I will be on blog vacation until May 4. Hope you’re not jealous, but after a weekend too busy to blog, I am gone Monday through Thursday to a retreat in Colorado. I’ll think about all of you while hiking. See ya May 4 with another Sabbath meditation.
I am amazed sometimes at how people who read the same Bible as I do miss out on God’s heart for the descendants of Jacob, the Jewish people — in Israel and all around the world. Many feel Israel is no longer relevant. Others know a lot of God-stuff will happen in and through Israel but figure it has nothing to do with their daily life.
The promises of God about Israel’s continuing place are numerous. The short list below is almost random there are so many to choose from:
–How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. Hosea 11:8
–For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11 (it’s about Israel, not about just anyone who feels like making it a promise for themselves!)
–Thus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
the Lord of hosts is his name:
If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the Lord,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
from being a nation before me forever. Jeremiah 31:35-36
–On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness. Zechariah 13:1
I could go on and on. The New Testament declares the same truth, especially in Romans 11. This Sabbath, whether you are Jewish, Messianic Jewish, or Christian, I want to encourage you to meditate on this subject. Let me start with some myths.
1. Now that Jesus has come there is a new people of God and Jewishness does not matter.
–This is wrong because, first, it would make God a liar, one who made certain eternal promises and then changed them. If he would do that to Israel, you should be worried he might do it to you.
–This is denied in the New Testament. Read Rom 11:28-29 carefully. Verse 18 is good also. Think about what they mean.
2. It is better to be Jewish. It makes you holier.
–Israel has a unique calling, but the Torah denies that Israel has an exclusive on God or that Israel was chosen for their own merit.
–In the Torah, Gentiles were able to approach God’s altar (Num 15:14).
–Amos 9:12, quoted in Acts 15, says Gentiles can remain Gentiles and be God’s people too.
3. (This one is sometimes held in the Hebrew Roots movement) There is nothing special about being Jewish since Torah is given for everyone equally.
–Torah was given to Israel and some parts of it are specifically signs between God and Israel (circumcision, tzit-tzit, Sabbath).
–It is perverse when someone claims to love Torah and yet they reject God’s election of Israel as the priestly people, a major theme of Torah.
God has worked through Israel and his covenant with Abraham to bring the world a Bible and a Messiah. God is still working through Israel at this moment, even non-believing Israel (Rom 11:28), and God will do most of his future wonders in and through Israel, the people and the land.
I don’t know about the Jewish community where you live. Here in Atlanta we are 120,000 strong. Think about the Jewish community where you live (if you live near a Jewish community).
Do you love God? Do you love his ways? Do you love his plan? Do you want to be as near to the heart of God as you can?
Start loving the Jewish people. Meet some. Don’t simply let them be a category of people or someone you see on TV. Visit a synagogue (Christian visitors are welcome).
Pray. Choose a specific Jewish community if possible. Pray for God to begin doing great things through his people. Pray for the coming of Messiah to be sped along and for all Israel to be saved in our lifetime (Rom 11:26). Pray as Yeshua taught us, “Your kingdom come, your will be done.”
Are you a Messianic Gentile? No need to be ashamed of who you are. But you are not disrespecting yourself if you recognize the role of the Jewish people in God’s plan. You are Messianic because you love Israel and you love Torah. Make sure you don’t forget the Israel part.
Are you a Messianic Jew? Don’t be ashamed of your priestly calling in this world. Honor your Judaism by keeping it. Endeavor to find your place as a descendant of Abraham, a revealer of God and Messiah to the world. Pray for your people. Make sure you think of the Jewish people as YOUR people and not THOSE people. Jews influenced by Christianity too often have an aversion to Judaism. This is not God’s will. The sooner you accept that God is working in and through Judaism, the sooner you will get on board with God.
Are you a Christian? Have you been taught that the church is the sum total of God’s work in this world? Read the Bible with fresh eyes. Pray for the priestly people, the beloved children of Abraham. Pray Psalm 122. Pray for Romans 11:26 to happen.
There is no God but the God of Israel. He made the world and through a covenant people he is renewing it. Shouldn’t we all be on the same page?
I was reading for another class I am taking at MJTI (mjti.org). The book is a reader in Jewish texts called Judaism and Spiritual Ethics, edited by Niles Goldstein and Steven Mason.
At one point, while discussing g’milut hasidim, acts of lovingkindness, the authors discuss the thirteen attributes of God. These are derived from Exodus 34:6-7. They are part of the story of Moses asking to see God’s glory. God permits Moses only to see a little and in passing by God makes a statement about himself, which can be seen as thirteen attributes of his essence:
1. HaShem – traditionally God’s name is related to his mercy.
2. HaShem – God repeats this, indicating it is central to his being.
3. El – a word for deity, indicates his kingship over all things.
4. Rachum – compassionate, he sympathizes with the oppressed.
5. Khanun – gracious, God is lovingly concerned with us.
6. Erekh afayim – slow to anger, he gives people time to repent.
7. Rav khesed – abundant in kindness, God gives more than we deserve.
8. Emet – truth, God is the source of truth.
9. Notzer khesed la’alafim – extending kindness to the thousandth generation, God is truly longsuffering.
10., 11., and 12. Nosei avon vafesha vekhata’ah – forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, God forgives all kinds of wrongdoing.
13. Venakeh lo yenakeh – yet God does not remit all punishment, which reminds us God’s mercy has a limit.
It is attribute number thirteen that I wish to focus on for a moment. Another translation words it, “who will by no means clear the guilty.” It is from the Torah, in Exodus 34:7.
There is a dialogue going on within Messianic Judaism. It concerns how wide the boundaries are for the Age to Come. Is conscious faith in Yeshua prior to death really necessary? What sort of exceptions does God make?
I had started a series and never finished in which I address a few aspects of this question. I started by noting that God does hear the prayers of the unredeemed (see Exclusivity and God 1). I also noted that Israel’s place as the people through whom God is focusing his work in the world is not dependent on Israel to have faith in Yeshua. I then discussed the Torah principle of karet, being cut off, as an example of God’s exclusivism in the Torah. I had planned to go on to discuss the idea of a remnant of Israel in Isaiah and Jeremiah. I never finished (and no one complained, so I’m guessing people were not too interested).
Now I would like to make one simple point. Many who believe that the traditional boundary of faith in Yeshua should not be considered absolute suggest it is against God’s character to be so narrow. And it is true that God is longsuffering, showing kindness to the thousandth generation, full of compassion, grace, and love. Yet the thirteenth attribute of God is his tendency to say, “Enough!”
God does have a line. He cut people off in the Torah for various violations and blasphemies. If in the New Testament we read that God’s boundary for the Age to Come is faith in Yeshua, then who are we to criticize. The New Testament is not making God out to be any more narrow than the Torah does.
Paul is one of the least understood figures in history. There are a number of tragic missteps of history that led to Paul being understood as an opponent of Judaism and an advocate of lawlessness.
First of all, there was the flood of non-Jewish Romans into the church, many of whom came with anti-Jewish prejudices (read the satires of Juvenal and you will know what I mean). Then, there is the fact, plainly spoken in the New Testament but virtually ignored by Paul’s interpreters, that Paul led the Gentile movement in the early church, not the Jewish movement. That is, Paul’s words should be interpreted as his teaching for Gentiles. I do not mean that Messianic Jews have no teaching available in Paul. I just mean that certain themes and trends in Paul should be seen as aimed at a Gentile audience. Paul does not address the kind of issues a Jewish believer today needs addressed.
If there is any verse in the Bible that gets thrown in our face as Messianic Jews, it is 1 Corinthians 9:20-21: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
Here is the fantasy version of what Paul meant: When I am around my Jewish buddies, I like to wear my tzit-tzit long and eat a good Hebrew National with sauerkraut. I am free to ignore the Torah, but I keep it around them so that I can introduce them to Jesus and then free them from the burden of Torah and Jewish identity. If I were to ignore the Torah, as is my hard-won right through the sacrifice of the Jewish Messiah, my Jewish peers would see Jesus as an idol pulling them away from God. I have to tread slowly with them so that when they are pulled away from the Torah and asked to forfeit their Jewish identity, they will be so in love with Jesus it will not be difficult. Meanwhile, when I am around non-Jews, I enjoy a good pork chop and laugh it up with them. Heaven knows there are enough people pushing the Law on them. The last thing they need is a stuffy Jewish apostle giving them false impressions. So around the Gentiles, I can be myself, a man set free from Jewish identity and Torah, a man of freedom and the new Law of Christ (found in the New Testament which has not been written yet — but I got an advance copy!).
Here are some problems with this fantasy:
1. This interpretation would make Paul a hypocrite, pretending to be one thing with Jews and another with non-Jews.
2. If Paul believed the Torah was no longer important, then he was not agreeing with Yeshua (Matt 5:17-19).
3. Yeshua died because people are separated from God and need a cleansing to bring reconciliation. He did not die because the Law was oppressive and needed to be repealed.
4. If Yeshua came to bring a new message — do not follow the Law or the Covenant God made with you, just believe in me — then he is asking Jews to transgress God’s commandment.
5. If people want to give an extreme interpretation of what Paul meant by putting himself “under the law” around Jews, why not an extreme interpretation of Paul making himself “not under the law” around Gentiles? That is, why not say that Paul got wasted on Corinthian ale and patted a few Corinthian babes on the tukhes to seem relevant to his pagan audience!
6. Under the Law is an expression in Paul about our status before salvation; we are under the curse of the law as lawbreakers. We are not under the law after salvation because Yeshua took away the curse (he did not take away the commandments!).
So what is the reality of what Paul meant? I become the servant of all. I desire to see all men, Jews and non-Jews, discover the freedom we have in Yeshua: freedom from curse and death. With regard to those under the Torah, the truth is I am not under the authority of their synagogues. I have a fellowship that is greater. But I submit to the Jewish leaders, I live among them and relate to them as an equal and not a superior. Also, when I am around non-Jews, I do not practice table-separation as is the custom of many Jews. I relate to them as an equal and not a superior. I am a servant to all, Jew and non-Jew, so that by humbling myself and loving them, I might win them to faith in Yeshua.
The principle of 1 Corinthians 9 is not hypocritical evangelism, pretending to be what we are not to win people, but servanthood and dealing with people as an equal and not a superior. How much success have Christians had with the I’m-better-than-you-because-I’m-saved approach?
I’m tackling a topic here that could make some people mad. I want to tread lightly. I understand that I am critiquing and attempting to undermine a strong tradition in Protestant Christianity. I know that the people who keep this tradition are often deeply passionate about it. I know that the regular practice of this tradition honors the God of Israel and keeps the sacrifice of Messiah central in churches. I applaud the intent and fruits of this tradition. I will even admit that, in worshipping with churches, I often partake of it myself. And I forget about differences and disagreements and I genuinely worship nearly every time I do.
But I must critique the tradition of the communion service, a.k.a. the Lord’s Supper. You know what I mean, the thimble of Welch’s and the microscopic wafer of unleavened bread. I read the story of Moishe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus, who partook of his first communion in a Baptist church. He asked what communion was. They said, “It is a little like your Passover service.” So that Sunday morning he skipped breakfast to save room. He came looking forward to Gefilte Fish, Brisket, Carrot Tzimmes, and the whole schmear, only to be crestfallen with the appearance of the thimble of Welch’s and the tiny wafer. “Just like Gentiles,” he thought.
Here is my big question: where does Yeshua ever say we are to drink a little juice and eat a tiny piece of bread in remembrance of him?
Here is the fantasy version: Yeshua and his disciples sat on the same side of the table posing as DaVinci painted his famous picture. Meanwhile, Yeshua was reciting the words of institution right out of his pocket New Testament. He took out tiny clear cups made of plastic the size of a thimble. He broke out a metal dish with perfectly round wafers from the Christian bookstore. His deacons came to the front and received the dish and cups from him. The organist played as they passed out the juice and wafers. After eating, they all sang “Blest Be the Ties That Bind.”
That, of course, is not at all what happened.
Here is the real version: Yeshua and his disciples enjoyed a Passover Seder the night before he was killed. They followed an older, simpler version of the same Passover Seder celebrated today in Jewish homes. After the meal, Yeshua broke one of the main symbols of the Seder, a piece of unleavened bread. He asked them to eat it and said it was his body. He led them in drinking the third cup (after the meal) which probably already represented redemption. He said, “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:25). The “whenever you drink it” part has an obvious meaning: whenever you drink the third cup of Passover (not whenever you invent a new ceremony of drinking a thimble of juice).
Therefore, it is our practice, and that of many Messianic Jewish congregations, to remember the body and blood of our Messiah at the Passover. We do not have weekly, monthly, or quarterly communion services.
What is the origin of the Protestant communion service? Simple: the Catholic eucharist. It is simply a eucharistic sacrament scaled down to a non-sacramental remembrance. Sometimes the practices of Protestantism owe more to the Catholic tradition that preceded them than to the Bible. I do not mean to make light of Catholicism either, but simply to point out that traditions carry over into Protestantism with minor changes. I would assert that much of Catholic tradition is of questionable origin, created in the crucible of a pagan world being Christianized. The magical elements of pagan worship are often baptized and incorporated into Catholic tradition in ways that sit wrongly in my kishkes.
So, are you keeping the intent of Yeshua when you celebrate a communion service? Can your church handle a change back to biblical intention? I don’t want to get anyone fired from a pastorate or split any churches, but what can be done? I hope some day soon, before Yeshua comes, more churches will make Passover an annual tradition and remember the body and blood of Messiah on the third cup.
Pharisee is a bad word in the minds of many Jesus-followers. When people want to characterize someone as religiously backwards, hypocritical, or legalistic, they never use the word Sadducee or Essene. It is always Pharisee or Pharisaic. When speaking of compromisers, I’ve never once heard someone use the term Herodian. The Pharisees get a unique bad rap in Christendom.
It’s true that Yeshua (and John the Baptizer) said some harsh things about Pharisees: brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs, straining gnats and swallowing camels, etc. But do they deserve the bad reputation they have received? Would Yeshua agree with modern attitudes toward the Pharisees as a whole? Conversely, was Yeshua more like a Sadducee, Herodian, Essene, or Pharisee? Would he be more likely to worship with the Pharisees or the Sadducees?
There is a sort of caricature or fantasy version of the Pharisees. It makes for nice sermons. I once saw a play aimed at children in which the Pharisees were ridiculed for following 613 laws! (Clue here: the 613 laws are from the Bible, not laws made up by the Pharisees). I once watched an animated Bible story in which the Pharisees were portrayed with long noses staring down condescendingly on everyone. Looked like Hitler produced this animated series as WWII propaganda.
The fantasy version of the Pharisees goes something like this: They were the ultimate hypocrites. They relied on the flesh — outward rules and boundaries — instead of the spirit. Because they relied on the flesh, the Pharisees were complete shams. They engaged in rampant lust without any hope of holiness. After all, who could avoid lust without being spiritual? They were bitter and hateful because the burden of the Torah was heavy on them. Yeshua came to oppose the Pharisees by showing a spiritual way in contrast to their fleshly way of being righteous.
The reality looks more like this: The Pharisees were far less corrupt than: (1) many churches today, (2) many TV “ministries” today, (3) and the Sadducees and Herodians. The Pharisees were far closer in doctrine to Yeshua and Paul than other Jewish groups (both Yeshua and Paul took the side of the Pharisees against the Sadducees in the New Testament). Paul considered himself a Pharisee long after coming to faith in Yeshua — he never quit being a Pharisee. The Pharisees were the closest Jewish movement to Yeshua. In fact, Yeshua was very much like the Pharisees in many ways.
How can this be? Why does Yeshua reserve his harshest and most frequent criticism for the Pharisees? It is reasonable to assume that Yeshua criticized them the most because they had the most promise as a movement. When looking for a key person to spread the Yeshua-faith, God chose a prominent Pharisee, not a Sadducee or Herodian or Essene. Sometimes those closest to the truth need the most correction. I might use as an example the frequent evangelical Christian literature criticizing evangelicalism!
Let me quickly go over a few surprising points made in the New Testament about Pharisees:
Yeshua said that the Pharisees’ interpretations and applications of the Law were binding on his disciples! You may think I am crazy. Where is that in the New Testament? Read Matthew 23:2-3. Yes, Yeshua said they sit in Moses’ seat. He said his disciples should do as the Pharisees say, being careful to observe their traditions about how to keep the Law. Yet he criticized the Pharisees for not following their own teachings. Isn’t that human nature, teaching the truth but failing to live up to it?
Paul remained a Pharisee his whole life and this was perhaps the reason he was received in synagogue all over the empire. But wait . . . wasn’t Paul a former Pharisee? In Acts 23:6 and Philippians 3:5, Paul speaks of himself as a Pharisee . . . in the present tense.
Yeshua affirmed the teaching of the Pharisees but criticized tendencies within Pharisaism to be slack in observing the Law. Wait! You mean Yeshua felt the Pharisees were too loose? Yes. So did the Essenes, who were far stricter. They called the Pharisees “the makers of smooth things,” because they felt the Pharisees smoothed out the Law and made it too easy. Most of Yeshua’s criticism is not of the official policy of Pharisaism, but of abuse of the Law by individuals.
Take Matthew 23, for example. Yeshua affirms the teaching of the Pharisees as God-ordained. Then he pounces on the movement for abuses. Some love to brag and show off their piety. Isn’t this still a problem in religion today? Some travel to spread their movement and fail to teach the truth. Isn’t that a common happening today in Christianity? These abuses were not systemic, but particular to parts of the movement.
What was going on? Why was this abuse a problem? The fact is, the Pharisees were part of a relatively new movement. Jewish tradition was fluid at the time. The traditions about how to keep the Law were still highly debatable. Some individuals were abusing tradition and failing to keep the Law. Some made traditions that skirted around the Law. Yeshua was not angry with the Pharisees for being too righteous, but he railed against fake righteousness and law-breaking.
So, the next time you consider using the adjective Pharisaic as an insult, think about Yeshua. Think about Paul. And please, let’s get rid of the over-simplistic caricature. The Pharisees are the Jewish movement closest to God in Yeshua’s time. Yes, many of them missed Messiah. Many chose to remain in the older tradition and not accept the new teachings of Yeshua and the disciples. But don’t be vain. Are you so sure that you are any better?
I love living in between two worlds (Judaism and Christianity, in case you didn’t know what I meant). It means sometimes having to submit to questions about my identity (Why Jesus? Why Judaism?).
One scenario which plays itself out repeatedly is the following: 1. I speak in an evangelical church, 2. I go out to lunch with some of the people, 3. the absence of pork in my diet is noted, and 4. someone brings up Acts 10 and wonders why I don’t realize that the dietary laws of the Torah are now obsolete.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not complaining. I enjoy the opportunity to challenge the status-quo from time to time. I also don’t mind saying the same things over and over again. After all, one of the messages I deliver in churches I have given about 600 times! I’m used to repeating myself.
So it is not as though I expect this article to be my last word on the subject. I won’t print it in a brochure and hand it to the next person who asks me about dietary law. But I do hope it will answer the questions for many who have them. Acts 10 is simply not what many people think it is. There is a fantasy version and the real version of Acts 10.
Let’s start with the fantasy version: Peter was enjoying a Hebrew National kosher beef frank one day and talking with all his Jewish friends. Suddenly the Spirit came over Peter and he saw a vision. Cascading down from the Israeli sky was a giant silk sheet of white. Peter was drawn to look more closely. Inside the sheet there were many fancy platters, like a buffet table at a Hilton Hotel. On the platters there were scrambled eggs and waffles and hashbrown potatoes. But what really drew his attention were platters with honey-cured ham, crisp Hormel bacon, a suckling pig with an apple in its mouth, lobster, shrimp cocktail, and oysters on the half shell. Peter had secretly fantasized about eating such fare. With great joy he heard God say, “Peter, eat.” It was God. It was God telling Peter that Leviticus 11 was being repealed by heaven. Peter’s Jewish heart was kvelling. At long last he was freed from the burden that had weighed on him for decades. He could be just like everybody else.
It’s a nice fantasy. It’s what people want to believe. It makes for a nice theology (we’re all the same now). People frequently tell me, “There is now neither Jew nor Greek.” They love Galatians 3:28. They neglect the next part: neither male nor female. Sometimes I ask in order to introduce reality, “By your logic, then, I assume you have no problem with same-sex marriage?”
Let’s talk about the reality: Peter’s vision had nothing to do with eating. Peter didn’t eat anything and God wasn’t actually talking about food at all. God did not say, “I am repealing my Torah.”
Check Acts 10. Read the text carefully. See if what I am about to say is true. Peter saw a great sheet coming down from heaven and inside it were . . . animals of all kinds (not a breakfast buffet). The text specifies that this included birds and reptiles. Yes, sparrows, crows, pigeons, turtles, coral snakes, geckos, and many animals were inside — hardly a tasty vision.
When God told Peter to kill and eat anything he liked from the vision, Peter refused. Why? Because, contrary to many readings of the apostles, they were Jews and remained Jews and kept the Torah. Then God makes his point, “What I have made clean, do not call common.”
What does he mean? Is God making pork clean? How about geckos (eat up if you like)? No, God is talking about something else. This is that. We call it symbolism. What do the unclean animals in the vision symbolize? Gentiles. How do we know that? That is the context of the whole story. It is about Peter taking the good news of Messiah to Cornelius and his family, Gentiles who attend synagogue and want to know about Yeshua. Later, Peter relates the vision and says the vision taught him something. It did not teach him to break the Torah and renounce his Jewish identity. It taught him that men of all nations are acceptable to God.
Now understand this: God is not really doing something new. Check the prophets and psalms. God always accepted Gentiles. It is simply that Peter and others did not understand this. They thought Yeshua was just for Jews and converts. God is not repealing anything. He always wanted Gentiles to draw near (check Numbers 15:14-15). The anti-Gentile sentiment of Judaism was from the Second Temple period and was not from God. God never commanded a “Court of the Gentiles,” for instance, but allowed Gentiles to draw near. Peter simply needed education, not a reversal of the Torah.
So, the next time you are tempted to use Acts 10 as your rationale for saying the law is obsolete, remember Peter didn’t see honey-cured ham. He saw geckos and coral snakes. There was nothing new in the vision — just education for an apostle blinded by the Judaism of his day.
I had dinner with a friend last night. He is someone I see only once a year or so. He is a rather intense person. (He may be reading this, so I have to be careful what I say). He is that kind of intense person who clearly has a calling from God. It was a meaningful dinner, one that took me back to a basic imperative: following Torah.
It may seem elementary or trivial, since you would think Messianic Judaism already centralizes Torah, but it is easy to lose Torah in the shuffle of other central imperatives (God, Messiah, community of Israel, congregational life, etc.). He reminded me that in the midst of it all, following God means following Torah. Simple but true.
I have often used the analogy of a house to help explain Torah to people who are already readers of the Bible. I entered the faith through an evangelical Christian setting. Our primary reference point was in the writings of Paul. You could say that Paul’s writings were the kitchen and living room. The Torah was a murky basement, dark and terrifying.
What I needed to know was that the Torah is really the main level of a two-story house. It is not the murky basement. The New Testment is the upper floor, built upon and dependent on the main level of Torah.
Think about it: the main teachings of the Bible are all in Torah. The rest of the Bible is based on what God already revealed in Torah. Creation, sin, separation, covenant, election, Israel, it’s all there. All the rest of the Hebrew Bible is an expansion of Torah. The historical books (the former prophets) show how Israel’s ups and downs were based on their response to Torah. The wisdom literature is Torah made practical (as well as disturbing questions that appear to be exceptions to Torah). The prophets call Israel back to Torah. The Gospels are about a man born under Torah whose message is consistent with Torah and who is the goal of Torah. The epistles are practical letters for following that man and discussions of Jews and Gentiles in light of Torah and Messiah.
If you think of Torah as the main level of a house, it is apparent that you cannot properly build the upper floors (New Testament understanding) without a solidly built main level. The Torah supports the New Testament.
I was taught differently. I was taught that Paul’s epistles were the standard and we moved backward from them into Gospels and Torah. Torah was mostly that other book, that mostly obsolete book from the old days, superseded and replaced in New Testament. I was taught that Torah is the way they used to do it. We know better now, but we read it for two reasons: history and to see hints of Jesus.
As I developed my Biblical Theology, I came to believe that Torah was more than that. I came to see that the Bible regards Torah as the foundation, not the obsolete way of the past. But even then I did not understand. It was at that point that I started Tikvat David in 2001. I knew the Torah was foundational, but I still carried a lot of anti-Torah prejudice with me.
What really opened my eyes was studying the Torah over a long period of time. I teach it year after year in the annual reading cycle. Its beauty becomes more apparent each year.
Those afraid of the Torah should read it, again and again. Its contents are not digestible in one read. It is a deep book. Its subtleties become clear with repetition and trying to understand it from within. That is exactly why it took me so long to understand it — I read it from the outside. I was an outsider to Torah. This is for the past. This is how they used to do it. I don’t need to figure out this boring detail since we don’t do it anymore.
I urge you,. Jewish or non-Jewish, become an insider to Torah. Read it from within. Read it as the book of your faith. Until heaven and earth disappear, not the slightest letter or stroke will disappear from it. The Torah is spiritual, Paul said. Yes, spiritual.
The Sabbath approaches and I do hope you are preparing for a family dinner and candle lighting with the ancient blessings of Judaism. For my non-Jewish readers, I do hope you are preparing for a relaxing weekend as well.
The topic I have chosen for this Sabbath meditation might not seem “spiritual.” But the truth is the physical and spiritual are joined in Judaism and in proper Christian theology. It is incorrect to divide them. What could be more devotional than an act which forms a large part of our daily existence — eating.
For all who are new to the topic of kashrut or dietary law, it is important to know that:
1. Leviticus 11 spells out which kinds of animals may be eaten. The most common animals forbidden in the diet of the average American are pork, shellfish, shrimp, lobster, catfish, and rabbit. (I won’t mention possum and squirrel though I do live in Georgia!).
2. It is forbidden to eat torn flesh found in the field (Ex 22:30) or an animal found dead (Deut 14:21) — you know, roadkill.
3. You may not kill a mother bird and her young at the same time for food or any other reason (Deut 22:6-7).
4. You may not boil a baby goat in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:29, 34:26, Deut 14:21).
Now these are the biblical prohibitions, but Jewish tradition, based on decisions of the rabbis, goes further.
5. You may not mix milk and meat in the same dish, eat them at the same time, or cook them together (fowl counts as meat, but not fish).
6. You may not place meat on a vessel used for milk or vice-versa (even knives, dishwashers, silverware, etc. are kept separate by the very traditional).
7. You may not eat any meat (fish don’t count) not slaughtered by a kosher butcher, following procedures deemed more humane than commercial slaughtering (but unfortunately more than doubling the price of meat).
It is a common routine in Messianic Judaism for the stricter requirements of Judaism to be ignored and a style of kosher to be kept that people call “Biblical kosher.” I wish to challenge this status quo.
In the first place, maybe what is Biblical is not so clear. For example, the Bible says that meat must be slaughtered so that the blood is poured out and covered with dust (Lev 17:13). Flesh that is torn may not be eaten (Ex 22:30). How biblical are many of us in interpreting these laws?
There is a tractate of the Talmud where the rabbis debate these issues, Chullin. An excellent but brief summary of all this can be found in Rabbis Olitzky and Judson’s The Ritual and Practices of a Jewish Life on page 50:
Who may be a slaughterer? What are proper and improper acts of slaughter? What should one do if one finds a live fetus in the uterus of the slaughtered animal? Which animals may be cooked in milk? Because rennet, the curdling agent used to make cheese, comes from the stomach of a calf, is it a meat product?
I raise all of these questions to challenge the status-quo. Are you being as biblical as you think? I know that not all of the traditional practices are strictly deduced from the written Torah, but I also do not think modern practices for slaughtering and packaging meat necessarily fulfill all the requirements of Torah. Furthermore, even if we can make a case that separating milk and meat is unnecessary, why should we not follow the other observant members of our community. Why not be more kosher?
This Shabbat, think about how much food is a part of your life. Think how you can sanctify this physical practice. Bless God before eating your food and pray thanksgiving after. Choose your food wisely and think how it impacts your life before God. Enjoyment should be part of it, but also nourishment and righteousness. Let’s get biblical!
There are two posts today, so don’t forget to scroll down and read “Rob Bell on Heaven and Hell.” I am reading Sex God, and finding it to be a moving read with much to say about how I live my life. I appreciate Rob’s ability to communicate in ways that move me and make me want to be transformed.
I was reading a blog called the Friendly Atheist speaking about Rob Bell (read it here). I was impressed that Rob can communicate in ways that interest a thoughtful young atheist rather than turning him off. If you read the article, you may agree with me that Rob was too soft and non-committal on a few things. But even if he is making some mistakes, he is representing God well to people who need to know him.
Anyway, the blog article got me thinking about some of Rob’s ideas expressed in Sex God that have bearing on the issue of atheism. I like C.S. Lewis’s point, made famously in Mere Christianity. He said that when we are seeking truth, we may not be able to have certainty about the universe. It is outside of us. But we can look within and feel more certainty that we know ourselves than any certainty that we know the universe. Thus, Lewis goes on to give evidence for God from our own moral urgings.
Rob does something similar. He is not really trying to argue with atheism, but to make a point about a balanced view of sexuality and materialism. Nonetheless, Rob opens a window into the urges inside us, urges that are evidence of God’s reality.
Rob contrasts our inner angel and our inner animal. His first illustration is of a safari when he and his wife witnessed a lion couple mating. Rob noticed the sheer physicality of the encounter, the lack of spirit:
These animals are going to mate because it’s in their DNA, their blood, their environment. They aren’t lying out there in that field thinking, I just really want to know that you love me for more than my body.
A little later, Rob describes the sheer animalism of the spring break party scenes in places like Cancun. For a little while life becomes hedonism. This leads Rob to ask:
Are we just the sum of our urges?
What a question. How can an atheist avoid honestly saying yes, we are just the sum of our urges? How can any thinking, feeling person really feel this is a description of the truth we experience?
Rob goes on to speak about our angel urges. Angels do not need the physical. They do not need food, sex, or physical pleasure. God made us differently. We can’t pretend to be angels. We have physical needs and there are good ways to fulfill them:
When we deny the spiritual dimension to our existence, we end up living like animals. And when we deny the physical, sexual dimension to our existence, we end up living like angels.
And both ways are destructive, because God made us human.
Later he says, God made animals before humans. He also made angels before humans. To go back and try to live either way is to go backwards.
I don’t know if any atheists will read my little blog. But if you do, I hope you ask yourself similar questions. Isn’t there a little bit of angel in you calling out for fulfillment? You may turn Freudian and call it wish-fulfillment, but what if you are wrong? Why not indulge it a little? Try reading Matthew. Try praying to the God of Israel and the God of Jesus. Maybe we are more than the sum of our urges and maybe you will find it too.
I’m reading Sex God, by Rob Bell. You can buy it here. The book is short and very well-written. Anyone not moved by this book probably needs a few hits off of a defibrillator.
I’m not exactly planning to review Rob’s book, but there may be an idea or two that spur me on to a blog topic. The topic du jour is heaven, earth, and hell. Rob has a few interesting things to say about these even though Sex God is not a book about heaven and hell.
First, Rob is taking something as foundational for his theology that I wish more Christians would as well: that heaven will be on earth. In case you have no idea what I am talking about, I am addressing the popular misconception that we are all going to die and go to a far away heaven forever. It is not true. Heaven will only be our home in the in-between time — in between our death and the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. At that time, we will live on the New Earth (I’m omitting variations between pre-millennial and a-millennial views).
There are many implications to a heaven-on-earth view. In the first place, it is a rejection of latent Platonism that creeps into much Christian faith. Plato taught that our bodies are prisons for the soul; souls yearn to be free of material and be free in the realm of spirit. The afterlife is bodiless, immaterial, and not subject to the pains and difficulties of physicality.
Further, the heaven-is-coming-to-earth view of the Bible affirms our bodies, our sexuality, our material selves. Heaven will be full of rocks, trees, rivers, mountains, and hills. There will be grass and sky and cloud. Heaven will be the beauty of earth as it was intended to be without pain, frustration, or death. The beauty we all find in a grassy hill and a blue sky is a picture of the unadulterated joy of heaven on earth.
Rob Bell speaks of this view of heaven-on-earth impacting our view of the here and now. Things we do on this earth matter in the New Earth. I love his examples. One is of a couple he knows who adopt unwanted and disabled children:
When Lil got to the point in her story, she reached down and patted her daughter and said, “This is Crystal. She’s twenty-seven years old but will be about six months old developmentally for the rest of her life. She can’t talk or walk or move or feed herself or do anything on her own. She will be like this, totally dependent on us, until the day she dies. And I love her so much. My family and I, we can’t imagine life without her. She makes everything so much better.”
What is Lil doing?
She’s bringing heaven to earth.
I also like Rob Bell’s vision of hell. I have always been a fan of C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, and I think I see similarity in Rob’s conception of hell:
Now if there is a realm where things are as God wants them to be, then there must be a realm where things are not as God wants them to be. Where things aren’t according to God’s will. Where people aren’t treated as fully human.
It’s called hell.
Think about the expression “for the hell of it.” When someone says “for the hell of it,” what they mean is that whatever is being discussed was done or said for no apparent reason. It was, in essence, pointless. Random. And God is for purpose and beauty and meaning.
When we say something was “a living hell,” we mean that it was void of any love or peace or beauty or meaning. It was absent of the will and desire of God.
So heaven is coming to earth and hell is the place where the will and desire of God are absent. Not a bad summary at all.
I am a fool for eschatology [theology of the future]. I love to think about the promises of the prophets. I love to imagine the world the prophets say will some day be here.
I am reminded of eschatology when I eat breakfast and see a painting of the Third Temple on my dining room wall. I read constantly about things that remind me of eschatology. Just recently I read a few comments about Rob Bell and one of his teachings: we need to quit thinking we are going away and understand heaven is coming here to earth. I’m glad that more and more realize this (I enjoyed Randy Alcorn’s book, Heaven, for the same reason). I am glad more and more followers of Yeshua are ceasing Platonic misconceptions of an immaterial afterlife (I am not denying the intermediate state).
Some people make fun of eschatology. Some scholars roll their eyes at the Joel Rosenbergs of the world who speculate about eschatology and current events. I just read a blog article by Ben Witherington III poking fun at Rosenberg and others. I respect Ben, but what if Russia and Iran do attack Israel? What will he say then?
The thing is, I would rather be a fool for eschatology than a cynic who misses the joy of expectation. I would rather think Messiah may come in my lifetime than be a cynic.
I have always identified with the part of the Lord’s Prayer that says, “Your kingdom come.” I love it when Peter speaks of “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet 3:12). It reminds me of an idea I encountered in my early studies of Judaism.
I was a new student of Judaism and knew next to nothing. I had been assigned to read some chapters from The Jewish Catalogue (a book by the Havurah [home-group] movement bringing renewal to Judaism). Somewhere near the beginning of their book, the authors talked about the concept of Torah faithfulness speeding the coming of Messiah. If all Israel would just keep two Sabbaths in a row, I think the tradition goes, then Messiah will come. Peter seems to have a comparable idea.
That leads me to the point I wanted to make. I have come to love a line from the Siddur, the prayerbook of Israel. It is simply a quotation from scripture (as is much of the Siddur). It is even a quotation of a verse I have read many times from a very familiar chapter (Zechariah 14). Yet there is something about the context of the quotation in the Alenu, a concluding prayer for the morning service, that makes this quotation stand out even more:
And it is said, ‘HaShem will be king over all the world — on that day HaShem will be one and his name will be one.’ Zechariah 14:9, from the Alenu, p.161 Artscroll Siddur.
What does it mean that God will be one? Isn’t he one already? It means he will be the only. His name will not be scattered. No man will have to teach his neighbor saying, “Know HaShem,” for all will know him. It will not be Buddha, Allah, Vishnu, and HaShem, but only HaShem.
It is a great promise, especially for those of us who feel marginalized right now because of our faith in Israel’s God and Israel’s Messiah. So let that Temple be rebuilt and let the name of HaShem be one. Your kingdom come, Yeshua.
I chose this topic today because of something Ben Witherington III said on his blog while reviewing the writings of Rob Bell. Rob is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. He is a wildly popular communicator and a man who thinks deeply and communicates well. He is accused by some of liberalism and may in fact have some problematic beliefs in a few areas. I am not an expert on his theology, though I am about to read his latest book (Sex God).
I was introduced to Rob Bell by a friend who is a Jewish believer and totally into the Willow Creek church model and also interested in Emergent Churches. My friend said to me, “Rob Bell started his church with a sermon series on Leviticus. How cool is that!” I have to admit, most churches don’t preach on Leviticus ever, much less start with a series on it. I gave Rob an immediate credit for that one.
I have heard one or two Rob Bell messages online. I have not listened to his popular NOOMA video series, but I have heard great things about it. Rob is a part of this new communication style with object lessons and one point messages (similar to Andy Stanley and Louis Giglio). The sermon I heard by Rob Bell was one in which he made fresh salsa on stage as he was speaking. I think it is a little gimmicky and it is not my taste, but I would not be foolish enough to criticize it. I have about 50 people who listen to me each week and Rob has thousands (tens of thousands on the web). He obviously is a much better communicator than I am.
Anyway, I should get to the point. One of the things I appreciate about Rob Bell is his desire to present Jesus as a Jewish rabbi. Yet, Ben Witherington III takes Rob to task for his statements in this regard. I want to show that the truth is somewhere in between Rob and Ben’s assessment.
Now, let me say a word about Ben Witherington III and then I will get to the issue. I think Ben Witherington III is a good scholar, but with some holes. He is a supersessionist, for one thing. He often tells people they should read books, so I will say it: Ben, you should read R. Kendall Soulen’s The God of Israel and Christian Theology. I wish a man of BW3’s reading and prolific corpus of writings would get the Israel issue right. In the meantime, I still get a lot of value from Ben’s commentaries.
Anyway, here is an excerpt from and a link to several of Ben’s reviews of Rob Bell:
First of all it seems clear that Rob, in his valid attempt to read Jesus and the NT writers in the context of early Judaism, has not used good enough sources to really help him understand the difference between Judaism prior to the two Jewish wars in the first and second centuries A.D, and later Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism.
Jesus was certainly not a rabbi in the later Mishnaic sense, much less like modern ordained rabbis. It is telling that the only time Jesus is ever really called rabbi by any of his followers is when Judas does so when he is betraying Jesus with a kiss. Jesus’ approach to the Torah is not like later rabbis in various ways, not the least of which is that he does not cite (indeed he often contrasts his teaching with) the oral traditions of the elders, such as Hillel or Shammai and the like. Jesus spoke on his own independent authority. At times Rob seems too uncritical in his reading of sources like the truly dated works of Alfred Edersheim, and apparently he spends too much time listening to folks like Ray Vanderlaan, a local teacher in the Grand Rapids area who doesn’t really much understand the differences between medieval Jewish rabbis and the context and ethos of teachers in early Judaism of Jesus’ day. Rob needs to read some viable sources on early Judaism, for example some of the work of Craig Evans or George Nickelsburg or Jacob Neusner if he wants to paint the picture of the Jewish Jesus using the right hews, tones, and features.
Here are links to two of Ben’s blogs reviewing Rob Bell:
Rob Bell Hits Lexington
Velvet Elvis Review
Here are my thoughts:
1. Perhaps Rob is guilty of oversimplifying matters and perhaps he makes some errors in reading Jesus as a rabbi in the modern sense.
2. Perhaps Rob is guilty of not knowing the distinction between pre-70 Judaism and the Judaism of the Mishnah (c. 200 C.E.).
3. Ben is nonetheless guilty of overstating the difference and missing the larger point: Jesus was a rabbi in the early sense of the term.
I will cite a scholar whose work is well respected, John Meier, a Roman Catholic scholar whose series A Marginal Jew is considered a work to be reckoned with in Jesus studies. Meier considers the case for and against Jesus having had an education that we might call Rabbinic. Here are some of Meier’s points:
1. The Talmud’s depiction of universal public schooling for Jewish boys in Hebrew and Bible is certainly fictitious before 70 C.E.
2. Nonetheless, evidence of common literacy (not universal) is strong.
3. Numerous inscriptions on common articles suggest literacy was not rare.
4. There is evidence that some Jews held their own private copies of the Torah.
5. There is evidence from the time of Bar Kochba (132 C.E.) of grammar school exercises in Hebrew.
6. From 200 B.C.E. we know that the ability to read and interpret Torah was held in high esteem and urged for all (Sirach 39:1-11).
7. The gospel accounts depict Jesus as literate in Hebrew and capable of discussing fine points of halakhah. Take for example Luke 4:16 and following as well as Matt 22:23 and following.
8. Nazareth was a mostly Jewish town of 2,000 people in Jesus’ time and it is likely that there was a synagogue (as the Gospels claim) and an education program available.
Meier concludes:
The natural conclusion from all this is that, sometime during his childhood or early adulthood, Jesus was taught how to read and expound the Hebrew Scriptures. This most likely happened — or at least began — in the synagogue at Nazareth. Yet there is no indication of higher studies at some urban center such as Jerusalem…
(Meier, Vol. 1, p.278).
Is it fair, then, to call Yeshua a rabbi? Even in the modern sense, rabbi is not merely a term used for leaders of synagogues. Many ordained rabbis do not lead synagogues. They have ordination passed on to them in a chain from Talmudic times and are considered learned. So Yeshua would not have to have led an ancient synagogue to be considered a rabbi, even in the modern sense.
What would rabbi [literally "my exalted one, or my master"] mean in the ancient sense? It seems to me it meant any learned person who could gather disciples and teach a way of living Israel’s law. I think Yeshua qualifies for the title since:
1. He was frequently called rabbi (sometimes the text says “teacher” in order to make the title understandable to a Roman audience).
2. He had disciples just as other ancient rabbis had disciples.
3. His saying were memorized and treated as authoritative.
It is true that he was not part of the system of rabbinic succession that had probably already begun. This is debated by those skeptical that any of the Mishnah accurately portrays 2nd Temple Judaism, but it is hard to believe that the entire idea of rabbinic schools and disciples is a complete invention. It may be exaggerated in the Mishnah, but it is not a complete fiction.
Bottom line? I think BW3 is right to ask Rob Bell to read a little Neusner (and I would add, N.T. Wright). But I also think Rob Bell is right to call Jesus a rabbi and to use this title to communicate to moderns the Jewishness of our Savior. I think BW3 should go a little easier on Rob Bell and I think Rob Bell should do a little reading recommended by BW3. Perhaps in the end, both will be better for it.
*****Postscript: I have just read a summary of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis and I see that he has made a few historical blunders. Ben Witherington is right to ask Rob to read a little more on these historical issues. Specifically in chapter 4 Rob talks about the rabbis having a yoke and binding and loosing things. He is mostly reading later rabbinic thought back into the first century. Also, in chapter 7, Rob assumes that the later Jewish education system was in place in the first century, that Jesus went on to advanced rabbinic training, and that the age of 30 was a traditional age for a rabbi to begin his teaching. I think Rob is wrong about these details. It’s too bad, because Rob’s point is not dependent on them. He could have made his point with a more accurate portrayal of Jesus’ education and rabbinic work. I also still say that Ben could do a better job of acknowledging that seeing Jesus as Rabbi Yeshua is a helpful corrective for modern seekers.
I came to this topic because of an event we held at our congregation last night. My wife, who is creative and a lover of children, created a Passover experience party for the kids. We used many items available from Jewish bookstores, such as frogs that jump when you flip a tab in the back. We held frog races that Mark Twain would have been proud of. We had stickers that look like little red boils. The children put them on and screamed in mock agony. My wife put red Koolaid powder in the bottom of a glass and poured water in as the children gasped to see water turned to “blood.”
This morning one of the mothers called. She told me that her preschool children had the time of their life.
That got me thinking about the Next Generation in Messianic Judiasm. I don’t so much mean the youth, college age, or the young adults. I mean the children.
Most adults in Messianic Judaism grew up in either a secular environment or a church environment. Few of us, Jewish on non-Jewish, have happy memories of a meaningful Jewish home filled with the observances of Jewish life.
In fact, I think most of us in Messianic Judaism have fond memories of [gasp] Christmas. Those colorful glass balls decorating an evergreen tree, those carols playing on the stereo, and those fantastic little packages with goodies hidden inside fill us with nostalgia. I confess to sometimes listening still to carols on the local radio station.
The fact is, secular or religious, those family rituals and observances tailored for children, build something for a lifetime. And that is what we must be about doing in a positive way in Messianic Judaism.
The Seder is a one of those experiences. In my opinion, we need to add more for the children to the Seder or at least to Passover week. That Passover Experience party we had for the kids is now to be an annual event for us. Purim parties are an annual event. Hanukkah celebrations and camping out for Sukkot make our children’s lives meaningful.
We must create a Jewish Next Generation in Messianic Judaism. I do not mean we must isolate ourselves from Christianity or the surrounding culture. We must have a healthy connection with Judaism and Christianity. But when it comes to observances and family rituals, I believe these must be Jewish and they must be made to cater to our children.
The Haggadah reminds us again and again that the Seder is for the children. May we all have wise sons and daughters and not wicked or simple ones.
In our congregation, as I’m sure in many others, there are those special times that are building in our children’s lives something that will last. For us, in addition to Passover, I would say our most precious time is Sukkot [Tabernacles]. At our congregation, we take it literally that we are to be outdoors and dwelling with God for the feast. We make one giant Sukkah [Booth of branches] for the whole group and we camp around it in tents. When the weather is nice, some of us even sleep in the Sukkah [easier done in the climate of Israel].
My wife has told me that the kids frequently say to her, “When is it going to be Sukkot?” That reminds me of my childhood experience, asking, “When is Christmas coming?”
We are building something solid, Jewish, and Biblical in our children’s lives. Let’s get to work.
Near the end of the Seder we say, “L’Shanah Ha’Ba’ah B’Yrushalayim.” It means, “Next year in Jerusalem.”
Some might think this is simply a plan to make travel plans for next year’s Seder. If not, it might be seen as a prayer that next year we will make aliyah, citizenship to live in the land of Israel. But it is neither of these. It is a call for Messiah to come, establish his kingdom in Jerusalem, and a prayer that we will sit at his table for the Passover.
That might sound odd: of all the things we look forward to in the World to Come, that we would look forward to eating Passover with Messiah. But eating and drinking in the World to Come is part of the biblical image of joy.
Imagine the greatest times you have sitting with friends, eating, drinking, laughing, and telling stories. Imagine joyous banquets in the World to Come without all the problems of this world. Imagine no worries about calories. Imagine no friction in relationships. Imagine pure laughter and pure, unadulterated joy. You begin to see how this vision of the World to Come is powerful.
Isaiah speaks of the Age to Come as a banquet:
Isaiah 25:6-8 On this mountain Adonai of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and Adonai Elohim will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for Adonai has spoken.
The wine will be well-aged (we are not talking Welch’s here). The food will be rich (we are not talking Weight Watchers here). And death and tears will be no more. That is joy. That is what we have been looking for and catching only glimpses of in this world. That is why food and drink and laughter are what we seek on weekends and holidays.
In the Second Temple Period (the time of Yeshua), there were expectations that Messiah would serve a banquet regularly. The community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls already had rules of etiquette for their Messiah-banquets:
This is the assembly of the famous men when God begets the Messiah with them . . . the table of the community . . . the new wine is mixed for drinking . . . no one should stretch out his hand to the first-fruit of the bread . . . Afterwards, the Messiah of Israel will stretch out his hand towards the bread and . . . bless the congregation . . . at each meal when at least ten men are gathered. –1 QSa 2:11-22.
It is important to remember, the Essenes remind us, no eating until Messiah says the blessing.
Another Jewish community, the ones behind the book of Enoch, also saw feasting in the future: “We will eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever” (1 Enoch 62:15). I couldn’t say it better if I tried. Think about how wonderful that vision really is.
And Yeshua and others in the New Testament shared that vision. I like the words of the Pharisee who was sitting at the table with Yeshua:
Luke 14:15 Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!
Yeshua said, “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11). He spoke to his disciples of the privilege of eating and drinking at his table (Luke 22:30). Revelation invites us:
Revelation 19:9 Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.
But perhaps my favorite is Yeshua’s saying at the Last Supper. It is a very Jewish thing to say (which should surprise no one, but I find still that many people do not think of Yeshua as a Jew):
I will not partake again of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom. Mark 14:25.
Yes, Yeshua. L’shanah ha-ba’ah b’Y'rushalayim, next year in Jerusalem with you. We long to sit at your Passover table, eat your bread, and drink your wine.
