline Protestants and Catholics on interfaith dialogue and Bible interpretation.

The odd thing is that this (mostly liberal) interfaith talk seems not to result in real change. For example, while the PCUSA (mainline Presbyterians, plagued by liberal issues in recent years) may have issued a nice statement, they still attack Israel in their policy. The PCUSA statement says, “We are willing to ponder with Jews the mystery of God’s election of both Jews and Christians to be a light to the nations.”

That sounds nice. They are willing to consider the possibility that God elected Israel as his people. They are willing to consider Paul’s point of view a possibility!

Well, still, that would be nice and good except for a couple of things:
1. The PCUSA voted to divest in all businesses affiliated with Israel.
2. The PCUSA kicked the Messianic Jews out!

Let’s start with Israel and then I will get to the Messianic Jews. On their site explaining their policy (get it here) they say:

Additionally, after significant discussion, they agreed to “initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance with General Assembly policy on social investing.

What is their goal? To get Israel to quit occupying “Palestinian lands.” What do they say about terrorism and Palestinian bombers who kill children? They say nothing. They mention only violence on both sides, as if Israel’s violence is comparable to bombers blowing up pizza restaurants and buses!

Furthermore, the PCUSA used to have one Messianic Jewish congregation in its ranks. I know the parties involved, but I won’t mention names. The PCUSA in its past history had Hebrew Christians who reached out to fellow Jews and a congregation was started. Then in 2005 they decided that Messianic Jews are an offense and ceased all support and affiliation.

That’s the biggest problem with interfaith dialogue–Messianic Jews are not invited. Some have been open, such as Michael Wyschogrod, who says that a Torah-observant Messianic Judaism would at least be internally consistent, but most in the dialogue are not open.

Levine herself mentions Messianic Jews a number of times in her book. I don’t blame her for sort of lumping Messianic Jews in with Jews for Jesus (she knows they are different, but categorizes them in the same file) since many Messianic congregations, unfortunately, do not reflect a mature Judaism. But I wish she knew the mature side of the movement, the side that is really Jewish and not Christian-cake-with-Jewish-icing. I wish she would address the writings of mature Messianic Jewish scholars.

So, I will keep buying books reflective of interfaith discussion and I am glad to read them. But it is long past time that Messianic Jewish scholars (yes, we have them) be included. And it is also time for the Protestants of the mainline denominations to quit making pro-Jewish statements at the same time as anti-Israel statements.