Dr. Kinzer on Reasons for Witness

After writing Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Mark Kinzer has often been misunderstood as a Jewish universalist or someone who has no motive for witness of Yeshua to Jewish people. The following are notes from his lecture delivered this morning at the UMJC annual conference. Dr. Brown, are you reading?

Dr. Mark Kinzer
Yeshua, the Glory of God, and the Glory of Israel: Motives for Post-Missionary Messianic Jewish Outreach

What does post-missionary mean? It does not mean ignoring God’s mandate to bear witness to Yeshua. It does not mean that we simply assume that all or most Jewish people are rightly related to God. It does not mean that we simply consider Orthodox Judaism the only valid expression of Jewish life. It means that we believe that God has been actively involved in the formation of Judaism for the last 2,000 years. God is not merely using a human construction. There is something about Jewish life that is a product of God’s work. Yeshua is hidden within Judaism. God has been working and there are hints of him in the tradition of the past 2,000 years. For example, some of the remarkable coincidences we find in the Seder, popularized in Passover presentations in churches, are surely a sign that God has been at work in Jewish tradition.

Neither do we assume that all Jewish people who do not accept Yeshua are at enmity with God. Neither extreme should be assumed.

What motives would we have to bear witness to Yeshua in a post-missionary framework? The only pure motive is love. It is a three-fold love: ahavat HaShem [love of God], ahavat Yisrael [love of Israel], and ahavat Yeshua [love of Yeshua].

Ahavat HaShem: The subject of the Shema. We are to be governed by a theocentric passion. The second blessing preceding the Shema is the ahava rabbah is about God’s abundant love and then we return that love in the Shema. How is God honored most? Yeshua’s prayer focuses on God’s will and glory. The glorification of Messiah Yeshua, whom God sent, is loving God. Thus, we are glorifying and loving HaShem when we bear witness to Yeshua. If we love God we will obey his commandments and Yeshua commands witness.

Ahavat Yisrael: PMJ sees in Yeshua the truth of Jewish identity, calling, and destiny. PMJ boldly claims that Yeshua is the mysterious center of all Jewish history and life. Yeshua is the rock who followed Israel in exile and provided Israel with water and sustenance. Bringing individual Jews into the life to come is too small a goal. We need to bear witness to all Israel of the key that is Yeshua. How can we withhold this key that is for our people? It is our privilege to bear witness to this Joseph, this hidden one, who is actually providing for Israel. Also, we believe that the restoration of Israel and the Glory of Jerusalem will only occur when our people respond to Yeshua with, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of HaShem.” PMJ does not assume that all Jews who reject Yeshua are doomed to Gehinnom. Nevertheless, we must be aware that the spiritual condition of our people today is not good. Agnosticism is high. Love of Torah is low. Few are seeking to live their lives in such a way that the sanctification of God’s name is central. Therefore, if we love our people, we will be concerned about its spiritual welfare. We are making God known as well as making Yeshua known.

Ahavat Yeshua: Yeshua brings love of HaShem and love of Israel together. He is the one in whom and through the God of Israel has made himself known. We see in Yeshua the Beit HaMikdash of this world. We are encountering the one through whom God created the world and through whom God revealed Torah at Sinai and through whom God will redeem this world. Passionate love for Messiah Yeshua is ahavat HaShem. He is the living Torah. Yeshua’s “I am” statements: living water, way, truth, life, resurrection, or just plain “I am.” In Yeshua, God is entering into this world. Our love for God gets focused on Yeshua. Our love for Israel also comes to ultimate expression in the person of Israel, since he is the king of Israel, the revelation of Israel himself. He is the only one who has perfectly observed Torah. He is the High Priest who mediates Israel’s relationship to God. He is the perfect embodiment of Israel’s calling and destiny. Jews reach full identity only when joined to him. “Grace be with all who love our Lord Yeshua with love undying” (from the end of Ephesians). “For me to live is Messiah and to die is gain.” Yeshua is not merely some peripheral piece of Judaism, but he is the hidden core.

Conclusion: The question is not, “Yeshua or Judaism?” The question is, “Do we have Yeshua in Judaism as its fullness or do we have Yeshua apart from Judaism?”

Reasons Gentiles Should be Equal Members in MJ

I have written and said much about Gentiles in Messianic Judaism. It is not hard to figure out why. I am a Gentile leader in Messianic Judaism. My own story is different than most. I am a Gentile in process of conversion. Many other Gentiles in this movement are married to Jews. If there was a widespread conversion opportunity in MJ, many of them would likely be converts. But a large number in MJ are Gentiles who do not plan to convert and do not need to.

Why are these Gentiles here? Well, many fell in love with Israel and Torah through their own scriptural study. Many have joined with Israel in a meaningful way. Many support and love Jewish people and see that commitment as an integral part of their faith and practice. Some do not choose to be fully Torah-observant. Others do make that commitment.

There are many good arguments to be made for either keeping Gentiles out of MJ or segregating them within MJ. That is, either keep us Gentiles out or make us lesser members, ineligible to serve in leadership or follow certain Jewish customs alongside the Jewish members. Just yesterday at this UMJC conference, a Jewish friend told me, “You Gentiles have thousands of other places to go. This is the only place I can go. I have no problem discriminating against Gentiles in this movement.” By discriminating, he meant not allowing Gentiles leadership or voice.

I said to him, “You need to rethink your theology of Gentile inclusion in the Torah and in Judaism.”

I sympathize with the need to keep MJ a Jewish movement. I think MJ is becoming more Jewish every year. Even the old-school MJ that I often pick on is becoming more Jewish in practice. MJ is growing up. More and more people are finding Judaism a wonderful expression of faith in Yeshua.

I cannot agree, however, with an apartheid Messianic Judaism or with excluding non-Jews from MJ congregations. More importantly, let me say to my fellow Messianic leaders and friends, God is on record calling for Gentile inclusion, not exclusion. If you are working for exclusion or segregation, you are working against HaShem, not with him.

In a moment, I will briefly list some scriptural/theological reasons for FULL INCLUSION of Gentiles in MJ. Before I do that, I want to relate something I heard at the conference this morning that encouraged me and helped me see this more clearly.

I was taking in a lecture about intermarried couples and Messianic Judaism. MJ is “the best kept secret in the intermarried community.” That is, Jewish-Gentile couples generally see about three choices: have no faith, have a split family with spouses in both faiths, or choose one faith or the other. I was surprised to learn, most choose to have one faith: Christianity (though usually only in a nominal sense). Few realize they can have Judaism and faith in Jesus in the same family without contradiction. Messianic Judaism is the unknown reality. Most intermarried couples either don’t know about MJ or confuse MJ with mission agencies such as Jews for Jesus.

Dr. David Rudolph, who was giving the lecture (and who wrote an excellent book on the subject), said something that really got me thinking. If MJ invites intermarried couples in and then the Gentile spouses find a culture that denigrates non-Jews, they will leave. Reform and Conservative synagogues are dealing with that reality, the reality of discrimination and sometimes bigotry in the synagogue. Intermarried couples leave when the Gentile spouse gets wind that they are second-class.

As a movement, we simply must get this right. Let me close with a few reasons Gentiles should be included:

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).

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).

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).

A Response to Comments on July 25 Blog

I wrote on July 25 about a statement just released by Dayeinu, a network of theologically conservative Messianic leaders. Several of my friends and a few I don’t know wrote to object to Dayeinu’s statement and my agreement with it.

Sean said, “You seem to pose that dayeinu is pro-Yeshua faith and Hashivenu, specifically the teachings of Rabbi Dr. Mark Kinzer as less than pro-Yeshua faith.”

Sean, I am a disciple of Dr. Kinzer and one of his biggest fans. Yet we disagree about this and a few other issues. I am in agreement with Hashivenu’s sociological outlook, but not all of its theological outlook. Regardless, I would not characterize Dr. Kinzer’s or Hashivenu’s position as less that pro-Yeshua faith. They are very pro-Yeshua faith. The issue is rather about the reasons for and the solution to the problem of separation from God.

Sean also said, “though lewis was speaking about those who have never been exposed to the gospel, i think it is worth considering that the all sufficient sacrifice of Yeshua could and may be applied to those who had not specifically called upon Yeshua or were prevented from seeing Yeshua as the Jewish messiah, whose followers in the church was killing Jews left and right.”

If you will read the paper that I included as a link at the end of the July 25 post, you will see my response to this idea, specifically to John Sanders who argues your case cogently. I would be thrilled to hear your response to my paper.

Susan said that my blog article implied that her deceased child was certainly in hell.

Susan, I am sorry for your loss. I am a father of seven. I can relate to the pain of losing a child. I did not say that anyone’s child was categorically destined for hell. I said I agreed with the Dayeinu paper, including the statement that scripture does not address exceptions to the need for Yeshua-faith. I leave the justice to God.

Rabbi Stuart, my good friend and mentor, said that I implied some in Hashivenu are denying the corruption of humanity and the need for Yeshua-faith. I did not mean to imply that. I do think, however, that in declaring that people may be forgiven of their sins and included in the life to come and filled with the Spirit apart from Yeshua-faith, you are guilty of taking the problem of human corruption lightly. While I am not certain exactly how the sacrifice of Yeshua atones, I lean towards a notion of penal substitution. Our faith is our participation in the sacrifice to derive its benefit. Without leaning the hands on the sacrifice, so to speak, it cannot benefit. That would be a great discussion for a longer article and more time.

Rabbi Stuart also suggested that I am saying peolpe must receive Christ personally to be saved and that this is an external act. This is a subtle argument and deserves more than the cursory answer I am forced to give (I need to take a shower and get downstairs to the conference): Yes, the revivalism of the early twentieth century created many silly ideas about salvation, such as the sinner’s prayer and altar calls. My position has nothing to do with that. There is something the Bible recognizes as active faith. That, my mentor and friend, is what I’m talking about.

I will be back today with an on-site post about the UMJC Conference. Please note the exciting story below about a First in Messianic Judaism!

A First in Messianic Judaism!

Last night the UMJC Annual Conference (umjc.net) was addressed by a member of the Knesset of Israel, MK Elchanan Glaser, a member of the Pensioners’ Party. MK Glaser spoke to us because of the ongoing work of the Union in Israel, especially Love 4 Israel (israel7.com/israel/).

This is the first time a Knesset member has addressed a Messianic Jewish body.

Let this be an encouragement to pursue love and good deeds. That is real witness.

UMJC On-Site Blog, July 25

More delegates’ meeting today. We discussed some important business, but nothing blogworthy (except one thing that I’ll wait for an official announcement before I mention).

So, what should my topic be today? How about salvation, Messianic Judaism, and Dayeinu?

First, I bring this up because I attended a Dayeinu breakfast this morning. Dayeinu is a network of theologically conservative leaders in Messianic Judaism.

I’m sort of an in-betweener in the UMJC. I love the work being done by Dr. Mark Kinzer and I’m a fan of the work of others involved in Hashivenu (hasivenu.org). I am also “conservative” on theological issues like the inerrancy of the Bible, the necessity of faith in Yeshua, etc. Thus, I also belong to a group called Dayeinu (dayeinu.org).

Dayeinu just issued a position paper on the need for faith in Yeshua to be included in the life to come. Here are some quotes:

Sin separates humanity from God and the world to come. The mystery of salvation lies only with God who has authorized only one way to enjoy right relationship with God now and in the world to come. That way is personal, conscious faith (in this lifetime) in Messiah Yeshua as Lord and Redeemer. God is a righteous judge and will judge no one unjustly.

The scriptures teach that every person, whether Jew or Gentile, stands in need of the atonement for sin provided by God’s grace through Messiah Yeshua’s once-for-all, perfect sacrifice.

The position paper goes on to make a scriptural case for the separation of humanity from God through sin. Here is a summary of the argument:

1. Ultimate truth is beyond the ability of reason or experience to determine.
2. There is a human propensity to elevate reason and decide we know moral and spiritual truth on our own.
3. This is why God commanded Israel to wear fringes to remember commands (Num. 15:38-40) and the very idea of Torah is that moral truth must be divinely commanded to be known.
4. God declared humankind corrupt before and after the flood (Gen. 6:5; 8:21).
5. Israel was repeatedly declared corrupt and separate from God (Isa. 1:2-4).
6. Paul declared Jew and Gentile corrupt (Rom. 3:9-10).
7. The problem of humanity’s corruption cannot be ignored or whitewashed.
8. Yeshua taught personal faith.
9. Paul taught personal faith.
10. If there are exceptions to the requirement of personal faith (as some theologians suggest), scripture is silent about them.

What are we to think of this Dayeinu position paper? I agree with it. If I try to get into this issue, it will require a series of articles. I think that the way the case is made in the Dayeinu paper is less than satisfactory. I would like to see a fuller treatment of issues and less reliance on proof-texts. Nonetheless, I agree with and would defend vigorously the notion that humanity is separated from God in a meaningful way and a meaningful solution is required to bring a person back to God.

I’d be interested to hear your BRIEF thoughts. I’ll not let this turn into a lenghty debate.

If you’d like to read some of my thoughts, here is a paper which will be in a coming issue of Kesher (kesherjournal.com): Derek on Salvation by Faith in Yeshua Only.

UMJC On-Site Blog, July 24

Here I am at the delegates’ meeting at the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations conference (umjc.net).

It is a somber day for a meeting. I’m not sure whose fault it is that we are meeting on Tisha B’Av, the day of commemorating the destruction of both temples, one in 586 B.C.E. and the other in 70 C.E. It doesn’t seem an appropriate day to have a meeting.

Further, what is the stance of UMJC leaders regarding the observance of a traditional day as Tisha B’Av? How Jewish is the Union in practice? I’m guessing from observation that about half of the leaders here observe it and half don’t. Fifty percent is better than zero, but we have a long way to go.

Since Tisha B’Av is not an observance directly commanded in Torah, why follow it? We follow it because we are Jews (or, in my case and many others, non-Jews who have joined with Israel as God-fearers or proselytes). To be with Israel means to stand with Israel on matters of tradition as well as Torah. To refuse to fast on Tisha B’Av on the grounds that it is not in Torah makes a statement.

What statement are Messianic Jewish leaders making when Tisha B’Av is ignored? For some, it says, “I am for Torah but I do not identify with the Jewish people.”

There are many who came into Messianic Judaism because of a romantic attraction to the lifestyle of the Torah: the beauty of God’s calendar, the sanctity of the Sabbath, and the physicality of the dietary law. Some are blatant about this, such as the Hebrew Roots movement. They say, “When we accepted Yeshua we were grafted in and Torah became ours.” For this crowd, Jewish identity is almost of no importance. Others, such as my colleagues here at the UMJC who are not observing Tisha B’Av would seem to have a higher view of Israel’s role, but strangely feel free to ignore important traditions.

Twice in history the temple of the Almighty was destroyed. Jewry observes this on Tisha B’Av. Let’s grow as a movement and decide what we stand for. Are we a Torah movement only or a Jewish movement? Why wear a yarmulke or proclaim yourself Jewish and eat on the day Jews are mourning and fasting? Come to think of it, why have a delegates’ meeting on such a day? I am guilty of going along with this and I hope our movement will do better in years to come.

Tomorrow, more delegates’ meetings and the conference itself begins. I’m sure some interesting debates and topics will come up, so stay tuned.

On-Site Blogging the UMJC Conference

Shalom all:

I am in the Windy City (Chicago, in case you didn’t know). Tomorrow begins the 2007 UMJC Conference. I will be blogging issues and themes that come up at the meetings.

The UMJC is a congregational network and tends to have well-educated, articulate leaders. I started our congregation six years ago and I knew next to nothing about practicing Judaism. I had always looked at Judaism as an outsider. I was trying to save Jews from Judaism and into Christ.

At first, I was impressed with the level of schaolarship and depth I found in the UMJC. Yet I was rankled by the fact that few seemed to agree with my stance on Judaism. I thought, “These people have bought into Judaism too much and have diluted Christ.”

Gradually, I began learning to pray the Siddur. I began reading Jewish sources in a positive light, not to find errors to argue against. I began to think more critically about certain Christian theologies I had been exposed to. I realized that Judaism is a human institution in the same way Christianity is. God is in Judaism just as he is in Christianity.

Just so you don’t read me incorrectly, I continue to believe in the Messiahship of Yeshua and the universal need for all men and women to understand and believe in his message, his death, his resurrection, and his soon return to redeem this world. I simply learned that Judaism is THE preserver of Jewish identity and THE place Jews belong. It simply must be Yeshua Judaism.

I learned from my colleagues in the UMJC. Without them, I would perhaps still be in a place I am glad to have left behind.

I do not mean to suggest that all in the Union would agree about such things as the value of traditional Judaism or how Yeshua and Judaism integrate. Still, I know of no better place for Messianic Jews to come and learn.

Take a minute and look over UMJC.NET and see for yourself.

Tomorrow, the leaders and delegates meet for business. I won’t bore you with reports of business. But I would imagine that themes and ideas of interest will come up. Check back and see.

Derek

Sabbath Meditation, Tradition-less Shabbat?

This entry is a little late. I’m just getting it in about 1:15 before Sabbath starts.

If you are observant of Sabbath, I pray your table would be a blessing tonight as ours is. May you be surrounded by love. If you are single, I pray that from time to time at least you get Sabbath with friends. Spread your fine tablecloth, lay out your wineglasses, and challah loaves. Smell the Sabbath spice!

I watched a documentary this week: “A Life Apart.” It is about Hasidic Judaism in America. Of course it covers the origins of Hasidism (look it up on wikipedia.com if you are unfamiliar). It covers the Holocaust and its impact on Jewry and the reformation of Hasidism in America. It covers daily life for Hasidic men and women and their relation to the world. I highly recommend it.

In one part, as they were discussing whether Hasidism was a difficult lifestyle or a blessed one, a Hasidic man commented on how hard it must be to be a Gentile! He said something like, “How can you live without Shabbes? You have no idea what joy really is.” (Shabbes is the Ashkenazi way to say Sabbath or Shabbat).

From time to time on this blog, I have people who say, “We don’t need the rabbis.” They usually mean, “I don’t want to separate milk and meat,” or some similar complaint about traditional Jewish lifestyle.

I’d like to imagine a Shabbat without rabbinic tradition. It is a day of rest. So sundown comes on Friday night and what do you do? Nothing in particular. You eat when you feel like it. You rest. It’s peaceful, but hardly a great blessing. Imagine there’s no candlelighting, no “Shalom Aleichem”, no blessing the children, no grace after meals, and not singing songs of worship.

I’ll take my traditional Shabbat. I get joy beyond words when my one-year-old covers her eyes as my wife prepares to light the candles. It is not unusual for me to sit at dinner with my wife and children gathered around, but tonight there is a greater purpose. I love sanctifying the day.

The more you see the holiness of God the more you will see the holiness of Shabbat. The Sabbath can only be as holy to you as God is in your heart.

I love discussing “What’s Bothering Rashi” afterwards with my wife and perhaps some guests. I love breaking out the guitar and my daughter on piano and we sing. I love it when guests dance in my living room to Moshav Band melodies.

I love Sabbath. I love it because the rabbis have ornamented it with tradition. Enter into Shabbat. Enter into tradition. Let your heart be glad.

Responding to Peter, Part 2

Rising to the challenge I threw out, Peter has responded with numerous citations. He is probably using a secondary source (I wish he would name the source) with a list of citations. He has given so many I cannot respond to all of them. I do work seven days a week (rabbis don’t rest on Shabbat and this rabbi doesn’t even get to rest on Sundays).

Peter’s assertion is that many early Christians kept the Sabbath and did not participate in Sunday worship. My position is that Sunday worship was a fixture in Christian communities by the early second century. I am the first to admit that evidence of universal Sunday worship in the New Testament is completely overblown. Acts 20:7 was on the first day of the week, meaning Saturday night until Sunday at sundown (only Jews had weeks in the first century, so first day of the week had to mean by Jewish reckoning which starts at sundown). Since the events surrounding Acts 20:7 took place late at night, this was a Saturday night meeting, not a Sunday meeting. I’m sorry, Christian friends who use Acts 20:7 as if God commanded Sunday worship, but history is not on your side. Neither, however, is history on Peter’s side.

I will list some of Peter’s most important citations and respond. My goal is to show that Sabbath observance was not prominent in early Christianity. I am not trying to argue that Sunday worship is commanded by God. I am trying to show that Jews and Gentiles were distinct in the early church, at least in the early centuries.

First, Peter cites early Jewish authors:

Josephus
“There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come!” M’Clatchie, “Notes and Queries on China and Japan” (edited by Dennys), Vol 4, Nos 7, 8, p.100.

Philo
Declares the seventh day to be a festival, not of this or of that city, but of the universe. M’Clatchie, “Notes and Queries,” Vol. 4, 99.

Both Josephus and Philo here are referring to the widespread phenomenon of God-fearing Gentiles and Gentile converts in the synagogues. There is strong evidence that a large minority of Romans were drawn to Judaism. This citation has nothing to do with early Christians except to say that many of the first generation Christians came from Sabbath observant backgrounds.

Next, Peter cites John in Revelation and seeks to prove that Jon was speaking of Saturday:

John
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10 (Mark 2:28, Isa.58:13, Ex.20:10, Clearly show the Sabbath to be the Lord’s day).

Peter I suggesting that because Yeshua called himself Lord of the Sabbath, John meant the Sabbath when he spoke of the the Lord’s Day. That is a weak connection. The leading theories of John’s phrase, the Lord’s Day, would be that it means either the Day of the Lord (judgment day) or Sunday. I have to admit the evidence is better for Sunday. John (arguably, I know there are many other theories) lived in Ephesus in Asia Minor and died in the late 90’s. Not long after, also coming out of Asia Minor, was the Didache, the earliest non-biblical Christian writing. The Didache, written maybe 20-30 years after Revelation and from the same region, uses the term “Lord’s Day” clearly for Sunday. The Didache indicates that Sunday worship was the norm in the Yeshua community. Quite possibly the Messianic Jews met on the Sabbath, but no sources exist to clarify.

Next, Peter cites Acts, mistaking Paul’s synagogue preaching for community meetings of the Yeshua followers:

Paul
“And Paul, as his manner was went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures” Acts 17:2

Paul And Gentiles
“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the Word of God.” Acts 13:42, 44.

This is about Paul going into synagogues, not Yeshua-congregations, and preaching to the Jews and Gentile God-fearers. It has nothing to do with early Christian practice, except, again, to show that the earliest Christians came out of Sabbath keeping backgrounds.

Next, Peter cites various church historians and scholars from different time periods to the effect that early Christians kept the Sabbath. These citations tell us little since they are not from the early church. I will give one example, that of Jeremy Taylor, an English cleric in the time of Oliver Cromwell. Jeremy Taylor is an example of a Puritan who adopted Jewish customs. There was a movement in Puritanism to worship on Saturday and keep Passover and other feasts. This is a little discussed period of history that is fascinating. Yet it is far from a proof that many early Christians kept the Sabbath:

“The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;…therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council.” “The Whole Works” of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX,p. 416 (R. Heber’s Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

Next, Peter has a very interesting citation. Whatever book he is getting these from (is it a Seventh Day Adventist book?), I have to congratulate them on finding this rather obscure, but important one. This is from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, a group of papyrus fragments found in Egypt dated to the 200’s. They contain manuscripts of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible. They contain pseudepigraphical literature and other writings as well. Here is a quote from one fragment:

gypt (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus) (200-250 A.D.)
“Except ye make the sabbath a real sabbath (sabbatize the Sabbath,” Greek), ye shall not see the Father.” “The oxyrhynchus Papyri,” pt,1, p.3, Logion 2, verso 4-11 (London Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898).

The problem with this is that we do not know the context of this papyrus fragment. It sounds like a Christian writer, since it says “the Father,” and it sounds as though this writer advocates Sabbath observance. I would love to know more. This sounds like genuine evidence that in some third-century Christian community, the Sabbath was observed. Is it possible, though, that Sabbath meant Sunday to this writer? How would we know?

Peter then cites a number of modern historians claiming that various church father either advocated Sabbath observance or were aware of Christian groups who did. This may be true, but we need original source citations, not modern historians making assertions. I’d love to have more original citations. Peter does give a few ancient citations, such as this one by fifth century bishop Sidonius Apollinarus:

Sidonius (Speaking Of King Theodoric Of The Goths, A.D. 454-526)
“It is a fact that it was formerly the custom in the East to keep the Sabbath in the same manner as the Lord’s day and to hold sacred assemblies: while on the other hand, the people of the West, contending for the Lord’s day have neglected the celebration of the Sabbath.” “Apollinaries Sidonli Epistolae,” lib.1, 2; Migne, 57.

This is a good citation. I would say this citation is good evidence that up until a certain date, Sabbath-keeping was practiced by some Christians in the East (Asia Minor? Syro-Palestine?). It does not demonstrate widespread Sabbath keeping in Eastern Christianity though, since the Didache tells us Sunday was the norm in Asia Minor by the Second Century.

In this citation, Sozomen, a fifth century Christian from Palestine, speaks of Egyptian Christian Sabbath-keeping:

Egypt
“There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries.” Sozomen. “Ecclesiastical History Book 7, ch. 119.

Again, this reference makes it clear that some Christians kept the Sabbath in Egypt in the early history of the church. It actually disproves any widespread practice, saying that the majority custom was Sunday.

Peter, it is simply not true that Rome and Alexandria were the only exceptions to a universal Christian practice of keeping the Sabbath. Rather, the custom of the early church, as can be easily demonstrated with references from Ignatius, the Didache, and other sources, was Sunday worship. It was Sabbath keeping that was an exception and not the other way around. Still, I am glad to learn of these long-lingering pockets of Sabbath observance even until late in the Christian period. I wonder if these were Jewish believers (my theory). If so, that would fit my point: the Gentiles and Jews in the early church were united but distinct.

Responding to Ralph on Gentiles and Torah

Ralph Finley is a friend from the UMJC, a Messianic Jewish congregational network, to which we both belong. Ralph sent a few interesting arguments that I thought would be worth responding to in a post.

Note that there are two posts on the blog today. Please scroll down and read “Responding to Peter” also.

Ralph believes I have subtly missed the point of Acts 15 and that I am using it improperly to maintain Jewish distinction in the body of Messiah:

Although I do not hold to the interpretation of Acts 15 that states that Gentiles would go on to take on ALL of Torah over time as they are in the synagogue as some Hebrew roots groups hold, your rendering that it was about Jewish distinctives is reading into the text something that I think moves it away from the real emphasis, which deals with the guidelines for Gentile inclusion into the community of what was then a Jewish assembly. It was not about distinctives as some have sought to use this verse, it was about requirements for inclusion. –Ralph Finley.

1. For those a little unfamiliar with this issue, let me give you a crash course in Acts 15. Some followers of Yeshua felt that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the Torah (esp. Sabbath and dietary law) in order to be accepted by God in Yeshua. The apostles met and decided that God accepts Gentiles as Gentiles. James only asked four things of the new Gentile followers of Yeshua. But he also said, “For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:21). Some in MJ and many in the Hebrew Roots movement take this to mean that Gentiles could start by observing James’ short list of four requirements, but over time they would have to go to synagogue and learn all 613 commandments and keep them.

2. Ralph does not subscribe to the view that James wanted Gentiles to go to synagogue, learn the Torah, and keep all of it.

3. Neither do I and here is why: (a) James does not mention the synagogue statement in his letter to the congregations, (b) James’ statement is about the past and not the present or future, and (c) if that is what James meant, then he would be reversing everything they had decided up to that point. Gentiles really would be Jews and there would be no distinction.

4. Ralph feels I have, nonetheless, improperly used Acts 15 as a proof-text of the idea that Gentiles are distinct from Jews in Messiah and are not required to keep parts of Torah that are just for Israel (circumcision, dietary law, Sabbath).

5. Ralph’s reason for calling me to task is that Acts 15 is about unity, not distinction. Acts 15 was about what Gentiles had to do to be included in the community, not about what makes Jews distinct.

6. My answer to Ralph: The entire discussion of Acts 15 assumes that Jews will continue to be Jews, even those in the community of Yeshua. The chapter makes no sense otherwise. Gentiles are not required to become Jews to be in the community of Yeshua. That is the underlying message of the entire chapter. If the apostles felt that Jews and Gentiles were now to be indistinct in the community, their answer would have looked very different. They did not say, “Torah is no longer God’s standard now that Yeshua made an atonement.” Instead, they said, “Gentiles, God accepts you as you are and you need not become a Jew. But we ask that you especially be careful about four particular issues that will affect our being together.”

7. Ralph, please respond and let me know if I have understood you correctly, if my answer persuades you even a teensy bit, and why or why not.

Derek

Responding to Peter on Patristic Sabbatarianism

Peter is a friend I’ve made through the blog. He has a blog at merehumanity.wordpress.com

Peter wrote today and asked why I had not answered one his recent comments on the blog. I believe the comment posted belowis the one he meant. It was a comment on my post, “Revisiting Gentiles in MJ.” His subject matter is syncretism (adding non-Christian elements to the faith) in the Roman Catholic church and some evidence for a seventh-day Sabbath view in some of the Church fathers. Here is the last two-thirds of Peter’s comment:

there were various authors from the early “church” who spoke of keeping Sabbath on the 7th not 1st day. there is much history that suggests the early followers of Yeshua kept the Sabbath. then by the 5th and 6th century, there are two separate writers who discuss the views of the “church” (mind you the Body is almost purely gentile by then). they both say that Sabbath is the 7th day, and has always been, and most importantly that the ENTIRE church keeps the 7th day, EXCEPT for the church in Rome and Alexandria. sure rome and alexandria were big churches, meaning a lot of people, but the majority of the Body wasnt in those two regions (at that time). the majority was in asia minor. so the “majority” of the church (if these historians are to be believedd) kept Sabbath on the 7th day.

however, the bishop of Rome mandated that people not keep Sabbath on saturday and instead keep it on sunday. this was in the 5th century.

now, i think the pt is that gentile followers of Yeshua with little jewish influence left, still kept Sabbath. however, over time, Rome become the primary influence in the Body, and over time, the bishop of Rome became stronger. and over time, the “pope” became rich and powerful and ungodly. and over time, the popes became murderous and perverted. and over time, the RC church gained power over almost everything. so is it really surprising that there are things that have changed from being “jewish” (Sabbath) to being “gentile” (Sunday rest day)????

now, my pt isnt to say that the Body shouldnt be gentile and jewish, but that the Body of followers of Yeshua in the beginning, were much more “jewish” culturally in their practices than “gentile”. now, we see the opposite, except for in MJ.

so maybe there is another possibility. maybe its ok to have MJ. maybe its ok to have a “separate” body for “gentiles”, but arent we all supposed to be following Yeshua. arent we all (originally) supposed to be culturally “jewish”? at least in regard to many practices. i know there are areas of debate as to whether gentiles must be fully Torah observant or not. but certainly the “gentile” churches have forgotten what it means to follow Yeshua.

maybe MJ doesnt care about that. maybe Jewish believers dont want to help their brothers out. but what if yall helped guide us to a better understanding of what it means to follow Yeshua? why cant that happen? why must there be apartheid? why must there be an MJ movement and a “baptist” movement and a “pentecostal” movement and a RC movement and a “reformed” movement, etc. isnt the pt that we are all one in Yeshua?

and as such, i think there is a need for “jewishness” at least culturally. but that really wont happen among the “gentile” churches unless MJ helps. Peter

Here are some questions I have for Peter:

1. What church father or early church leader advocacted a seventh-day Sabbath? I need a reference to believe this is true. If it is, I am honestly unaware of it.

2. Which bishop of Rome declared Sunday the new Sabbath? I need a reference. You may be right but I would like to see documentation.

3. Are you saying that being Jewish doesn’t really matter and that Jews and Gentiles in Messiah have no distinction of role?

Thanks and I look forward to your answers.

Derek

The So-Called Hebraic Mindset: Fantasy vs. Reality

Several months ago I had a short series called Fantasy vs. Reality. Myths I attempted to bust in that series included the idea that Paul faked his Jewish practice to win his countrymen to Christ, that the Lord’s Supper was intended to be a monthly mini-meal of a cracker and a thimble of juice, and that the Pharisees are the New Testament version of bogey-men. If you want to read those articles, follow these links: “Paul, Jews, and Gentiles: Fantasy vs. Reality”. “The Lord’s Supper: Fantasy vs. Reality.” “Yeshua and the Pharisees: Fantasy vs. Reality.”

I came to today’s topic while reading Oskar Skarsaune’s excellent tome, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. For my Christian friends, let me say this is a Lutheran scholar who explains pervasive Jewish influence as late as the fifth century in Christianity! Yes, if you know your church history, that is not the commonly held line of thought. Skarsaune’s work will make it impossible for future generations to ignore Jewish influence on Christianity. But more on that later. For now, let’s talk about the mythical Hebraic mindset which allegedly is so opposed to Greek thinking.

I have read and listened to a number of people who claim that Greek influence in the West messed everything up. Christian theology, supposedly, is awash with pagan Greek thought spoiling the pure and unblemished Hebrew theology that we should all aspire to. Once I heard a man defend the doctrine of soul sleep and annihilation with this line. Soul sleep is the idea that at death we cease to exist until the time of the resurrection. Annihilation is the idea that the wicked do not live forever separated from God, but cease to exist after death. Why are these ideas purely Hebrew and the common Christian ideas of the intermediate state after death and eternal separation from God Greek ideas? The speaker claimed the Christian theologies came from the Greek concept of the Immortal Soul and not from the Bible.

I wish I could recall more specifics about the Hebraic mindset myth. I believe I have heard that cyclical rather than linear history is Hebraic, tension rather than philosophic distinction is Hebraic, narrative rather than precept is Hebraic, and on and on. Supposedly an ancient Hebrew was unable to think in terms of strict categories, foundational principles, and fine distinctions. Hebraic thought is action-oriented, not ontological (a word which even happens to be Greek!). If you readers have heard of some more alleged Hebraic-thinking distinctions, please comment and share them with us.

Well, what does my reading Skarsaune’s book have to do with this mythical Hebraic thinking? Simple. Skarsaune documents the pervasive influence of Hellenism (Greek culture and thought) on Second Temple Judaism. That is to say, the early rabbis were greatly influenced by Greek thought and it carries into modern Judaism as well.

The Greeks believed there was a divine order and purpose behind the universe called the logos. Second Temple Jewish writings such as those of Sirach took that Greek concept and substituted Torah for logos. Torah is God’s preexistent wisdom by which he created the world. Studying Torah gets you in harmony with creation. The Greeks often personalized the logos and so the rabbis did at times with Torah, calling it God’s daughter in the Talmud.

Hillel, the teacher of the teacher of Paul, and perhaps the foundational rabbi of modern Judaism, developed Seven Rules of Exegesis (interpretation). His rules have been shown to be a Jewish application of already existent Greek rules. That is, Hillel adapted Greek hermeneutics to Judaism. Hillel’s rules, Greek in origin, remain the standard in modern Judaism.

The tradition of the elders, in which all decisions had to be substantiated with a chain of authority, came from the Greek philosophical schools. “Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y who said in the name of Rabbi Z” is a lot like, “Aristotle quoting Plato quoting Socrates says.”

The Jewish ideal that everyone should become a Torah scholar is amazingly similar to the Greek idea that all should study philosophy.

Judaism and Hebrew thought seem to have had no problem syncretizing with Greek thought in various ways.

It is true that Judaism has a different outlook than Christianity in doctrine and preferred manner of thinking. Yet Maimonides is far from an isolated example of a Jewish scholar who appropriated Greek thought and made it Jewish thought. There is no mystical boundary between pure Hebraic thought and pagan Greek thought. The differences have been oversimplified and overstated.

I wish to close by simply applying this to the often-deprecated areas of theology suspected by some in the Messianic Jewish movement of a Hellenistic taint. I am speaking about the intermediate state, eternal separation, and the Trinity. I simply want to say that it is possible that these ideas are Biblical and not of pagan origin as some like to claim. Paul certainly looked forward to a time of separation from the body and presence with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8). Eternal separation from God was contemplated by Yochanan ben Zakkai and it would seem Yeshua affirms it repeatedly (cf. Mark 9:48). And though God’s triune nature is not revealed in the Hebrew scriptures, the New Testament gives strong evidence of this theory. Yeshua, for example, is both other than God and the same as God (John 1:1).

So the next time someone makes you feel guilty for a particular belief and says it is not Hebrew, you will be able to smile and maybe even to set them straight.

Messianic Judaism and Torah

Recently a friend tried to persuade me that there is a center or common core of doctrine and practice in Messianic Judaism in all its forms. That is, he wanted me to see that in the broader world of theology, from all denominations, Messianic Judaism is a close-knit group in spite of our differences. To put it simply: old-style Messianic Judaism with its disregard for living out the Torah is so much closer to the newer paradigm of Torah-observant, tradition-oriented Messianic Judaism than it is to most other theologies, that we should consider ourselves a close family.

That raised a question for me: is there an irreducible minimum to Messianic Judaism? I am not asking if there has been, historically, a core. I am asking what should be the minimum requirement for something to be called Messianic Judaism. Can Dispensationalist Christian forms of “Messianic Judaism” truly bear the name? Can Charismatic Christian forms live up to the moniker? How about Hebrew-Roots Gentiles-Grafted-In groups?

My answer to all of these is: no.

It may be true that Torah-less MJ and Torah and Tradition MJ are closer to one another than they are to Lutheranism or to Pentecostalism, but still, I cannot see Torah-less MJ as a real Messianic Judaism.

In Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism chapter 2, Mark Kinzer refers to the work of Jacob Neusner on the common core of Second Temple Judaism. There were many varieties of Judaism in the time of Yeshua. The differences are real, yet they are all Judaism. What did they have in common?

Neusner gives three components that all Second Temple Judaisms had in common. I will argue that they still form an irreducible minimum standard:

1. It takes as its scripture the Torah of Moses revealed at Sinai to Moses.
2. It believes that its adherents through all times and places form part of that extended family called Israel, the singular holy people of whom the Torah speaks.
3. It requires Israel to live in accord with the Torah.

Now, regarding the first, all forms of Christianity (other than certain liberal or postmodern varieties associated more with the academy than the church) meet the test. Regarding the second, some forms of Christianity recognize the unique place of Israel in God’s plan (Dispensationalism and much of Charismatic Christianity). It is really the third area, believing that the Torah of Moses is a continuing covenant and still literally applicable to Jews today that separates Jewish-style Christianity from true Messianic Judaism.

There are many approaches to Torah in the writings of Messianic Jews. Most fall short of true Torah observance. A popular variety still today is the Torah-as-a-good-witness variety. That is the view that Jews have no obligation anymore, since Yeshua’s coming , to observe the Torah, but that it is good for witness. A Messianic Jew’s friends and family might be more amenable to hearing about Yeshua if Messianic Jews keep at least some Torah.

On any level this is a hypocritical ruse. Torah is not merely a culture, like bagels and lox. Torah is not a yoke to be toyed with. Torah is not something about which you can say, “I don’t believe in this drivel, but I might make mom and dad happy if I keep it.” Torah is God’s covenant with his people. If you don’t keep it for God, you don’t keep it at all. False motives for Torah-observance are like taking God’s name in vain.

OSMJ (Old-School Messianic Judaism) has a variety of reasons for rendering Torah observance voluntary at best and to be avoided at worst:

1. The mistaken notion that Torah-observance is about earning God’s favor and our salvation and that this was the old way changed by Yeshua’s coming.
2. A misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching and the teaching of Hebrews.
3. The fallacious assumption that the New Testament’s teaching that Gentiles need not keep Torah is also true for Jews.
4. The inability of early Messianic Jewish leaders to see through the supersessionist interpretations given by the church to the Bible.
5. The obscene lie that the Old Testament is primitive and superseded, rather than complemented, by the New Testament.
6. The unfortunate truth that the Jewish experience of most early Messianic leaders was minimal at best (it is easy to caricature Judaism as a spirit-less religion when you have not experienced it).

Messianic Judaism is moving on. In a decade or two, I doubt you’ll be hearing much from Dispensationalist “Messianic” congregations or from “Charismatic” ones. The hype of the early movement is passing away. Many people were introduced to OSMJ with lines like, “Jews are coming to Christ in record numbers! The end is near!” We now know that this early hype was misguided. The Jesus-movement of the ’70’s has been over for a long time. It was a movement of God, no doubt, but it was not the beginning of the end.

Less people will be coming into Messianic Judaism merely because they are “in love with the feasts.” The movement is maturing. Jewish spiritual life in Yeshua is replacing ballyhoo. I could be wrong. I’m no prophet. Yet, this is the trend as I see it. Messianic Jewish leaders are growing up. It is no longer possible for mature leaders to maintain the contradictory and hypocritical stances of immaturity (keeping Torah for pragmatic reasons or, worse, promoting Jewishness without Torah).

Torah-less Judaism is a mythical beast. It makes as much sense as Godless Christianity. If you claim to be Messianic and yet this is what you teach, please choose another name for yourself. How about Zionistic Christianity? There is nothing wrong with Christian Zionism. That label would be more honest.

Meanwhile, for those who realize that God’s Torah-covenant with Israel is still active, let’s move on. Let’s get serious. Our theology needs developing. We need to promote a Canonical Narrative that refuses to omit Israel. We need to promote a theology of the New Testament that recognizes the Jewish identity of Paul and the earliest leaders of the Yeshua-movement. We need to be a voice heard in the broader academy of religion, a voice for Yeshua Judaism.

Sabbath Meditation, Amos and the Plowman

Shalom all, I hope you are preparing for a good Sabbath or (a good worship weekend if you not Jewish). I will be firing up the grill to prepare some fresh burgers for a laid-back Sabbath tonight with just my family. The smells from the kitchen are tempting me to eat early as my wife and a few of my children are making lunch for tomorrow and dinner for tomorrow night as well. Isn’t rest a great thing? Well, for this week’s meditation, I offer a little excerpt from my upcoming book, The Life to Come: A Messianic Jewish View of Heaven. I hope it spurs you to think about the wonderful World to Come. After all, isn’t Sabbath a picture of that world?

Note: This excerpt is from chapter 2, explaining the vision of the prophets for the World to Come:

Amos and the Plowman
Amos was a sheepherder from Tekoa, a town in Judah in the south. God didn’t send Amos to his own people in Judah, but sent him north to the kingdom of Israel. Amos spoke to the northern tribes of Israel about one generation before Assyria came and destroyed them all.

Not only did Amos have a lot to say about justice rolling like an ever-flowing stream, but God also gave him a vision of the future. Amos spoke about “that day,” a favorite expression of the prophets. That day is the coming age when God will act and bring Israel and the world out of exile. Amos saw it because God showed him a little piece of it.

In the piece that God showed Amos, several things would happen. The sukkah of David would be repaired, the nations would be called by God’s name, the plowman would overtake the reaper, the mountains would drip sweet wine, and Israel would be forever restored from captivity.

A sukkah is a booth made of branches, usually used as a shelter in the fields for the workers to get some shade from the sun. It is also used at the Feast of Booths, also called Tabernacles or Sukkot. God would restore the doomed throne of David, the line of Messiah in that day. When that happened, Israel would possess the nations, which might sound bad for the non-Jews, or the Gentiles, but the news is really good. For in that day, Gentiles would be called by God’s name. That is, God did not plan to limit his restorative joy to Israel, but planned to call Gentiles into relationship as well.

I love the picture Amos gave us of the world to come, the picture of mountains dripping wine and plowmen overtaking reapers. I travel to Israel usually at least once a year. I have seen the terraced hillsides in Judah, where vineyards and orchards seem unlikely. The terrain is very steep and rocky, with unending hills and small mountains. But grapes grow on them. In that day, the grapes will be so abundant, the mountains will drip with sweet wine.

I love the picture the rabbis painted of this grape paradise. In the Talmud, the rabbis said:

Not like this world will be the world to come. In this world one has the trouble to harvest grapes and to press them; but in the world to come a person will bring a single grape in a wagon or a ship, store it in the corner of his house, and draw from it enough wine to fill a large flagon . . . There will not be a grape which will not yield thirty measures of wine.

What about the plowman overtaking the reaper? What does that mean? There will be so much fruit and grain that before it can all be harvested, it will be time to plant a new crop. Again the rabbis fill out this image of plenty: “As in this world grain is produced after six months and trees grow fruit after twelve months, in the hereafter grain will be produced after one month and trees will grow fruit after two months.”

To paraphrase John Lennon, imagine there’s no hunger and no secularism too. That is the vision of Amos. That day will not be a world in the clouds or some existence on another plane. That day will be heaven on earth.

Purity Laws and Resurrection, Final Part

My readers are a patient lot. You never complain. Occasionally I promise to deliver something interesting and put it of for weeks and you don’t give me a hard time. I promised several weeks ago to show a connection between the Purity Laws of the Torah (Lev 11-15, Num 19) and the Resurrection. By Resurrection, I mean the bodily return to life of all people after death that comes at the end of the age as well as the Resurrection of Messiah from death on the third day.

In “Purity Laws and Resurrection, Part 1,” I explained Yeshua’s defense of the doctrine of resurrection in a verbal contest with the Sadducees. In “Purity Laws and Resurrection, Part 2,” I presented the twelve causes of impurity and the theories of Jacob Milgrom, premier commentator on Leviticus. Now, in the final part, I intend to show that the Purity Laws point to resurrection and that Paul even makes such a case in 1 Corinthians 15! (How’s that for excitement?).

As Jacob Milgrom has so persuasively argued, the Purity Laws of the Torah are about life versus death. All twelve causes of impurity involve death, loss of life, or some restriction on death. Loss of blood at childbirth and menstruation is loss of life. Biblical skin disease (erroneously called leprosy in the translations) makes one look like a corpse. Even the dietary law is about limiting death to a restricted number of species. See “Purity Laws and Resurrection, Part 2,” for more.

As I was preparing some notes on Numbers 19 for my congregation’s Torah study, I came across a note by Daniel Lancaster in a First Fruits of Zion Torah Club (I think it was Vol. 2). He was commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:29:

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Maybe it is well known that Paul’s comment about baptism for the dead should be read in a Jewish context. Maybe I had nothing to be so elated about, but Daniel Lancaster’s comment was my first exposure to the idea.

I had always relegated the “baptism for the dead” passage to the great unknown. I had heard from commentators and teachers that, “It does not mean the Mormon practice of baptizing people in order to bring salvation to the lost who are already dead.” I did not need someone to tell me that Paul was not speaking in the first century about a practice from a religion started in the nineteenth century. But what did he mean?

Well, in Israel, people were baptized for the dead, twice in fact. As Numbers 19 explains, anyone who has touched a corpse must be sprinkled with water mixed with ashes of a red heifer on the third day and the seventh day.

The people in Corinth were mostly non-Jews. Yet they read Torah. They also were familiar with the Jewish customs of those Jews who lived in Corinth. Could Paul have been referring to a Jewish custom when he spoke of being baptized for the dead? If so, how does the practice of water purification after touching a corpse argue for resurrection?

The answer is simple: all the Purity Laws and especially the laws regarding corpse uncleanness point to resurrection because they declare that God is the God of life, not the God of death. This is the underlying message of the Purity Laws. Death was not God’s idea, as Torah says in the story of the Garden. It was man’s. God remains separate from death and will not have it brought into his holy place. His people must continually cleanse the presence of any death in the land.

Being purified after touching the dead body of a loved one is symbolic of a great hope. God does not take joy in the death of our loved ones. Their death is unclean. The God of Life does not choose death. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that he will reverse it.

The ultimate meaning of Israel’s Purity Laws is life in the presence of God in his eternal sanctuary.