Ebionites, Messianic Jews, Identity, and Commitment

Here is how I took last week’s exploration of the identity of the Ebionites and turned it into a sermon for a mixed community of Jews and non-Jews. I know this is long, but if you care about Messianic Judaism, I think it has something to say.
…………….

Identity and Commitment
Derek Leman

This week has been a week of thinking about one of the early communities of faith. I’ve been studying the history of the Ebionites as told through the eyes of the church fathers, who did not understand them.

I think what attracted me to the Ebionites was their strong sense of identity and commitment.They knew who they were, they withstood the criticism of their enemies, and they were committed to a way of life.

Identity and commitment have always been a problem in the Messianic Jewish movement. We have our critics on all sides. Specifically, I would say we have our critics on three sides.

The synagogue says, “You’re not really Jews. You’re Christians misusing our symbols and sancta.” Of course, many here would say, “You’re right, I’m not Jewish. I just love Israel and Torah and I want to be part of the Messianic movement.” And there’s nothing at all wrong with that. But to the Jews in our midst, it hurts to have other Jews say we’re pretenders.

And then there is criticism from the church. Mind you, this criticism comes only from some parts of the church. “You shouldn’t be Jews or follow Torah. God did away with all that in Jesus and you’re just hanging on to the old stuff.” And that hurts. We’re sad for those Christian friends who cannot see the beauty of the Feasts and holy days, who cannot appreciate the Jewishness of Jesus, and who think the Torah is a burden.

And if we get criticized by the synagogue and the church, can you imagine what the world thinks of us. “You guys are weird; it’s like you’re confused and trying to be two things at once.” I think some people look at us like star-crossed lunatics, people who take the Bible way too literally.

Well, it was thinking about the Ebionite community that got me thinking about the Jerusalem congregation in Acts and also about us Messianic Jews today. That led me to a sort of weird idea for a message. I’d like to talk about identity and commitment using all three time periods as background.

What identity and commitment formed the Ebionites as a group? What identity and commitment came before them in the Jerusalem congregation of the book of Acts? What identity and commitment issues must we face today in Messianic Judaism?
……………………

So, let’s start out of order, with the Ebionites first. Our first written record of the Ebionites was about a century and a half after the resurrection of Yeshua. In about 180 C.E., the church father, Irenaeus, wrote about the Ebionites. He said:

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with regard to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the gospel according to Matthew only and repudiate the apostle Paul, saying he was an apostate from the Law. As to the prophetical writings, they do their best to expound them diligently; they practice circumcision, persevere in the customs which are according to the Law and practice a Jewish way of life, even adoring Jerusalem as if it were a house of God.

He also said:

Vain also are the Ebionites who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of the [natural] birth; who do not wish to understand that the Holy Spirit came into Mary and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: therefore also what was generated is holy and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who wrought His incarnation and displayed a new [kind of] generation.

And Hippolytus added to that description later the following:

They live conformably to the Jewish customs saying they are justified according to the Law.

Now, in those descriptions there are some good things and bad things.
Let me list the key points for you:
The Ebionites believed in Creation as told in Genesis — good.
Irenaeus says, however, that they agreed with Cerinthus about Yeshua — Cerinthus believed Yeshua was a normal man until God came upon him at the baptism — bad.
Irenaeus says they used only Matthew, rejecting Mark, Luke, and John — bad.
Irenaeus says they rejected the writings of Paul — bad.
They practiced circumcision and Torah — bad to Irenaeus, but good to us.
They adored Jerusalem as the house of God, probably meaning they faced Jerusalem as they prayed — bad to Irenaeus and good to us.
Irenaeus says they thought Yeshua had a natural birth and not a virgin or divine birth — bad.
Hippolytus says they lived according to Torah — bad for Hippolytus and good for us.
But Hippolytus says they claimed to be made right with God by keeping Torah — bad.

From these descriptions, the Ebionites sound like they were somewhat similar to Messianic Jews but not quite. If Irenaeus and Hippolytus are correct, they rejected most of the New Testament, they thought Yeshua didn’t become the God-man until his baptism, and they thought Torah observance made them right with God.

But let me throw a big pitcher of water on the fire of Irenaeus’ criticism. There are several reasons for a critical historian to doubt the accuracy of Irenaeus’ claims. In the first place, these criticisms come in a long list of descriptions of various heretical groups.
For the major heretical groups Irenaeus gives more information, including the founder of the group and more details about their beliefs.

Regarding the Ebionites, Irenaeus has little detail. It seems that he either had no personal contact or very little personal contact with any actual Ebionites. Rather, he lumps them in together with the heresy of Cerinthus.

Now, I’m not denying that Irenaeus may have met an Ebionite or two who believed some of those things. How many of us have encountered so-called Messianics who believe weird things?

I’ve met Messianics who had altars in their back yard and offered animal sacrifices. I’ve met Messianics who told me a nuclear bomb was going to destroy Israel any day now. I’ve met Messianics who have told me Paul doesn’t belong in the Bible or that the book of Hebrews doesn’t belong in the Bible.

BUT LET ME PRESENT ANOTHER THEORY TO YOU ABOUT THE EBIONITES. I think they were Messianic Jews (and converts) whose primary reason for running afoul of the church fathers was their practice of the Torah.

I think the faithfulness of the Ebionites to God’s covenant with Israel was what caused the church fathers to reject them as heretics. And it was easy to stereotype them as heretics in many other areas once they were viewed in this way. I’m not alone in thinking this is a possibility. Lutheran scholar Oskar Skarsaune writes a very similar theory in his book JEWISH BELIEVERS IN JESUS: THE EARLY CENTURIES.

But here is my point, and I hope you knew I had one: When you are different from the crowd, you will be misunderstood. You will be judged by the strangest ones among you. You will be misjudged as outcasts. Your identity and commitment will be criticized and slandered.

………………………….

Now, let’s open the book of Acts and look at our second community and time period.
We’re going back before the Ebionites. Let’s start in Acts 2:37-42

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

This is after Peter’s preaching in Jerusalem at Shavuot. The group of 120 disciples of Yeshua became more than three thousand in one day. The Jerusalem congregation was growing.

Now look at Acts 2:43-47

And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The one thing I want you to get from this is that these new Messianic Jews continued to worship among their people. They did not separate from the synagogue.
They saw themselves as both part of Israel and a remnant calling Israel to something new. They were both Jews and Messianic.

But it didn’t take long for them to be misunderstood. Read with me Acts 4:1-4:

And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they arrested them and put them in custody until the morrow, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

The temple authorities did not care that these Jerusalem believers were Jews. They cared that they were Messianic. They did not see the commonality. They saw the difference.

And they misunderstood. They thought that Yeshua-followers were a threat to Judaism and the temple. They arrested Peter and John.

But I want you to know, as the heat got turned up, the Jerusalem believers did not stop going to the temple. They did not separate from their people.

And so the misunderstanding and the fire of hatred grew stronger still. Imagine the sense of identity and commitment it would take to be who you know you are supposed to be in front of people who despise you.

What kind of identity did these Jerusalem believers have? Wouldn’t they have been tempted to just forget about talking about Yeshua in public? Wouldn’t they have been tempted to just fit in?

But they did not. They knew who they were. Not only were they Jews, but they knew they were the vanguard of Judaism, the forefront of God’s people in the last days. They knew they were the truly faithful Israelites following Israel’s Messiah.

Right.

That all sounds well and good. But consider, they were vastly outnumbered.
They were a small movement in a big city with powerful players. They were the ones who got arrested.

What kind of person imagines himself and his friends to be the faithful remnant when the large society around him rejects everything he stands for?

I have an answer. The kind of person who stands firm against majority opposition is a person with a STRONG IDENTITY and a CLEAR COMMITMENT.
………………..

Now the Ebionites and the early Jerusalem believers had a hard time.

The Jerusalem believers went on to more persecution. One of their leaders, Stephen, was stoned to death in the streets. And a young man named Saul and also Paul was standing there, supervising Stephen’s execution. The Jerusalem believers scattered, but the leaders remained. After a time they regathered in Jerusalem. And they stayed almost until the year 70 C.E.

We know from Eusebius and other historians about these Jerusalem believers. They maintained a presence for Yeshua in Jerusalem. It was finally just before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that they left. They were warned by prophets among them to flee. And they fled to Pella in Jordan. And they continued on, though record of them is essentially lost.

I would say they became the Ebionites. And if anything, the pressure on the Ebionites was even greater.

Whereas the early Jerusalem believers had pressure to abandon Yeshua and return to a Yeshua-less Judaism, the Ebionites had a worse pressure.

For the Ebionites there was pressure on three sides.
The synagogue mocked them as heretics.
The church denounced them as heretics.
The Romans doubly despised them as atheists for not believing in Roman gods and Jews, who were despicable to many Romans.

Wouldn’t it have been easy for the Ebionites to just give up on Judaism and assimilate into the church? Wouldn’t it have been easy for the Ebionites to just give up on Yeshua and assimilate into the synagogue? Wouldn’t it have been easy for the Ebionites to give up on both and assimilate into the powerful Roman world?
…………………………………….

And that brings me to our day. We see all three of those kinds of assimilation going on in our Messianic Jewish context.

Some Messianic Jews give up on Jesus and become traditional Jews. Some Messianic Jews give up on Judaism and become non-Jewish Christians. And sadly some give it all up in this confusing world and just fit in with the world.

Where is the boldness of Peter and John? Where is the fearlessness of Stephen who said of those stoning him, “Forgive them, Father?” Where is the commitment of the Christians like Polycarp who was eaten by wild animals in a Roman arena at the approximate age of 90?

What did Peter and John and Stephen and Polycarp have? What did the Ebionites have?

They had a strong sense of identity. In Messianic Judaism we need to learn who we are and what we stand for.

Are you a Jewish believer in Yeshua? Then know what it means to be Jewish and a believer.

Are you a non-Jewish believer in this Messianic movement? Why are you here? Is it because you want to be part of this thing that God is doing in the last days, bringing Israel back to Messiah and Torah? Are you, as a non-Jew, willing to commit your life to this movement of Jewish faith in Yeshua?

We need to know who we are and what we stand for. Messianic Judaism is two things: it is Messianic and it is Jewish.

Put simply, we have two strong commitments: Messiah and Torah.

People will misunderstand us as Irenaeus misunderstood the Ebionites. They will wittingly or unwittingly slander us. They will call us legalists. They will say we don’t believe in grace. They will say we are pretend Jews. They will say of the non-Jews among us that they don’t belong here. They will say Gentiles have no business playing Jew. They will say Jews don’t believe in Jesus. They will say we are half-mad fundamentalists taking the Bible far too literally. They will say lighten up on the Sabbath and dietary rules, man. They will say we just want to turn Jews into Christians. They will say everything we believe in does not matter.

And if our sense of identity is weak, we will give in. And if our commitment is vague, we will compromise. And we will let our observance of the Sabbath slip lest we offend our Christian friends. And we will desire to be less Messianic around Jews and less Jewish around Christians.

But consider this. The Ebionites got their name from the Hebrew Bible. The word EVYONIM or Ebionite is used 54 times in the Hebrew Bible. It means the poor ones, the needy ones, the persecuted ones, the afflicted. It is used, for example in 1 Samuel 2:8.

He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor.

The Ebionites knew who they were. They accepted their humble status. And we have a mission in Messianic Judaism. Our Messiah told us to go first to Jerusalem and to Judea and to the ends of the earth. Paul said the gospel is to the Jew first. And we know from Revelation that it will be 144,000 Messianic Jews at the forefront of God’s work in the last days.

So let’s be clear who we are: we are the mission of the God of Israel to his own Chosen People. We are the vanguard of God’s bringing all things together. We are Messianic and we are Jewish. Know, then, who you are and why God put you on this earth and never compromise.

A Blogger Responds From His POV

A blogger from a POV slightly different from mine responds to Jackie Walker’s article from yesterday about Messianic prisoners being denied Kosher meals in prison. Check it out here.

So, what do you think?

Guest Post: Kosher Meals Denied to Messianic Prisoners

Jews in Prison Denied Kosher Meals

Following is a post from guest blogger, Jackie Walker. Visit her Web site at www.religiontranscends.com. And watch for an upcoming post on her site from Rabbi Derek Leman.

Messianic Jews at the Richland Correctional Institution in Mansfield, Ohio, are being denied the kosher meals they’ve requested.

The inmates say they’d like to avoid pork and shellfish as well as the mixing of meat and dairy products, according to The Columbus Dispatch. [link to http://www.columbusdispatch.com] Prisoners point to the Constitution and federal law which states that the government must allow freedom of religious practice, even for prisoners, unless there is compelling governmental interest that would allow for restrictions.

Though the prisoners’ complaints are being investigated, the Ohio government continues to argue that Messianic Jews should receive the same meals as everyone else. Officials cite three main reasons to deny the kosher meals.

Reason #1: Kosher meals are for Jews only
Messianic Jews may not have the exact same belief system as traditional Jews, but many still want to keep kosher. Some say that just because they believe Yeshua (Jesus) was the Messiah doesn’t mean they don’t want to keep some of the tenets and practices of the Jewish religion and lifestyle.

But the Ohio prison system doesn’t label Messianic Jews as Jews at all – it considers them to be Protestants. Protestantism is an umbrella term for all Christian denominations other than Catholics; Protestant churches include Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and so on. Because both Protestants and Messianic Jews believe Yeshua was the Christ (the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament of the Bible) and because they place their trust in and follow Yeshua and early Christian doctrine, they are considered to be the same. Yet by lumping the two religious groups into the same category, the prison system seems to ignore the fact that unlike Protestants, Messianic Jews follow many Jewish laws and customs – including kosher law.

Reason #2: Kosher meals aren’t necessary
Even if Messianic Jews could make officials understand they are not Protestants by definition or by practice, they would still need to prove that eating kosher meals is a necessary practice for their religion. And so far, Messianic Jewish rabbis who have been called upon by the Ohio government say eating kosher meals is not a law in Messianic Judaism. The courts, then, view the special meals as more of a tradition or a preference.

Reason #3: Kosher meals are, quite frankly, expensive
With tight budgets and a groaning economy, the Ohio prison system has sought, thus far, to keep costs down. And that includes the price of meals for prisoners. According to The Columbus Dispatch, non-kosher meals cost 95 cents, while kosher meals can cost between $5 and $6 each.

To keep from discriminating and denying rights, the Ohio government has allowed all Jews (regardless of belief) to receive kosher meals on Jewish holidays.

What do you think? Should the inmates be allowed to receive kosher meals, even if they aren’t considered necessary to their religious practice?

Jackie Walker is a freelance religion writer in Chicago, Illinois. She is a regular contributor to Relate magazine and has worked for a number of religion publishers in the past, including Guideposts, Relevant Media Group, and World Wisdom.

Religion Transcends is a Web site devoted to providing news about world religions – without prejudice. It includes commentary, reporting, and education to eliminate misconceptions about religions and to give context and meaning to stories in the news. Visit Religion Transcends today at www.religiontranscends.com.

Ebionites: Heretics or Messianic Jews?

We’ve been learning a little bit about the Ebionites courtesy of Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik’s book Jewish Believers in Jesus, and specifically Skarsaune’s chapter on the Ebionites.

Just who were these Jewish believers? What did they believe and why?

We will never (this side of the World to Come) know much about the Ebionites because they left us no writings and those who wrote about them were quite biased against them. We can only piece together a little about them. Skarsaune does a good job of getting down to what we can know.

In considering our sources on the Ebionites, all writers from the time of the church fathers, one major branch of evidence is the Irenaeus-Tertullian-Hippolytus-Pseudo-Tertullian branch. Skarsaune considers these writers as one branch since they all seem to rely more on Irenaeus’s initial description of the Ebionites than on any actual experiences they had themselves. In other words, Skarsaune makes a good case that Irenaeus created a stereotype and later writers simply added to it.

The following are the major passages about the Ebionites, which I will follow with a few comments:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2, “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with regard to the Lord are similar* to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the gospel according to Matthew only and repudiate the apostle Paul, saying he was an apostate from the Law. As to the prophetical writings, they do their best to expound them diligently; they practice circumcision, persevere in the customs which are according to the Law and practice a Jewish way of life, even adoring Jerusalem as if it were a house of God.”
*Note: Some texts says “not similar to those of Cerinthus, but Skarsaune argues for the reading “similar to.”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.1.3, “Vain also are the Ebionites who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of the [natural] birth; who do not wish to understand that the Holy Spirit came into Mary and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: therefore also what was generated is holy and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who wrought His incarnation and displayed a new [kind of] generation.”

Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32.5, “Writing also to the Galatians, Paul blazes out against those who defend circumcision and the Law; this is Ebion’s heresy.”

Hippolytus, Against Heresies 7.34.2, “They live conformably to the Jewish customs saying they are justified according to the Law. Therefore it was that he was named the Messiah of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest kept the Law. For if any had kept the commandments of the Law, he would have been the Messiah. And they themselves, also, having done the same, are able to become messiahs; for they say that he himself was a man like all.”

Pseudo-Tertullian, Against Heresies 3, “Cerinthus’ successor was Ebion, though not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point . . . he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.”

We have in addition to this a statement by Tertullian (The Flesh of Christ 14) that I did not include because it is hard to understand without a long explanation of the context.

Also, several statements in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho add to the evidence that there were people who held to an adoptionist Christology (Jesus was a mere man until God adopted him at his baptism). And elsewhere Irenaeus describes the heresy of Cerinthus in precisely this way, as an adoptionist christology. Jesus was merely the son of Joseph and Mary until Messiah descended on him like a dove at his baptism, according to Irenaeus’ description of Cerinthus’ teaching.

The big point, however, in all of this, is that the bad name given to the Ebionites rests on too small a foundation. Irenaeus was likely the only one writing from experience. And since Irenaeus could not name a founder for the Ebionite sect and provides so few details, it would seem Irenaeus’ personal experience with Ebionites was quite limited. Then later writers seem to merely repeat what Irenaeus said.

Were the Ebionites heretics, or were at least some of them early Messianic Jews living the Torah and following Yeshua faithfully? Skarsaune, a Lutheran scholar, says something surprising:

Why would Irenaeus deem any of this [that Ebionites kept the Law] heretical? He probably (mis)took Paul (e.g., in Galatians 3:19-29) to mean that continued practice of the Law by Jewish believers was wrong.”

Skarsaune, surprisingly for a Lutheran scholar, recognizes at least that the Law is an acceptable way of life for a Jewish believer (he does not consider it an obligation, however). But for Irenaeus and Tertullian, the Law was not only done away with, it was sinful to keep it.

I know this sounds strange to Jewish ears, but we face this often in Messianic Judaism. Historic Christianity has often and still today often views the obedience of Jewish people to God’s commandments as sinful, a refusal to accept the “fact” that God has given a new law that supersedes the old one (sic). That is what Irenaeus and Tertullian believed. And Irenaeus had limited contact, it would seem, with actual Ebionites.

So I propose a theory, not too different from Skarsaune’s. Perhaps the Torah faithfulness of the Ebionites was what truly alarmed the church fathers. Perhaps adoptionist christology was not truly characteristic of them as a group (even Irenaeus attributes it to Cerinthus and only secondarily to the Ebionites). Perhaps Irenaeus consciously or unconsciously portrayed Ebionites in a worse light than he had solid evidence for.

Were the Ebionites heretics or were they faithful Messianic Jews? The evidence against them is not as good as it used to appear.

Ebionites, Humble Believers

Just who were the Ebionites, that pseudo-mythical sect of Jewish followers of Jesus from the early centuries of Christendom? Norwegian scholar Oskar Skarsaune brings together recent scholarship and sound reasoning to get at a more accurate picture of these Torah-practicing Jesus-believing Jews of infamy. Get Skarsaune’s book here.

We already discussed the fact that a hasty process of labeling led to typical confusion about the origin and identity of the Ebionites. Irenaeus, writing about 180 C.E., lumped all Jewish believers in with a group he encountered that denied the virgin birth, apparently regarding Jesus as man and not the God-man.

To make matters worse, in Irenaeus’s catalogue of heretical groups, each group had a founder whom they were named after. Thus entered into legend a non-existent person named Ebion who must have founded these Ebionites.

Oskar Skarsaune puts to rest any doubt that the Ebionites derived their name from a concept and not from a founder. So what is the origin of this name and what can it tell us about early Jewish believers in Jesus?

The word evyon (plural evyonim) is common in the Hebrew Bible. It denotes poverty or neediness.

Its first occurrence is in Exodus 23:6, “You shall not deny justice to the poor among you in his lawsuit.” A number of Torah regulations concern leaving food for the poor, the evyonim, the ebionites if you Hellenize the spelling.

God is called the “one who raises the evyon from the dust” (1 Sam. 2:8). God is a “stronghold for the evyon” (Isa. 25:4). In Messianic days “the evyon will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel” (Isa. 29:19).

Amos condemned those who thought they could “buy the needy with silver, the evyon with a pair of sandals” (Amos 8:4). The Psalmist calls himself “needy and evyon” in Psalm 70:5 (6 in Hebrew), and asks God therefore to hurry and deliver him. Throughout the Psalms God is the helper of the evyon.

The gospels of the life of Jesus and the letters of the apostles were written in Greek. So we don’t know for sure what Hebrew or Aramaic word they had in mind, but it is like the following verses from the New Testament follow the same theme:

Matthew 5:3, Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Luke 6:20, Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours.

Luke 4:13, On the contrary, when you host a banquet, invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, or blind.

Luke 16:20, But a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, was left at his gate.

Luke 21:2, “I tell you the truth,” He said. “This poor widow has put in more than all of them.”

2 Corinthians 6:10, …as grieving yet always rejoicing; as poor yet enriching many; as having nothing yet possessing everything.

James 2:5, Listen, my dear brothers: Didn’t God choose the poor in this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that He has promised to those who love Him?

Who can tell if the Ebionites called themselves the “needy ones,” or “the humble ones” or if their enemies mocked them with the name?

Jewish followers of Yeshua the Nazarene became friendless:
—They were at a certain point in history rejected by other Jews, who did not accept the Messiahship of this Yeshua.
—They were doubly distasteful to Romans, who regarded anyone that rejected the Roman gods as atheists and who mocked the Jews and made up libels about the Christians.
—They were misunderstood by their fellow Jesus-followers, who rejected the ongoing validity of the Torah and who had long before de-Judaized the faith that follows a Jewish Messiah.

Origen was no friend to the Jewish believers. He said of them:

“They are called poor because they hang on to the poverty of the law. Because among the Jews Ebion means poor and those of the Jews who accepted Jesus are named Ebionites.” (Celsus 2.1).

“The Ebionites are called by this very name ‘poor ones’ . . . The Ebionites are poor of understanding, so called after their poverty of understanding.” (Principles 4.3.8).

There is one place where another group from antiquity used the name Ebionites. In a Pesher (a kind of fanciful interpretation of a text that makes it refer to a present community) on Psalm 37, the Qumran community labeled itself the Congregation of Ebionites. Psalm 37 says the afflicted will inherit the land (vs. 11) and denounces the wicked who persecute the afflicted and the evyon.

Oskar Skarsaune concludes as follows about the name Ebionite:

The theory proposed here rests on the basic observation that in the Hebrew Bible ebionim is a positive, even honorific word, describing the chosen recipients of divine salvation, because they are an unjustly persecuted sub-group within the people.

The friendless Jewish believers, cast out of the synagogue, avoided by their fellow Jesus-believers, and doubly mocked by Romans, were the humble believers. They preserved at a great price faithfulness to God’s covenant with Israel and faithfulness to Messiah, revealed in the process of time to be none other than Yeshua of Nazareth.

Their courage to be who they were and not assimilate in any of the three directions that would have made life easier for them should say something to the modern Messianic Jewish movement. We should never abandon principles to befriend the synagogue, the church, or the world.

Ebionites, Jewish Believers, Typical Confusion

Church history is not my field and while I may have read more about it than the average person, I make no claim to be well-read in these areas. In fact, I can see that I need to do more reading in this field and get my acquaintance with theories up to speed.

In this article, I am simply musing on a chapter in Jewish Believers in Jesus by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. I am using the information as Skarsaune presents it in chapter 14, “The Ebionites,” and making my own sort of commentary on what he has to say. . .
………………………………………

Anyone who has studied church history in the period of the church fathers has likely heard of the Ebionites. I still remember the summary about Nazirites and Ebionites that I got at a Christian Bible college years ago. The Nazarites were mostly good guys and the Ebionites mostly bad guys.

What I present here is based on the theory of Oskar Skarsaune about the origin of the term Ebionite and the origin of the confusion about their identity and their relationship with other groups. I encourage the read to get the book which will fascinate anyone interested in the Jewish roots of faith in Jesus and how we got away from them (get the book here).

Irenaeus and other church fathers gave lists of heresies in their writings. The whole idea may have begun with Justin Martyr in a now lost work Syntagma Against Heresies. I have to admit that I have found lists of heretical movements somewhat useful over the years, since Apollonarianism, Arianism, and other isms continue to pop up over the centuries. So, I do not fault the idea of listing and defining heretical groups.

But labeling often leads to misunderstanding. I think we have all come to see this with the very tired labels of our time (liberal, conservative). The truth is always more complex than a label. And two very different ideas often find themselves under the same label.

The Ebionites are historical victims of a case of hasty labeling, Skarsaune argues. A simplified history of the case runs something like this:

—Irenaeus (c. 180 C.E.) was aware of Jewish believers in Jesus who continued to practice the Torah and Jewish traditions.

—Irenaeus met a group that believed Jesus was the natural son of Joseph.

—Irenaeus lumped the whole category of Jewish believers into this unbiblical view of Jesus.

—Later writers met Jewish believers who did not seem to fit Irenaeus’s description.

—Epiphanius (c. 350 C.E.) met some Jewish believers who did not seem to be heretics and gave them a different name, Nazarites or Nazoreans.

—Church historians proceeded with the naïve view that there were two types of Jewish believers in Jesus, Ebionites and Nazarites (of course, some church historians dug deeper and a plethora of theories has emerged).

Typical confusion. I mean, the same thing can happen in our day. I can’t count the number of times I have told someone, “Don’t assume that all Messianic Jews are like the ones you may find in your neighborhood.”

Irenaeus met a group of Jewish believers who said Joseph was Jesus’ natural father. Well, I’ve met my share of flakes as well. Flakiness is a universal human condition and we all have ideological dandruff in some areas. I’ve met Messianic Jews or Hebrew Roots teachers who claim that certain books do not belong in the Bible–even some who discount everything written by Paul! I run into less dangerous flaky stuff all the time: “Archaeologists found the wheels of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea! — The Bible teaches the healing properties of essential oils! — The church is an idolatrous beast earning God’s wrath for celebrating Christmas and Easter!” Okay, that last one is quite dangerous. It is also, sadly, widespread.

Skarsaune delves into the sources, discounts some of them using sound arguments, and seeks the kernel of truth under the typical confusion.

Who were the Ebionites? Were they followers of someone named Ebion? If not, where did their name come from? What did they believe? Are they different from the ones Epiphanius called Nazarites? Sounds like good stuff to talk about in part 2 . . .

Israel’s Story in the Bible

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of my book, called “Israel as the Vessel.”
……………………………
Get THE WORLD TO COME here.
To properly understand that Bible’s story, the canonical narrative, it is vital to realize something from the beginning. Creation was good, but not yet perfect.4

Sometimes people think God is restoring the world to the way it was before the Fall, before the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Actually, God had something better in mind from the beginning. Adam and Eve needed two things for sure: immortality and knowledge. So God planted two trees to provide them. He allowed them only to partake of immortality, but theologians have long suspected he had a plan to bring them knowledge in the course of time. God walked with Adam. He had some things to teach. There was more, but people were not yet ready.

Before this could happen, and none of this caught God by surprise, Adam and Eve brought the world further from consummation, not closer. The action of the first man and woman brought fundamental changes in Creation, changes rightly called the Fall.

After the Fall, the waywardness of humankind is obvious. Murder, lust, greed, and a desire for power and domination rule the earth. Even a flood only slows it down. Even scattering people and confusing their languages is only a stop-gap measure. God must have another plan.

Is God’s choice the one you or I would have made? Would we have had the wisdom to know that the best way to move into redemption and to consummate the world was to choose one man and create a human-proof plan?

God chose Abraham, a herdsman of some wealth and a pagan. If nothing else, the placement of the Abraham story should tell us that this is not an incidental, but a crucial step in God’s plan. God’s plan was to choose Israel as his vessel.

This may sound narrow, but here on earth, Israel is the vessel of God through which he is bringing redemption and consummation. Obviously, through Israel God already brought the scriptures and the Messiah. But God is not done. He is still using Israel as his vessel. Redemption is available through Israel’s Son, Yeshua, but redemption is not complete. God has more people and more of Creation yet to save. Further, God is not merely redeeming, but he is bringing all things to a world better than at Creation. The World to Come is greater than this world, and even greater than the world before the Fall.

How is God doing all this through Israel? Israel is his vessel. Israel is the priestly people, calling that is shared by Yeshua-followers but which is still not taken away from Israel. And Israel is at the center of all God’s covenants, his great and wise actions that bring redemption and consummation of all things.

God’s first formal covenant was with Noah, encompassing all of humankind. Yet there is nothing salvific in the covenant with Noah. It is with Abraham that redemption and consummation began to be worked out.

Through Abraham, God established a way of looking at humankind that remains to this day: Israel and the nations. In the covenant with Abraham, there are the descendants of Abraham, the blessed line, and all other peoples, blessed through Abraham’s line. God’s blessing comes through Abraham, through Israel, and through no other avenue.

God further advanced his covenant plan to redeem through the Sinai Covenant. The covenant given through Moses was about Israel being a priestly people, a people who showed God to the nations. You see this aspect of God’s plan not only in Exodus 19 but throughout the Psalms and prophets (do a concordance search on “the nations”).

Some people think the Sinai Covenant is over and done with. Israel failed and that covenant is nothing but a fossil. Yet, if you read the Sinai Covenant, you find that failure was built into the plan from the beginning.5

What few Christian readers know is that the next major covenant, the New Covenant, was also made with Israel. Just to be clear, Jeremiah says, “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”6 This is why the New Testament goes to great lengths dealing with Gentiles being “grafted in” and included in the promises through Yeshua.

Just in case anyone is unclear, and some in the early Roman church were unclear about this, Paul clarifies: God is still in covenant with Israel, yes, even non-believing Israel. Paul says, “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” and though “they are enemies of God for your sake” nonetheless “as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”7

Israel is God’s vessel, the lead actor in the canonical narrative. The canonical narrative is not finished. God has more to do. He has hinted at the future and we know what he has allowed us to glance at, but more of the story remains to be written. We should not be surprised that Israel is still the center of the story (don’t worry, the next chapter will be about the nations).
……………….
Notes
4 Jeremiah 31:3.
5 Hosea 11:8-9 (ESV).
6 Genesis 12:2.
7 Genesis 12:3 (ESV). There is some debate about whether the verb is passive (be blessed) or reflexive (bless themselves). Since Gen. 22:18 uses the reflexive (hitpa’el form), I presume that the ambiguous form in 12:3 (niphal) is passive.

Israel Uploads Video to YouTube: Truth About Kuntar

According to today’s Jerusalem Post, the following video was uploaded to YouTube by the Israeli government in response to the crowds in Lebanon cheering the release of mass-murderer Samir Kuntar yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS6NyrexKlk

Did CNN Make Improvements to this Story?

Maybe I am crazy, but when a thoughtful reader emailed to tell me I was wrong, I looked again at the CNN story about the Israeli-Hizbullah prisoner swap. The story now rightfully labels Samir Kuntar a murderer and not a militant. I notice the article says it was updated on July 17. I may be wrong, but perhaps CNN fixed their article. If so, kudos to them for getting it right in the end. If I am wrong and somehow missed it completely yesterday, then my apologies to CNN.

CNN’s Irresponsible Reporting: Goldwasser and Regev

I do not regularly read CNN.com and I don’t watch cable at all. So I make no claim to be a monitor or to know CNN’s record in reporting from long experience.

But I decided to check CNN’s reporting of the Goldwasser-Regev murders by Hizbullah while they were prisoners of war. The usual things I hear about CNN’s biased reporting seem to be true in this irresponsible article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/16/israel.swap/index.html

First, there is no mention that Goldwasser and Regev were murdered as prisoners of war. It is possible to deduce it from the article, since they say these Israelis were kidnapped (and thus not killed in action). Yet nowhere does the article mention, find a source to state outrage about, or clarify that Hizbullah murders its prisoners while Israel keeps them alive.

Second, the Hizbullah terrorists and even mass-murderer Samir Kuntar are called militants. If CNN had a commitment to integrity in reporting the news, they at the very least would not call Kuntar a militant. This man, in 1979, snuck into Israel, killed a policeman to avoid detection, and kidnapped a family. He shot Danny Haran in the back of the head while holding him hostage. He smashed four year old Einat Haran’s head on the rocks and killed her. Yael Haran was accidentally smothered by her own mother while hiding in terror and trying to keep the toddler quiet. Yet CNN calls this brave murderer of four year olds a militant. See more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

We’re not asking for much. We’re not asking for Israel to be given preference in reporting. We’re just asking that CNN would report the news.

See article above, “Did CNN Make Improvements to this Story?”

Arab-Muslim Brutality and the Murder of Regev and Goldwasser

Eldad Regev, killed while a prisoner of war.

The difference between Israel and her Muslim neighbors is starkly revealed yet again today in Israel. The Israeli government agreed to a foolish prisoner swap as they have done many times before, releasing mass murderer Samir Kuntar to the Hizbullah in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the war crimes of Hizbullah once again go unpunished.

Ehud Goldwasser, killed while a prisoner of war.

To understand this story, you have to know that the war with Lebanon was provoked by the abduction of Israeli soldiers, including Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, in July 2006. These soldiers were captured alive. International law dictates that prisoners of war should be kept alive and treated with basic human rights.

As of today, the families of Goldwasser and Regev were hoping to get their sons back, but certainly pessimistic about them being alive. Sure enough, when the time for the prisoner swap happened, the democratic state of Israel, which is constantly under fire for being too violent, returned the murderer Samir Kuntar alive. But Hizbullah returned two coffins with the mutilated bodies of their prisoners of war. The Goldwasser and Regev families are confirmed in their bereavement today.

And the Israeli government agreed to this prisoner swap, demonstrating a remarkable lack of will and common sense.

The liberal myth of potential peace with Islam takes yet another blow. Yet, as has been the case before, the truth will likely have no impact on world opinion. The world will still be talking about the aggression of Israel.

But a live murderer and two dead prisoners of war should tell us the real story.

Amy-Jill Levine Speaks Up for Messianic Jews

This article appeared in the July 14 web page for The Australian Jewish News (ajn.com.au), see article in original setting here. Many thanks to a reader, Glenn, who pointed me to the article.

Amy-Jill Levine is a professor at Vanderbilt. She is Jewish, liberal, academic, and an interesting person. I did a series of posts about her recent book, The Misunderstood Jew (get it here). Read the posts about Amy-Jill Levine here.

I appreciate a Jewish scholar of religion speaking up for Messianic Jews and Jewish Christians. Her comments will only appeal to liberal Jews, but that is a great start. She is not, of course, agreeing with Messianic Judaism by her comments, but confessing that Messianic Jews are not necessarily crackpots. Considering how many crackpots have given Jewish faith in Jesus a bad name over the years, this is a great start.

Here is the article by Peter Kohn writing for The Australian Jewish News, July 14…
……………………………………..
Scholar predicts softer line on messianic Jews
PETER KOHN

AN American Christian divinity scholar who is participating in an Australian Jewish study program has said the Jewish community may need to come to terms with Jews who believe in Jesus.

Professor Amy-Jill Levine trains Christian pastors at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and describes herself as “a Yankee-Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Protestant divinity school in the buckle of the Bible belt”.

Prof Levine and her partner Professor Jay Geller are lecturing at Monash University’s Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation Winter School program this month.

On the subject of messianic Jews, Prof Levine said that for many people there was a “dividing line here over which one cannot step” and “once the Jewish person accepts Jesus as lord and saviour, that person is no longer a Jew, but a Christian”.

Prof Levine said she respected that view but also looked at the subject from “the other side”.

Prof Levine said it was an “exceptionally complicated issue” because Jews who say they accept Jesus have “palpable and real” views.

“It’s often easier,” she said, “to simply say ‘I’m not a Jew for Jesus, I’m a Presbyterian or Lutheran or Catholic’, but what happens when they want to hang on to that Jewish identity, and what do we do with that individual’s family?

“One could look at them simply as a Christian, one could look at them from a traditional Jewish perspective as a ‘bad’ Jew or an apostate Jew, or a very confused Jew.

“On the other hand, if the argument is that they have a different way to the divine, a different pathway to God, then I can say the atheist Jew doesn’t care about God at all. Why would I accept one and not the other?”

Prof Levine said she was concerned at the impact on Jewish families. “Sometimes children of these marriages will say to their grandparents, ‘Gee, bubby and zaide, it’s too bad you’re going to hell’.”

Reflections on the World to Come

People who know me and hear my schtick on a regular basis probably tire of hearing them, but there are several rabbinic sayings about the World to Come that I repeat often because I find them foundational:

This world is like a vestibule to the World to Come; prepare yourself in the vestibule to enter the hall. (Pirkei Avot).

Better is one hour of blissfulness in the World to Come than the whole life of this world. (Pirkei Avot).

Not like this world will be the World to Come. I this world one has 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 their 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. (Babylonian Talmud).

The following is a reflection on this inspiring, transforming topic . . .
…………………………………………

Get the book at Lederer’s site (here) or on amazon (here).

The World to Come has been on my mind for some time now. I spent several months working on my book. Now I am speaking about the World to Come in a variety of venues, in different ways and to audiences with different outlooks on the topic. Not long ago I was in a church in Arkansas where most of the people are senior citizens. I made the mistake of going for the sensational and being less than clear. I said, “If you think that following Jesus means you will go to heaven forever, you did not get that idea from the Bible.”

I went on to explain that heaven is our dwelling only in between death and the time of resurrection. But this crowd of dear people, nearly all of whom had lost loved ones, was too startled to hear my explanation. They only heard that our departed are not in heaven. I think they thought I meant the dead sleep until the time of resurrection. When the pastor explained this to me over lunch the next day, I was embarrassed and had to make a clarifying statement on that second night (good thing I was speaking for four nights in a row!).

I’ve taught about the World to Come in my small Messianic synagogue, among friends who know me well and hear me repeat myself sometimes. I’m preaching about the World to Come at a larger church where a pastor friend has just resigned.

In these different audiences with different issues and concerns and backgrounds, I am getting feedback and seeing just how the topic of life after death affects people.

I would say that I could distill the important lessons about the World to Come into a short list. The following is my attempt to do so.

First, I have learned that Bible readers have a variety of different blinders on. The most common blinder, and it especially affects this topic, is an inability to integrate the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament. The Christians I meet and talk with tend to know New Testament verse about the afterlife, but know little or nothing about the words of the prophets about the coming age of natural, agricultural paradise. There are a number of stunning surprises in store for these good people, not least of which is the prominence of wine in the World to Come. I confess to a depraved sense of joy in using the word wine as much as I can without seeming obvious when I teach in Baptist churches. And I think these good people are also unaware of the Jewish quality of the Bible’s descriptions of the life to come: Temple, statutes, ordinances, Torah, sacrifices, appointed festivals, and so on.

Second, I have learned that people fall into the trap of separating the physical and the spiritual. Even those who know in their head that the Biblical hope is resurrected bodies on a New Earth gravitate toward non-material images of the coming world. The color white dominates rather than the greens and browns of God’s good earth. It is as if we do not believe the God who said this was all good. That false dichotomy of spiritual and physical figures into much of Christian worship, as well (except in churches that have preserved a rich liturgical tradition). I can’t tell you how many times I have heard John 4 interpreted as a call to worship without physical observances (yikes). Few people really grasp, to alter the poetic phrase of William Blake, the marriage of heaven and earth.

Third, I have seen people’s light turn on when they realize that much that is in this world will also be in the World to Come. The World to Come is not some other planet or other dimension. It is this world transformed in a manner analogous to the transformation our bodies will undergo. The big realization we should get from this is that what we do here on this earth matters. In more ways than we can know or count, good done in this age will make a difference in the World to Come. God does not call for us to sit back and wait for him to redeem and perfect this world. Over and over again he calls us to repair the world with him, starting now. God’s kind of religion is described in several places:

Isaiah 58:6, “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?”
James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
Matthew 25:34-35, “Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink.”

Finally, I see that people need to know the endless source of inspiration we have available to us when we realize that this world will become the World to Come. That is why we are drawn to nature. That is why we hear the whisper of music in our soul. That is why the relative perfection of a young child awakens in us a kind of love we are helpless to resist. Heaven is calling to us from every perfect tree we admire to every stirring chord progression we surrender to. If we want to experience a foretaste of the World to Come, we only need to take a walk in a beautiful place or read about Middle Earth or Narnia or hold a young child in our arms.

It is as Paul said, “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair,” (2 Cor. 4:8) and yet, “we do not lose heart.” Why? Because: “Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:16-18).

Peter: Anti-Torah?

The idea has been mentioned by a Christian commenting to a recent post that Peter, in Acts 15:10-11 was affirming that Jewish obligation to the Torah of Moses had come to an end. The following is an attempt to test that hypothesis . . .
……………………………………………

The apostles hold an emergency session. How can the Yeshua-movement proceed? Non-Jews are responding to the call of Yeshua to the kingdom of God. Uncircumcised Romans and Greeks are in the congregations and following a Jewish Messiah. Shouldn’t these Gentiles convert (get circumcised and obey the Torah of Moses) in order to be followers of a Jewish Messiah? The idea seemed logical in Acts 15 and it was worthy of a meeting and of prayer.

Peter stands up to speak. God has dealt with him regarding non-Jews already (Acts 10-11). He defends the legitimacy of the uncircumcised followers of Yeshua. Then he says:

Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Yeshua, just as they will. (Acts 15:10-11).

What does Peter mean? Perhaps he meant something like the following:
1. We Jews are not so good at keeping Torah.
2. God, in Yeshua, came to show us that Torah is not the way, but grace is.
3. We Jews should abandon Torah, since grace is what really matters, and we should teach the Gentiles the same.

Anything like this above hypothesis faces some damning problems:
1. James and Paul were in agreement in Acts 21 that Torah and Jewish tradition were vital (Acts 21:21, 24).
2. The issue Peter was speaking to did not concern whether Jews should obey Torah, but whether Gentiles should.
3. The anti-Torah reading of Peter’s words goes beyond what is actually said.
4. No one in 2nd Temple Judaism was a Pelagian (thinking they were saved by their good works–this point has been thoroughly established and is the scholarly consensus).

Thus, I would suggest another reading of Peter’s statement, which keeps the focus on the question at hand, requirements for Gentiles:
1. We Jews have had difficulty keeping the boundary markers of Torah (Sabbath, dietary law, circumcision).
2. How could we get Romans to adopt a lifestyle that even Jews turn away from?
3. How could we win the world to Messiah if we must first get Gentiles to keep the boundary markers of Jewishness?
4. The boundary markers of Israel are not the main point, but the redeeming death of Yeshua.
5. So let’s not burden the Gentiles with a Jewish calling, but assume that following Messiah is sufficient for them.

Christian Missions to the Jews and Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism

So far I have not drawn any comments about PMJ from the Messianic Jews out there who read this blog. I listed twelve implications of Mark Kinzer’s book Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism and, thus far, only Christians who reject the obligation of Jewish believers to Torah have responded. I hope the conversation can include more diverse views at some point.

In light of the interaction so far, I want to comment on and excerpt a piece of Kinzer’s paper, “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later.”
…………………………………………………………..

I have for a long time had a question for the various Christian missions to the Jewish people, including Jews for Jesus and Chosen People Ministries and dozens of others. This question is not new and anyone who does this work has engaged it many times, I am sure.

The question: How important to God is continuing Jewish identity and how does your model of outreach handle identity?

Let me couch the question in Biblical terms. When God made a covenant with Abraham and declared that a people would come from him and bless the whole world, did God intend that a Messiah would come and bring an end to this covenant? Circumcision was to be the sign of identifying with these children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

How does the identity of being one of the descendants of Jacob get passed down?

The Jewish answer for quite a long time has been simple: Jews marry Jews and raise their children as Jews.

Is the answer of the Christian missions movement that this is no longer important? Does faith in the Jewish Messiah bring an end to the Jewish people? Should Jewish people assimilate into the larger Christian community and disappear?

I will excerpt a piece from Dr. Kinzer’s paper, add a few clarifying comments for those who might not understand his jargon, and leave the question out there for you:

Within the community of Christian missions to the Jews, I would hope for a willingness to pursue ecclesiological questions, and to see them as important in their own right and not only as subordinate matters related to missiology and soteriology. As should be clear from PMJ, I see Jewish communal identity as an ecclesial reality that is fundamental to the life and mission of the Christian Church. Some of the responses to PMJ from those in the missionary community have acknowledged the importance of these questions, and have summoned their colleagues to address them. To my knowledge this has not yet occurred, but the conversation has just begun.

In particular, I am eager to hear discussion among the missionaries concerning the importance of sustaining cross-generational Jewish life for their converts. Is it important that the grandchildren of Jewish believers in Yeshua also identify and live as Jews? If so, have traditional missionary methodsand models facilitated this goal, or hindered it? If bilateral ecclesiology in solidarity with Israel is not an option, how can this goal be achieved? Engagement with such issues will require that missionaries set aside atomistic approaches to ecclesiology, missiology, and soteriology, and think in more communal terms. In the process, they may discover neglected truths in a Bible that took shape in a world unfamiliar with modern Western individualism.

Clarifying a few terms:
1. Ecclesiological questions — Ecclesiology means our theology of congregation. What is a community of faith? How is it structured? What is its purpose? The ecclesiological questions most pertinent to Christian missions to the Jewish people are things like, “Should Jewish believers in Jesus be assimilated into churches?”

2. Missiology and soteriology — Missiology means the method of mission or outreach. Soteriology means theology of salvation.

3. Jewish Communal Identity — What does it mean to be a Jew? How does Jewish identity continue from generation to generation?

4. Bilateral ecclesiology — Kinzer’s own term for the idea that Jewish believers should form distinct communities rather than assimilate culturally into Christian communities. Bilateral means that Christian and Messianic Jewish communities are two wings of the same Jesus-movement, distinct, yet related by faith and a commitment to brotherhood.

5. atomistic approaches — Approaches to the kinds of questions raised here that are individualistic instead of creating community-wide solutions. An atomistic approach is sort of a “do what is right in your own eyes” solution instead of finding standards for the whole community to follow.

So, how about it? How will Jewish life continue among those Jews who believe in Jesus? Is God abolishing Jewish identity in Messiah? If not, how will the methods of Christian missions take seriously a need for continuing Jewish identity?