Theology Like a House of Cards

Nothing seems more precarious than a house of cards. I confess I’ve never been able to build one beyond the first three or four cards.

The problem with a house of cards is that the slightest breeze or tremor knocks the foundation out and gravity takes over. Don’t breathe too hard. Don’t upset the table.

Supersessionist theology is like that (supersessionism is the al-too-common Christian belief that the Christians have replaced the Jews as God’s people).

Even in my days worshipping in Baptist churches, where the people tend to be pro-Israel, I experienced and was inculcated with a way of reading the Bible that is like a house of cards. And if well-meaning, pro-Israel people are infected with this method of viewing holy writ, how much worse must things be in the churches that are less sympathetic to Israel and more inclined to supersessionism.

That method of reading the Bible has simple rules: (1) Assume that the text is always about you and people like you, (2) Make timeless principles out of everything, (3) Interpret promises made to Israel as being for Christians like you.

Once you start on this road of interpretation you build something flimsy and easily toppled.

Like a house of cards built where there is a gentle breeze, this way of reading the Bible is self-defeating.

It is self-defeating because the Bible is constantly contradicting and challenging an anti-Judaic reading.

You read in Genesis 12, “I will bless those who bless you . . . and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

And you repeat over and over the mantra, “The Bible is the inspired word of God.” But when you read this verse you are forced to say, “This verse, inspired by God, is no longer true. There is no way God’s vehicle for blessing is the Jews. It has to be the Christians.”

You read in Isaiah 54, “This is like the days of Noah to me . . . I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and I will not rebuke you.”

And you think, “God’s word is true but this verse does not mean what it says. God is angry with the Jews. He has rejected them.”

You read in Jeremiah 29, “For I know the plans that I have for you, plans for welfare and not evil.”

And you think, “The Bible is verbally inspired but these words need to be reinterpreted. They should be a promise for Christians and not for Jews. After all, they are on posters in the Youth Room of our church.”

And you read Paul in Romans 11, “God has not rejected his people . . . as regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved.”

And you think, “Dare I tinker with Paul? I mean, Isaiah is one thing, but Paul? Yes, to keep my anti-Judaic theology alive I must follow the trend and interpret this verse too as being a blessing for Christians. I know it strains all manner of principles of interpretation. I don’t read the newspaper this sloppily, but, man, I have a theology to defend.”

I like what Charles Spurgeon said from the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle (cited in yesterday’s post about Barry Horner’s book):

. . . if there is anything promised in the Bible, it is this. I imagine you cannot read the Bible without seeing clearly that there is to be an actual restoration of the children of Israel.

It is time to deconstruct the Christian, anti-Judaic house of cards. You will feel so free when you do. And the Bible will become an open book to you instead of a mere support system for a handful of Pauline texts quoted out of context. Try it and see.

Barry Horner, Future Israel: Part 2

We are now in Chapter 1 of Barry Horner’s exposition about Christian supersessionism, anti-Judaism, and ethical failure to bless Israel according to God’s plan for history. Please see the previous two entries on Barry Horner (click HERE for the Barry Horner archive).
…………………………………………..

Chapter 1 of Future Israel is a very helpful contrast in theology. A respected pair of theologians, in fact, two of the most foundational theologians of Christendom and even backbones of Western thought are contrasted with two lesser lights, but two lesser lights who also garner great respect and who far outshine the great theologians on the question of Israel. The foundational theologians are Augustine and Calvin, both of whom failed to be biblical or even Pauline in their stance on Israel. The two lesser lights are Charles Spurgeon and Horatius Bonar, who loved Israel and believed God had not abandoned his Chosen People.

I love Augustine. His Confessions has had as much impact on me as any book in Jewish or Christian history. I prefer the side of Augustine that leans toward free will over his deterministic side (Augustine’s theology was contradictory on this point). What I have loved most about Augustine is his passionate side. He taught me in Confessions to awaken emotional love for God as no one else has been able to teach me before or since.

I love Augustine. And so does God. But Augustine had a pernicious error in his thinking. He was anti-Judaic.

He knows better now. I’ve no doubt God has him waiting tables for Moses and Jeremiah as a sort of redemptive penance.

And Moses reminds him, “Thus says the Lord to the Jews, ‘Even if your exiles are at the ends of the earth, I will gather you and bring you back from there’” (Deut. 30:4). And Jeremiah reminds him, “Thus says the Lord to the Jews, ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have continued to extend faithful love to you” (Jer. 31:3).

Augustine needs to be reminded of these things, because, as one historian put it, “…modern students of Jewish-Christian relations typically attribute the theological foundations of the medieval church’s Jewish policy to Augustine” (Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, as cited in Horner, pg. 5). The medieval church’s Jewish policy includes crusades to kills Jewish and Muslim people, ghettos in which Jewish people are forced to live, the blood libels which led to killing so many Jews, the Inquisition in which Jews were tortured and killed, and so on.

Who says theology is unimportant?

Could a Berber theologian writing from Hippo (in what is now Algeria) really say things that would lead others to devise iron maidens and the rack? Could supersessionism lead to purges, mass murder, and genocide?

Now, mind you, Augustine never encouraged such atrocity. He simply said things like:

Thus God has shown the Church in her enemies the Jews the grace of his compassion . . . therefore he has not slain them, he has not let the knowledge that they are Jews be lost in them . . . lest they should forget the law of God, and their testimony be of no avail in this matter of which we treat. (The City of God, 18:46, cited in Horner, pg. 4).

Let, therefore, no Christian consider himself alien to the name of Israel . . . The Christian people then is rather Israel . . . but that multitude of Jews, which was deservedly reprobated for its perfidy, for the pleasures of the flesh sold their birthright, so that they belonged not to Jacob, but to Esau. (Expositions on the Psalms, Vol. 5, as cited in Horner, pg. 5).

And what of Calvin, the great man of the Reformation? I have no doubt Calvin is a good enough man he would be appalled at how his name and writings are virtually revered on par with scripture in Reformed circles. Calvin knows better than to believe many points of his theology now, as even a good Calvinist should agree. But of all his errors, it is his failure to see the truth about Israel, the priestly people of God, that must grieve him most now, if the blessed awaiting the resurrection are able to grieve.

Horner cites Paul Johnson, the widely read historian, as saying that while Calvin was more favorable to the Jews than Luther (everyone should know about Luther’s hateful rhetoric against Jews and the mentally disabled), nonetheless Calvin had all the Jews expelled from the Calvinist cities and the Calvinist Palitinate.

“Hello, I am John Calvin, God’s representative here in Switzerland, and savior of theology from the Dark Ages. Pardon me, Mr. Goldstein, but you cannot live here among us Christians. By the love I bear Jesus Christ I expel you and your obsolete nation which no longer bears the seal of God’s covenant,” (NOT a quote, but it does sum up the essence of Calvin’s hypocrisy I would say).

What sorts of things did Calvin say?

…since there has been no restoration of this people, it is certain that this prophecy ought not to be restricted to seed according to the flesh. Fopr there was a prescribed time for the Jews, when the Lord purposed to restore them to their country, and, at the end of seventy years, a free return was granted them by Cyrus. Then Hosea speaks here [1:10-11] not of the kingdom of Israel, but of the Church . . . (The Book of the Prophet Hosea, as cited in Horner, pg. 7).

And as Christ has pulled down the wall of partition, so there is now no difference between Jews and Gentiles, God plants us now in the Holy Land, when he grafts us into the body of Christ (The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, as cited in Horner, pg. 7).

I absolutely love Barry Horner’s comment on Calvin’s interpretation of these texts. It is the epitaph that belongs with all supersessionist readings of the Bible:

These instances clearly display the fruit of a subjective, impositional hermeneutic that appears to be more presuppositionally than exegetically driven. It is as if Calvin leapt from the plain meaning of the text right into Augustine’s supercessionist lap. Our chief concern in this regard is that such a course is historically shown to be fraught with shameful results concerning treatment of the Jews.

Theology leading to racism? You better, you better, you bet.

But the contrast between Augustine and Calvin and a few of their later followers, Charles Spurgeon and Horatius Bonar, is telling. It is possible to be a Christian, even of the Augustinian/Calvinist stream, and reject the anti-Judaism of Augustine and Calvin.

Horner provides us with some excellent citations from Charles Spurgeon:

We cannot help looking for the restoration of the scattered Israelites to the land which God has given them with a covenant of salt (The C.H. Spurgeon Collection, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXXIV, 1887, no. 2036: 545).

…for be it never forgotten that Jesus was a Jew (ibid.).

I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews . . . if there is anything promised in the Bible, it is this. I imagine you cannot read the Bible without seeing clearly that there is to be an actual restoration of the children of Israel (ibid., I, no. 28, 1855, 382).

That’s what we are always telling people: you can’t open your Bible without seeing Israel’s continuing role as God’s people. But hey, who are we and who is Spurgeon, to criticize the Bible reading methods of your average anti-Judaic theologian?

And Horner gives us many gems from Horatius Bonar, the 19th century Scottish hymn writer and participant in the great revivals of that period in Scotland. But let me close with a hymn that Bonar wrote in honor of Israel, and let me thank Barry Horner for making this hymn known to me. I could almost develop again a taste for singing 19th century songs accompanied by a pipe organ if hymns like this were on the order of service:

Forgotten! No; that cannot be;
All other names may pass away;
But thine, Israel, shall remain
In everlasting memory.
Forgotten! No; that cannot be,
The oath of him who cannot lie
Is on thy city and thy land,
An oath to all eternity.
Forgotten of the Lord thy God!
No, Israel, no, that cannot be,
He chose thee in the days of old
And still his favor rests on thee.
–Lamp and Light Hymns, as cited in Horner, pg. 11).

Amen.

Coming by late afternoon . . .

Sorry for the long weekend here. I will have Future Israel Part 2 up by this afternoon (before dinner anyway).

Last night was the Bris for my son, David Michael. That plus a rabbinics class that is kicking my tail and I have had precious little chance to post.

For now, here is a picture of the little man to enjoy . . .

Levitical Theology and New Paradigms

I have been reading the notes in Study Bibles lately. I am preparing for a project that I will make known sometime in the near future. As part of my preparation, I am reading and comparing various Study Bibles.

Although my views fit more in a conservative paradigm than a skeptical/critical one, I find that so far my favorite is the New Oxford Annotated Bible (but I couldn’t recommend it to people who are not informed students of the Bible). My favorite of the more conservative Study Bibles is the NASB Study Bible (it has the same notes as the NIV Study Bible but without the NIV translation which is not my favorite). I do not yet have the ESV Study Bible (would anyone like to send me one as a gift :-) ).

Anyway, no Study Bible is going to get more than about 50% of the Bible right. I know that going in.

My inspiration for this blog, in fact, was simply noticing how the NASB Study Bible missed understanding some of the fine points of Levitical theology (the great priestly theology of Leviticus). I don’t completely blame the NASB Study Bible. The Christian environment is a difficult place in which to understand Leviticus. In fact, I would venture to say that Christians are handicapped when it comes to Leviticus due to centuries of trying to read too much New Testament back into this wonderful book of the Torah.

That said, let me share some points from the NASB Study Bible from two of the most important verses in Leviticus. Most people wouldn’t even be able to tell you what the two most important verses in Leviticus are. But here goes . . . 15:31 and 16:16 (for reasons that I hope will soon be apparent).

Leviticus 15:31:

Thus you shall keep the sons of Israel separated from their uncleanness, so that they will not die in their uncleanness by their defiling my taberncale that is among them –NASB.

NASB Study Bible on Leviticus 15:31:

Addressed to the priests, thus emphasizing the importance of the regulations. Since God dwelt in the tabernacle, any unholiness, symbolized by the discharges of ch. 15, could result in death if the people came into his presence. Sin separates all people from a holy God and results in their death, unless atonement is made (see next chapter) –NASB Study Bible Note.

Now what am I saying is wrong with this comment? Well, it is not completely off. The editors did not miss the point entirely. But they made a few telltale errors:

1. “unholiness, symbolized by the discharges” — No, the discharges of Leviticus 15 do not symbolize unholiness. Rather, the causes of uncleanness from Leviticus 11 through 15 and also Numbers 19 symbolize something completely different: death or loss of life. Christians should realize that not everything is about sin. Causes of impurity include such onerous things as . . . giving birth to a child (my wife experienced that this week). Is this a symbol of unholiness? No, but rather losing life (blood/life comes out, an actual life comes out, and a mortal bears another mortal — more death).

2. “any unholiness . . . could result in death if the people came into his presence” — No, a person did not have to bring uncleanness into the temple to bring down death upon the land of Israel. In fact, Leviticus 15:31 is radical in saying far more than that (check the magisterial commentary of Jacob Milgrom in the Anchor series to truly understand this point). The Israelites will die if they fail to observe the purity regulations wherever they live, not just if they bring impurity into the temple. This is radical, but I don’t want to take up space here with the implications.

3. The NASB note omits one of the most important points, a key piece of theology from this verse: the impurities of Israelites, wherever they dwell, can defile or pollute God’s temple. A mother in far northern Dan who does not purify herself as prescribed in Leviticus 12 brings pollution all the way down in Jerusalem at the temple. And that mother threatens the life of Israel by not purifying herself.

A similar kind of oversight occurs in the NASB Study Bible note on Leviticus 16:16:

He shall make atonement for the holy place . . . –NASB.

The NASB Study Bible note on 16:16 says nothing about this first clause of the sentence.

They missed something pretty important here.

Yom Kippur was not about making atonement for the people. It was about making atonement for the temple.

Did the temple sin?

No, maybe the common understanding of the word atonement is faulty. Maybe it does not mean “cleansing that brings forgiveness for sin.” Maybe it simply means “cleansing.”

To fully explain Levitical theology from this point, I would have to write a longer article than you would want to read. But let me just briefly say that the Levitical sacrifices were not junior or temporary versions of the Sacrifice of Messiah (the Cross). Messiah’s sacrifice had a different purpose. Sacrifices in Leviticus kept the temple clean so God’s holy presence could remain amidst Israel’s sin and death. The Sacrifice of Messiah cleansed sinners to fit them to come into God’s presence directly.

Why did I write all this? What is the takeaway point?

Don’t assume that your reading of the Bible is accurate. Question. Consider. Gather other opinions. There may be wonderful truth waiting if you can leave your paradigm and see things differently. Levitical theology is just one of many examples.

Bloggers: I Need Your Help

There are quite a few blogs out there who have a link to my blog. I’d love to know if you have a link to Messianic Musings. For one thing, I will have a promotion going on soon for FEAST (threadsmedia.com) and maybe you’d like to be part of it. Please email me at derekblogger@gmail.com and let me know your blog address…

Derek

Barry Horner, Future Israel: Part 1

A few weeks ago I promised I would blog about a recently released book that is a 10 on the Richter scale I (as far as I am concerned), Barry Horner’s Future Israel. I hope that Christian pastors take this book very seriously–and there is every indication that they should. It is a supplement to the New American Commentary series, a conservative evangelical series. It is one of only a few supplements to that series, suggesting the editors of the New American Commentary felt Israel was a crucial issue in biblical interpretation. I know . . . you’re saying, duh. Well, for Christian pastors to admit that the place of Israel in God’s continuing plan, present and future, is a crux of biblical interpretation is pretty rare and amazing.

As I discuss Horner’s book, all will not be roses and butterflies. There will be differences. I will suggest that Horner did not go far enough (he doesn’t see that Israel has a continuing duty to keep the covenant from Sinai, i.e. the Torah). Nonetheless, I think this is a book you should buy for yourself and for those local pastor friends you have whom you know need to see the light and realize that Israel is on every page of the Bible!
……………………………………………..

In the “Personal Introduction” to Future Israel, Horner speaks from his heart. As a reader who loves Israel, I had a strong emotional reaction to this chapter. When you care deeply about something and you find that people you love (Christian pastors) often fail to share your passion, it gets you in the kishkes when you find a pastor/scholar who gets it. I get that sense from Horner’s “Personal Introduction.”

Horner describes his pilgrimage into Calvinistic/Sovereign Grace/Reformed Christianity. I do not share Horner’s enthusiasm for this little corner of the doctrinal world. This is the brand of Christianity that makes little of free will and much of determinism. I won’t start a debate here about such matters, but my big point is simple: while I may not agree with Horner’s theological scheme regarding salvation, free will, and determinism, it is great for the message of his book that this is his theological camp.

What I mean is this: Reformed theologians tend to be the most anti-Judaic. Yet here we have a Reformed theologian arguing against supersessionism (also spelled supercessionism, a.k.a. replacement theology, the idea that Christians displace Israelites as God’s people).

Horner recognizes that seeing the proper place of Israel in God’s plan means being pre-millennial. That is a stunner. Reformed theologians are almost never pre-millennial, but prefer amillennialism or post-millennialism (post-millennial means the church makes the world better and then Jesus returns; amillennial means Jesus is already reigning from heaven and there will be no transitional kingdom of 1,000 years; pre-millennial means Jesus will return and establish a transitional kingdom before the Final Age).

In fact, and this is important, it was Horner’s love for and study of the Israelite prophets that prevented him from descending into the usual Reformed views of final things. He had to admit that he greatly preferred the old commentary of David Baron (a Hebrew Christian from the early 1900’s) to the commentaries of his peers on the prophets. He recognizes that his Reformed colleagues were straining biblical interpretation to avoid seeing Israel in the text. In Horner’s own words:

Then a close study of Romans over several years, and particularly chaps. 9-11, resulted in an indelible impression that for Paul, the converted Hebrew rabbi, Israel has an ongoing national identity, its unbelief notwithstanding. On the other hand, it seemed as if Reformed exegesis, at least on a prima facie reading of the text, was attempting to avoid the obvious. (p. xv).

Attempting to avoid the obvious . . . music to my ears.

Of course I am giving Horner a pass on calling Paul a “converted” Hebrew rabbi. I suppose I shouldn’t expect better lingo from a Reformed theologian, but what did Paul convert from and what did he convert to? Wasn’t Jesus a continuation of, not a divergence from, Paul’s Judaism? Oh well, I am so pleased with Horner’s insight, I hate to even bring it up.

Horner goes on to quote various individual whose writings would garner respect among the Reformed/Calivinistic/Sovereign Grace camps of theology. He quotes Horatius Bonar as saying, “The prophecies concerning Israel are the key to all the rest.” Amen.

Then Horner goes on to do us a great service. He refers specifically to writers and thinkers who believe that Israel “is covenantally and eternally persona non grata in the sight of God.” This is something he will do throughout his book.

Horner beautifully points out that Reformed attitudes toward Israel are not without consequences:

Furthermore, with regard to Israel we are not dealing with a doctrinal emphasis that has little relationship with significant Christian ethics. Quite the contrary, as our study will unquestionably prove, the wrong perception of Israel and the Jews by Christians, biblically speaking, has produced consequences of horrific proportions during the history of the Christian church in all its strands.

These are strong words from a man who backs up everything he says with documentation and sounds argument.

Horner’s inability to take his own thought and biblical interpretation to its logical end shows up near the end of the chapter. Horner betrays his belief that Jesus opposed Rabbinic and Talmudic accretions to the Torah of Moses. Horner’s un-nuanced statement shows a bit of a gap in his understanding of Judaism (namely that Torah cannot be followed without the leaders of Israel, vis a vis the rabbis, making rulings that add to the written law, since the written law is deliberately full of gaps).

Still, I find myself overwhelmed with positive emotion as I finish Horner’s “Personal Introduction.” I cannot wait to finish the book.

But the crown jewel of the chapter is the conclusion. Horner points out that a renowned scholar of the New Testament, C.E.B. Cranfield, publicly repented in writing for his anti-Judaic interpretations of the New Testament. Horner says:

When a scholar and exegete of the stature of C.E.B. Cranfield so movingly and publicly repents of his former belief that the church has replaced Israel, then none ought to exclude themselves from hearing a call to seriously review this matter and the vital issues that are involved.

What did C.E.B. Cranfield say? Here are two citations that Horner supplies and I think they are a great way to sum up this review:

And I confess with shame to having also myself used in print on more than one occasion this language of the replacement of Israel by the Church. –Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans (ICC) p. 448, note 2.

It is only where the church persists in refusing to learn this message [of Romans 9-11], where it secretly–perhaps unconsciously–believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God’s mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God’s mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off his people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once for all taken the place of the Jewish people. –Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans (ICC) p. 448.

Good News: Another Clarification, Messianics in Israel

I have been saying that I think the recent Israeli Supreme Court decision might have broader application than just Messianic Jews whose mother is not Jewish but whose father is. I just received an opinion from an attorney involved in the case that agrees with me. Here is what the attorney in Israel says:

1. If father is Jewish, either of father’s parents are Jewish or father of mother is Jewish (if mother of mother is not) – one can immigrate freely based on this new decision.

2. If mother is Jewish and father is Christian and applicant was raised as a Christian – can immigrate based on claim that they didn’t “willfully” change religion. This however has not been fully tested at Supreme Court level.

3. If both father and mother are Jewish – one is still in very precarious situation in light of Beresford decision.

Jerusalem Post on Israeli Court and Messianics

The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com) ran an article yesterday about the Israeli Supreme Court ruling which opens the doors for some Messianic Jews to make citizenship in Israel. Strictly speaking, as the article states, this ruling will only apply to those with Jewish fathers but not mothers. On the other hand, the wording of the ruling could, in my non-expert opinion, open the door to other Messianic Jews if they were never raised in synagogue. The issue is whether a person changed from Judaism to another religion. Those whose fathers are Jewish but whose mothers are not, are not considered Jewish, but as descendants of Jews. Anyway, here is the article. You can also see it online at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1208870469395

Messianic Jews are entitled to Israeli citizenship according to the Law of Return if their father is Jewish, according to a precedent-setting ruling handed down last week by the High Court of Justice.

Fifteen years ago, the court rejected a petition by Messianic Jews who demanded to be recognized as Jews so as to automatically receive Israeli citizenship according to the Law of Return. In that landmark case, the court ruled that Messianic Jews had converted, and therefore were no longer Jewish.

Since then, the state has refused to grant all requests for citizenship according to the Law of Return by Messianic Jews.

Two years ago, however, a number of new immigrants to Israel belonging to the Messianic Jewish community petitioned the High Court after the Interior Ministry refused to grant them new immigrant status and citizenship according to the Law of Return.

These petitioners, represented by attorneys Yehuda Raveh and Calev Myers, argued that they were eligible for new immigrant status and citizenship because they were the offsprings of fathers who were Jewish, not because they themselves were Jewish according to the definition of “Who is a Jew” in the Law of Return.

According to Amendment 4A (a) to the Law of Return, passed in 1970, “The rights of a Jew under this law… are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.”

The law defines a Jew as “a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”

According to Myers, 12 Messianic Jews petitioned the High Court after the Interior Ministry refused to register them as new immigrants in accordance with the Law of Return. Myers said they had received letters stating that they would not receive citizenship because they allegedly engaged in missionary activity.

An article published in the Baptist Press after the High Court ruling was handed down maintained that the court had ruled that “the Messianics should receive equal treatment under the Israeli Law of Return, which says that anyone who is born Jewish can immigrate from anywhere in the world to Israel and be granted citizenship automatically.”

But, as was explained to The Jerusalem Post by a legal assistant to Myers, this is apparently a misunderstanding of the ruling, which determined that the petitioners were entitled to automatic new immigrant status and citizenship precisely because they were not Jews as defined by the Law of Return, but rather because they were the offspring of Jewish fathers.

Important Passover Knowledge…

How to perfectly break a Matza in half – the Oriental way . . .

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLX1LtJqG8U

Coming Attractions and a New Leman Baby!

Friends out there in the blogosphere, let me share with you a few pictures of my newest son (David Michael) born Monday, April 21 at 10 a.m. We left right from our congregational Seder on Sunday night for the hospital. My wife didn’t want to spoil my fun leading a big Passover Seder, so she didn’t tell me she was in labor until we left! David is our 8th child and no, we’re not done.

Also, let me tell you what to expect in days ahead here. I will be blogging about several books and giving an update on the Israeli Supreme Court decision. I will be blogging about Barry Horner’s Future Israel (see an earlier post about it) and Mel Lawrenz’s I Want to Believe and Derek Leman’s FEAST. The next few weeks should be some good blogging so stay tuned . . .

Passover Poems

I enclose here two poems, one by me and another by Primo Levi written in 1982. I will also post a link to the entire message I gave my congregation this morning leading up to Passover.

Experience the first Passover night.
An angel of death. Holy terror.
Blood on the door.
Wailing mothers and dead sons.
Wailing mothers whose sons were saved.

Deadly silence across the land.
Egyptian neighbors come to the door.
“Here, take these gold things,
Go and worship your God,
he has taken our sons.”

Jewish mothers hold their sons.
And they cry.
“Who cried for our sons
enslaved and mistreated?
Cruelty has begotten cruelty,
sin has precipitated death.”

And from this dreadful night
Israel fled.
Witless and afraid.
Would Pharaoh cut them down?

Carts and oxen.
Burdens and animals.
Children and elderly.
A hard journey ahead.

Passover. Redemption. Freedom. Exodus.
Journey.
[Derek Leman, 2008]
……………………….

Tell me: how is this night different
From all other nights?
How, tell me, is this Passover
Different from all other Passovers?
Light the lamp, open the door wide
So the pilgrim can come in,
Gentile or Jew;
Under the rags perhaps the prophet is concealed.
Let him enter and sit down with us;
Let him listen, drink, sing and celebrate Passover;
Let him consume the bread of affliction,
The Paschal Lamb, sweet mortar and bitter herbs.
This is the night of differences
In which you lean your elbow on the table,
Since the forbidden becomes prescribed,
Evil is translated into good.
We will spend the night recounting
Far-off events full of wonder,
And because of all the wine
The mountains will skip like rams.
Tonight they exchange questions:
The wise, the godless, the simple-minded and the child.
And time reverses its course,
Today flowing back into yesterday.
Like a river enclosed at its mouth.
Each of us has been a slave in Egypt,
Soaked straw and clay with sweat,
And crossed the sea dry-footed.
You too, stranger.
This year in fear and shame,
Next year in virtue and justice.

[Schocken Passover Haggadah, pg. xxviii, “Passover,” by Primo Levi, 1982]

A link to the entire message: http://tikvatdavid.com/Sermons/Entries/2008/4/19_Passover_-_Journey.html

Messianics Allowed in Israel: Official Wording of the Ruling

According to Jamie Cowen, president of the UMJC (umjc.net), who is an attorney and whose daughter was a defendant in this case, this ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court is precedent setting for future cases. When the ruling says “as long as the person is not Jewish,” this means that they never were religious Jews prior to applying for citizenship (I don’t think, but I could be wrong, that this excludes those with a Jewish mother from applying). Thus, many Messianic Jews still could not become citizens of Israel, but many could. The reason for this exclusion of religious Jews who later became Messianic Jews is a very early court precedent that Jews who have changed religion may not become citizens.

Note, however, that Jews who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, and many other “different religions” are not excluded. The law of return has not been evenly applied, but has been used primarily to discriminate against Jews who believe in Jesus (Jesus the Jew at that!!).

Here is the official wording of the ruling:

High Court of Justice
Jerusalem
SUPREME COURT RULING
Case No. 2708/06

Judges: Honorary Justice A. Rubeinstien
Honorary Justice S. Jubraan
Honorary Justice Y. Dentziger

Petitioners: 1. Sean Steckbeck
2. Ayelet Steckbeck
3. Daniel Silverman
4. Melanie Silverman
5. Yehoshua Silverman
6. Amalia Silverman
7. Aliana Silverman
8. Gusia Silverman
9. Matty Nadler
10. Amy Cowen

VS.

Respondents: 1. Ministry of Interior
Registrar of Population

Date of court hearing: 16.04.08

Judgment

The parties have submitted to us the following notification:

“In their notification dated 13.04.08 the Respondents declared, that the fact that a person is a “Messianic Jew” has no bearing on an application according to Sec. 7 of the Law of Citizenship, as well as an application according to Sec. 4(A)(a) of the Law of Return (as long as the person applying according the abovementioned section of the Law of Return is not considered to be Jewish, as described in section 4B of the Law of Return).

The Respondents declare that in accordance with their notification they will process the applications of all Petitioners as soon as possible, as well as the application of Alvetina Zibareva, and Valentina Zibareva who requested to join the petition on 01.04.08 to the extent that their request is similar.

Due to these circumstances the representatives of the Petitioners requested to remove the petition without a ruling regarding court costs.

The Petition is removed by consent as aforesaid.

Dated (16.04.08)

Israel and Messianics: More Info

If you haven’t heard the good news, read the two posts below (“Breaking News” and “Israel and Messianics Clarification.”

I thought you might want to know about one of the main groups behind this great news, The Jerusalem Institute of Justice. You can find them at http://www.jij.org.il/

Israel and Messianics Clarification

I received a communication today that clarifies the settlement reached yesterday in Israel (see below, “Breaking News”). The ruling would not cover all Messianic Jews, but would cover many of them: If a person was not a Jew previously (religious definition) but is a descendant of Jews, then they can make aliyah (citizenship) without discrimination for their current faith in Yeshua.

Here is the wording we got from an attorney working on the case:

Israel has said for the first time that if a person was never Jewish (according to the Law of Return) in the first place, but is the descendent of Jews, than the fact that they are “Messianic Jews” should not make any difference for purposes of Aliyah by law. These individuals have never been “Jews who changed their religion” which would exclude them from the right to immigrate to Israel, and therefore are in fact eligible according to the Law of return to make Aliyah, and their “Messianic” faith is not a relevant issue according to their written statement.

The above has been specified in a written agreement which has been ratified by the Supreme Court, and now we can use this decision for claiming your respective lawful rights from the Ministry of Interior.

This means that the case has not yet been decided for religious Jews who have since come to faith in Yeshua. But many Messianic Jews will fit into the ruling as they did not grow up as synagogue members.

BREAKING NEWS: Israeli Supreme Court Allows Messianics In!

I had this posted for about four hours Wednesday morning and then got a call that it was premature and the final word had not come down. Now, the agreements have been made and this is news . . .

I just received word from Jamie Cowen, the president of the UMJC (umjc.net) that the Israeli Supreme Court has reversed its decision from the late 1980’s which gives Messianic Jews no right of return to Israel.

In other words, the Israeli Supreme Court, for the first time, is recognizing that Messianic Jews have a right to make aliyah (citizenship in Israel), which is tantamount to recognizing Messianic Jews as Jews.

Furthermore, they ordered the Ministry of Interior (which has a lot of Orthodox Jewish staff who regularly make life difficult for Messianic Jews) to halt all discrimination against Messianic Jews in Israel.

Of course there are and have been for a while a decent number of Messianic Jews in Israel. Many were born there and others found there way over. But if it became known during application for citizenship that someone was Messianic, their application was rejected.

Prior to now, Messianics were denied entry based on a Supreme Court case from 1989. In December 1989, Israel’s Supreme Court set a legal precedent when it denied the right of return to Gary and Shirley Beresford, messianic Jews from South Africa (now living in Florida).

I looked at several Israel news sites online and have not yet found any news about this new ruling of the Supreme Court.

But we have good inside information since Jamie Cowen’s daughter, Amy, was among the seven parties of the lawsuit in Israel asking for citizenship. She and the other six were granted immediate citizenship.

Some Orthodox Jews are doubtless going to decry this decision. But in most thinking people’s mind we will have to say justice was done at last.

Messianic Jews are Jews. Hitler thought so and killed an estimated 100,000 Jews who believed in Jesus. For decades Messianic Jews who were Israeli citizens have been serving in the military. A few weeks ago, there was even a terrorist incident against Messianic Jews in Ariel, Israel, in which Ami Ortiz, a 15 year old boy, was nearly killed when he held a bomb in his hand disguised as a holiday basket for Purim. There is strong suspicion that an Orthodox Jewish extremist group may be responsible (though Arab terrorism has not been ruled out).

Today is a day for rejoicing. Messianic Jews are now free to return home to the land of our Messiah.

May he come soon, speedily in our days, bringing with him redemption, joy, and gladness.