Incarnation, a Jewish View

Usually on Fridays, I write a Sabbath meditation. In a way this is a good meditation for any day, including a Sabbath. Many do not think of theology as meditational, devotional, transformational, or practical. I disagree. I hope this theological musing can be one example of a meditative exploration of life-changing truth.

Incarnation. Through the Spanish language, which many of us are familiar with from Mexican cuisine and Hispanic neighbors, we can comprehend the meaning of this Latin word. Carne means flesh or meat. In-carn-ation is a description of an event, an event in which something becomes flesh, or someone. Incarnation is the event of in-flesh-ation.

It is widely held that Judaism rejects the entire concept of a divine incarnation. Yeshua of Nazareth cannot be God who became human while remaining divine. There are some in the fringes of the Messianic Jewish movement who refuse to accept the traditional Christian doctrine of incarnation. I know of one Messianic ministry that tries to get around this by using only biblical language and refusing to say something like, “Yeshua is God.” By the way, note that we are dealing with two separate issues: (1) is Yeshua deity and (2) did the deity become a man without ceasing to be divine?

Jews do not believe in God’s divine nature in any way becoming human, a standard line tells us. Incarnation and the deity of Yeshua is a Christian concept foreign to Judaism.

Is that so?

Well, first, let’s consider a well-meaning, often-used but biblically unsound approach to the question. Messianic prophecy foretells the incarnation, some would say. The Messiah is called divine in Isaiah. And since Messiah is also portrayed as a man in the prophets, then he must be both at once: God and man.

While good theology, the usual proof-text used for this assertion is invalid. It is Isaiah 9:6. In a clearly Messianic passage we are given a title for Messiah, “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” There it is, plain to see. Messiah is called “Mighty God.” That should settle it, right?

No, Isaiah is not calling Messiah divine in this famous verse. Christian translators overlook a basic rule of Hebrew grammar and the basic conventions of these kinds of names in Hebrew. There are two things that you need to know to see why Isaiah 9:6 is not a prophecy of the divinity of Messiah:

1. The “is” in Hebrew is unwritten and understood.
2. These special kinds of names (theophoric names) make statements about God or about life rather than about the person.

In other words, Isaiah 9:6 should be translated, “A wonderful counselor IS the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father IS a prince of peace” (pele yo’etz el gibbor, avi ad sar shalom). There are plenty of other examples of such names in Isaiah and in Hebrew in general. One such example is the famous Maher-shalal-a-hash-baz of Isaiah 8:3 (”swift is the plunder and speedy is the prey”).

So, while the incarnation is true, it is not something ever revealed prior to the coming of Yeshua. There were concepts in Judaism of Messiah being an angelic figure, but not a divine one (1 Enoch has a part where he is called “the one before time”).

So, how can this theological musing be about a Jewish view of the incarnation? What is Jewish about this Christian doctrine? My answer is four-fold:

1. Jewish men and women grasped the concept from the life and teaching of Yeshua and passed it down to us in the New Testament.
2. The idea of God-becoming-human while remaining divine is within the boundaries of a Jewish view of God: he can do all things.
3. Incarnation is not a strange miracle in light of a Jewish concept: humans are made in God’s image.
4. The Torah has a tradition, interpreted in rabbinic literature, in which God is seen as the Primordial Man.

Regarding the first point, it may seem obvious that the apostles were Jewish, the New Testament is a Jewish book, and the incarnation taught in the New Testament is a Jewish idea. There was a time when the New Testament was suspect of being a late document (second and third century) heavily influenced by Greek thought and Roman mystery religions. Scholarship has largely rejected this idea and the New Testament is widely seen, even by critical scholars, as a Jewish document from the first century. If the divinity of Messiah and the incarnation are such anti-Jewish doctrines, why was there not a more heated debate about the idea in the New Testament?

Regarding the second point, some philosophers and theologians have made too great a deal of the separation of the divine and human, the perfect and the imperfect, the temporal and the eternal. Some have made it seem impossible for the eternal God to take in mortal, human flesh. This separation is too sharply drawn. The third point is an answer to this objection: God made us in his image, so human form must not be too foreign to God’s nature.

Regarding the third point, humans are made in God’s image. There are numerous explanations for what that means: intelligence, speech, ability to reign and rule, ability to create, capacity to love, the soul which elevates us above animals, and on and on. Rather that deciding which is these is correct, we should admit they all are. When a child is born in the image of the parents, there is not one trait that the child shares with the parents, but many. It seems then that human nature is not foreign to God but comes from God. Even our physical existence (we’re not just bodiless spirits) must have some counterpart in God’s nature. And that leads to the fourth point.

God is revealed in the Torah as a walking, talking person. He walked in the garden with Adam (Genesis 3:8). He walked and carried on a sort of court hearing with Abraham (Genesis 18:22-33). This led to a concept in the rabbinical literature of God as ADAM-HA-KADMON, the Primordial (or First) Man.

There are two extremes in Jewish interpretation of God’s nature. The Jewish philosophers, such as Maimonides, interpret God as utterly spirit and idea without substance and form. God is the unmoved mover, a principle and not in any sense tied to the physical. The other extreme is in rabbinic interpreters who took the anthropomorphisms of the Bible literally: God has a hand, feet, wings, etc., since the Bible talks about all these things.

So, if in the fulness of time, God saw fit to enter this world as a man, this was not foreign to his nature. It was not beyond his power. There is no Jewish reason to deny the possibility. Simply, we must decide if it is true. Did Yeshua claim to be and demonstrate that he was, in fact, God in human form? He certainly did not walk around saying it, “I am divine.” Yet he did more than hint at it. He demonstrated the power of a creator, the ability to command wind and waves and transform water into wine. Were these parlor tricks? Legends? Let the reader decide. But know that incarnation is not an anti-Jewish idea.

What does the incarnation mean to you and me? It means God has come down to our level and raised us up. He did not merely reach down from heaven. He came to us and lifted us up on his very real shoulders. It means God does understand our weakness. He lived it. In him, in the God-man, Yeshua, we have a real savior, human enough to understand and divine enough to affect salvation.

A Slow Week for Blogging

Shalom all. I apologize for the lack of content. I am helping with our congregation’s Children’s Summer Yeshiva this week. We set up a Biblical village and made costumes and we are teaching and entertaining kids every day. It leaves me little enough time for my regular study and work. I will post if I have time, but meanwhile, it may be a few days before I have anything.

Hope you’re all having a great summer.

Derek

Purity Laws and the Doctrine of Resurrection, Part 1

Recently we considered the fact that there will be sacrifices and purity laws in the Age to Come. Now I would like to consider how the purity laws of the Torah point to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.

In Part 1, I will explain the tradition of proving the doctrine of the resurrection from the Torah in rabbinic literature. In Part 2, I will summarize the purity laws briefly, show what they have in common, and from there demonstrate that resurrection was always on God’s mind.

It is a mitzvah to demonstrate the doctrine of the resurrection from the Torah. This goes back to the disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees about the resurrection and life after death. The Pharisees believed in the hereafter and the coming resurrection. The Sadducees did not which is why they were so sad, you see. You can read in the New Testament about these disputes (Matthew 22:23-33 and Acts 23:6-10).

It was likely because the doctrine of the hereafter and the resurrection is not taught directly in the Torah of Moses that the Sadducees rejected the doctrine. So it became a sort of badge of honor for leading rabbis to have their special proof of the resurrection from the Torah. Here are some examples, as found in Everyman’s Talmud, by Abraham Cohen:

Whence is the doctrine of the resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, “Ye shall give the Lord’s heave-offering to Aaron the priest” (Num. 28:28). But did Aaron live forever to receive the offering? . . . Consequently the text teaches that he is to be restored to life in the Hereafter and will receive the heave offering (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90b) . . . The Sadducees asked R. Gamaliel, “Whence is it known that the Holy One, blessed be He, revives the dead?” He answered, “From the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings”; but they did not accept his proofs. “From the Pentateuch, for it is written, ‘Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up’” (Deut. 31:16). They replied, “The meaning is rather, ‘This people will rise up and go whoring after the strange gods.’” . . .

When they did not accept Rabban Gamaliel’s arguments, he added another:

Finally he quoted them, “The land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give unto them” (Deut. 11:9). It is not stated :unto you,” but “unto them”; hence the doctrine of the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.

There are other proofs by other sages. Generally they all bend various rules of normal interpretation to try and find the doctrine of resurrection in the Torah. Giving the heave-offering to Aaron the priest no doubt means also to the priests who succeed him after he dies. The Sadducees were doubtless right that R. Gamaliel was twisting the meaning of Deuteronomy 31:16. The “them” in Deuteronomy 11:9 refers no doubt to God promising the land to Israel, not a direct teaching that the fathers would one day be raised and inherit the land. Other proofs use similar tricks, playing of the tense of a verb and so forth.

Rabbi Yeshua had the best of all the proofs, in my mind, and you can read it for yourself in Matthew 22:23-33. He proved resurrection from the common saying in Torah, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The text does not say, “I was the God of Abraham,” but “I am.” The present tense is clear and it would have been easy enough to use the perfect if “I was” was intended. In other words, though Abraham is dead, the God of Israel is still the God of Abraham. Therefore Abraham must be alive. He is the God of the living, not the dead, Yeshua told his Sadducean mockers.

So, how will the purity laws of the Torah give is a strong hint of the doctrine of the resurrection? What do these two things have to do with each other? Next time, we will have a crash course on the purity laws, the vital theory of Jacob Milgrom (the prince of Leviticus commentators), and a theology of life after death foreshadowed by these regulations often despised by modern interpreters.

Christian Farmers Serving Israel

Tonight I went to Athens, Georgia, to hear a presentation by the Waller family. They are Christians in Israel serving Israelis by helping in agriculture. You can find out more about them at hayovel.com

They are Christian Zionists who have adopted some of the Jewish lifestyle in their mission of serving Israel agriculturally. They are a sweet family with eleven children. I can relate since I have seven (and plan to have more).

Their story basically is that they lived the normal American life and decided they wanted more by having less. They joined an Amish-Mennonite farming community (though they are not Amish in their doctrine) and learned a lifestyle of simplicity (no electrical power). Then, after that period of their lives, they went to Israel to work in the vineyards and fields.

The statistics support their mission. Israel has seen a 50% decline in agricultural output in the last decade. The reason? Technoology pays so much more, no one wants to do agriculture. Chalk it up also to the failures of socialism. Israel is a socialist state and incentives in business and farming are lost when the government takes over. Farmers shouldn’t live on government subsidies, but should profit from a free market.

Israel brings in 30,000 Thai workers each year to work the farms (a parallel to our corrupt system in the U.S.).

The Wallers have a thought: why shouldn’t Christians go and help by working in the fields, repairing or building irrigation systems, and so forth? It would be a way for Christians to serve the Jewish people and be a light by deeds and not merely words. The Wallers hope to see a day when 30,000 Christians go to Israel annually, for 1 to 3 months, to work in the land and bring Israel back to agricultural success.

There are numerous promises in the prophets about agriculture in Israel in the last days. Many are about the Messianic Age. But God’s ways usually involve people. We should not assume that the agricultural miracles of the Age to Come will be done without human preparation. History has shown that God works through people.

The Wallers consider themselves to fit into the promise of Isaiah 61:5-6, ” Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks; foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers; but you shall be called the priests of the Lord.” The Wallers are Gentiles dressing the vines in the settlements of the West Bank (Samaria).

Theologically, I agree with the basic thrust of their work. Serving is the best way to be a blessing. God will keep his promises, but meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with working with God as we await his miracles.

Purity Laws and Sacrifices in the Age to Come?

When I wrote my latest book, A New Look at the Old Testament, one of my goals was to bring to Christians and Messianic Jews a sound theology of the sacrificial system. Liberal Jews, and most Christians, think that the sacrificial system of Leviticus was primitive and will not return. The Reform and Conservative Jewish prayer books omit references in the Amidah and other places to the restoration of the sacrifices of Israel. Maimonides felt they were an accommodation to the culture of the Ancient Near East, a system of worship needed by Israel in its primitive setting, but no longer needed since we have outgrown ancient ways. Most Christians are of the opinion that the sacrifices are outdated, replaced by the better sacrifice of Jesus.

Yet more conservative-minded Jews and some Christians who take the prophets at their word still believe the sacrificial system has a future. Most importantly, this is due to Ezekiel 40-48, a description of the Coming Temple of Messiah.

So, I offer the following thoughts (actually part of my preparation for our Torah class at Tikvat David) as a way to start the discussion about this important topic. I plan to write several posts on this topic and hopefully answer many questions. I believe the sacrificial and purity laws of the Torah are foundational theology. They show the need for a cross and the certainty of resurrection. More on that later, but for now, let’s begin the conversation:

By some ways of thinking, the sacrifices of Israel and the purity laws should have no place in the Age to Come. Many regard these as outmoded ways of thinking, throwbacks to an era of paganism and ritual worship. These have no place now that worship in the spirit has come.

A quick survey of verses from Ezekiel’s description of the Third Temple gives the lie to such a notion. The only way to dismiss these verses and maintain a theology where purity laws have no place in God’s great future is to deny that Ezekiel’s vision will ever come to pass or to suggest his detailed descriptions are mere allegories:

They shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean. (Ezek. 44:23).

You shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, declares Adonai Elohim, a bull from the herd for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the ledge and upon the rim all around. (Ezek. 43:19-20).

And they shall stand before me to offer me the fat and the blood, declares Adonai Elohim. They shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my charge. (Ezek. 44:15-16).

It shall be the prince’s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel. Thus says Adonai Elohim: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a bull from the herd without blemish, and purify the sanctuary. (Ezek. 45:17-18).

When the priests enter the Holy Place, they shall not go out of it into the outer court without laying there the garments in which they minister, for these are holy. They shall put on other garments before they go near to that which is for the people. (Ezek. 42:14).

O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations, in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations. 8And you have not kept charge of my holy things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary. (Ezek. 44:6-7).

The world of the Age to Come is not yet the Final Age (Rev. 20-22). In the Age to Come, the thousand-year kingdom of Messiah, there will still be death and sin. Isaiah 65 says the young will die at 100 years old and that there will be sinners (65:20). Thus, with sin and death still on the earth, there will still be a need for a Temple, a Torah, Purity Laws, and a Sacrificial System, for God’s glory will be in that Temple with Messiah Yeshua.

Yet there will be no Temple in the Final Age, since there will be no sin. As John saw in his vision:

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. Revelation 21:22-23.

Still, someone might ask, if Yeshua died for our sins, what use will sacrifices offered in a Temple be? The assumption is that the sacrifices of Leviticus were like smaller or temporary versions of the cross of Yeshua. They were not. The Levitical sacrifices had a different function: to keep the Temple clean from the pollution of Israel’s sins and impurities so that God would remain there. God does not choose to dwell in sinful pollution.

For more, see A New Look at the Old Testament, where I explain in detail the theology and procedure of the sacrificial system of Israel.

Sabbath Meditation, Abandoned? Alone?

I’m posting this one a bit earlier than usual for a Friday, but I hope Shabbat is already on your mind. We’re having a house full of teenagers over for a Youth Shabbat. Hope yours is as adventurous as mine will be!

I was riding with my daughters to the grocery store and we were listening to Barlow Girl, a Christian band. They have this one song that I would have to say is as good as any spiritual song I know, “Never Alone.”

Here are some of the lyrics:

I waited for you today
But you didn’t show
No no no
I needed You today
So where did You go?
You told me to call
Said You’d be there
And though I haven’t seen You
Are You still there?

Who is the you she is speaking about? God, of course.

That got me thinking about the idea of God being hidden and our sense of abandonment in this world. The sense is real. Our feeling of abandonment is real. God really is not always out in the open.

It’s funny. I know some believers in God will take me to task in one direction, “God is always there.” Agnostics and doubters will take me to task in another direction, “God out in the open, you’ve got to be kidding!”

I’m talking to believers right now, the faithful. We know the ways God is out in the open. We know the subtle encouragements and the footprints of God in our lives.

But there are dark nights and lightless days. They may be objective (real things are bothering us) or subjective (we cannot feel what we should inside). We say to God, “Where are you? You said you’d be right here.”

“Heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled, my soul also. But you, O Lord, how long?” said David (Ps. 6:2-3). “Why, O Lord, do you stand far off?” he says in Psalm 10:1. “How long, O Lord, will you forget me forever?” David prayed (13:1).

Our problem sometimes is that we pray too weakly. God knows our doubts and frustrations.

Barlow Girl’s song continues, “I cried out with no reply and I can’t feel You by my side.”

I thought of a story of abandonment, or at least a time a man thought he was abandoned. His problem was not merely subjective. Real things were happening and God was not preventing them.

He saw friends die. His own life was in danger and he was a fugitive. He was somewhat suicidal, at least to the point of asking God to take his life. And he was the kind of holy man who got what he asked for. He could really expect God to honor that prayer — but, again, silence. The silence hurt worse than death.

He walked the mountain where God gave the Torah to Moses. He figured God would have to meet him there. He went up to a cave and God spoke, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

He complained about all the things and most of all that God was not there, as far as he could tell. Where was the God of fire who consumed the animals on Mt. Carmel? Where was the power he had seen before? Why would God act at some times and seem not there at others?

So, are we right to feel abandoned sometimes. I would say so. Is there hope?

David always thought so. He was more honest than most about God disappearing. Yet his complaints always ended in statements of trust. As he wrote songs, prayers about his troubles, his spirit resolved within him. He worked to a place of resolution. He saw the truth.

”The Lord has heard my plea; the Lord has accepted my prayer,” he believes (Ps. 6:9). “The Lord is King forever and ever . . . O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted,” he assures himself (1o:16-17). “I will sing to the Lord, for he has dealt bountifully with me” (13:6).

It was there for Elijah to see also. He just missed it. Yes, Jezebel was out for his life. Yes, he asked God to kill him. What was God’s response? “And behold, an angel touched him and said, ‘Arise and eat.’” (1 Kings 19:5).

In our lightless days and dark nights, we will find God’s footprints if we look hard enough. He is King forever and ever. He accepts the plea of the afflicted. He does send subtle encouragements, even if he is mostly silent.

David saw it. Elijah missed it. Barlow Girl sings about it:

So I’ll hold tight to what I know
You’re here and I“m never alone

And though I cannot see You
And I can’t explain why
Such a deep, deep reassurance
You’ve placed in my life

We cannot separate
‘Cause You’re part of me
And though You’re invisible
I’ll trust the unseen

Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 7

By now we are way into this discussion. You really should take the time to read Parts 1-7 if you haven’t. This is a summary and discussion of a paper by Dr. Mark Kinzer delivered to the 2003 Hashivenu forum. Part 1 has a link to the original paper.

Having argued in Part 6 that Yeshua’s attitude toward Pharisaic tradition was basic acceptance with prophetic correction, we now turn to the next part of Dr. Kinzer’s paper. Dr. Kinzer asks, what did Yeshua say about ongoing halakhic authority (authority to make rulings for communal standards of Torah observance) for the Yeshua-community?

To answer this, Dr. Kinzer first looks at the Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21:33-46, Mk 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19). Yeshua clearly condemns the “chief priests, scribes, and elders,” which means the Sanhedrin. He says the vineyard will be taken from them and given to another ethnos, meaning “people” or “group.” Typically this is taken in supersessionist form (replacement theology) that God is removing his election of Israel and giving it to a new nation or people — the church. Some, based on Mark and Luke’s version, would see this as Rome, in the sense that Rome will rule (destroy) the Temple. Yet, ethnos can also mean a group, a voluntary association.

Dr. Kinzer suggests that possibly it could mean the rabbis, or the rabbis as well as the leaders of the Yeshua community.

To get from point A to point B, it is necessary to factor in several other Matthew texts. Matthew 18:18 clearly grants halakhic authority to the leaders of the Yeshua-movement (at the very least, to the twelve). Matthew 23:1-3, then, grants that authority to the Pharisees.

Let me quote Matthew 23:1-3 in full, since these verses get very little attention in many Christian theologies:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”

Compare Matthew 23 to Deuteronomy 17:10: “Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you.”

It would seem that Yeshua grants that the Pharisees, in some unexplained relationship with the rulings of the leaders in the Yeshua-movement, have halakhic authority. Dr. Kinzer argues that “seat of Moses” was a reference to the high court of Israel (Deut. 17:10) that carried Mosaic authority. [Note: Dr. Kinzer rightly observes that Matthew never explains how the leaders in the Yeshua-movement can have authority at the same time as the Pharisees. A simple theory: the Yeshua community corrects when rabbinic/Pharisaic authority goes against certain principles, such as Gentile inclusion and the priority of love.]

Dr. Kinzer goes on to make some good points. He argues that Luke-Acts is quite favorable to the Pharisees. [Note: I cannot agree that Luke 17:20-21 means the kingdom of God is in the Pharisees' deovtion to Torah. I think Yeshua means he represents the kingdom in his own person.] He gives a convincing answer why Matthew speaks more harshly about the Pharisees than Luke: it is because Matthew is the most Pharisaic book, and proximity leads to prophetic correction.

Significantly, Dr. Kinzer discusses six characteristics of Matthew that align its approach with Pharisaism:
1. Matthew views the leadership of the Yeshua-community as scribal (Matt 13:52 and 23:34).
2. Its leadership is halakhic, binding and loosing, meaning issuing rulings on practice (Matt 18:18).
3. Matthew shows some similarities to later rabbinic traits, such as using kingdom of heaven in place of kingdom of God.
4. Matthew uses topical organization (like the Mishnah) rather than chronological, like Mark and Luke.
5. Matthew uses numerical patterns (five discourses, ten mighty deeds, etc.).
6. Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer resembles synagogue liturgy more than Lukes (”on earth as it is in heaven”).
7. Matthew makes a point of affirming Pharisaic authority (Matt 23:1-3).

As Dr. Kinzer says, these affinities make for an intriguing conclusion: Matthew envisions the Yeshua-community as parallel in many ways to the Pharisees.

Dr. Kinzer then suggests that Messianic Judaism can follow Matthew’s example. As he patterned a community on the lines of Pharisaic tradition (with correction) so we can pattern a community on rabbinic authority (with correction).

Well, if that isn’t provocative, what is? This thesis goes against so many assumptions. Dr. Kinzer is calling for the Jewish, Torah-observant wing of the Yeshua-community to be more rabbinic. He shows that the rabbis are a legitimate authority in Torah according to Deuteronomy and Matthew. Here are some questions:

1. If you disagree, how would you argue with Matthew 23:1-3, Deuteronomy 17:10, and the whole Pharisaic program of Matthew?
2. If you agree, what should we do about it?
3. What are some areas in which the Yeshua-community will need to add corrective to rabbinic authority?

Emerging World Christianity and the Old Testament

I recently subscribed to Books and Culture, a publication owned by Christianity Today, and a treasure-house of ideas I might never be exposed to had I not subscribed. I was floored by an article I read at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/003/7.22.html

It seems that the number of Christians in the southern hemisphere and the Orient is surpassing that in the North and the West. I knew about this trend. I did not know that Emerging World Christians are growing in their influence in worldwide Christian thinking. This has especially impacted the Anglican Church. Whereas Britain has 1 million Anglicans and far less attend church, Nigeria has 18 million Anglicans and nearly all attend. Put that in perspective. That means Anglicans in Nigeria dwarf the Southern Baptist Convention in the U.S.

Anyway, I got a lot of nakhas (joy) from reading the perspective of Emerging World Christians on the Old Testament. I hope you will get nakhas like I did (email me and let me know):

A Larger Bible
One of the remarkable features of African and Asian biblical reading, Jenkins says, is the affinity readers feel to the Old Testament. In contemporary northern churches, the traditional doctrine that the New Testament fulfills and builds upon the Old Testament has mutated into the idea that the New Testament supersedes, even replaces, the Old Testament. But Africans find the Old Testament exciting and relevant. It deals with nomadic life, polygamy, rituals of sacrifice—their traditional world. Asians revere the Old Testament’s wisdom literature, its “oriental“ mind. On both continents, the Old Testament’s denunciation of idolatry—a subject that usually gets modulated and symbolized in the North—is straight-up relevant and prophetic. Both Africans and Asians love the Book of Proverbs. Modern-minded northerners constantly look for fresh ways of saying things, which can make the biblical couplets sound trite and old. But in orally transmitted cultures, proverbs convey the wisdom of the ancients across generations. Biblical proverbs interweave almost seamlessly with traditional wise sayings.

There is much about the New Testament to love in the global South as well, and the favorite passages may surprise northerners. Northern commentators, especially since the Reformation, have wrestled with the place of the Epistle of James in the canon, with its apparent contradictions of the Pauline doctrines of salvation by faith alone. An “epistle of straw,“ Martin Luther called it. But James is wisdom literature, and as such, it may be the most powerful and revered New Testament book of them all for southern Christians. It is proverbial, practical, concrete, action-oriented, and directed to the poor and the distressed. Jenkins puts the entire epistle in an appendix and urges his readers to revisit it.

The Book of Revelation does not play well in northern, mainline contexts. It is redolent of weird last-days cults, it is filled with violent imagery and retribution, and it depicts the meltdown of human civilization, not its advance. But given the grim realities of many places in the global South, Jenkins observes, Revelation’s “portrayal of secular states as deceptive, evil persecutors, and cities as the seats of demonic forces,“ gives it widespread appeal: “For many, left and right, it reads like a political science textbook.“ Revelation promises beleaguered believers that no matter what, God’s justice will prevail. So in Uganda, Idi Amin stood in for the Beast; in China, believers gained hope during times of intense persecution; and in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the Kairos Document of 1985 named the Nationalist regime the Antichrist.

–Joel Carpenter, Back to the Bible: A New Christian Heartland, Books and Culture

A Dose of Yeshua Spirituality

Note that there are two blog entries today. If you have been following the series, don’t forget to scroll down and check out “Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 6”.

I am reading (a little at a time, because his writing is the kind you chew on) Dallas Willard’s The Great Omission. I found something in chapter 3 that seemed to peel back a layer of obscurity, clarifying the heart of Yeshua’s great sermon, the Sermon on the Mount.

First, let me say that some time ago I realized what the Beatitudes are all about. They are not character traits. In other words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” is not a wisdom teaching on humility. The Beatitudes are about the coming kingdom and how it will reverse the injustices of this life. Here the proud in spirit rule, the aggressive dominate, those who mourn seem to have no hope, and so on. But Yeshua explained to his disciples that a great change was coming, the kingdom of heaven. This does not mean “heaven,” but the coming rule of God that will replace the rule of men. Blessed are the poor in spirit because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. God will comfort the mourning, fill those who desire righteousness, and will reward faith, not self-empowerment. The Beautitudes are about God taking over and changing the recognized order of life.

After that, I confess to a lack of clarity on the message of the Sermon on the Mount. I don’t mean to say I didn’t understand it at all. But there always seemed to be a fog of distortion. One source of the fog is the old canard that Judaism was an external religion, which Yeshua opposed, and the Sermon was Yeshua’s new way of inner religion.

Then I read Willard this morning and I got a dose of Yeshua spirituality.

First, Willard says:

Jesus brings us reliable information about who we are, why we are here, and what humanly appropriate motives there are for doing whatever we do. First, he informs us that we are by nature unceasing spiritual beings with an eternal destiny in God’s great universe.

That is the message of the Beautitudes. But then Willard goes on, summarizing the spirituality of Yeshua’s sermon:

The central teachings of Jesus about the good heart, given in Matthew 5:21-48, deal with all those day to day attitudes that keep the pot of human evil boiling: contempt and hostility toward others, sexual lust and disgust in the heart, the will to manipulate others verbally, revenge and payback, and so forth. These, Jesus tells us, can all be replaced with genuine compassion, purity, and good will as we grow our new “insides.”

And when we ask, “How?” he points us back to his first lesson, above, which assures us of our place and future in God’s eternal purposes. In the clear light of who we are in God’s eyes, our angers and lusts seem silly and repulsive, since we see them as God sees them.

Then he invites us to follow him into his practices, such as solitude, silence, study, service, worship, etc.—we call them “spiritual disciplines.” There, with him, the readinesses to do evil that inhabit our bodily members through long practice are gradually removed, to an ever-increasing degree. Our “flesh” increasingly comes to the side of our spirit and God’s Spirit in service to God. The disciplines for the spiritual life are a central part of the crucial “in-formation” which Jesus brings to us, and we dare not neglect it.

For Willard it is crucial to realize that Yeshua is with us, present here and now, our teacher and with us in our daily lives. The Sermon is Yeshua’s way:
1. Know that God is bringing an unending kingdom to overturn the upside down values of this age.
2. Our human ways of understanding life (anger, lust, greed, the will to power) are destined to die and be replaced by God’s perfect way.
3. Righteousness as a way of life lived for God alone, in secret, transforms and rids us of anxiety and pride.
4. The good heart comes from a life lived actively with God, in his presence, for him alone, and through him to love his creatures.

So, pray in secret. We have a prayer tradition that makes this meaningful and which gives direction already, the Siddur. So give in secret and do not keep what you have just for yourself. Live your life before God. Solitude. Silence. Worship. Study. Service. All are tools to build the God-life and leave behind the upside down values that have left us broken.

“Every man who hears these words of mine and does them will be like the man who built his house on the rock.” —Yeshua.

Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 6

I hope you’ve read Parts 1-5. You will find a link to Dr. Kinzer’s paper in Part 1.

Last time we considered that the Pharisees criticized “some of” Yeshua’s disciples for not engaging in ritual handwashing. It would appear that: (a) the Pharisees regarded Yeshua as in their camp, (b) Yeshua himself likely observed the handwashing tradition as did some of his disciples, and (c) Yeshua did not regard the handwashing ceremony as a binding requirement.

Most importantly, we considered that Yeshua’s criticisms of the Pharisees (giving ritual details priority over love and justice and sometimes allowing traditions to overrule biblical commands) were not a denunciation of Pharisaism, but a prophetic critique. Just as Isaiah prophetically censured the worship practices of Israel (new moons, Sabbaths, sacrifices) but could not have been denying their God-given authority, so Yeshua was calling for tradition to follow God’s priorities and not work against them.

As Dr. Kinzer continues the discussion, he considers the way Yeshua’s criticisms might reflect the debates between the houses of Shammai and Hillel. Some scholars are of the opinion that the house of Shammai had the majority of support before 70 C.E. and the destruction of the Temple, while Hillel’s rulings rose to prominence after. Dr. Kinzer cites a book by Anthony Saldarini as a basis for this theory. [I haven't heard the evidence, but this would seem to me a speculation and not an assured result of historical inquiry.]

What does the Shammai-Hillel debate have to do with Yeshua’s critique of Pharisaism? Yeshua was criticizing the harsher, more regimented philosophy of Shammai, which dominated in his day. He would have agreed more with the gentler philosophy of Hillel, which became more the foundation of rabbinism.

Dr. Kinzer then makes a significant point. While Yeshua did oppose some traditions that were forming when they were controversial and not widely accepted by the Jewish community as a whole, he accepted without question traditions that gained wide acceptance: synagogue tradition, Passover Seder tradition, using circumlocutions to describe the activity of God (e.g., “the wisdom of God”), and accepting Temple traditions such as the water pouring ceremony.

To summarize this far:
1. The rabbis’ authority fits with God’s command that Israel have a central court to determine specifics of Torah observance.
2. Accepting rabbinic tradition does not mean believing a naïve myth that rabbinic literature was revealed to Moses on Sinai.
3. Yeshua’s way seems much closer to the Pharisees than any other Jewish group.
4. Yeshua’s critique of the Pharisees was not a wholesale rejection, but a critique from within.
5. Yeshua accepted tradition in general, but opposed wrong priorities in tradition.

I decided to give a short installment today. I feel the need to write another blog topic. Some have said that while they appreciate the topic of rabbinic tradition, they miss some of the other topics I bring up on the blog. I will finish summarizing Dr. Kinzer’s paper (probably 3 or so more installments). Yet I will also write on some other topics and provide a little variety here at Messianic Musings.

Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 5

This is the fifth part of a series summarizing and discussing a paper by Dr. Mark Kinzer delivered at the 2003 Hashivenu Forum. In Part 1, I have a link to the original paper. I recommend you read Parts 1-4 before reading Part 5.

Thus far we have defined what Oral Torah is and suggested a healthy view of its origin and authority. Oral Torah is not a mythical body of law delivered to Moses on Sinai, but the working out through the generations in Israel of a way to keep the Torah. Torah does not give answers to many practical questions of observance. Oral Torah is the system of guidelines for the community of Israel about how to keep Torah. Oral Torah is rabbinic tradition.

We have also considered a biblical basis for rabbinic tradition: the Torah commands in Deuteronomy 16 and 17 for Israel to establish a central court to determine rulings about Torah life. Now we will look at the New Testament for further guidance. How does the New Testament treat rabbinic tradition?

Let me say from the outset, many Christians and Messianic Jews would be quick to say, “Yeshua opposed rabbinic tradition.” After all, there are many criticisms and denunciations of the Pharisees in the gospels. But let’s see what Dr. Kinzer has to say.

First, Dr. Kinzer suggests that there are strong continuities between pre-70 Pharisaism and post-70 Rabbinic Judaism. This is not as obvious a point as it might sound. Dr. Kinzer didn’t say this, but I will: we have been subjected for years to bad scholarship where rabbinic literature is directly equated with the Judaism of Yeshua’s day. You cannot quote the Mishnah and act as though it was the tradition of Yeshua’s time. The Mishnah was written down around 200 C.E. and a great many changes happened after the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Nonetheless, I feel Dr. Kinzer’s point stands: there is at least a parallel between pre-70 Pharisaism and post-70 Rabbinic Judaism.

Therefore, the principle Dr. Kinzer goes by is that the New Testament attitude toward Pharisaism tells us something about Rabbinic Judaism. Josephus, writing in 96 C.E., affirms that the Pharisees passed down traditions about how to keep the Torah, traditions opposed by the Sadducees who had a Torah-only position (Antiquities 13:297). The Pharisees called the ”the traditions of the elders.” As far as we know, there was as yet no claim to Mosaic authority for these traditions.

Dr. Kinzer asks, “How do the New Testament documents respond to these traditions of the elders?” The first test case is ritual handwashing (netillat yadai’m). Many would be quick to say, “Yeshua opposed the ritual handwashing?” Dr. Kinzer suggests this interpretation is too hasty.

The Pharisees criticized Yeshua’s disciples for not washing their hands (Matt. 15 and Mark 7), but they did not say that Yeshua also abstained from the practice. It is likely that Yeshua practiced handwashing but did not teach his disciples that it was required. That is, he perhaps followed the tradition without making it mandatory. Also, the criticism was only of SOME of Yeshua’s followers, not all (Mark 7:2). Perhaps some of the disciples did wash hands.

Dr. Kinzer then makes an important argument, one we should consider. It is hard to imagine a Pharisee asking a Sadducee, “Why don’t your students wash their hands? It is reasonable, then, to assume that the Pharisees regarded Yeshua as one of their own, a tradition-keeping Jew.

Yeshua’s response to the Pharisees suggests two problems he had with the traditions: (1) he sees their preoccupation with ritual observances outweighing greater concerns of love and justice and (2) he opposes occasions where the traditions of the elders are allowed to outweigh biblical commands. Yeshua cites examples of both, ritual overpowering love and tradition overpowering scripture.

What then? Has Yeshua dismissed the tradition entirely? The fact that Yeshua appears to keep the traditions tells us he did not reject them wholesale. Dr. Kinzer suggests a better understanding: a prophetic corrective. The prophets spoke strongly about wrongs done in the worship of Israel but they did not oppose the worship of Israel. They sought to make it right. Yeshua was seeking to influence the tradition and not overturn it.

It is often overlooked in Matthew 23:23-24 that Yeshua affirmed the details of traditions (tithing herbs, which was not a biblical law) while calling for a greater emphasis on biblical love and justice. This is prophetic correction, not opposition to the entire enterprise.

I will stop here for today. This is plenty to chew on. Tomorrow we will continue looking at the New Testament and Rabbinic Tradition. For now, here are questions for thought and discussion:
1. Knowing that the Pharisees criticized only some of Yeshua’s disciples for not washing hands and that Yeshua affirmed the tradition of tithing herbs, is it still possible to argue that Yeshua rejected tradition? If you can make an argument, I’d like to see it.
2. How does prophetic correction serve as a better model (hint: consider Isaiah 1:10-15 as a paradigm)?
3. How does this change the way you view your Messianic Jewish lifestyle? (note: We are not arguing here that non-Jewish Christians are bound to Torah and tradition)

Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 4

If you haven’t read parts 1-3, you should. Thanks to Benjamin for the insightful and passionate comment. He basically said that: (a) there is no Biblical Judaism that omits rabbinic tradition since you can’t keep Torah without tradition, yet (b) we should not feel ashamed about picking our halakhah since no one follows all the tradition. The reason no one follows all the tradition is that there are competing and opposing views. Benjamin thinks it is fine if we look Orthodox in some areas and Reconstructionist in others. Having met him, I know that it is primarily regarding Gentile inclusion that he feels we should be more like Reconstructionist. Yeshua’s powerful inclusion of Gentiles necessitates a change in the way Torah is applied (Eph 2). I agree. Anyway, back to Dr. Kinzer’s paper.

In part 3, I summarized Dr. Kinzer’s explanation of views of Oral Torah in Orthodox Judaism. A strong and very reasonable view is that commandments are divided into d’oraita (written) and d’rabbanan (rabbinic). The rabbinic commands are authoritative because the rabbis fill the role in Deut 16 and 17 of the central court of Israel.

Dr. Kinzer then considers some objections to rabbinic authority. Dan Gruber has written that the rabbis far exceeded the authority of Deut 17, seeking to supersede written Torah. Lawrence Schiffman has proposed a lesser objection, noting that the Tannaim (earlier scholars quoted in the Mishnah) objected to having their decisions written down so that no one would confuse that lesser authority with the greater authority of written Torah. It was the Amoraim (later scholars quoted in the Talmud) who began to imply that their rulings had equal or greater authority than Torah. Schiffman says that the Talmud “became the new scripture of Judaism…Scripture had been displaced by Talmud.”

Dr. Kinzer disagrees with both Gruber and Schiffman on these points. Admittedly, some Amoraic sayings can be interpreted as giving Oral Torah precedence over Written Torah. Also, admittedly, post-Talmudic Judaism gave priority to Talmud. Yet this is not, Dr. Kinzer asserts, a balanced view of what Talmud itself teaches.

The overall teaching of Talmud is that d’oraita (the written) is greater than d’rabbanan (the rabbinic). Dr. Kinzer cites examples in Talmud where a Biblical law is given greater weight than a rabbinic one. This principle (the Biblical is greater than the rabbinic) is the consistent principle throughout Talmud.

Certain apparent contradictions of this principle are considered, such as Hillel’s prosbul. Hillel’s prosbul was a case where a sage (Hillel) overturned a Biblical law (or at least aparently). Dr. Kinzer shows that these are not really violations of principle. Rather cases such as the prosbul have to do with occasions where two or more Biblical laws come into conflict. It is a matter of giving some Biblical laws weight over others rather than overturning a Biblical law.

Next, he quotes some Orthodox scholars who argue that Oral Torah is not to be considered fixed for all time. Oral Torah is the communal process of applying Written Torah to specific issues from generation to generation. Change should be expected as conditions change. That is one of the reasons Oral Torah is needed. If this view of Oral Torah can be accepted, then it is not necessary to accept all the ancient rulings as fixed and unchangeable.

Another idea, TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT, is the notion of popular consent and Oral Torah. That is, no law can be made by the rabbis that the people are not likely to keep (Talmud, Avodah Zarah 36a). In disputed cases, sometimes the rabbis appealed to the popular custom, saying the final decision should take into account what the people are doing (Talmud, Berachot 45a). This principle is important and prevents tyranny in formulating rabbinic traditions. A rabbinic command should not be harsher than what the people will keep.

Thus, again VERY IMPORTANTLY, we see that Oral Torah is often misunderstood in Christian and Messianic Jewish discussion as being rigid and inflexible. It is not, as is often alleged, intended to supersede the Written Torah.

In Part 5, we will look at Oral Torah in the New Testament. That promises to be an exciting and controversial topic. But for now, here are questions for thought or discussion:
1. Does the more reasonable and flexible view of rabbinic tradition surprise you?
2. Does the flexible view of Oral Torah make it easier for you to accept the idea that there is no Judaism without rabbinic tradition?

Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 3

This is the third in a series on a paper by Dr. Mark Kinzer delivered at the Hashivenu Forum. If you will read Part 1, you can find at the beginning a link to Dr. Kinzer’s original paper. I am summarizing and discussing Dr. Kinzer’s paper here.

In the third part of his paper, Dr. Kinzer discusses views of the Oral Torah in the rabbinic literature.

To begin with, Dr. Kinzer dismisses a naïve notion of Oral Torah. I have found that this naïve understanding pervades Messianic Jewish and Christian writings and discussions on the subject. What is this naïve view? Some think it is a tenet of Judaism that God gave two Torahs on Mt. Sinai, one written and one oral. The Talmud is the Oral Torah and the Pentateuch is the Written Torah. Thus, as many presume, the words of Talmud have equal authority to the Pentateuch.

Before I proceed, let me quickly explain some terms regarding rabbinic literature. The earliest written rabbinic commentary on Torah is the Mishnah, written about 200 C.E. The Mishnah is fairly short, very pithy, and difficult to interpret. So around 400 another commentary was made on the Mishnah called the Jerusalem Talmud and then in 500 the Babylonian Talmud. When people simply say Talmud, they generally mean the Babylonian one. It is the size of a small encyclopedia set. It adds a great deal of explanation to the Mishnah, but it too is often very hard to understand. Alongside the Mishnah and Talmud are the Midrashic writings, commentaries on the Bible that often add details to the Bible stories (like Biblical fiction) and interpret the intent behind passages of the Torah and other biblical books. Some of the Midrash are ancient and most are medieval.

As Dr. Kinzer explains, it does happen in the rabbinic literature that some laws not found in the Pentateuch are called “rulings of Moses from Sinai.” Yet this term is not applied to the entire Mishnah. The Mishnah and Talmud preserve the debates between rabbis and schools over Torah issues. It would be absurd to think that God charged Moses to memorize the Talmud and debates between people who would not live for thousands of years.

Another view of Oral Torah is that God revealed to Moses the content of the rest of the Bible and of the traditions that would develop about how to keep the Torah. Moses did not pass this down orally, but it was freshly revealed to the generations who needed it. In this view, the Talmud is not identical with the Oral Torah, but reflects the rabbis of those generations seeking to recall what the traditions are supposed to be. That is, the Oral Torah is not written anywhere, much of it is forgotten, but the Talmud brings it out through the discussions of the sages. The goal of the interpreter of Talmud is to determine which ruling is authoritative and what it means.

Then there is a third view, a view commonly reflected in the Talmud itself. The Talmud rarely mentions the concept of Oral Torah, which was a concept more accepted in Palestine than in Babylon. Rather, the Talmud divides commandments into two categories: d’oraita (what is written) and d’rabbanan (rabbinic law). The rabbinic laws are authoritative along with the biblical ones. Why is it authoritative? Did these rabbinic commands pass down from Moses in a chain of oral tradition? No. They are authoritative because the rabbis are the judges of Israel as legislated by Deuteronomy 16 and 17. God says you are not to turn from their rulings to the right or to the left.

A common example is the rabbinic command to light Hanukkah lights. The Torah does not even remotely command this, especially since Hanukkah is a later holiday not found in the Torah. Yet the blessing over the candles praises God who has “commanded us to kindle the lights of Hanukkah.” How can this be? The Talmud answers this in Shabbat 23a: “And where [in the Torah] did He so command us? Rav Avi’a said: [It follows] from, ‘You shall not turn aside [from the ruling that they declare to you, to the right or to the left]‘ (Deuteronomy 17:11).”

I think that is enough to chew on for one day. To summarize, then, a balanced view of rabbinic tradition is that it is the rabbis doing their God-ordained job. I know this raises hundreds more questions, especially if you know Judaism and you know about the traditions. Hopefully the rest of the paper, which I will present in installments, will answer many of them.

Meanwhile, questions for thought:
Have you been told only the naïve view of Oral Torah and are you surprised by the third view?
Do you think Deuteronomy 16 and 17, about the central court of Israel making Torah rulings, is what the rabbis are doing?
If you do not think rabbinic commands are valid, then how do you think God intended the gaps in Torah to be filled?

Should We Follow the Rabbis? Pt 2

This is the second installment in a series summarizing and discussing a paper by Dr. Mark Kinzer delivered at the 2003 Hashivenu Forum. If you will read Part 1, you will find a link to the original paper. I am summarizing the paper in bite-sized chunks as a service to the readers. I know with busy lifestyles it is hard to have time to read great books and academic papers. So I try to bring it to you right here in a format that you can digest. Let me say that I invite others to chime in, including other leaders, and I would invite Dr. Kinzer to comment if he desires.

In the second subsection of Dr. Kinzer’s paper, he addresses “Oral Torah in the Pentateuch.”

One objection to the idea of Oral Torah is that scripture is sufficient. The Reformers coined a term, sola scriptura. Yet Dr. Kinzer notes this has to do with soteriology (how we are saved), and is not a claim that the Bible replaces all writing as the only necessary source. Torah is not concerned with salvation, but a way of life. Does the Torah contain all the practical details necessary to live a Torah life?

Dr. Kinzer cites Michael Fishbane, who notes that gaps and ambiguities in the Torah text require interpretation. For example, the command to abstain from work on Shabbat does not specify what counts as work. The command to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur does not define what that means. The Leviticus 11 list of edible and inedible birds is incomplete and gives no principle (as it does for land and water animals), so which birds are forbidden?

At other times Torah requires interpretation and correlation of different texts. One text says to give the tithe to the Levites (Num 18:21-32), another to share it at a feast at the sanctuary (Deut 12:22-29), and yet another to donate it to Levites and the poor within the towns (Deut 14:27-29). How are female slaves to be treated in light of the apparently varied instructions of Exodus 21:7 and Deuteronomy 15:17? Is Passover to be kept in the home or at the sanctuary in light of Exodus 12:1-13 and Deuteronomy 16:2?

These are issues that require interpretation. Should the community have different answers so that each man does what is right in his own eyes? Or should there be one practice for the community so that all are together?

Dr. Kinzer then gives an amazing and helpful example. He shows that within the Bible itself a process of interpretation and standardization can sometimes be seen. His example is in 2 Chronicles 35:13, which speaks about how to cook the Passover lamb. Exodus 12:9 says it is to be roasted in fire while Deuteronomy 16:7 uses a word usually interpreted as boiling. 2 Chronicles 35:13 seems to reflect the interpretation of the Post-Exilic (after the Babylonian exile) community. It uses a similar word to Deuteronomy 16:7, but which more clearly means cook with fire and not boil.

There had to be guidance from the priests and leaders of Israel on how to keep festivals and obey the laws of Torah. The Torah simply does not attempt to fill in all details. Dr. Kinzer again cites Michael Fishbane as saying that the written Torah no doubt represents the core of a larger system of Israelite teaching, most of which was passed on orally. Fishbane is careful not to identify this oral teaching with the rabbinic Oral Law, but the parallel does show that some sort of Oral Torah was expected.

When Jethro advises Moses to appoint 70 elders, the process of Oral Torah is carried forward. Now the practice of the Israelites is regulated by a body of 70 elders. This system of priests and judges who issue rulings on cases and legal matters is codified in Deuteronomy 16 and 17.

Dr. Kinzer examines closely the wording of Deuteronomy 16:18-20 and 17:8-13. He notes there were both local courts and a central court for Israel (much like our local courts and Supreme Court in the U.S.). The central court will rule on issues too difficult for the local court, including decisions about “the appropriate law” (sometimes translated “the legal right”). People are not free to ignore the ruling of the central court, but it is binding. In essence, the central court of Israel makes laws that are as binding as biblical commands. Dr. Kinzer notes from 2 Chronicles 19 that such a court did function in Israelite history in the biblical period.

Interestingly, Dr. Kinzer briefly discusses five cases where Torah laws are made at the request of people who come to Moses for answers. I will simply list them if you wish to study them: Leviticus 24:10-23 – blasphemy by the son of an Egyptian man and an Israelite woman; Numbers 9:6-14 – Pesach Sheni; Numbers 15:32-36 – gathering wood on Shabbat; Numbers 27 & 36 – the daughters of Zelophehad and the inheritance rights of women.

From all of this, Dr. Kinzer concludes that:
1. Gaps, ambiguities, and problems of correlation in the Torah indicate a need for a supplemental system of teaching in Israel.
2. The text assumes an office such as that which Moses held, as Torah teacher to all Israel.
3. The Torah-teaching role of Moses was delegated to a central court for the whole nation.
4. The authority of the Mosaic office was from God but affirmed by the people (i.e., judges rise up from the people and the people affirm their authority — God does not appoint the judges in all generations and at all times, but usually leaves this to the people).

This is a lot to chew on. For many these ideas will be revolutionary or controversial. Would God leave part of the task of teaching a way of life to the people? Why wouldn’t God just say it all? Let me comment in a way that may be helpful to Christians. The exact same thing happens in Christendom, just without a central authority. Christian leaders decide how to pray, how to worship, and what the standard should be in various ethical situations. These norms differ from church to church and denomination to denomination. The idea of people filling in the practical steps of God’s commands is nothing unfamiliar to Christianity. What is different is the idea of a central authority, an idea that does not sit well in an individualistic age. Yet, with a central authority defining the major steps of practice, the community will have much greater unity.

Next time, Part 3. I do hope to hear some feedback from you. I don’t promise to respond to everything, but I appreciate the insights and perspectives you add.

A Clarification/Retraction Concerning Carl Kinbar

Just a brief note. Carl Kinbar wrote an email to me last week which I posted as “Carl Kinbar on Gentiles, Torah, and History.” I then proceeded to incorrectly interpret one of Carl’s points and caused some confusion.

Carl does not believe that majority Gentile congregations need to leave the movement and become churches. He spoke in his article about majority Gentile congregations coming to grips with their identity, not as a Jewish congregation, but a mixed or predominantly Gentile one. What he had in mind was not their leaving the movement, but thinking about issues such as liturgy. There are parts of liturgy, such as the Aleinu, which assume those praying are Jews to whom Torah was given. Carl was suggesting that the ways Jewish distinctive practices are handled should be considered.

I regret that I misinterpreted Carl. I am going back to change my response to Carl to reflect my better understanding. Incidentally, it took a while for this confusion to come to the fore because Carl has been out of town and was unaware of my misreading.

Derek