Leah on Gentiles in MJ

When I read Leah’s comments I felt they deserved to be posted as more than just a comment. Leah has an amazing knowledge of Orthodox interpretation and halakhah. She is very young, grew up in Modern Orthodox Judaism, and retains virtually everything she ever learns (I’m jealous). Between Leah and Carl Kinbar, I certainly have some brilliant friends to go to with questions about halakhah (you should be jealous). I think Leah, like Carl before, makes some fantastic contributions to the discussion.

Hi Derek, it’s really cool to read your blog! Your honest wrestling with identity, inclusion, and leadership within the MJ movement is inspiring and thought-provoking.

I too have been wrestling with the issue of Gentiles in the MJ movement. As a Jew from an Orthodox background, I found that faith in Yeshua helped break the “enmity” (ie prejudice) against Gentiles that I had grown up with. It was exciting when I first tried praying and studying Torah with Christians, eating with them, and inviting them for Shabbat. On the other hand, when I began attending an MJ congregation, it shocked me to discover that one of the cantors and the man who blew the shofar weren’t Jews or that inter-marriage between Jewish and Gentile believers was completely normative. I seriously considered leaving the MJ world then, and had my congregation not been such a rabbinicaly-affirming, liturgically-Jewish place, I probably would have. I have an affectionate feeling for Christians of all stripes, and enjoy visiting various churches, but in an MJ congregation, I want to experience a Jewish service where I can at least fulfil my halachic obligations–like kriyat haTorah and shofar.

However, I also believe that the developing MJ halacha should not become stuck in the rabbinic “apartheid” mentality, (I agree with your word choice). There is something deeply morally unfair about the exclusion of a person from reading the Torah publicly simply based on his or her national origin. And if saying the blessing “asher bachar banu” (”who has elected us”) would be considered inappropriate for a non-Jew, then why not replace it with a different bracha, one that reflects the place of Gentile believers envisioned by the MJ community? As an example, the Reconstructionists have changed the aliya blessing to reflect their theology that Israel is “brought close” to God but not uniquely “elected”; and when a Gentile spouse goes up to the bima for the Bar Mitzva of his child, he recites a blessing in English thanking God for “bringing me into relationship with the Jewish people.” Why couldn’t the MJ world develop such alternative brachot, one for Jews who were “elected” and one for Gentiles who were “grafted in”? Or even better, one bracha for both, that says we were all “elected and called” in Messiah, who is the living expression of Israel’s Torah?

Every area of halacha deserves individual attention when it comes to traditional Jewish/Gentile boundaries and the changes that are appropriate for communities in the Body of Messiah. The main question that should be pondered is the level of hiyyuv (obligation) under halacha that differentiates Jews and Gentiles. There are “Messianic” communities who believe that both Jews and Gentiles become Israel in Messiah and are therefore equally obligated in Torah (the Two-House or Efraimite Movement, and others). Then, there is the majority of Christians and evangelical “Messianic Jews” who believe that neither is obligated in Torah because Messiah has created a new kind of Israel where traditional categories of hiyyuv no longer apply. The kind of Messianic Judaism promoted by Hashiveinu, on the other hand, makes the rabbinic distinction between Jews, who are hayyav (obligated) in Torah, and Gentiles, who are not. That distinction seems to be affirmed by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. However, both Rabbinic Judaism and the original Messianic Jewish coucil also affirm that certain mitzvot ARE obligatory for Gentiles–like the “sheva mitzvot bnei Noach” (7 Noahide Laws) or the 4 prohibitions in Acts against “food pollutted by idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals, and blood” (Acts 15:20 and 15:29). It would make a lot of sense for the current MJ halachic council to make rulings regarding those mitzvot that should be obligatory for Gentile believers (like the 10 Commandements?), those that should be optional, and those that perhaps should be restricted. That would help clarify their halachic status within the MJ community.

Regarding the category of “ger”, because the Torah makes seemingly conflicting statements on the issue, the rabbis interpreted that there were two kinds of “ger”: One, the “ger tzedek” (”righteous proselyte”) also called a “Ben Noach” (Noahide); and two, the “ger toshav” (”resident alien”). Derek, you focused on those verses that clearly spoke about a “ger toshav,” a Gentile who had a closeness with Israel, her land, and her God, but not the same level of hiyyuv in mitzvot; while Carl focused on the Torah’s immerging category of “ger tzedek” or full proselyte. I don’t know the history of how these categories actually developed and played out in the life of Ancient Israel and whether the rabbis were right or wrong in the way they read the laws about “gerim” in the Torah. All I know is that their categories make a lot of sense and are fundamental to the way traditional Judaism sees Gentiles. I think these categories would also be helpful for a Messianic Judaism of the Hashiveinu kind. Gentile believers in the MJ communities can be seen as fundamentally “gerei toshav,” and that should give them a status of hiyyuv that is definite and real, but not as stringent as that of born Jews and “gerei tzedek.” The “God-fearer” category is best applicable today to all Christians (and perhaps more broadly, all monotheists), who may come to visit an MJ congregation, but who do not “dwell” among us.

In today’s Jewish world, there are millions of Jews-by-Choice, “gerei tzedek,” who have successfully integrated themselves into the Jewish mainstream. God loves these geirim and we too are commanded to love them and treat them equally (Lev. 19:33-34 and Deut. 10:18-19, etc). There is also a nascent movement of Gentiles who believe in Rabbinic Judaism and see themselves as Noahides. These Noahides often come from Christian backgrounds and are attracted to Rabbinic Judaism for many of the same reasons that Gentile Christians become attracted to Messianic Judaism. Both groups feel that Israel and her God are true and want to “walk in his ways.” They just disagree about whether the New Testament is an authentic continuation of the Tanach and a reliable source of theological and/or historical truth. But fundamentally, both Rabbinic Noahides and Messianic Gentiles are trying to cleave to Israel and Torah so that through them (or through the Messiah who embodies them), they may better cleave to God. I think that we who embrace the Messianic model of truth based on the N. T. writings, are obligated to love Gentile believers dwelling in our midst and encourage their worship and growth in Torah and Messiah, whether they form a majority or minority in their congregations. This can be done without blurring the halachic distinction between them and Jews and, at the same time, without creating an apartheid mentality either, as Isaiah cautions: “Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people…’” (Is. 56:3). In my mind, the best way to do this is to reclaim and fully embrace the status of “ger toshav” or Noahide in a Messianic context.

One positive outcome of redefining Messianic Gentile believers as Messianic Noahides would be to give their children who are raised in the MJ community a clear identity and a paradigm for relating to Messianic Jews and to Gentile Christians. A child of Messianic Noahides would know what mitzvot in the Torah she is expected to keep (to be determined by the halachic council) and what mitzvot are optional, and she would look forward to her Bat Mitzva ceremony when she could be confirmed as a Messianic Noahide. The child would also be taught, of course, that she has no obligation to become a “gera tzedek” (in fact, Paul strongly discouraged this), and that it’s not her level of hiyyuv, but rather her faithfulness to Yeshua, that reflects her status in God’s kingdom. A Jewish child in an MJ congregation would know that his obligations in Torah are more demanding that those of Messianic Noahides, but that both are ultimately under the grace of God in Messiah. When the Messianic Noachide girl and the Messianic Jewish boy would meet and decide to get married, it would be helpful to have clear halachic guidelines about what happens to the status of the family and the children. Here is where Paul’s vision of “one new man out of the two” (Eph. 3:16) can be applied perfectly. The two–Noahide and Jew–become one flesh when they get married, and thus “the Torah of commandemnts and regulations” which forbids intemarriage is abolished. Perhaps at that point, the couple may choose whether they want to raise their children as Noahides or as Jews, or maybe the rule should be always Jews. But at least it wouldn’t be a choice between Torah and no Torah.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts I’ve had on the issue. I wonder what you think.

In Messiah,
Leah

My Weekend Experience with PMJ

“PMJ is dangerous,” we have been warned by a variety of people, including Michael Brown. For those who have not followed the discussion or who are unaware, PMJ stands for Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism. It is the title of a book, a book by Mark Kinzer, Rabbi at Congregation Zera Avraham in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Don’t let the name fool you, PMJ is not really about denying the value of our witness of Yeshua to our Jewish people.

When I was first exposed to some of the ideas now advocated by PMJ and the UMJC congregations who share in these ideas, I was against them. In fact, I wrote an article in Kesher years ago vigorously attacking the idea of binary ecclesiology. Binary ecclesiology is the idea that God intended, from the beginning, that Jews and Gentiles following Yeshua would form separate movements within the one body of Messiah. One size does not fit all, though there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

Well, I had a chance this weekend to experience PMJ up close and personal. I attended the Northeast Regional UMJC conference. Most if not all of the congregational leaders present share in this emerging paradigm explained in some detail in Rabbi Kinzer’s book. What should I expect to find at this conference?

As a former evangelical Christian, I remain very conservative. I can still out-evangelical many of my evangelical friends. I would possibly expect a weekend experience of PMJ to be an experience in sterile liberalism or Yeshua-less Orthodoxy. From the warnings of Michael Brown, I might expect to see people slipping down the slippery slope of faith towards Orthodox Judaism minus Yeshua the Messiah.

Paul warned Timothy candidly about the danger of people misusing the law and forgetting the good news of Yeshua: “Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim 1:6-7). Instead the focus of the congregations was to be on Yeshua and the good news of forgiveness of sin.

Let me describe some of the passionate ideals of evangelicalism, the religious milieu in which people like Michael Brown broadly belong. Evangelicals believe the Bible is true, without error, and powerful in affecting life-change. Evangelicals believe that the light of Yeshua must be spread in the darkness, shining hope and light all around. Evangelicals believe that Yeshua is returning to redeem the world and consummate God’s plan to make all things good.

According to Michael Brown, PMJ follows the rabbis which of necessity means walking away from Yeshua. PMJ embraces Orthodox Judaism and the end result of this will be a denial of the deity of Messiah and the Triune Nature of God. PMJ, according to Dr. Brown, is not about witness, but sees no need for Jews to know Messiah Yeshua. PMJ is out of touch with just how “lost” the Jewish people are and is not motivated to bring Yeshua to Israel.

Let me share with you, unequivocally, that my weekend experience at the UMJC NE Regional Conference was a spiritual experience from beginning to end. I did not find sterile liberalism. I did not find an embrace of Yeshua-less Judaism. I did not find a lack of passion for witness to Yeshua within the Jewish people. I am convinced more now than I was before that people like Dr. Brown need to pick up Dr. Kinzer’s book and re-read it. Dr. Brown has missed the point entirely.

We arrived Friday afternoon and we celebrated Shabbat together. We enjoyed a Kabbalat Shabbat service on Friday night. I guess some people would be dismayed to find that we used the traditional liturgy for our service. Some are convinced that the Jewish Siddur is devoid of the Spirit. It is actually mostly scripture and I know from my evangelical experience that praying the words of scripture is a well-regarded practice. The Kabbalat Shabbat, as well as the Shacharit Shabbat service the next morning, was all about passionate belief that God is still at work in Israel. I know plenty of evangelicals who share that belief and passion.

The Shabbat sermon, by Rabbi Jason Sobel, was about practicing Messianic Judaism in the Spirit with Yeshua at the center. One of the talking points was, “If all we have to offer our Jewish people is the Artscroll Siddur, they will get that somewhere else.” Rabbi Jason called us to a spirited Messianic Judaism, analogous to the passion and fervor the Lubavitch have for their deceased rebbe. If we Messianic Jews had such passion to spread the name of Yeshua, our movement would be growing rapidly. We should have both the keva and the kavana, the form of Judaism and the spirit-intention of a deeply held Yeshua-faith.

So far the weekend was not nearly as uninspiring and lifeless as I would have expected if I believed Dr. Brown’s paper. It just got worse, or better depending on how you look at it.

I was invited to join a Minkhah (afternoon) prayer service. Many of the conference attendees actually follow the traditional practice of praying the prayers of the Siddur three times a day, literally following rabbinic tradition. I suppose this should worry me, since it might lead to a slide away from Yeshua and into Orthodox Judaism. So I joined the Minkhah where I tried to keep up with my knowledge of the prayers being less that that of many others. If you have not prayed them again and again numerous times you cannot possibly pray them as quickly as those more experienced.

What dangerous legalism did I see in that rabbinic prayer service? None. I saw people deeply in love with Yeshua. I saw people adding kavana to the keva, spirit to the form. At times, one young woman would raise her hands in a form similar to charismatic worship, and look heavenward reciting spontaneous prayers of love. People would clap and sing the prayers rhythmically in what I would have to call, as a former evangelical, a powerful combination of a prayer meeting and musical worship.

Well, perhaps there was spirit, but was there sound doctrine? I’m sorry to disappoint you, if you were against PMJ, but the doctrine is very sound. I say this as a young theologian not unknowledgeable about theological traditions. During the Aleinu prayer, where there is a focus on the end of this age, when all the world knows the one God and bows before him, we added Yeshua to the liturgy every time. The prayer leaders all were in the habit of adding verses from Philippians 2 about the deity of Yeshua and every knee in heaven and earth bowing before him. Far from moving people away from Yeshua-devotion, these people are as passionate as a Lubavitcher venerating their deceased rebbe.

There were other surprises at the conference, or at least they would be surprises to people like Dr. Brown. There are many in the Jewish missions movement and in old-school Messianic Judaism who are concerned about this new paradigm of Messianic Judaism. When you do not know the people you criticize, when you do not fellowship with them, it is easy to parody their beliefs. It is easier to misunderstand than to understand. Casting stones is a human pastime. Understanding and knowing and loving is divine.

I could mention a few other surprises. The conference ended with a Communion service. Sure, we used the liturgy of the Amidah to inform our Communion service, but we proclaimed the Lord’s death awaiting his return. There was wonderful teaching on Ephesians as a call for community and unity in Yeshua. I sat with the twenties as everyone shared their story of coming to faith in Yeshua. This conference was greatly about Yeshua and faith.

The whole weekend was so inspiring that this evangelical of evangelicals was deeply moved. I think that people have been so exposed to old-school Messianic Judaism and this new paradigm is so different, we might need a new name. The title Messianic Judaism is used for so many kinds of expressions now and only a small group within Messianic Judaism is truly embracing Judaism, it may just be time for a new name. My thought? How about Yeshua Judaism?

Sabbath Meditation, Children, Generations, Blessings

In the 2006 movie, “Children of Men,” the world is infertile. At a certain point, women stopped becoming pregnant. The youngest person in the world is eighteen. There are no children on the playgrounds. There are no school buses to tie up traffic. The sound of laughter and innocence is gone.

What effect would you imagine this has on the world? The writers correctly picture this as a world without hope. People have given up. There is no future. The government allows the selling of suicide pills on television. Posters on the street says, “Will the last person to die please turn out the lights?”

The Sabbath is a time for blessing children. It is a custom adapted from the patriarchs, who laid hands on their sons and blessed them. So we lay hands on our sons and our daughters every Sabbath and pronounce God’s blessing.

We live in a world that does not properly value children. Children are a burden to a family with two careers and no time to teach a little person to color inside the lines or to read a Dr. Seuss book. First there was kindergarten, a way to get kids out of the home earlier. Then there was pre-K. Now some are pushing for a 3-year-old pre-K. Parents want the school year to be year-round so there is not the problem of providing childcare in the summers. We are a society that hands children over to be raised by strangers and we expect strong family ties.

You do not realize what a blessing children are until you picture the world without them. As I am typing, my one year old is walking around in an oversized t-shirt and diaper playing with her older brother’s toy car. Her tiny legs and feet, her toddlerish enthusiasm, and the future hope that she represents cannot be replaced by any joy imaginable. A world without children is a world without hope.

In the Torah, the word generations is prevalent. The ancients understood better than us that goodness must be passed on generation to generation. This is why the Torah, the Shema itself, emphasizes instructing children about God and his commands. This is not a minor task to be added to a thousand others. It is in the top three imperatives of life.

If you are childless, this meditation on children should not depress you. The joy of children affects you even if you do not have children yourself. God has given you hope and joy in the children of others even if you don’t realize it. If, as the movie suggested, all people were to cease having children, you would not be immune to the despondency of the world without hope.

Psalm 127 says:

Behold, children are a heritage from HaShem,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

This Sabbath, even if you are not Jewish, gather your children. Separate them into boys and girls. Lay your hand on their head, the father should do this if possible. For the girls, say:

Yismekh Elohim k’Sarah, Rivkah, Rakhel, v’Leah. May God bless you as he blessed Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.

For the boys, say:

Y’simkha Elohim k’Ephraim v’ki’M'nashe. May God bless you as he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh.

Then read over them the blessing from the end of Numbers 6.

And never forget what a blessing children are. If God were to take all children from this world, who would be the one to turn out the lights when it was all over?

Gentiles in MJ: Summary and Response to Carl Kinbar

I started a conversation about Gentiles in the Messianic Jewish movement. I stated from the beginning that I accept the binary ecclesiology found in the writings of Mark Kinzer. That is, I believe it was the intention from the beginning for the body of Messiah to have a Jewish wing and a Gentile wing with some crossover.

In my first post on the subject, titled “Warning: This is a Long Post on Gentiles in MJ,” I advocated for full inclusion of Gentiles in Messianic Judaism with certain provisos (such as: they must buy into the Jewish vision, they must see MJ as Judaism, they must participate out of a connection to Jewish people, and there should be no Gentile rabbis). I used the historical precedent of Godfearers in Second Temple Judaism and the Torah precedent for the Sojourner (Ger), who was even allowed to bring a sacrifice to God’s holy altar (Num. 15:15-16).

Carl Kinbar, Provost at MJTI (mjti.org), responded with an essay so eloquent and persuasive that I posted it today as “Carl Kinbar on Gentiles and Torah and History.”

Carl raised some challenges with my thesis, especially with my use of the Sojourner in Torah and the Godfearer in Second Temple history. Here is a summary of Carl’s points:
1. We are omitting for the moment new realities imposed by Yeshua’s incarnation and the extension of the kingdom to non-Jews.
2. Sojourners (gerim) were not merely allowed to keep Torah, but required to, as they were permanent residents with the Jewish people.
3. The issue with Sojourners is not being in the land, but living with Jews, so that it parallels any Gentile today living with the Jewish community and desiring to be one among them.
4. The Sojourner in later Judaism became the Convert (Proselyte), not merely a Godfearer.
5. Godfearers, as far as we know, were not members of synagogues, but merely attenders and supporters.
6. Godfearers and Converts were a tiny minority (Roman statements about vast Jewish influence are likely exaggerations).
7. Godfearers play no role and Converts only a small one in Rabbinic Writings.
8. If a Korean Church had only 20-30% Koreans in it, one might question their Korean identity.
9. If Gentiles join a mostly Gentile congregation, then they are not joining something Jewish, and hence are not parallel to the Sojourners.
10. For this whole thing to be legitimate, Gentiles as Godfearers or potential Converts must see themselves as guests in a Jewish world, not equal participants ready to change social structures and leadership.
11. We are not free to make our own definitions of Jewish identity.
12. If a Gentile joins a Messianic Congregation, Torah is not then optional to him or her. The Sojourner must keep Torah.
13. Majority Gentile Congregations should prayerfully consider better ways to handle issues regarding Jewish identity.

Carl’s arguments are persuasive and well-researched. He does raise some issues that call into question my thesis that Gentiles can and should find full inclusion in Messianic Jewish Congregations. However, I think Carl has overstated the case on some of his points. I agree with #1 and wonder how kingdom extension to the nations should impact our congregational roles. I am delighted with point #3. I agree with #5 and admit that Second Temple Synagogues were not as inclusive of Gentiles as Messianic Congregations are. I certainly agree with #11. Yet on Carl’s other points, I wish to offer some challenges:

On Point #2: There is a problem with saying the Sojourner (Ger) was required to keep Torah. Several verses of Torah disprove this. Deuteronomy 14:21 permits the Sojourner to eat meat found dead, something forbidden to a Jew. Exodus 12:48 and Numbers 9:14 are easily read as meaning a Sojourner MAY choose to eat the Pesakh, not that he or she must. The Sojourner is curiously not required to dwell in booths at Sukkot. The Sojourner is not equivalent to a Native in the Land, but has equal right to Justice in the land (this is how I take the oft-repeated refrain in Torah about one law for Sojourner and Native).

As for point #4, I know less than Carl about Rabbinic Literature, but I think I am right in saying the Sojourner is interpreted in Rabbinic Literature as being a Convert. I see some problems with that, not least Deuteronomy 14:21. How can a Convert be allowed to violate Torah? I think a Godfearer is a much better parallel with the Sojourner.

I must disagree with point #6. It was not merely Romans, but also people like Josephus who claimed the number of Godfearers was legion. Some have declared that 10% of the Roman Empire was considered Jewish and that this large number is only possible because of a large number of Godfearers.

As for point #7, it is easily explainable. I am not surprised that the rabbis speak little of Converts and less of Godfearers after the First and Second Jewish Revolt. Being Roman by birth could not have been popular.

Point #8 is misleading. Korean culture is far less permeable than Jewish life. Intermarriage may be the only door into Korean life, but God built conversion from the beginning into Jewish life as a possible way to join with Israel. Therefore, I would not be surprised, as we approach the last days, to see the prophetic picture coming to pass: congregations full of Gentiles learning Torah. I simply think we must teach these well-meaning Gentiles (I am one) what Jewish life really means. It would be tragic if we allowed Gentile enthusiasm, a prophetic sign, to ruin Jewish identity, a Torah calling.

I can agree with point #10 if it is slightly reworded. I do not think Gentiles should come into MJ planning to change of influence vision and direction. But I think Gentiles can grow into leadership once their understanding of the vision of MJ has grown. I simply cannot abide by an apartheid Messianic Judaism. Forgive me if the term is offensive, but I think you understand my meaning. (I am not implying that Carl in any way advocates a kind of apartheid.)

Finally, a few words about point #13. The congregation I lead is 70% non-Jewish. I agree with Carl that we need to find ways to handle certain Jewish identity issues. One example is how to handle the Torah blessing. It assumes the one uttering the blessing is part of the Covenant People who received Torah. I think we should consider an altered blessing that allows Gentiles to bless the Torah in truth and with integrity. In a subsequent phone conversation with Carl, we agreed that this is something that would best be handled by a consensus of Messianic rabbis. We need a standard for the community and not to have every congregation doing its own thing.

I will continue to mull over Carl’s challenges. I still consider my position tentative. I am advocation Full Gentile Inclusion With Strong Jewish Identity. I am taking issue with Limited Gentile Inclusion, a model in which Gentiles may not read Torah or wear a tallit. I continue to feel the Sojourner was not a Convert, as evidenced by Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 12:48, and yet a Sojourner could approach God’s holy altar. Therefore, how can I prevent a non-Jew from reading God’s Torah in the congregation? They have drawn near. They have learned Hebrew. They have prayed with Israel. They are Sojourners, Godfearers, and Potential Converts. I know, I am one of them.

Carl Kinbar on Gentiles and Torah and History

Yesterday I posted a long paper as a tentative position on Gentiles in the Messianic Jewish movement. I wrote as a Gentile, very sympathetic to Gentile involvement in MJ, and as a Gentile seeking conversion, very sympathetic to Jewish concerns about a diluted Judaism resulting from Gentile leadership. I truly see myself as a person in the middle. Well, Carl has raised some very thoughtful challenges to the position I posted. His reasoning here is solid and I am going to need a little time to process and reformulate. In other words, I take very seriously what Carl says here and I hope you will also. I think this conversation is going to be invaluable. Who knows if any kind of closure is possible, even just in my own mind, but I know my position will end up being better informed because you, the intelligent readers, are willing to have this conversation with me. Don’t be intimidated to make a comment, even if you know you cannot compete with Carl’s scholarship. All thoughts are welcome and you might be surprised at how your thoughts can affect the discussion . . .

Derek, your blog raises quite a number of issues. I would like to respond to a limited number of them, not so much with arguments but with some alternative perspectives for you to consider. (Note: I am intentionally leaving out a crucial dimension of your presentation, the new realities imposed by Yeshua’s incarnation and invasion into human history and the extension of the kingdom to the non-Jewish nations. My reason? We must first consider how the Biblical and historical examples you gave fit in the social context of today’s congregations. Only then can we see how the new kingdom realities might apply.)

I have sent you a compilation I put together about gerim in the Scriptures. (Since the blog does not allow for attachments, I can only recommend a full Hebrew word-study of “ger” in the Tanakh.) It is clear that gerim had certain responsibilities and privileges that were not a matter of choice. An important aspect of the ger in Israel that is often missed: the ger was a permanent non-Jewish resident in the Jewish nations. They were not nokhrim (temporary residents such as merchants). Non-Jew residing among the Jews came under Jewish law.

As you will read, I believe that circumcision was required of male gerim before their first Pesach, not simply in order to participate. The Hebrew word “ki” is sometimes translated “if”, and sometimes “when.” I believe it is consistent within the entire context of the gerim relationship to Torah to understanding that their males were to be circumcised when (that is, before) they partook of the Pesach. However, even apart from that point (which I understand is debatable), the situation pictured was national in scope: a relatively modest number of non-Jews living among the Jewish people, in their neighborhood and in their social context, one might say.

The ger of the Tanakh morphed not into the God-fearer of late Second Temple times, but into the convert. They became not merely respectful visitors to the synagogue (or even “regular visitors”) like the God-fearers, but fully subject to Jewish law, just like the gerim (Num 15:15-16). They did not primarily commit themselves to a belief system (e.g., keeping Shabbat) but to a people who keep the Shabbat. They didn’t just do Jewish things, or visit a service that included some Jewish practices, but lived with and amongst Jews.

While the number of God-fearers can’t be known, there does not seem to be much evidence that they were integrated into the social fabric of the synagogue. Thus, they cannot be consider members in the modern sense of the term.

Neither the gerim (or converts) not the God-fearers were a threat to the Jewish social or religious identity of the people. We can see this in the apostolic writings, where they play a very minor role. This is the case because they were a very modest minority: converts were a small minority of Jews and God-fearers were a small minority of synagogue attendees. (It’s very difficult to gauge the veracity of the remarks about Jewish influence in Gentile society. They could be accurate, or they could be simply anecdotal, possibly influence by anti-Jewish sentiment.)

Converts play a small role and God-fearers have almost no presence in early rabbinic writings.

The main thing I’m trying to get across here is that in using the Tanakh or Second Temple practice as a grid for the present-day congregation, one has to take the above factors into consideration. As far as we know, converts and/or God-fearers never comprised a large % of the Jewish nation or of the synagogue. Yes, the Land of Israel became increasingly Gentile over time, but there was a certain social and religious separation between the groups. Most of these Gentiles had no desire to associate with Jews religiously. Given the importance of religion in social dynamics, social contacts were real but limited.

The situation in today’s congregations is usually very different. Very few of our congregations have a majority of Jews. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but if one went into a Korean church and found 20% or 30% Koreans (and perhaps mostly non-Korean leaders), one would understandably question the Korean identity of that church. This doesn’t mean that the non-Koreans are any less valuable, but no amount of rule-making will ever make that congregation Korean.

I submit that in order for Gentiles to join a Jewish congregation (Messianic or otherwise), there must first be a Jewish congregation to join, that is, a congregation that is made up primarily of Jews. The idea of a majority of Gentiles joining a minority of Jews and considering the whole thing “Jewish” can only exist because we have drifted so far from the original intent of this movement in modern times — to be a Jewish place that reaches Jews for Yeshua. It also is an idea that does not hold water sociologically or psychologically.

I also submit that in order for the analogy of the gerim to be valid for Gentiles entering a Jewish congregation today, they must be men and women who seek to become part of the people, not simple those who are joining a religious group that has a Jewish feel.

One of the tests of all this is whether the Gentile, either as a potential convert or as a God-fearer, has full respect for the Jewish identity of the congregation and its place among the larger Jewish people. The God-fearer does not desire to intrude in the social or leadership structure, but recognized that he or she is a guest. The convert (or potential convert) does not only learn new religious practices, but is also socialized as a Jew. Realistically, neither of these can happen unless a congregation is preponderantly Jewish in person and practice.

Believe it or not, there are those who believe that Messianic congregations — even those that are heavily non-Jewish — have the right to define who and what is Jewish. In other words, Jewish history and the real live Jewish people today have no say in defining what is Jewish. Part of their argument is that there have been many varieties of Judaism, past and present, and so one cannot speak of a monolithic Judaism and one cannot limit the varieties that are possible. Thus Gentiles can invent new varieties. These men and women, who may be level-headed and decent in other ways, are like postmoderns who deny that there is any “meta-narrative,” any one Truth. They just apply it to Judaism — because there is variety in Judaism, there is no Jewish meta-narrative, and the Jews do not own Judaism.

I mention this group because it raises the issue of ownership. If Judaism and Jewishness is a common human possession, or shared by whosoever will, then the distinctions you make in your paper are irrelevant. While Judaism has consistently incorporated elements of the surrounding culture over our many generations (e.g., we all know about the Pesach and the symposium), Gentiles, as a group, have never been involved in guiding the process. Likewise, in individual synagogues. My point is that Jews own Judaism.

But when Gentiles comprise a majority of the congregation, it is understandable that they will think they are being treated as second-class citizens if not permitted to be a cultural and religious influence in the congregation, that their “rights” are being violated.

So, IMHO, for a Gentile to join a Messianic Jewish congregation would mean that, like the ger, the join the Jewish people (not just Messianic Jews) socially (that is, “live among them”) and become subject to the Torah (in today’s language, convert). They are then full members in every sense. Or, like the God-fearer, they became temporary or long-term visitors who fully respect the Jewish identity of the congregation but are not strictly members of it.

What about congregations that are majority Gentile? IMO, the answer is not to close the doors but for such congregations to take a deep and serious look at their own communal identity — who they really are as a people. If, as they should, they reach the conclusion that they are not a Jewish congregation (and therefore not Messianic Jewish), they should prayerfully and carefully reconfigure their worship and practices to reflect their identity. Of course, this could (should) include supporting Messianic Jews and Israel.

This would be a difficult process, but a visionary and godly leadership would be doing the congregation a great service by leading them gently through this process.

Imagine the peace of coming to grips with one’s congregational identity on a deep level, then living in harmony with it before God, rather than trying to be communally Jewish, which they are not.

Why is this a necessary process? The idea of communal identity permeates the Scriptures. God chose Israel not as an aggregate of individuals, but as a people (Am Yisrael), one of the nations of the earth. God made a covenant and gave the Torah to this people and a fabric of communal obligations and privileges. The Scriptures everywhere speak of Israel and the Nations & Jews and Gentiles with Torah in mind.

In Shaul’s letters to the Romans, he speaks of the Jews and Gentiles within the city-wide congregation as forming distinct groups and has a distinct message for each. Back then, almost everyone knew which group they were a part of. That is not the case in our movement, but individual identity is not the focus here. Let’s assume that individual identity has been clarified. The question is then: is this community (this congregation) predominantly Jewish or predominantly Gentile? For the sake of simplicity I will eliminate congregations in the gray area. On what Scriptural basis do we make this move to examine our communal identity?

The Scriptural basis for examining ourselves as communities is that Torah is not only an individual but a communal obligation. Torah has been given to Jews and not to Gentiles (though there is certainly an overlap of obligations that apply to both: love of God and neighbor; do not kill or steal; do not eat meat with the blood still in it; etc.). It is therefore of utmost importance for a congregation to know its identity because it needs to know whether it is communally responsible to keep Torah.

A majority Jewish congregation is communally responsible to keep Torah and contextualize its relationship with God and others through Torah as applied to Jews in the Apostolic Writings. In other words, having received Yeshua as Messiah, such Jews remain under the same communal obligation as other Jews. In such a congregation, Gentiles are like the God-fearers of Second Temple times, though joined through Yeshua to the Jewish members as one body of believers. Because this course is in “Messianic Jewish Spirituality”, this kind of congregation is of particular concern.

I don’t see in Scripture any obligation for a majority Gentile congregation to keep Torah. It is obliged to contextualize its relationship to God and others through the lens of the Apostolic Writings, but outside the realm of the Torah. (The presence of Jews in such a congregation leads to the issue of how a Jewish minority can express its communal identity and keep its covenant obligations in the midst of a Gentile congregation.)

One of the problems we encounter in grasping this scenario is that we tend to view relationship with God in very individualistic terms. A bunch of individuals make up the congregation. Scripturally (as brought out strongly in the Jewish tradition), it is the opposite. God relates to individuals in communal context. The Tanakh is filled with scriptures about God relating to Israel as a people. When we read the Tanakh, we often focus on individuals, missing the crucial fact that, beginning with Abraham, the lives of individuals are recorded only in the context of their participation in, and importance to, the Jews as a people. We should focus not only on their individual character traits but the embedding of their personalities and lives in the communal reality of Israel.

It is for these reasons (and more) that the voice of Scripture cries out for our congregations, our communities, to find themselves, to know their identity.

Carl Kinbar

B’ezrat HaShem, I will have some further thoughts tonight. Derek.

Warning: This is a Long Post on Gentiles in MJ

Since my professor, Rabbi Dr. Stuart Dauermann, is reading this blog, I do hope I don’t get into trouble for posting a school assigment on the blog. I wrote this paper as one-fifth of my final exam for Messianic Jewish Spirituality, a course in preparation for ordination in the UMJC (umjc.net) through the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute (mjti.org). This paper is longer than one of my usual posts, but I do hope you will read it anyway and interact.

Cornelius, Nicolaus, and Peter
Jewish and Gentile Roles in Messianic Judaism
Derek Leman

Messianic Jewish congregations who are serious about being a Judaism need to find models to distinguish the roles of Jews and Gentiles in the Congregations. This is a matter of integrity as well as theology.

For those who have already made a commitment to a binary ecclesiology, a term coined by Mark Kinzer in Messianic Judaism: Genus and Species as well as in Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, we are already comfortable seeing Messianic Judaism as the Jewish wing of the body of Messiah. It would be easy to simply say, “Gentiles have millions of churches; let them stay separate.”

The first and most obvious problem with keeping the Gentiles out would be the many intermarried couples who come to our congregations. How should we incorporate the non-Jewish spouse and non-Jewish children of such marriages?

A second category of great importance are the converts to Judaism who come into our congregations. Which conversions, if any, should we regard as legitimate?

Next, there are the numerous Gentiles who came into Messianic Judaism because of their love for the Bible, their desire to keep the Biblical holidays, and to adopt some or all of Jewish life and Torah life for themselves. How shall we deal with these Torah-loving Gentiles? What if they love Torah but show no appreciation for Jewish identity and God’s continuing covenant with Israel? What if they seek conversion? What if they repudiate any distinction between Jews and Gentiles?

Finally, what about the many Gentiles who do not commit to a Torah-life, but who identify with the Jewish people in other ways?

This paper represents a tentative beginning to addressing these issues. It is not my final word on the subject, as I look forward to interaction with my colleagues and mentors in the UMJC. I speak as a Gentile seeking conversion. I speak as one highly sympathetic to Gentile inclusion. If I err on the side of inclusion, I hope my point of view will be understood.

To begin to address this topic, I find it important to briefly catalogue some biblical and historical precedents for Gentile inclusion as well as differentiation:

Torah Precedents for Gentile Inclusion in Israel’s Worship
Gentiles (Sojourners) may approach God’s altar and offer sacrifice (Num. 15:14-16).
Gentiles in the land (Sojourners) must keep Shabbat (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:4).
Gentiles in the land (Sojourners) must avoid Chametz at Chag HaMatzah (Exod. 12:19).
Gentiles in the land (Sojourners) may join in Temple Worship for Shavuot and Sukkot (Deut. 16:10-14).
Gentiles in the land (Sojourners) must deny themselves on Yom Kippur (Lev. 16:29).
Gentiles in the land (Sojourners) are included in the binding covenant of Torah (Deut. 31:12 and Jos. 8:35).

Torah Restrictions on Gentile Participation
Gentiles (Sojourners) may not eat the Pesach lamb unless they are circumcised (Exod. 12:43, 45, 48).

Torah Omissions of Gentile Inclusion
Only native Israelites required to live in booths at Sukkot (Lev. 23:42).

Prophetic Inclusion of Gentiles in Millennial Israel’s Worship
Will come to the temple to learn Torah (Isa. 2:1-5; Micah 4:1-5).
Some will keep Shabbat and be received by HaShem (Isa. 56:6-7).
Some will be taken as Cohanim (Isa. 66:21).
Egypt and Assyria will be God’s people just like Israel (Isa. 19:24-25).
Sojourners will be absorbed into tribes and be given land (Ezek. 47:22-23).

Prophetic Differentiation of Gentiles in Millennium
Gentiles accepted as Gentiles (no conversion required, Amos 9:11-12).

New Testament Differentiation of Gentiles in Present Age
Gentiles not required to circumcise or keep Torah distinctives (Acts 15 and other passages).

The Precedent of God-Fearers in Second Temple Judaism
A proselyte or convert was a Gentile who was circumcised and went through a conversion process to become Jewish. A God-fearer or Sympathizer was any Gentile who took a sort of half-step toward Judaism. Sometimes this involved merely a favorable attitude toward Jews and donating to synagogues and Jewish causes. Many times God-fearers attended synagogue and we welcomed. Many kept the Sabbath. Many kept the dietary laws. Some were Jews in everything but circumcision.

The following is a partial list of evidences outside of the Bible for the existence of a group of Gentile God-fearers (cf. Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1993).

-In 139 B.C.E., the Roman Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio attempted to stop Jews from “infecting the Roman customs with the cult of Jupiter Sabazius” [a Roman way to say Adonai Tzebaot]. (Valerius Maximus, Epitome of Julius Paris, 1.3.3).
Suetonius describes a famous Grammarian named Diogenes who only gave public lectures about Grammar on the Jewish Sabbath. Once the emperor Tiberius requested an audience with him and he told the emperor he would have to wait until the Sabbath. (Suetonius, Tiberius 32.2).

-Augustine of Hippo quotes the Roman Seneca as complaining during the reign of Nero that “Jewish customs have gained such influence, they are now received throughout the world. The vanquished have given laws to the victors.” (Augustine, De Civitate D-i 6.11).

-Near the end of the first century, the Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, questions why some people choose to be halfway between a Jew and a Roman. He notes that if they would just get baptized [for Jewish conversion] they would be a Jew and be called one. (Arrian, Dissertationes, 2.19-21).

-The early second-century satirist Juvenal spoke of the fact that some people started keeping the Sabbath and believing in one God. Then their children went all the way and got circumcised to become Jews. He sought to discourage people from being God-fearers lest their children cease to be Romans (14.96-99).

-Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, noted that since the Jews of Egypt [where Alexandria is] failed to practice circumcision on Gentiles, that none of the proselytes in Egypt were actually Jews. They were in between, he said. (Quaestiones in Exodum 2.2).
Josephus, the Jewish historian, pointed out that many Greeks attended synagogue and “in some measure” incorporated with the Jews. (War 7.45).

-Josephus gives a few hints that the very wife of Nero Caesar, Poppaea Sabina, may have been a God-fearer, because she sided with the Jews in a dispute brought before Caesar by Herod Agrippa. The Jews built a wall so that Agrippa would not be able to see the sacrifices being offered from his palace. Agrippa appealed to Caesar to have it removed, but Nero’s wife convinced the emperor to rule with the Jews. (Antiquities 20.195).

-The Jewish midrash and Talmud refer to Yirei Shamayim, Fearers of Heaven, amongst the Romans. (Deut. Rabbah, 2.24; Megillah 74a).

Problems with Gentile Inclusion
Before offering suggestions about the inclusion of Gentiles in Messianic Judaism, I would like to address some concerns and issues. The first, and most important concern, is that Torah-loving Gentiles can and do seek to make Jewish identity a non-issue.

There are many in Messianic Jewish congregations and related Hebrew roots or One-Law groups who place no value on Jewish identity. Many advocate a new kind of supersessionism, “We are grafted in, Torah belongs to all of us, and Jew and Gentile are one and the same in Messiah.”

Further, having Jews and Gentiles together in congregations encourages intermarriage. If not handled properly, such intermarriages also threaten continuing Jewish identity.

Another common problem is the mishandling of Jewish sancta (although the presence of Gentiles is not a prerequisite for this problem). Shofars and tallitot are misused and misrepresented. The Torah scroll is not respected properly. Siddurim are treated casually.

Related to the mishandling of Jewish sancta is the halakhic ruling that Gentiles may not use the tallit or tzit-tzit, tefillin, or handle a Torah scroll. How should our mixed Messianic congregations respond to this halakhah?

The overall problem of Gentile inclusion is that it dilutes or eradicates Jewish identity. Our critics in traditional Jewish groups may rightly criticize us for confusion and assimilation. How can we address these issues?

Some Models for Jewish-Gentile Issues
I am aware of several existing models:

One-size Fits All: Jews and Gentiles participate equally and with little concern for Jewish identity. Intermarriage is encouraged.
Jews Only Need Apply: I am aware of at least one congregation where non-Jews are practically not allowed unless married to Jews.
Jewish With Limited Inclusion: Some congregations allow Gentile participation, but restrict non-Jews from wearing tallitot, reading Torah, serving as leaders, etc.
Full Inclusion with Strong Jewish Identity: This is the model I will explain below and which I tentatively offer as a model for other congregations.

Cornelius, Nicolaus, and Peter: Suggestions for a Way Forward
I titled this paper after the prominent names of three early believers of differing status. Cornelius (Acts 10) was a God-fearing Roman who attended synagogue and gave alms to Jews. Nicolaus was a convert to Judaism and on the the seven from Acts 6. Peter, of course, was a Jew and a prominent leader in the early Yeshua-movement. There is every indication that they would have worshipped together and not separately (though Cornelius may have lived too far from Jerusalem to worship with the congregation there).

I am in favor of full inclusion of Gentiles while at the same time, taking important steps to emphasize Jewish identity. By full inclusion of Gentiles, I mean that Gentiles may serve as leaders (though not as rabbis), wear tallitot, and read from Torah. By securing Jewish identity, I mean:

1. Intermarriage is forbidden except with conversion of the non-Jewish spouse.
2. Conversion is an option for candidate with mature understanding.
3. God-fearers are accepted as non-Jews participating with Jews.
4. God’s continuing election of Israel and the importance of Jewish identity are clearly taught.
5. The non-Jewish members understand that they have chosen to cross the Jew-Gentile line and participate in a Jewish congregation.
6. The purpose of the congregation is to follow Yeshua together through a Yeshua-based Judaism.
7. Torah standards are maintained for communal functions, though non-Jews are not required to observe Torah distinctives at all times.

I am not suggesting that this model is the only valid model. I can respect the Jews-only-need-apply model. As far as I can tell, a congregation is not required by any New Testament teaching to be open to any and all possible members. In fact, no congregation is so open. All congregations in any religion exclude people who will oppose their distinctives.

I see the Jewish-with-limited-inclusion model as problematic. Some are excluded from leadership and the worship practices of Israel. I do not find this in the spirit of Torah, especially Numbers 15:14-16, where non-Jews were invited to the most sacred of all Jewish sancta. I think this model is unnecessarily discriminatory.

The one-size-fits-all approach to Messianic Judaism must stop. Many congregations practice this model out of tradition. Early Messianic Congregations were less careful about Jewish identity and Jewish sancta. By now, many Messianic leaders have moved into a more careful theology of Jewish identity. It is past time for practice to catch up to theology.

The model I am proposing, full-inclusion-with-strong-Jewish-identity, surely can be criticized. It will be criticized by traditional Judaism. Yet it is not as though we do not have answers:

1. How can you allow Gentiles to read from Torah or wear tallitot? In the spirit of Torah and the prophets, Gentiles who desire to draw near may do so. If the altar of burnt offering was not off limits, neither should the Torah scroll or a tallit be off limits.
2. How can your movement incorporate non-Jews and still be Jewish? The historical record indicates that this was the model of Second Temple Judaism. Gentiles attended, gave to the congregation, and participated in Shabbat, kashrut, and festivals.

Similarly, I expect criticism from Christian and Messianic Jewish sources:

1. How can you practice conversion? Conversion is biblical. Non-Jews have always been able to assimilate into Jewish life and even become part of the tribes of Israel. Caleb the Kenizzite became part of Judah. Nicolaus the proselyte did not repudiate his conversion and became a major leader in the Jerusalem congregation. Arguably, Timothy himself was a convert, circumcised as an adult and incorporated into the Jewish community. Exodus 12:48 legislates this exact custom: circumcision and incorporation thereafter as a native-born.
2. How can you forbid intermarriage when both share Messiah in common? Jewish identity must be preserved. Anyone who desires to marry a Jew must choose Jewish identity and conversion prior to marriage. Anything else is not faithful to God’s covenant and also causes untold problems in identity confusion for the children.

I do not consider my work on this topic finished. I invite feedback, correction, and instruction from others, especially from those already committed to a Messianic Judaism with a strong Jewish identity. In the meantime, may God bless us all as we seek to participate with and/or lead a movement into more careful practices and sound doctrine.

Rich Robinson on PMJ, Pt 3

Here is Rich Robinson’s final posting on Mark Kinzer Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism. If you’ve been following the blog for the last few weeks, you know that I largely support the ideas in Dr. Kinzer’s book. Rich Robinson largely disagrees with Dr. Kinzer’s book . . .

This is my final long post on PMJ, with thanks to Derek for allowing the forum. While there are many topics that could be addressed, let me single out just one more: the nature of the role of the Jewish people in this present age. According to PMJ (or to some PMJers, anyway), those who suggest that the Torah (in the shape of the 613 commandments) is not a current covenantal obligation for Jewish people, are guilty of a “structural” form of supersessionism. That terminology derives from R. Kendall Soulen, who identified three kinds of supersessionism. The structural form sees no current positive role for the Jewish people in God’s plan, regardless of whatever high views one might otherwise take towards the Jewish people. The Christian reading of redemptive history puts the Jewish people “on the shelf” for the present time period, effectively assigning the church the active role in God’s redemptive history.

That’s a huge topic, so just a few thoughts for now. Let’s start with an analogy, or rather with a look at the people of God in the Old Testament. It is clear that we, the Jewish people, were created for a purpose – to be priests to God to the rest of the world (Exodus terminology) and a light to the nations (Isaiah terminology). It is also clear that throughout much of that history, we failed in the task to the point of bringing judgment and exile. If we ask what positive role the Jewish people played during that time, the answer is not immediately apparent. The “remnant” within Israel certainly continued to function as a light not only to the nations but to the rest of their own Jewish people. That function took many forms, including but not limited to prophetic rebuke when the nation became consumed by its sins. A continual concern was that God Himself would be dishonored in the eyes of the nations by the sinfulness of Israel. Did the non-remnant part of the nation serve in a positive role in these times? It would appear that this was not the case when they failed to fulfill their mandate; a role was, however, served in showing the justice of God when sin reigned, namely by exiling the people. Yet even then in captivity, the remnant such as Daniel continued to exercise the more positive role.

If we now see the current age and the Church as an expansion of OT Israel (Eph. – the gentiles have now come alongside the commonwealth of Israel) – we find the same situation and the same questions and problems as in the OT, now expanded to include the gentiles. There remains a remnant of both Jews and gentiles who follow the God of Israel (which I believe, but cannot argue for here, means following Jesus, not following Judaism-without-Jesus). The role of the rest of the nation of Israel remains as it was in OT times – holy, potentially a light to the world, but not fulfilling that function when not following God’s covenant. If I understand PMJ, most PMJers will argue at this point that this is exactly what those who follow rabbinic Judaism are doing: fulfilling God’s covenant obligations. However, this raises the question: what then is the current positive role for the bulk of Jews who are neither Orthodox nor Conservative but secular, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. If there is a “structural supersessionism” to those of us who believe the Mosaic Law in the form of 613 commandments is not obligatory today, then what does PMJ say about the bulk of the Jewish people today who do not observe the Law? What is the positive role of those Jews in God’s redemptive plan today? Does PMJ believe that the “No” of secular/Reform Jews to the Law also hides a “Yes” to Yeshua?

Sabbath Meditation, Musings on the Tongue

Our Shabbat table cloth is laid. A friend in the congregation bought it for us. It is a designer table cloth and probably cost hundreds of dollars. It is more than we would have dared spend. But love calls for occasional extravagance. A man may buy his wife diamonds and pearls for a few special occasions in life. Someone has helped us treat the Sabbath with extravagant love.

I hope you are preparing for your Sabbath, if you are Jewish. If not, then I do hope this Sabbath meditation will add a little joy to your weekend.

I chose this subject because of an interesting lecture I heard yesterday at the Atlanta Jewish Community Center. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin came to speak and I was glad I found out about it. R. Telushkin is the author of a number of helpful books including Jewish Wisdom, Jewish Literacy, and his latest, A Code of Jewish Ethics. I highly recommend them.

First, before I get into my topic, I’d like to say something to a Christian audience. Having gone from secularism to Christianity to Messianic Judaism, I sometimes notice differences in these three worlds. At the Telushkin lecture, we were seated banquet style in a large room, the size of a hotel ballroom. About half of the attendees had paid for a simple vegetarian lunch, myself included. It became obvious at the time the lecture was due to start that there were not enough chairs.

I have been at Christian functions where the same thing happened. But here I noticed something different. There was a Jewish ethic apparent in the room. Whereas at Christian functions I have seen people stand or sit on the floor, this was not going to happen at the Jewish Community Center. The center staff kept bringing in chairs until every single person had a seat. I do think there is something different in the Jewish and Christian ethic: the Jewish ethic focuses a bit more in this world and on humanity. Every human being is important. Sometimes I think Christians fail to connect this-worldly ethics with other-worldly faith. But the best way to love God is to follow the second greatest commandment.

All that aside, my topic for this Sabbath meditation is about the tongue, the ethic of words. I want to share two stories. One I have read in one of R. Telushkin’s books (Jewish Wisdom) and the other he told at the event. I will tell the stories in my own words:

A man had been for some time going about town speaking ill of the town rabbi. One day, realizing how malicious his comments had been, he went to the rabbi and asked for forgiveness. The rabbi said he would forgive him on one condition: that the man would go home, cut up a feather pillow, and scatter the feathers to the winds. The man did as the rabbi asked and came back.

“Am I now forgiven?” he asked.

“One more thing,” the rabbi said, “go and retrieve all the feathers.”

“I can’t find them all,” the man said.

“Exactly,” said the rabbi, “and neither can you get back all the things you said about me which caused harm to my reputation.”

The second story is on the same topic, lashon hara, the wicked tongue and the sin of slander:

The Chofetz Chaim, a Jewish teacher who died in 1932, was very famous in the Jewish world. Yet as photographs were still not common in those days, most people who knew his writing did not know what he looked like.

One day, the Chofetz Chaim was on a train riding to a town where he was scheduled to speak at a major event. A man sitting next to him struck up a conversation. “I am on my way to hear the Chofetz Chaim. Now there is a man of God and such a scholar. He is a saint.”

The Chofetz Chaim was embarrassed and said, “I know this Chofetz Chaim you speak of. He is not such a saint if you get to know him. And his scholarship is really not so great.”

Upon hearing these words the man became red in the face, trembled, and after an awkward pause, he slapped the Chofetz Chaim in the face. “How dare you insult such a saint and scholar! You are not worthy to be in the room with him!”

The Chofetz Chaim apologized and later told the story. He said he learned one thing, “Lashon hara is always evil, even if you speak it against yourself!”

This Shabbat, consider how your words have been used to denigrate and dehumanize other people. Consider that you cannot truly undo your slander any more than the man could get back his feathers.

Shabbat is about family, so start there. Consider ways your words cut down and hurt. Talk about it. Ask forgiveness. Change.

“Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” (Proverbs 12:18).

With Apologies and What I Have Learned

Well, first I need to apologize to anyone who was following with great interest the discussion of the last day and a half. I deleted two articles and all comments. I did this after a phone call with the main person I was debating. We decided that the discussion was generating more heat than light.

Meanwhile, I have learned a lot of things since I first decided last week to denounce Michael Brown’s paper read at the recent LCJE meeting in San Antonio (I wasn’t at the meeting but received the paper from a friend).

Since my fateful decision to denounce Dr. Brown’s paper I have learned some lessons. I am young and naive.

1. People rarely if ever change their public position in a debate (I knew this already, but being hopelessly naive and optimistic, I always hope for better).

2. In a heated debate, people inevitably focus on the peripheral issues and personal angles more than the theology. I admit to succumbing to this temptation myself, so I am not singling out my disputants.

3. Debate is fun and I have a killer instinct in debate, but aside from entertainment, unchecked debate produces more misery than transformation.

4. There must be a better way to point and counterpoint ideas than heated debate.

In the future, I would enjoy featuring some point and counterpoint with thinkers like Rich, Dr. Brown, and others with whom I disagree on substantive issues. If I do feature such point-counterpoint, I will devise some tests of fairness (such as allowing my disputant to preview and suggest edits to my responses before I post them).

At any rate, I also apologize to my friends who largely agree with me. I apologize for removing some articles and comments that were worthwhile beneath the heat. I do still believe that certain views are anti-Judaic, even of the ones holding those views are Jewish and lovers of Israel. I do believe that supersessionism needs to be repudiated in theology. I do not think that labeling a view as supersessionist is faulty rhetoric any more than citing a specific logical fallacy (the genetic fallacy has come up several times) is inappropriate.

At any rate, if you make a comment on my blog, I may respond with passion and for that I do not aplogize. I do commit to having better point-counterpoint discussions in the future. I never intended to become a shock-blog.

Seth, I look forward to many discussions on the subject we are both passionate about: Tanakh studies!

Derek Leman

A Recommended Read on Our Witness to Jewish People

My friend and someone I regard as a mentor, Rabbi Stuart Dauermann, has just posted an article on an overlooked aspect of witness to Jewish people, whether it comes from a Messianic Jewish context or a Christian context. I highly recommend you read this. Here is the link:

http://rabbenu.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-thoughts-on-reading-darrell-guder_16.html

Disclaimer
I am not agreeing with the following statement by Dr. Rabbi Dauermann: “According to this construct, all Jews are necessarily going to hell, except those few who believe in Jesus—that’s bad news.” I have written and am preparing again an article on reasons why God is exclusive and requires faith in Yeshua for inclusion in the life to come. Rabbi D and I disagree about this issue, but agree about a great many other topics.

Derek

The Eternal Torah: A Response to Rich Robinson

I would like to thank Rich Robinson for his article explaining why he and many others in the Jewish missions community do not embrace Torah-observance. Rich’s article was thoughtful and I appreciate his relatively high view of Torah (for a Christian theology, it was better than most). But, as I will argue in this response, Rich’s views on the subject are part of the Old Paradigm of Supersessionism. I do not mean by this that Rich accepts the tenets of supersessionism. The most egregious form is punitive supersessionism: God has rejected Israel and left them on the planet in order to make them suffer (and we are allowed to help God in this task). Another form is standard supersessionism, where Israel is regarded as rejected and replaced, but anti-Semitism and violence are repudiated. Finally, there is structural supersessionism, and I believe Jewish mission agencies fit into this paradigm, where Israel’s continuing role in God’s plan is relegated to the end times for the most part. God’s election of Israel is largely irrelevant in the present era. Israel is simply the people from whom the Bible and Messiah came. They are beloved, but on the shelf. In the coming age, God will again be working through Israel. See R. Kendall Soulen’s The God of Israel and Christian Theology for more. Anyway, I will critique Rich’s article (”Rich Robinson and PMJ, Pt 2”) and argue that it comes from a supersessionist paradigm. . .

Rich Robinson says that the Torah as a covenant “was only intended to be temporary” and that this is understood. The New Covenant has replaced the Torah (Old Covenant). I contend that this is based on centuries of supersessionist biblical interpretation because:

1. Only by reading the Bible with supersessionist glasses is it possible to miss the fact that Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant being made only with the house of Israel and Judah. In fact, when Yeshua says that the cup of his Last Supper represents the New Covenant in his blood, again he is speaking to Jews. I am not denying Gentile inclusion in God’s promises, but the fact that Christian theologians read Jeremiah 31 as a text for the church is by definition supersessionist.

2. Only with supersessionist glasses is it possible to assume the New Covenant replaces the Torah. (I would argue this is not the point being made in Hebrews 8, where a Messianic Jewish group is being warned not to abandon Yeshua and leave aside the greater promises of the New Covenant). The reason I say the New Covenant is not a replacement of the Torah is that it includes the Torah, which will be written on the hearts of all Israel and Judah. I would add that two other texts, which can easily be seen as parallel texts to Jeremiah 31, also show that Torah is part of the New Covenant: Ezekiel 36:27, where it is said that Israel will walk in God’s statutes after being given new hearts, and Deuteronomy 30:6, where it is said that Israel will love God heart and soul as the Torah requires.

3. Where is it “understood” that Torah was only temporary? Is this Rich’s interpretation of certain New Testament texts? Or does Rich mean the Torah itself gives evidence of being temporary? If the latter consider verses like: “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you…’” (Exod. 31:13).

I would contend that in order to properly do justice the Word of God, the Jewish mission community and Christian theologians need to reevaluate the permanence of Torah. Instead of reading the Hebrew Scriptures with a supersessionist grid, let the text speak for itself.

Rich presents a theory that the dietary law of the Torah was intended to separate Israel from the nations. I agree. The rabbis agree. No disagreement. However, his next assertion is that in the New Covenant (again, he sees this as a replacement for Torah) Jews and Gentiles are not to be separate, but together. Therefore dietary law is no longer necessary and may be considered repealed.

I think Rich and others should be open to the idea that their view of Jewish-Gentile relations may be overly simple. Galatians 3:28 says there is no Jew or Gentile, but it also says male and female. Yet same-sex marriages are repudiated by the same theologians who wish to abolish the Jew-Gentile distinction. Unity with distinction of roles is a credible reading of the Jew-Gentile, one-new-man theology of Paul. (I understand that there are texts where Rich could press this point and I would be forced into special pleading to argue otherwise, namely Ephesians 2. I think, however, the exegesis of Markus Barth bears consideration.)

I do hope that Rich and others in the Jewish mission community will reevaluate their theology of Torah and Israel. The same old answers that have come down since the time of Justin Martyr and other church fathers simply will not do. A theology formed by a supersessionist church needs refashioning when supersessionism is repudiated. God’s purpose in the people Israel is not fully appreciated in theologies such as the one Rich is proposing. Israel is not simply God’s vessel for the past and the future, but also the present. The Torah is not an obsolete covenant, but is still to this day God’s will for his people Israel.

Rich Robinson on PMJ, Pt 2

I am letting some scholars who disagree with Mark Kinzer’s Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism write a few articles on the blog. Rich Robinson here offers a respectful view of the role of Torah that differs with mine. I do think Rich is wrong, but I am pleased with a bit of a higher view than is sometimes held. I do hope Rich doesn’t imagine for a second I couldn’t write a paper challenging some of his points here. Maybe that would be a fruitful debate for a future week on the blog — to Torah or not to Torah, that is the question . . .

The Torah and the New Covenant
by Rich Robinson

I am grateful to Derek Leman for allowing me space on this blog.

Today I want to put forward some thoughts on one theological issue concerning the Scriptures, namely the place of the Old Testament and of the Law of Moses in Christian theologies and teaching.

I appreciate Derek’s honesty in sharing his own spiritual journey both here and in his books, because he has put his finger on one problem that is endemic in the American evangelical church, and that is the comparative neglect and de-valuation of the Old Testament in favor of the New. I’m reminded of Walter Kaiser, in the days when he taught Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He had his finger on the very same problem, and insisted that the OT not be neglected nor devalued. He even gave it hermeneutical priority over the NT. “Antecedent theology” was his name for this approach. Though he always had a twinkle in his eye as he said it, he had strong words for those who spoke of the “Ooooooold Testament” as though it were a relic of a bygone era.

So I can sympathize with Derek’s reaction to a very real problem. However, I fear that he has greatly misunderstood evangelical theology of the Old Testament; whereas my concern with Mark Kinzer’s book is that he has neglected to interact with these same evangelical theology(ies) of the Old Testament.

As to misunderstandings, and this is not to single out Derek, because I think many, many people in the messianic movement share a similar view – there is a great difference between saying that the Mosaic Law does not apply as a body of law today, and saying that such a view is anti-Torah or relegates the Old Testament to a lesser position.

There is no doubt that evangelical theology as a theology (communicating it to the person in the pew is another matter) takes a high view of the Old Testament as well as the Law of Moses within the Old Testament. Books have been written addressing the question of how we know the Old Testament is inspired, and much of the answer comes from the way Jesus, the apostles, and the entire New Testament treats the OT. In fact, it may be easier to demonstrate the inspiration of the OT than of the NT! But let there be no doubt, the OT and NT are both the Word of God. Both are relevant to us today, both find application into our lives now, and both are equally the inspired Word of God. There is no division of inspiration as in rabbinic theology whereby the Torah is more inspired than the Prophets. No, Genesis, Leviticus, Obadiah, Mark, Philemon, Revelation – all are equally inspired and given by God for our instruction and guidance.

The problem comes with the Law of Moses in particular. Here again, it is crucial to see that all evangelical theology upholds the Law of Moses as inspired Scripture. Yes, there is much popular theology that dismisses the Law as a burden, something we are now free from, and good riddance at that. However, that is not evangelical theology. There is often a major disconnect between what theologians say and what ends up in the pew. That is a problem of pastoral training and education, but it is not a problem of theology itself. The Reformed wing of the Church in particular, has always taken a very high view of the Law, enumerating its various uses even in the life of a Christian today.

If that is the case, why aren’t Christians keeping kosher or observing the festivals?

It is not due to an anti-Torah bias. Rather, it comes from the understanding that the Law of Moses was part of a particular covenant that was made with Israel, a covenant that was good because each law reflects something of the goodness of God. However, it is also understood that that particular covenant was only intended to be temporary, and that at this time in redemptive history, it is no longer binding; instead we are under a New Covenant. This understanding does not arise out an assumption of supersessionism or anti-Semitism; it arises from an examination of the texts, from exegesis. There are many, many non-supersessionists and pro-Jewish theologians who would nevertheless agree with this redemptive-historical approach to the Law of Moses.

Therefore is it not a question of being anti-Torah, but of our place in the history of redemption. An analogy may help. In the Law of Moses, sacrifices were meant to be done at “the place the LORD your God will choose,” meaning the Tabernacle or later, the Temple. Prior to that, sacrifices could apparently be offered anywhere. Suppose after the Law had been given, someone complained that the Law was “anti-anywhere,” restrictive, denigrating to the freedom that we had to sacrifice at any place prior to that time. The answer would simply have to be, we are in a different time in redemptive history, God has now given a Law, now we are to follow it. It does not follow that the Law is anti-pre-Law or somehow devalued the experience of the patriarchs before then.

So our time in redemptive history is one factor. Someone may disagree with this understanding of the text, but let us not imagine that this is “anti-Torah” or devaluing to the Law.

A second consideration that also upholds the value of the Law is that the specifics of the Law of Moses reflected a more general “law of God” behind those particular enactments. This is what Reformed theology seems to be getting at when it speaks of the high value of the law for the Christian. For example, the specific commandment in Deuteronomy that we put a parapet around our roofs (for the safety of guests, as entertaining was rooftop in those days), is a specific expression of larger principles that comprise “God’s law”, i.e. his character: concern for safety in general, which is an expression of God’s love. If anything, in the NT we are to apply “God’s law” in this sense, in ways that go beyond the specifics enumerated in the Law of Moses.

A third consideration is that it is very likely that some laws, such as those of kashrut, were intended as a symbol system to indicate that Israel was set apart from the nations. Under the new covenant, while Israel continues to play a role in God’s plan, the nations and Israel are not separate in the same way. It follows then, that the system of kashrut would not be obligatory. This is an anthropological approach to OT law, and while not everyone will agree, there is much to think about here. Gordon Wenham in particular has unpacked this in his commentaries on Leviticus (series New International Commentary on the OT) and Numbers (series Tyndale OT Commentaries). (This is substantially different from Derek’s remark that some say kashrut was a “primitive earlier” stage of revelation repealed as “unworthy.”)

In short, there is a complete difference between what I have outlined as (just a few) aspects of evangelical theology of the OT/Torah, and a devaluing of the OT. Many more points could be brought forward, but those are enough for now. As Walter Kaiser might have said about devaluing the OT and the Law of Moses, “Me genoito! (Paul’s words in Greek for ‘May it never be!’)

For a good look at evangelical interaction with the Law of Moses, I suggest not only Walter Kaiser’s books but also the Zondervan volume, “Five Views on Law and Gospel.”

I’m afraid that by confusing popular neglect of the OT with evangelical theology, we are not only throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but the entire tub and the plumbing as well!

May God be glorified by his entire Word.

ONE MORE POST TO COME…

Me (Derek) again. Good paper, Rich. I do not think your view of Torah and the New Covenant is truly doing justice to all the texts. There are points and counterpoints to consider, but the system that is persuasive makes all of them fit. Your system does not, for example, do justice the Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant passage, which states (a) that the New Covenant is for Israel and Judah and (b) that when the New Covenant arrives, no one will need to teach his neighbor about God (sounds like we’re not fully there yet, now but not yet) and (c) the Torah (scripture uses this term for the Torah of Moses) will be written on hearts. Torah is not obsolete in the New Covenant, but written on hearts instead of etched in stones. I do not believe our present experience of the Holy Spirit is yet the fulfillment. We have yet to see Torah written on hearts, a day when all will love God heart and soul and be glorified and sinless. Anyway, the conversation continues . . .

Michael Brown’s Response

I invited Dr. Brown to post a rebuttal to my rebuttal of his paper. You will find it here quoted in full. I will respond tomorrow.

Dr. Michael Brown

I appreciate Derek’s invitation to submit a rebuttal to his response to my recent paper, “Is a Postmissionary, Truly Messianic Judaism Possible?,” delivered at the LCJE-North America meeting on April 18th. For those of you who have not yet read the paper, please take a few minutes and do so now at http://realmessiah.org/postMissionary.htm, then read Derek’s response before reading further.

In all candor, I do not believe that any of Derek’s counterarguments even begin to refute the points put forth in my paper, and therefore the original paper, read against Derek’s response, serves as the best rebuttal to his arguments. I will, however, address some problems in the counterarguments he raises, although space precludes me from being comprehensive.

The first point of my paper was that, “Our calling as Jews in general and as Messianic Jews in particular requires us to be active witnesses.” In response, Derek writes, “I believe that finding culturally relevant forms of connection is a principle in modern missions.” Of course, I concur. He then argues “that pamphlet distribution, the mainstay of Jewish missions, is no longer effective.”

But where did I ever make reference to pamphlet distribution? It was never mentioned in the paper and, in fact, it never crossed my mind. Rather, my point was that, “As Jews, we are called to be witnesses of the one true God to the nations, and as Messianic Jews, we are called to be witnesses of the Messiah to our own Jewish people as well as to the nations.” Is not this entirely self-evident? Derek’s reference, however, to pamphlet distribution as part of an attempted counterargument to my point is similar to my stating, “It is important for believers to help the poor,” with Derek responding, “But the welfare system is not working.” So?

But is it even true that “pamphlet distribution” is “the mainstay of Jewish missions”? Actually, the mainstay of Jewish missions (especially in America) is Gentile believers sharing their faith with their Jewish friends and co-workers or, more narrowly, Jewish believers reaching out to their family, friends and co-workers.

Sadly, in PMJ (Postmissionary Messianic Judaism), Dr. Kinzer removes virtually all impetus for Gentile believers to evangelize Jews, encouraging the church to cultivate respect for Judaism rather than to recognize the lost condition of non-believing Jews. How many tens of thousands of Jewish souls would have been lost in the last century alone if that counsel was followed? (You can put my name on the top of the list!)

Dr. Kinzer’s counsel to Jewish believers is equally shocking, as outlined in my paper, which quotes PMJ extensively. Indeed, he argues that we who know the Father and have eternal life must receive the testimony about God from those whom Paul calls lost and cut off from the Messiah before we are fit to bear witness. How can any Jewish believer defend such a statement? Yet Dr. Kinzer actually writes that we should not only receive the witness of our fellow Jews who do not know Yeshua but that their witness should actually affect the substance of our testimony. This is outrageous.

It is one thing to be sensitive and to be good listeners. It is another thing to alter the substance of our witness in response to the witness of the non-believing Jewish community.

In defense of Dr. Kinzer’s position, Derek points to the “movement of contemporary and emerging churches in America” which, he claims “are at the forefront of bringing people to Yeshua in America.” First, I do not see these churches, generally speaking, as offering close parallels to PMJ’s proposed Messianic congregations. Second, there are a wide range of churches called “contemporary” or “emerging,” and some of them are quite bold and forthright in their witness. Third, it can be argued that in many other “emergent” churches, numerical growth is occurring, but true disciples are not being made. That is to say, the level of poor theology, the lack of repentance preaching, and the watering down of the gospel are producing strong church attendance but not real kingdom growth. For an important critique, see D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).

Derek further argues that “Dr. Kinzer is calling for a widespread relational witness of Jews to fellow Jews, from within, not from without. He is calling for a witness from a position of mutual appreciation and not one side being triumphal with regard to the other. This kind of witness is active, not passive. By contrast, the active witness of Jewish mission agencies is harming the cause of Yeshua.”

Derek’s last statement can obviously be debated. The fatal flaw, however, to the larger argument is the belief that a major key to witnessing from “within” is for Messianic Jews to embrace “normative rabbinic halakha.” Indeed, the official UMJC statement, followed by Dr. Kinzer, states that the Jewish ekklesia “must place a priority on integration with the wider Jewish world.” In another context, I hope to address this fallacy at length, but I offer here two pragmatic observations: 1) When I queried an ultra-Orthodox rabbi about how rabbinically orthopractic Messianic Jews would be received by the religious community, he replied, “The first thing a rabbi would tell them is that every berachah they say over anything is invalid because they are idol worshipers.” He also reiterated to me that the more they claimed to be following Orthodox halakha, the more they would be rejected by the Orthodox community. 2) The very nature of our faith will cause us to be put out by our people, so the attempt to become insiders is doomed from the start. A schism has come, and it will not be repaired until Yeshua returns.

Dr. Kinzer called for “the restored Jewish ekklesia” to “take its stand as part of the Jewish people” (304) stating that, “Full healing of the schism will occur only when the wider Jewish community accepts the Jewish ekklesia as a legitimate participant in Jewish communal life” (307). As stressed in my paper, verses such as Matt 5:10-12; John 16:3; Heb 13:10-14, among many others, tell us that we should not expect this to happen.

Ironically, I have been strongly criticized in these posts for judging the motivation of people’s hearts by claiming that they want to be accepted by the Jewish community. But how else should such statements be interpreted?

As for not being “triumphal” in our witness, does this mean that we should not speak down to our people in haughty and arrogant terms? Then, of course, I concur. But if it means that we do not recognize that we are saved while Jews who do not believe in Yeshua are lost, that our sins are forgiven while theirs are not, that we have already passed from death to life while they have not, then I demur. We have something they desperately need, and we must share our faith with that deep conviction. Again, this is Gospel 101, not advanced soteriology.

Regarding my second main point, Derek restates it to say “that Jewish rejection of Yeshua today is the same as in Yeshua’s time” (my emphasis). Rather, I argued that “the Jewish rejection of Yeshua today is integrally related to our forefather’s rejection of Moses, the prophets, and the Messiah Himself” (my emphasis). That is to say, I fully concur with Derek that, “Supersessionism and antinomian theology have been the devil’s tool for far too long,” and, consequently, the Church has often made it more difficult for Jews to believe in Jesus. Indeed, I have addressed these issues for many years now, most recently in a paper delivered at an apologetics conference last June (see http://realmessiah.org/apologetics.htm). Yet I believe the New Testament points to a historic and ongoing pattern of Israel’s rejection of God’s purposes, one that resulted in the hardening of our people, and one that continues to this day. However, since Derek does not specifically address the points I raised in support of this position, I refer the reader back to the relevant pages of my paper.

Derek concurs with my third point, namely, that “The New Covenant documents make abundantly clear that our people are lost without explicit faith in Yeshua as Messiah.” He notes, however, that “Nothing Dr. Kinzer says in his book clearly denies this point. It may be an implication of some of Dr. Kinzer’s statements in this book, if you push the word implication a little far” (my emphasis). For a devoted disciple of PMJ, this is admitting a lot! In reality, Dr. Kinzer dances dangerously close to two-covenant theology, thereby raising concerns among many MJ leaders. This is hardly a matter of “pushing the word implication a little far.” In fact, in a glowingly positive review of PMJ, missiologist Charles Van Engen explicitly raised the question of where Dr. Kinzer stood on the issue of two-covenant theology. The very fact that this question was raised is telling in itself. (See http://www.hashivenu.org/papers/2006_Postmissionary_MJ_VanEngen.pdf)

Derek, however, challenges me “to cite PMJ as stating that salvation without faith is possible for any person,” which is a somewhat vague statement, not making clear who or what the object of that faith must be. Rather, let Dr. Kinzer state clearly and unambiguously that he believes that God has not made a way for Jewish people today to be saved without explicitly putting their faith in Yeshua. The ball is in his court.

Regarding my fourth point, “That the New Testament emphasizes Yeshua, not Judaism,” Derek states, “Of course this is true. But it is meaningless.” Meaningless? Meaningless to say that we should follow suit and put our emphasis where the New Testament puts its emphasis – on the centrality of abiding in the Vine, of knowing Yeshua and making Him known, of giving Him the preeminence in all things – as opposed to spending so much time trying to define what our “Judaism” should like?

Derek writes, “Dr. Brown . . . goes on to suggest that Paul had veritably left Judaism behind, at the very least relegating it to minor importance. He asserts that Paul made statements about the Torah no Orthodox Jew would make today. I disagree. The Orthodox Jewish position on the Torah and Gentiles is much like Paul’s: Gentiles are not required to keep all of it. If you are a Gentile, try an experiment, ask a rabbi if you should stop eating pork. You will find that Judaism believes there is nothing wrong with pig. It is simply forbidden to Jews.”

Unfortunately, Derek failed to interact with the many scriptures I cited to support my contention, specifically: Gal 1:13-17; Phil 3:2-11; Eph 2:1-7; Col 3:1-4; Rom 6:5-11; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Rom 8:1-4. Please take a moment to read these verses again and then ask yourself, “What traditional Jew today could possibly pen such words?” The answer is: Only one who had found the treasure hid in the field and the pearl of great price (see Matt 13:44-46), someone for whom Jewish traditions had now been relegated to a very secondary place.

Plainly, this has nothing to do with whether a Gentile should observe the Torah. It has to do with an attitude towards the Torah and Jewishness itself that reflects a mindset completely different than that of traditional Judaism, and in many passages in Paul’s writings, he does, in fact, make statements about the Torah that no Orthodox Jew would make today.

This, then, brings us to my last point, which Derek summarizes as the idea “that PMJ, if followed, will result in apostasy,” something that he finds “preposterous,” noting that, “People leave the faith all the time and for various reasons” – which is tantamount to saying, “Yes, people fall off many cliffs, so why warn them about this one?” Simply because it is quite a dangerous cliff!

Dr. Kinzer wants us to accept rabbinic Judaism as legitimate and valid; he wants us to submit to rabbinic halakha; and he wants us, on a certain level, to modify and even mute our witness toward our people. Those wanting to follow this genuinely slippery slope would do well to ask an Orthodox rabbi, “What does it mean if your religion is legitimate and valid? What does that say of mine?” And if rabbinic Judaism is legitimate and valid, why do we so quickly discard its historic and ongoing denial of Yeshua?

Derek claims that, “Integrating Yeshua and Judaism was not Dr. Kinzer’s idea. It was Yeshua’s.” Certainly not. Yeshua’s whole purpose was to fulfill what was written in Moses and the Prophets, to inaugurate the kingdom of God, and to make a way for Jew and Gentile to be saved through His blood. Judaism was not the issue for Him; the issue was ushering in the kingdom, which often meant dismantling the manmade traditions that made void the Word of God – some of which became part and parcel of the very rabbinic Judaism PMJ wants us to embrace.

On some level, Dr. Kinzer and Derek want us to become disciples of rabbinic Judaism, but doing that – for many reasons articulated in my paper – will ultimately challenge and/or lessen our allegiance to Yeshua’s lordship. The slope is real, and it is more slippery than many understand.

Almost twenty years ago I voiced my concerns about the increasing fascination with rabbinic traditions in Messianic Jewish circles (see http://realmessiah.org/tradition.htm). Today, MJ’s are being told that God wants them to order their lives according to these very traditions, and even Gentile Christians are getting caught up in the lure of rabbinic Judaism. For some, this will be the path to spiritual dilution, for others, spiritual confusion, and for others, spiritual apostasy. At the risk of alienating some friends, I will continue to sound the alarm.

Is Dr. Brown right? Should we keep doing the same thing? Have we truly moved beyond supersessionism? Tomorrow I will respond. Meanwhile, expect another post from Rich Robinson today on the topic.

Rich Robinson on PMJ, Part 1

This week, and this week only, I am going to feature a few blogs by friends who disagree with me. Rich Robinson works for Jews for Jesus and is a genius. He just happens to be wrong about a few things :-) But seriously, here is the first of a few (limit 3, okay, Rich?) installments of Rich’s response to the recent debate about Dr. Mark Kinzer’s Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism. I will share a brief comment in italics at the end.

I have not been able to read this blog since Friday but want to continue the conversation. As I read through the past posts, the substantial issues that are raised include the following, which I will list out and then expand upon in this and subsequent posts, blog owner permitting. I’m writing this not so much to respond to particular statements but to begin working out my own thoughts on the subject of messianic Jewish theology. It’s still relevant to post here, though as I will be interacting with much of what’s been written on this blog.

1. Foundational issues: how do people arrive at a theology?
2. Defining terms
3. Theological issues including
(a) the Bible,
(i) particularly the place of the Old Testament and the Law of Moses in Christian theologies and teaching;
(ii) authority and decision-making, i.e. who interprets and applies?
(b) the People of God
(i) The question of supersessionism and who are the people of God
(ii) The nature of the Jewish rejection of Jesus
(iii) The nature of God’s preservation of the Jewish people
(iv) The nature of post 1st century Judaism
4. Practical issues, including
(a) the nature of witness
(b) assimilation and the next generation

First some foundational issues. How is it that any of us arrive at a theology? I’m not an expert on the history or philosophy of theological construction. I’m actually just a lower-middle class guy from Brooklyn, New York. But perhaps I will be permitted to venture a few thoughts.

Theological construction is more than simply exegeting individual passages, and more than just finding a matrix to hold them all together. Probably most of us initially learned a theology from whatever particular group, congregation, or church we came to faith in. Later on, we discovered that there were alternative ways of looking at Scripture and theology, which sometimes dismayed certain ones or perhaps was a breath of fresh air for others.

Any theological system is a grid through which we see the Scriptures, God, ourselves, salvation, ultimately everything. It is a way of organizing our understanding of reality based upon God’s revelation in the Scriptures. It is also a way of applying that reality to our current situation. In that role, practice and theology mutually influence one another.

Sometimes someone’s theology may gradually evolve, as they think through the matrix they have held to and make readjustments in light of new understandings of particular verses or of the world in which they live. Other times a theology may be a sudden radical paradigm shift (see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), as the Reformation was (though some will see more continuity with what preceded it than often recognized).

Enmeshed as we all are in the culture and modes of thought of our own times and places, our theological thinking, even the way we do theological thinking, the way we think itself, is largely unconscious and un-self-aware. In recent years, with insights from anthropology, missions theology (contextualization), and postmodernism, we have become more aware that there are in fact alternate ways of conceiving things and this means we are at least partly able to self-examine our presuppositions, at least recognize that we have presuppositions.

Much has been made of the cultural presuppositions we bring to our thinking; less has been made of the fact that we also each bring a psychological disposition to our thinking and hence to our theologizing. (I do not have particular individuals in mind in this section, much less particular ones in the messianic movement; I am speaking in general terms of what informs our theological choices.) So, Reformed theology that is tightly organized may lead someone of a disciplined, intellectual bent to that system; someone inclined to be “free wheeling” may gravitate toward a Charismatic theology. A “black and white person” may feel only one theological system has all the answers; a “shades of grey person” may feel comfortable being more eclectic. And so on.

As various ones think through a messianic Jewish theology, we ought to at the outset acknowledge that we are products of our time and place and self-examine ourselves. In a postmodern world culturally and as “post-liberal” theology emerges; as the “emerging church” movement grows; as pluralism and multiculturalism continue to define our world; we need to ask whether and to what extent our theology is being informed by these movements. Likewise, we need to ask to what extent our own psychological dispositions may lead us to incline in one direction or another.

The help in the second area is to interact with other people; the help in the first area is to interact with those of other cultures and generations.

Having said all that, I wish to say something about the issues of “acceptance” that has come up on this blog. Has the “acceptance” of the Jewish community been at all instrumental as a formative factor in the creation of messianic Jewish theologies? I am not saying yes or no; but I raise the question.

First of all, there are two meanings of acceptance and I fear that because of that, there has been much talking past one another. “Acceptance” can mean “approval, personal or group validation”. It can also mean “willingness to engage as a conversation partner, the ‘accepting’ of one another as human beings on an equal footing.”

There can be little doubt that many when they were new Jewish believers in Jesus originally wished to have the approval of Jewish family, friends, and even the larger Jewish community. This would have been especially true when the modern messianic Jewish movement was new, back in the 70s, and when many of us were younger, living home with parents, struggling to make sense of our identity as Jews who were also followers of Jesus. David Stern, himself an advocate for developing a messianic Jewish theology and lifestyle, writes:

“Messianic Jewish congregations have expended a great deal of energy into developing and refining theological, ceremonial, and practical ways to express Jewishness. This is to be expected, especially in the Diaspora, where Messianic Jews are a double minority—a tiny percentage of Jews and an even tinier percentage of believers in Yeshua. So we find ourselves constantly wanting to prove to Jews that we, too, are Jews, generally by showing that our practices and ceremonies are Jewish in character even though they honor Yeshua, and to Gentile Christians that we, too, believe in Yeshua, generally by showing that our theological positions are sound, even when expressed in Jewish terms. But this effort spent proving ourselves to others—and to ourselves—distorts our lives, our congregations, and our movement! We should not have the goal of becoming acceptable within the non-Messianic Jewish community—because we never will.” (How Jewish Is Christianity? Two Views on the Messianic Movement, ed. Louis Goldberg [Zondervan, 2003], p. 182).

This was and still is a reality for some Jewish believers. And undoubtedly any such desire for “proving one to be Jewish” would be a factor in developing a lifestyle and theology.

Then there is the other meaning of “acceptance.” I understand that advocates for PMJ wish to live their understanding of a Jewish life out of their understanding of God’s obligations for Jewish believers in Jesus today. The “acceptance” in this case is hoped for as a by-product of living out this obligation, namely that of the second meaning, to be an equal conversation partner, to come from “within” and not “without.” This also represents a theological viewpoint. How did adherents to PMJ arrive then at this theology? Everyone will have to answer for themselves. It is possible that for some it reflected an after-the-fact theological development in light of an earlier wish to be approved=validated by the Jewish community. For others the influence of postmodernism, postliberal or Barthian theologies and praxis may be instrumental. For others it may have come about as a further examination of Scripture, though as always influenced by the larger cultural matrix. I raise the question here simply in terms of the fact that our theology comes not out of the blue, and not even out of an unbiased objective view of exegetical evidence (total non-bias is not possible), but out of a complex of factors both cultural and personal. This is true for me, for PMJ, and for anyone else doing theology. For example, I used to be more black and white than I am today; my theology today is more eclectic than in the past. Furthermore, I recognize that my approach to doing theology has been largely modernistic in some ways; now allowing myself to be influenced by what can be learned from postmodernism as well.

So all this is to say: let us look at our influences, at the personal and cultural matrix we are in, as we work out our theologies.

And finally (for this post) a word on definitions. We need to define terms. What is “Judaism”? What is a “messianic Judaism”? What do we mean by e.g., being “hostile to” Judaism? Or by coming from “within” vs. from “outside”? I am not talking about playing semantics. When people write that we “must be a Judaism” and move in “Jewish space” and come from “within,” they need to pin down just what is meant. Otherwise, I am afraid that our terms will have emotional resonance but will not clarify the discussion.

MORE TO COME…

Derek’s comment: Rich properly explains that we who share the vision of a Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism are keeping Torah and tradition to be faithful to God and not as a ploy to gain acceptance. I do think that as Messianic Jews live as Torah-faithful Jews, a major barrier to Yeshua will be removed in the case of some people who are open to hearing about Messiah. Yet contextualizing the message of Yeshua is not our motivation. If Torah-faithfulness is simply a way to contextualize the message to Jewish culture, it will fail. Because Torah is not something optional that can be added like a hobby or fad. Also, I think that defining Judaism for the Messianic movement is an ongoing process, just as it is for other Jewish groups (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform). There are always new questions, new pressures, and cultural changes, even for the Orthodox (consider the changing roles of women in Orthodoxy today). Anyway, Rich’s first post is sort of a prelude. Not a great deal to disagree with here. Can’t wait for the next part. I’ll probably have more to critique.

Sabbath Meditation, A Teacher to Lift Us Up

The Sabbath is drawing near and we are cleaning and decorating for guests. I hope as you exhale the pressures of your workweek and inhale the sweetness of Shabbat that all the stress and anxiety goes out with the stale air. Spread your tablecloth, put out your candles, set the wineglasses and bake the challah bread. Sabbath is in the air.

This Sabbath, I am thinking of a great promise in Isaiah:

All your children shall be taught by the Lord. Isaiah 54:13.

We often think of God as our Father. Less often we think of him as our Bridegroom (and we the bride). We rarely regard him as our teacher.

Jamal was an African-American young man in the Bronx. He was good at basketball and, on top of that, he scored remarkably well on a standardized test. Suddenly, this young man from a low-income family in a neglected neighborhood was given a scholarship to a prep school for well-to-do and elite students.

Still Jamal was only raw talent, undeveloped potential. Maybe the school really only expected him to help them with their basketball program. But anger over social and racial issues were preventing Jamal from exploring his real potential.

Jamal was capable of creating beautiful things. He would possibly have wasted that talent had he not met Forrester, played by Sean Connery, in the 2000 movie, Finding Forrester. Forrester was a recluse, a great writer in the past, but now hurt and angry and alone. Forrester and Jamal develop a mentoring relationship, because Jamal knows Forrester has the ability to make his gift for writing evolve and mature. There is more to the story, also the needs in Forrester’s life that Jamal is meeting, but it is the teacher-student relationship that first captures the minds of the audience.

We live in a neglected neighborhood in a kind of poverty more real than the mean streets of the Bronx. We too were made for so much more potential than we realize. Our capacity to create and make beauty will not develop without a teacher, a mentor to lift us up from where we wither and fade.

I’ve watched several movies about gifted teachers coming into classrooms of students given up as hopeless, worthless and a nuisance to the system. Like the other millions who watch these movies, I find myself emotional when a teacher helps a student find success. The teacher and the student are one of the universal themes of life.

There is always a reason for the universal themes of life. They are not random. I gave up believing in a random, meaningless universe years ago at an engineering university when I found out science doesn’t know everything.

Do you feel already as though God has been your teacher, lifting you up from a low place? Do you sense his hand reaching down to pick you up, to coach you, and to say, “You are capable of so much more”?

He is a good and patient teacher. Throughout history, when we, his students, have failed to learn and develop, he has continued, always ready to teach if we will listen.

Yeshua came in the same flesh we bear to show us the teacher-student relationship in a new way. He called disciples and said, “Follow me.” When he left, and left us with words, such words, words that this world needs like water and air, he promised another teacher to come, the Spirit of God.

In his book The Great Omission, Dallas Willard asks if we believe God is our teacher? Who is Yeshua to us, a mere icon, he asks. Is he real? Can he teach?

This Sabbath, consider what it means to be a disciple of Yeshua. What are you learning and how? What lesson has he taught you recently and how did you make out on the test? Are you growing in your capacity for beauty and truth or are you withering and fading?

If Yeshua is our teacher, and we his disciples, then we should be able to ask, often and with expectation, “What would you show me, Master? I will follow.”