Sabbath Meditation: Abraham’s Election by God

Michael Wyschogrod, a modern Orthodox scholar, wrote the following in 1961 for a conference in which various thinkers were asked to write a Jewish affirmation. This excerpt from Wyschogrod’s affirmation is a fitting meditation for this week as the Torah portion is Lech Lecha (Genesis 12-17):

Judaism means to me the election of the seed of Abraham as the nation of God, the imposition upon this people of a series of commandments which express God’s will for the conduct of his people and the endless struggle by this people against this election, with the most disastrous consequences to itself as well as the rest of mankind. In spite of all this, the Divine election remains unaffected because it is an unconditional one, but subject to revocation. Lest all this sound inexcusably arrogant, I can only say that indeed it would be, were it the self-election of a people. As it is, it is a sign of God’s absolute sovereignty which is not bound by human conceptions of fairness. Israel’s election has meant that this people must observe a code of conduct far more difficult than that of any other people and that, when it does not live up to its election, it is visited by punishments so terrible that no human justice could ever warrant them.

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Kingdom of Heaven, Pt 2

We’re in the second part of a series considering what Yeshua’s hearers would have thought when they heard about the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven.

The relationship of first century Jewish men and women to the scriptures was a bit different from the way people, even religious people, in our time think of the Torah or the Bible. Theirs was an oral culture. Many people did not read. Even though Roman prosperity and Jewish concern for holy writings may have increased literacy, still for most people reading and writing was not a regular practice.

But the words of scripture were heard and discussed. And images and ideas floated around. They took on various shapes and were powerful stimulants for the imagination.

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

Finding Early Israel, Pt 2

In the November/December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (a magazine I encourage you to subscribe to and read), Avraham Faust writes about evidence in the archaeological record for early Israel.

What is the big deal, some of you might ask, I thought the Bible showed us the origin of Israel and that is all we need.

I would say that finding history in stones and clay pots is important alongside the Bible for a number of reasons. Two in particular are helping people believe that the Biblical story is true and helping those who already believe in the Biblical story to understand in more depth what life was like and how the history unfolded. The Bible is a very incomplete account and the stones do help us flesh out the picture.

In recent years the world has been bombarded in mass media with skepticism. I wonder how many people are unwilling to seriously consider the Bible because of people like Israel Finkelstein or, worse, minimalists like Lemche, Davies, Thompson, and Whitelam, whose ideas make for good controversy on television documentaries about Israelite history.

Many people whose research will include only watching a special on the History Channel think that archaeology proves the Biblical story to be a legend with very little truth behind it.

A Pharaoh Writes About Israel
Avraham Faust, associate professor at Bar-Ilan University and author of Israel’s Ethnogenesis (see it here on amazon), applies a slightly different methodology than other researchers such as Finkelstein. Faust works backwards from cultural artifacts found in later layers in Israel that are widely recognized as Israelite. He looks at cultural differences that would help differentiate Israelite settlements from Canaanite and Philistine areas. Working backwards from the known, he searches out evidence in earlier layers to see if Israel was there too.

But at the beginning of his article, he starts with one strong early evidence for Israel: the Merneptah stele.

Pharaoh Shoshenq in about 1210 B.C.E. commissioned a stone record in hieroglyphics of his achievements. One of his bragging points was defeating in battle a people he calls Israel. Faust notes, as have others, that the Merneptah stele includes a marker identifying Israel as a people as opposed to a town or place.

We should expect that any theory of locating early Israelites in archaeological digs should explain how Israel could be mentioned so early in Egyptian records. We will come back to the stele as we follow Faust in his working backwards through history.

Working Backwards from the Known to the Unknown
Faust’s starting point is Iron Age II (1000 – 586 B.C.E.). Most archaeologists grant that material remains from this period have been rightly identified as Israelite. The few who don’t admit this are so politically motivated against finding any evidence of early Israel, their views can be discounted fairly easily.

Here is what Faust is looking for: material clues that identify Israel as living with different cultural norms than surrounding peoples such as Canaanites and Philistines. Using these cultural markers, Faust hopes to be able to work back through earlier layers (Iron Age I and then Late Bronze) to find evidence for Israel.

Philistines, Decorated Pottery, Circumcision, and Pork
In Iron Age II layers, it is easy to observe that some settlements used plain pottery and some used decorated pottery. Some settlements evidence extensive use of pork in the food supply and others the absence of pork. In late Iron Age I, pork made up as much as 20% of the Philistine diet. This trend decreases in Iron Age II, but differentiation is still possible. Similarly decorated pottery (see photo with this post) fades out in Iron Age II.

Faust sees a cultural trend. Israelites sought to differentiate themselves from the Philistines. Avoiding pork became quite important as a cultural marker. And the use of simple, undecorated pottery also was an Israelite distinctive.

Right around the transition from Iron Age I to II the small highland settlements which might be tentatively called Israelite started disappearing as settlements consolidated into towns. The evidence points to trouble between the Philistines and these other settlements (a picture we see in the Bible in the time of Saul and David, which is exactly at this juncture of history).

Faust’s first conclusion then is that around 1000 B.C.E., Israelite culture became distinctively un-Philistine-like. This is pretty good evidence for Israel in late Iron Age I. But Faust continues to work backwards. Can we find Israel earlier?

The Four-Room House in Iron Age I
A distinctive of Israelite settlements in Iron Age II is the four-room house (see picture at right). This style of house was suited to a culture still farming and husbanding animals.

These four-room houses are also found in the highland settlements of Iron Age I. The four-room house appears to be a cultural distinctive of Israelites and is useful for marking a settlement as truly Israelite.

But can we go back to earlier layers and still distinguish Israel?

Decorated Pottery, Burial Customs, and the Late Bronze Age
Moving back into Late Bronze (1550 – 1200 B.C.E.), Faust notes that Canaanite towns contain a fair amount of decorated pottery, imported from the Aegean and Cyprus. Yet the highland settlements thought to be Israelite used plain pottery and have virtually no decorated or imported pottery.

Also, Israelite burial customs (much more simple than Canaanite customs) indicate a difference in the material remains.

The likely reason for small highland settlements of Israelites in Late Bronze is that the Canaanite city-states, with Egyptian military support, kept the Israelites from dominating the land. Their small settlements in the hills reflect a people marginalized. Yet by the end of Late Bronze, these Israelites were no longer marginalized and Canaanite culture disappears.

Again, this agrees with the Biblical story, as by the time of Saul and David, Israel’s hold on the land was nearly complete. Israel’s rival was no longer the Canaanites by Iron Age times, but the Philistines.

Conclusion and the Merneptah Stele
When and how did Israel come into the land? We should be surprised if archaeological remains alone could answer these questions.

Israel shows up in the 1200’s in highland settlements. Depending on how you date the Exodus story (1440 or 1290 B.C.E.) and the initial conquest of the land by Israel (1400 or 1250 B.C.E.) you might expect to find Israelite settlements appearing exactly when they do. Archaeology provides some evidence that the later date of the Exodus is most accurate.

And the more certain date of the Merneptah Stele (1210 B.C.E.) confirms what cultural clues in the material remains suggest. Israel was in the land in the 1200’s B.C.E.

Contrary to the claims made in some books and on television documentaries, the case for early Israel is pretty good. And we have some idea what early Israelites were like. They kept a simple, agrarian life in their four-room houses (the outer room could hold animals) and they preferred simple pottery. They seem not to have been infected with signs of power and wealth but to have a relatively egalitarian society. They did not conquer the land all at once, but slowly, which careful readers of Joshua and Judges will find to match the Biblical story perfectly.

Non-Jewish Messianic Judaism?

Today I really wanted my blog to be about finding early Israel (see the post below this, which is really the focus for today).

But I saw something on iTunes and had to bring it up. I was looking over other podcasts in Judaism in iTunes and found one by a “Messianic Jewish Senior Pastor.” My first thought is, “Jewish pastor?” Hmm, seems we are encountering non-Jewish Messianic Judaism here.

Then one of the reviews reads as follows: “Baruch Hashem! Finally a podcast that actually discusses the written Torah rather than the oral traditions of men!” And the name of the guy who wrote the comment? Zeke ben Michael. I don’t make this stuff up, I promise.

So, people have said to me many times, “Derek, where is the evidence that non-Jews in Messianic Jewish groups sometimes cause problems? It all seems peaceful to me.”

I am sharing this one example because I see similar ones routinely. Here is a non-Jew who gives himself a Jewish name and denounces Judaism as a false religion. Anyone should be able to say. “Something is wrong with this picture and these people are seriously confused.”

So, comments?

Finding Early Israel, Part 1

A nomadic people settle in a great empire and become a slave class for centuries until a deliverer leads them out through a wilderness and a generation later into a land they can conquer and call their own.

This is the Biblical story. Not much of it is evident from archaeology. How do you trace the movement of a small people and find their leavings in history?

You might object to my saying Israel was a small people. After all, the famous numbers in Exodus suggest a people two million strong (six hundred thousand men of fighting age). Yet many other texts suggest they were a small people, afraid of Egyptians and Canaanite towns.

I don’t have room here to do the notion justice, but it is widely thought that the numbers in Exodus must be a scribal mistake. The word for thousand also can mean clan or military troop. Perhaps the original text indicated Israel had six hundred squads of fighting men, about three thousand such men. If Israel had six hundred thousand men, they’d have no reason to fear villages of Canaanites which measured only a dozen acres themselves. They would have outnumbered any Canaanite village at least a hundred to one in fighting men. With three thousand fighting men, Israel as a people of ten thousand would fit the descriptions in Exodus and Numbers quite well.

No Easy Journey
Did this group ten thousand strong enter Canaan, a network of city-states ruled by Egypt, and simply topple one town after another until all the land was Israel’s?

We should disabuse ourselves of such romantic notions and not least because the Biblical story shows us otherwise.

There are texts which, if read incautiously, could support the shock-and-awe theory of Israel’s conquest and settling the land. Consider Joshua 21:43, “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there.”

Yet there are also numerous texts, which I will demonstrate with two examples, indicating that the conquest was gradual and very incomplete at first:

Yet the sons of Manasseh could not take possession of those cities; but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land (Joshua 17:12).

And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron (Judges 1:19).

So the conquest of Canaan by Israel is shown in the Bible in two ways:

(1) God promised the land to them and that the days of the Canaanites were coming to an end. Joshua shows that God brought this small people into the land and gave them miraculous victories establishing themselves in the land. Many texts indicate that they conquered and settled giving glory to God.

(2) In a few places in Joshua and more so in Judges we see that the conquest was very partial, mostly a matter of conquering some highlands and failing to conquer the more settled areas and the city-states. Some initial victories were seen to be temporary. The Canaanites (some with Egyptian help) rallied and kept Israel at bay. Some of these failures were due to the shortness of time as the conquest would be a long task and some were due to incomplete obedience. The people wavered when their strong leadership was gone.

As in numerous other cases, in the cultural world of the Bible, seemingly contradictory ideas are both affirmed. God faithfully gave Israel the land and at the same time, Israel’s struggle was only beginning since they took a tenuous hold on a land that would require generations to conquer.

Looking for Signs of Israel
Every now and then someone comes to me with news, “They’ve found Pharaoh’s chariot wheels in the Red Sea!”

You can find sensationalistic claims like that not only in National Enquirer, but also on the internet.

To some people, the idea that Israel might not have left large tracks, easy to find, in the Sinai or in the Arabian desert, is hard to swallow. If Israel in the wilderness was 2 million people strong dwelling there for forty years, then we might find some major evidence of their passing through.

But with a more realistic view of Israel, mentioned above and backed by mountains of evidence of populations of towns at the time, you can see how a group of ten thousand, maybe twenty at most, might not leave such a visible trace, especially if they lived in tents.

So, how can we find signs on Israel’s beginning? How can we complement the Biblical record with archaeology? We have learned many things about Israel from later periods through archaeology. What about early Israel, before the kings of Israel?

In some books (Israel Finkelstein’s books are classic examples) you will read that evidence for early Israel is not only missing but that the Biblical story is certainly a myth. David was at best a village chieftain or bandit lord with a few dozen men. Solomon ruled an anthill sized kingdom and his wealth and power are legend.

But Avraham Faust has recently published a new and interesting perspective. So far I have only read his article in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. But his 2007 book is going on my amazon wish list today, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion, and Resistance (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology) (Equinox Publishing, 2007). See it here.

The book won the 2009 Biblical Archaeology Society award for Best Scholarly Book on Archaeology.

Next time: a summary of Faust’s article and his intriguing approach to finding early Israel.

Progress and Protest at the Western Wall

Until the recession hit, I was on a routine of leading a tour every December to Israel. I was last there December 2008 and it was my seventh trip. One of the benefits of going every year is seeing the changes and the new discoveries, especially in Jerusalem. And they have been coming fast this decade. In 2004 we saw the Pool of Siloam newly discovered (not the one they showed tourists for years). I think it was 2006 when Eilat Mazar declared that the newly uncovered structures in the City of David included David’s own palace. The pace of discovery has been quickening. Make of that fact what you will.

Two of the new developments in Jerusalem have been of particular interest to our group. The first is the Rabbinical Tunnel which leads along the Western Wall of the Temple Mount down on the level from Herod’s time, which means walking in a tunnel under the current city level. These tunnels have been open at least since 2004 when I started taking groups through them. You do not go under the Temple Mount, but under the city along the edge of the Western Wall. There is a spot which is considered the closest to the Holy of Holies. Orthodox Jewish women are praying there constantly. It is a better prayer location than the famous Western Wall plaza one always sees in pictures.

The other new development is much newer. In the last few years, they built a pedestrian bridge just to the right of the Western Wall plaza. To the right of the bridge, they have been excavating carefully and unearthing First and Second Temple artifacts along with items from later periods. Every time I have walked up that bridge I have looked over the side and wondered what treasures have been discovered. I would have enjoyed a career in archaeology.

Now, if the few sources I have seen are correct, there is a new and much larger development. Israel is building and archaeological park under the Western Wall plaza. The photo attached is from Arutz Sheva and they do not list a source.

The drawing cannot be perfectly accurate. I am wondering if the park will be completely underground and if the cutaway view here is intended to illustrate the layers and not as a literal view of the park. For one thing, this drawing eliminates the womens’ section of the plaza.

The lower level shown in the diagram will place worshippers at the level of the ancient city and apparently will be open to worshippers just as the current plaza on top has been since Israel took Jerusalem back in 1967. You can read a little about the park here at Arutz Sheva.

At the same time this new area at the Western Wall is being announced, work has just been completed in the Rabbinical Tunnels opening a new area called the Hall of Ages. While excavating this area, archaeologists found more artifacts from First and Second Temple eras. The newly opened section is so named because in it one can see building work from different eras in the Temple Mount’s history, including arches from different periods (I’m guessing Herodian, Byzantine, Crusader, and maybe some more recent Turkish work as well).

Ever Present Politics and Muslim Protests
In early October, some Muslim clerics issued statements to the press saying that Israel’s digging projects are destabilizing the Temple Mount and that this is being done on purpose so that an earthquake will destroy the Al Aqsa mosque. You can read more about the trouble at the Temple in October 2009 here and here.

The rioting and fear-mongering from the Muslim side amaze me (and not in a good way). It is a travesty that Israel has allowed the Temple Mount to become nothing but a Muslim worship center to begin with. The appeasement of Muslim interests on the Jerusalem Temple Mount is a scandal for the ages.

When Jordan controlled Jerusalem from 1948 until 1967, Jews were not allowed to come even to the Western Wall (which is beside the Temple Mount, not on it). In other words, under Muslim control there was no concern for sharing worship rights at the site.

Since the fateful decision (was it Moshe Dayan who was instrumental in deciding this?) to cede the Temple Mount to a Muslim authority after Israel recaptured the city in 1967, the Temple Mount has been run with no concern for Christian or Jewish access. Praying, bringing a Bible, or wearing a symbol of Christian or Jewish devotion is against the law on the Temple Mount.

And to make matters worse, Muslim excavation this decade has threatened the stability of the Temple Mount and has forever ruined the opportunity of archaeologists to study the dirt of the Temple Mount.

In 2004 and 2005 I remember the scaffolding on the south wall of the Temple Mount. It was there because the wall was bulging. Why was it bulging? Because irresponsible Muslim excavation was causing it to collapse while a new mosque was being built on the Mount. The Muslim authority not only handled the construction badly, but in no way coordinated with Israeli authorities. They simply dug as they wished and nearly brought their own holy site down in an avalanche of ancient stones.

And now some Muslim clerics are inciting trouble yet again. They claim Israel is digging under the Mount. It’s all an alleged conspiracy to cause the Mount to collapse. Oy!

Jerusalem in Bondage
The injustice to religious groups in Jerusalem should be apparent to the world. The case is very simple and straightforward.

Jerusalem is the Jewish city, the capitol from ancient times of everything Jewish.

And Jerusalem is the holiest place in the world for Christians.

And six and a half centuries later than Jesus died and rose in this city, the Muslims decided to make it a shrine for Islam.

If Islam has the smallest and latest claim to Jerusalem, why are all the worship rights and all the diplomatic concern amongst world governments on the side of Islam as the controllers of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount?

The answer is simple: violence.

Christian denominations will not throw molotovs or rocks at police to make the Temple Mount a Christian place of worship.

Orthodox Jews, known at times to resort to violence, will not start riots to retake the Temple Mount for Judaism.

So Israel and the world allow the party of violence to rule. Plain and simple.

What will happen to restore Jerusalem and begin the process of its future glory? How will events take shape? I do not know. But I do believe the foretelling of Jesus and of Israel’s prophets. Jerusalem will be a Temple again to the God of Israel. And Jesus will not return until the city calls on him, saying, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (see Matthew 23:37-39).

The New Testament, Jews, and Torah

I got a question by email recently from a Jewish Christian who does not keep Torah and who has thus far believed that the New Testament and Christian theology indicate that when a Jew follows Christ, the Torah is no longer an obligation. I believe the inquirer is open and wants to hear other perspectives and revisit this issue.

There are Christians who need to revisit this issue in terms of their understanding of their Jewish friends whom they want to have the same faith they do. I hope more people will be haunted by the issue Mark Kinzer raised in Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: why should Christians ask Jews to say no to God in order to say yes to Jesus?

There are mainstream Jews who need to revisit this issue. Is it possible for a Jew to be Torah-faithful and follow Yeshua? Michael Wyschogrod certainly has said so in his books. He indicates that a Torah-faithful Jewish-Christianity (Messianic Judaism) is a reasonable position.

There are, sadly, people in Messianic synagogues where the leaders teach that Torah is an outmoded covenant. And they really need to revisit this issue.

I am including the bulk of my response to this inquirer below followed by some discussion questions. Let’s discuss it over the weekend.

Revisiting the New Testament About Jews and Torah
The first and most important thing about this: if you assume that Paul’s writing is intended to address the entire subject and is a sort of divine correction on what had been said earlier in the Bible, you will come out with a Law-Free position for Jews and non-Jews. But if you notice two things, you will question the orthodoxy of the Law-Free position:

(1) Paul was not Law-Free himself (Acts 21).

(2) Paul was the apostle to non-Jews and his epistles are to non-Jews. The underlying issue in many of them is the insistence by some that non-Jews must convert in order to follow the Jewish Messiah. Paul’s rhetoric is about God accepting non-Jews as they are without conversion. Pauline scholarship in general is now almost universally agreed on this. The old idea that Paul was opposing a works-salvation like Pelagius or like the church selling indulgences in Luther’s time is a misreading of Paul. Judaism was not like medieval Catholicism.

Further points:

(3) Acts 15 assumes that Jews do keep Torah in Yeshua and only debates non-Jews. It is hard to miss this one.

(4) Theologically, what are we saying about God if in one era he gives commandments and in the next era he says, “I gave something unfit for the highest expression of righteousness and now I rescind it”?

(5) The Torah claims to be a permanent covenant with Israel. What do we do about biblical authority if we say, “It doesn’t mean what it says”?

(6) Yeshua’s words in Matt 5:17-19 should not be explained away, as they have been in Christian commentary for millennia.

(7) The Law-Free statements in Paul are about a distortion of the gospel that Gentiles need conversion plus Yeshua, which is not true.

(8) There are thousands of other misunderstandings that have built up over the years. It takes time to reread the Bible is a unity and not as a discontinuity (“the NT overturns the OT”). For example, few note that the New Covenant (Jer 31:31ff) contains within it the commandments of the old (seen not only in Jer 31 but also in Ezek 36).

(9) Statements about the Age to Come in the prophets frequently contain reference to Israel and the nations keeping Torah.

Discussion Questions

If you believe in the ongoing necessity and beauty of Torah, think outside the box. What are the most compelling reasons people think the New Testament teaches otherwise?

If you do not believe in the ongoing necessity and beauty of Torah (for Jews), think outside the box. What are the most compelling reasons people think the New Testament teaches otherwise?

Which New Testament ideas, if you were honest, trouble you the most with regard to Torah?

Which of my arguments above appears strongest/weakest to you?

REMEMBER: The purpose of dialogue is not to win an argument or demonstrate your cleverness, but to learn and to share what may help others learn. Let’s discuss this with mutual respect.

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Kingdom of Heaven, Pt 1

Yeshua had a central message. It was the first thing he ever taught. It was always in the background of everything else he taught. It is the key to understanding Yeshua and it is not a secret. It is well-known though often misunderstood.

Yeshua’s message was about God’s kingdom, which was about to advance another step in the progress of God’s plan to heal the world.

We read in both Matthew and Mark that the kingdom was the first thing Yeshua spoke about publicly. When Yeshua started traveling and speaking to crowds, his first message is recorded in Matthew 4:17 this way: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mark records a similar summary of Yeshua’s early message in Mark 1:14, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

Noah in Context: Meaning and Purpose

What if the ruler(s) of the heavens were capricious, vindictive, and immature? At times, life is harsh and it’s not hard to think the whole thing is run on the whims of an angry god.

What if the benefits and victories of life, too few and far between, are random acts of benevolence by limited deities with no universal scope or consistent justice? The race is not to the swift, after all, and good things happen often to those who do not deserve them.

What if the deities are as scared as we are, overpowered by forces beyond even divine control?

What if God were to enact genocidal destruction at every great failure of society?

These issues, and more, form the difference between the Mesoptamian flood myths and the Noah story. Though the stories are similar in many details (a vessel which saves one man and his relations, animals brought on board, the vessel resting on a mountain as the flood recedes, sending out birds to check for land, a sacrifice following the flood), the world of meaning could not be more different.

Mesopotamian religion, like many others, is based on the experiential difficulties of life. The goal is to prevent tragedy and maximize blessing through worship, appeasement, and he occasional use of professionals whose incantations can be a last-resort measure of life-manipulation.

In Mesopotamia and other ancient cultures, the deities were not the highest power. Above deity was a sort of realm of magic which gods and goddesses could use imperfectly to carry out their acts of power in the world. People were caught below the realm of deity and also below the realm of nature. The power of the gods was over the natural forces. The hierarchy looked something like this:

Magic

The Gods

Nature

Humanity

Through incantations, working with little power and almost blindly, people could sometimes successfully put pressure even on the gods. But for the most part, the gods could use their magic (things like tablets of destiny and so on) to control wind and fertility and life and death. People were at the mercy of natural forces and divine forces.

And the gods? They are immature, capricious wreakers of havoc. In the Sumerian flood myth and in the Atrahasis Epic, Enlil’s reason for destroying all life with the flood was noise. People were too noisy. He was having trouble sleeping.

If you’d like to understand the way ancient peoples viewed the gods, just read Homer’s Iliad. Greek religion is very related to Mesopotamian religion. And the Iliad is written about the time of Isaiah the prophet.

So, recognizing the way of the world at the time the Noah story was written. consider what a revolutionary and paradigm-changing piece of literature we have in the Bible.

The Message of Noah
You are living in the Ancient Near East. All the deities you have ever known were fearsome and immature. Your life depends on the whim of dozens of immortal beings. You know of a history of flood and destruction. You fear not only the death of your children to disease and starvation, but also that in your lifetime another deluge may come.

Then you hear the Noah story.

God’s reason for destroying life in the distant past was not something trivial. It was to control the spread of violence (hamas in Hebrew–yes, note the connection of the word to a certain Palestinian terror group). God cares about violence and evil and is doing something about it.

There is a purpose and a guiding hand in history. You find yourself in a new paradigm for understanding life. There is hope if a divine power, claimed by these storytellers to be the ultimate divine power, is at least doing something about the problem. You may never understand the cruelties of life completely, but there is comfort in knowing a divine being has a plan.

And Noah and his family were saved. They were not saved because they happened to be the favorites of some deity. Their salvation was not random. They were saved because Noah was a good man, a man whose life was characterized by faith in the One God, by deeds of righteousness.

God cares about how we live, whether we join the violence and corruption or participate in acts that heal the world.

And you find that in spite of all the pain and suffering, there is a blessing on the life of humankind. God gave it to the first man, Adam: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Did God rescind that blessing in the flood? In the Noah story, you find that God is still blessing humankind with fertility and spreading and growth.

People are not noisy pests disturbing the divine powers, we are the image of divinity blessed to fill and rule the earth. We ourselves are what would be called gods and goddesses. And what is above us is not some impersonal realm of magic and fear, but the ultimate benevolent deity.

All of the questions are not answered. We still wonder why some years there is too little rain or locusts destroy the crop. We still wonder why children die and why famine takes our old people all too early. Violence is not out of the world. God is not immediately solving all our problems.

But hope has arrived. The ancient stories have been misunderstood. God is in his heaven and smiles down on us, and he also weeps when we weep. This violence is not what he desires.

There may not be answers. But there is hope.

The Noah Story and Mesopotamian Myth, Pt 2

In Part 1, I presented the famous Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian flood story which passed down over more than a thousand years through Babylonian poets into the new Assyrian empire, where it has come to us through the results of archaeological exploration. As I said, this flood story is part of an epic which developed over time. And it is not the only flood story in Mesopotamia. Yet the other major example is really the same story, the Atrahasis Epic, told with a few different details. The Egyptians, for whom the annual floods of the Nile were the source of life, have a different flood tradition, as do India, Persia, and China.

The idea is at first disturbing: the Noah story in Genesis is related in some way to pre-existing Mesopotamian mythology?

It raises questions about how the Torah was written, especially the parts of Genesis that are before the patriarchs. Assuming, as I do, that Moses is largely the voice behind the Torah, how did he know about the creation story, the flood, the ancient genealogies, and the Babel story?

The simple assumption, and it is merely an assumption though many take it as a point of faith, is that God downloaded these stories into Moses’ brain either word for word or very near to it. After all, Moses was talking with God for a very long time up there on Sinai.

We are especially prone to believe in the “divine downloading” theory when it comes to the early part of Genesis. These stories reach back into what must seem a time unknowable by man. Surely direct divine revelation is all that could account for such knowledge.

Yet when we read other parts of the Torah and the Bible, we easily see the hand of the human authors. Why is it any less likely that Genesis 1-11 is a story passed along by very human means with the same invisible divine oversight that brought us the rest of the Bible?

Umberto Cassuto (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Vol. 2, Noah to Abraham, 1949, Magnes Press) peels back a layer and shows us a possible source that is pre-Mosaic and yet Israelite (by Israelite, we could mean from even before Abraham’s time, but passed down through the patriarchs).

Here are a few hints (see Cassuto for more) of a poetic tradition older than Genesis which lies behind the Noah story:

(1) The story in Genesis has some poetic lines which could be original, but which could also be evidence of an oral or written poetic form that predated Genesis. all the fountains of the great deep burst forth / and the windows of heaven were opened . . . the fountains of the deep were closed / and the rain of the heavens was restrained.

(2) The use of words in archaic forms which do not normally occur in classical Hebrew. gopher (the kind of wood used), kopher (related to kaphar, but used here to mean pitch), tzohar (possibly meaning window), mabbul (flood), yekoom (living flesh), etc.

(3) References in the Prophets and the Writings that suggest a broader story or a tradition widely known in an outside of Israel. Ezekiel 14:14, 20 for example uses Noah, Danel, and Job as examples of righteousness from the ancient past (note that this is Danel of Mesopotamian legend and not Daniel of Biblical fame). In Psalm 29:10 we read of God sitting enthroned above the flood (mabbul), which could be a reference to an earlier poetic form of the flood story or could be a reflection on the Genesis account. Ezekiel 22:4 speaks of a land not rained on in the day of indignation. Some scholars, including some Talmudic sages, see this as a reference to Israel and the idea that the land was not included in the flood (Zebahim 113a-b).

(4) In Talmudic and Midrashic literature, there are further stories about the days of Noah. Cassuto feels it possible, though I would have to say unlikely, that these could reflect some continuation of ancient Israelite traditions still passed on orally. It is more likely that Talmudic and midrashic sages drew elements from the flood myths of Babylon and adapted them (it helps to remember the Talmud was written in Babylon).

A Possible Path from History to Myth to Genesis
Of course we are dealing with educated conjecture. Yet we are looking for a theory which explains how the Noah story came to be in the Bible while it has remarkable similarities to Mesopotamian flood myths.

In tomorrow’s post, we will consider some differences between the Biblical story and the Mesopotamian myths. The differences are not just significant, they are central to understanding the theology of the Torah. The Torah does not simply accept the myths of the pagan cultures.

One key difference is that the hero in Genesis is Noah, and not Utnapishtim. And Noah is a mortal man, not someone still living at the mouths of rivers until the end of time.

If we consider how the Genesis story comes about, here are some possibilities.

(a) There is no relationship between the Noah story and the myths. The similarities are coincidental.

(b) The Noah story is a pious retelling and complete fabrication loosely based on the myths.

(c) The great flood of Mesopotamia happened and stories were passed down in various cultures. Moses received the Noah story directly from God without knowledge of the myths and the similarities are due to historical fact.

(d) The great flood of Mesopotamia happened and the stories passed through different cultures. The Mesopotamian versions represent corruptions based on their pantheon of deities and their ideas about the role of humankind. The Genesis version comes through the patriarchs from an ancient epic poem and contains a purer version of what happened.

(e) The great flood of Mesopotamia happened and the stories passed through different cultures. The Mesopotamian versions represent their ideas about the who, what, and when of the flood while the Israelites possessed a different tradition leading up to Abraham through Noah and Shem.

I think apart from faith in the authority of Genesis, option (e) is the least we should hold to from the evidence. Given a predisposition to believe the authority of Torah and Genesis, I choose (d).

The Noah Story and Mesopotamian Myth, Pt 1

Most people are completely unaware of the rich background of story and myth which is the setting of the Bible and especially books like Genesis. In the synagogue reading cycle, this week is Genesis 6:9 – 11:32, the story of Noah, Babel, the table of nations, and the genealogy up to Abraham. It is a fitting week to deal with the Noah story and the Mesopotamian mythological background which is so remarkably parallel with it.

Perhaps one reason synagogues and churches rarely discuss the mythological backdrop of the flood story is the potential controversy. How do we deal with the fact that the Bible’s account of the flood is not the oldest written record of the event? What are we to make of the remarkable similarities between Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian myths and the Biblical flood story.

One approach has been to pretend the precursors to the Genesis flood story do not exist. This is a relatively easy thing to do, since the average Jewish or Christian worshipper is not likely to ever find out about Atrahasis or Utnapishtim.

Perhaps the surest guide, the most capable and impressive handler of the data, is the early nineteenth century Italian Jewish scholar, Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951), in his Genesis, Volume Two, Noah to Abraham. For a modern commentary which handles this data very well, consult John Walton’s Genesis commentary in the NIV Application Commentary series.

What if I told you that the following similarities exist between the Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian account of the great flood and the Noah story?

(1) There is a divine decision to destroy all humankind and living creatures.

(2) One man, his family, and animals brought on board are saved through a divine instruction to build a vessel.

(3) The pouring out of the waters is described in similar terms.

(4) The vessel of salvation is grounded on a mountain top as the flood begins to recede.

(5) The man sends out birds to determine if there is dry ground.

(6) After the flood, the man offers sacrifices and gives thanks to God (the gods).

This list is adapted from Cassuto’s commentary. He notes nineteen other remarkable similarities, including the following very specific examples: Noah is the tenth generation as is the hero in the Mesopotamian stories, Noah’s age at flood time is 600 and the Mesopotamian hero is 600 periods of 60 years old, and the animals are said in the Bible and in the myths to come on their own accord.

Historical Background of the Mesopotamian Myths
The oldest civilization leaving written records is Sumeria (until the rise of Babylon around 1730 B.C.E.). In the Gilgamesh epic, which in parts dates back to Sumer, we read about a flood remarkably like the Biblical account.

The Sumerians called the flood the amaru. Their stories passed into Babylonian accounts and then through the Hittites and Hurrians to influence stories of the Greeks and Romans. Many speculate that flood stories came into early Native American cultures from some primitive version passed down through migrations from Asia in the distant past.

The flood story is all over the world.

Cassuto notes that the Egyptian account is very different (perhaps since floods of the Nile are central to Egyptian religion and so flood has a different connotation in Egyptian religion). Also the stories of Persia, India, and China are quite different.

The oldest flood story of Mesopotamia is a Sumerian tablet found at Nippur in 1914. It tells of Ziusudra, the hero who survived a flood and was elevated to divine immortality. The stone tablets are fragmentary and very little of the story is recoverable.

Yet Assyrian tablets, retelling the story of Gilgamesh, which passed from Sumeria through Babylonia and into these Assyrian (Akkadian) accounts, contain a much more complete version of the flood story (which I will summarize below). We now possess some accounts from Old Babylonia (c. 1700 B.C.E.) and Sumer (before 2000 B.C.E.) reflecting earlier versions of the Gilgamesh epic. The flood hero in these stories is called Utnapishtim.

A separate story, the Epic of Atrahasis, is highly related, with Atrahasis being a variant name for Utnapishtim.

A Summary of the Flood Story in Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh, having lost his close friend, Enkidu, turns his desire to immortality. He does not want to experience the dark, mindless existence of sheol (the netherworld, the Greek Hades). He knows of a man who has become god-like and immortal, who survived the great flood. Gilgamesh journeys to meet Utnapishtim and learn from him the secret of immortality.

Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh the story of the flood. He wants Gilgamesh to know that his immortality was something granted by the gods and is not achievable by Gilgamesh.

In the council of the gods, it was decided to destroy humankind and all living creatures on earth. It was in Enlil’s heart to do this. Enlil was one of the chief gods of Sumeria.

Ea, another powerful god also known as Enki in Sumerian, wanted to save his beloved Utnapishtim. He did not wish to rebel against Enlil, so he whispered to the walls of the hut in which Utnapishtim was sleeping a warning about the flood and instructions to build a giant structure to float in the deluge (the dimensions are much larger in the Mesopotamian account).

Utnapishtim built the huge vessel, animals came to him, and he received warning from one of the gods when the time was right to enter the vessel and ride out the flood.

The storm god Adad unleashed a great storm on the earth and was aided by Irragal, Ninurta, and Anunnaki in causing the waters to flood in a wrathful deluge that ended all life. Other gods, such as the goddess Istar, were terrified and fled to the highest heaven to escape this killing flood.

The rain came six days and nights and abated on the seventh day. The flood receded six days and nights. The great vessel became lodged on Mt. Nitzir. On the seventh day, Utnapishtim sent out a dove to see if there was dry land. The dove returned. He then sent a swallow and it returned. Finally he sent out a raven, which did not return and he knew there was enough dry land to exit the vessel.

Utnapishtim made an offering to the gods. They came hungrily like flies and swarmed around his offering. A dispute broke out. Enlil sensed that is was Ea who caused the saved people and animal to live. Ea argued for Utnapishtim’s life and Enlil touched the hero’s forehead and said, “Hitherto Utnapishtim was a man, but now Utnapishtim and his wife shall be like us, the gods.”

Coming
I will say more tomorrow, including what are the differences between the myth and the Biblical account and what the relationship might be. Possibly I will also summarize a similar account called the Atrahasis Epic. Finally, later this week, I will include some commentary and thought on the Noah story.

So, being enlightened about the Mesopotamian flood stories, go and read Genesis 6-9.

Objects of Faith

I am reading a Chaim Potok novel I only recently found out about. I thought I had read them all, including Wanderings. Then a young lady in my synagogue told me about The Book of Lights.

Kabbalah is a strong element in this novel as it follows the life of a young rabbi who begins reading kabbalistic texts for academic study.

In scene I just read this morning, the young rabbi is now a chaplain in the far north of Korea just after the Korean War. He has come to a place so dreadfully cold the fuel lines freeze at night and the soldiers wake in freezing quarters. The cold literally drives men insane.

Having just arrived to this posting, the young chaplain is approached by a spokesman for the six Jews attached to this company. The Jews are thrilled that their new chaplain is a Jew as well.

This spokesman begins plying the new chaplain with two requests and the young rabbi finds his ire rising. The chaplain’s assistant is a Mormon man who already in the few days the rabbi has been on post has proven himself loyal and hardworking. But the Jews, all six of them, in this company are now zealous to have it all their way.

Can’t we get rid of the Mormon assistant? Can’t we remove the crosses that are on top of he chapel? Do we want a Jewish chaplaincy with a Mormon assistant, a synagogue which also has crosses on it?

The rabbi tries to control his anger as thoughts build up in his mind. He has encountered this narrow religious outlook many times in his own Orthodox community. Now is his first experience as a leader with the power to do something about it. Potok writes eloquently of the issue playing in Gershon’s young rabbinical mind:

Street words lurched through his head, the language of rage. The smug superiority of those certain of salvation. Long-dimmed visions of teachers in dingy classrooms teaching the roadmap to relationships with the Higher Power, the carefully delineated turns and bends, highways, byways, bridges, the surfeit of text and commentary, the richness to the point of glutinous choking, no new lights, no unexpected visions that chilled the spine, and a sharp voice if you turned to stare out the window at the way the pigeons strutted along the sidewalk in the sunlight. How could a lone soldier in this distant outpost of American power have awakened those dormant memories?

Brilliant.

What is our object of faith? Is it a secure roadmap with the proper bridges drawn out and assurances that all in unquestionable? I have lived in that religious community on the Christian side. There can be a kind of peace in it, as theoretically nothing that happens on earth can disturb it. I asked Jesus to be my savior and heaven is my home, so I will not be thwarted by cancer or losing a child or any pain life can afford. Everything is for the life to come and nothing can shake me from my plan of salvation in which I trust.

Part of me wants not to be too harsh about this sort of faith. I think a lot of good happens in these communities and many can’t help but see beyond the simple roadmaps, even though their religious community pushes them. People are remarkably adaptable, even in an atmosphere that sucks the mystery out of life.

Or is our faith in the Most High who can at any moment send a chill up our spine and make his sharp voice known in the ordinary?

For some, faith is about a plan of salvation. For others, faith is about an Almighty too beautiful to behold.

I don’t think I am exaggerating to say that the difference between these two basic objects of faith is a key to greater heights of knowledge and faith. I know my words can be interpreted many ways. Are you saying God has not revealed anything about how to relate to him? No, I am not saying that. The “plan of salvation” kind of religion would not be persuasive if there wasn’t some truth to it.

But consider Yeshua, remember him? Did he offer assurances to the smug, the superior, the Pharisee who looked on the sinner and said, “Thank you I am not like him”?

Last week a Christian pulled me into a conversation about a news story he had seen on Shabbat elevators. He thought Shabbat elevators were a ridiculous example of legalism gone awry. I don’t use Shabbat elevators, but I understood that an attack on Judaism was coming. Sure enough, the man looked at me and said, “It kind of makes me thankful, you know, that I am under grace and not law.”

A rage welled up in me. I failed to act like Yeshua. I failed to put him in his place. I failed to tell him, “You are like the Pharisee in Yeshua’s story (Luke 18). Your sins are not forgiven.” I did a sort of half-way job of correcting him gently and I hope it was better than nothing. But I wish I had reacted with the confidence Yeshua had to combat smugness and awaken mystery.

God is not a formula. God is not as easy to figure out as a diagram on a religious tract. Life is not as simple as a four-step plan.

We should put our faith in the largely unknown God who has let us in on a small fraction of his being and his ways. We should desire more the chill in our spine at a vision of another level of his glory, visions which are all too rare anyway, and not desire to somehow encompass him with our roadmaps and diagrams.

And every time we are ready to judge that person we think far from God, we should remember to say, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”

PODCAST: Yeshua in Context – Yeshua Against Leviticus?

One of the dividing lines in views about the historical Yeshua is whether he came to overturn the Torah, the Law of Moses, or to support it for his own Jewish people.

Few scholars in recent studies have supported the idea of a Law-free Jesus. There is an emerging consensus that Yeshua came as a Jewish teacher and not a founder of a new religion or a giver of a new law. Confusion about this matter is mostly a failure to recognize that Gentile freedom from the Torah does not mean Israel should abandon its historic covenant with God.

For those who are used to reading Yeshua as a Law-free teacher, no passage stands out quite like Mark 7. For those who understand Yeshua as a Torah teacher faithful to Judaism, no passage is as troubling or hard to explain to friends as Mark 7. We’ll explore the claims of one scholar that Yeshua came to overturn the Law and we’ll look in some depth at Mark 7.

LISTEN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

(1) If you have iTunes, search Yeshua in the iTunes store and subscribe.

(2) If you don’t use iTunes, go to this link at derekleman.com.

Ephesians 1 in Context

Back in October 2008 I wrote about Ephesians 1 and an important re-reading that would help a lot of people to read the Bible more in context.

In recent comments and debates about the role of Jews and non-Jews in the body of Messiah, several commenters from differing theologies have presented Ephesians as a key text in asserting that there is now no distinction between Jews and non-Jews in Messiah. Non-Jews who have come to faith in Yeshua are now to be seen as Israelites, some would say. Others would say the categories of Jew and Gentile no longer matter.

I believe the distinction between Jew and Gentile matters greatly. There are so many reasons for that belief. Not least are the very specific promises of Israel’s restoration in the Israelite prophets and echoed in New Testament texts. This restoration cannot happen if the peoplehood of Israel disappears. Nor does replacement of Israelites by Christians or Yeshua-followers from the nations satisfy the intent of those promises.

I believe that Paul is typically misread on this matter not only by traditional theology, which denies that Torah has any ongoing validity (as if God made a mistake and is now correcting it with the “superior” idea of faith and love–too bad he didn’t think of faith and love in the early days). But Paul is also being misread by two other theologies found in Messianic Jewish circles: the one new man theology and the One Law theology.

Paul is no more eliminating the distinction between Jew and Gentile than he is between women and men (see Gal 3:28), or between husband and wife in marriage when two become one. As much as my wife and I are alike and share one view of things, we also are distinct. Our unity is on a deeper level than mere identification.

In the way of small contribution toward seeing the distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Ephesians, let me start by re-emphasizing what I did in that October 2008 post: Ephesians 1 has Paul the Jewish leader explaining the gospel to non-Jews in historical succession as coming from Israel to the nations.

If I have time, and if there is interest, I will work on my thoughts about Ephesians 2 and 3 for future posts. We should be very surprised if Ephesians overthrows the Pauline insistence on distinction. I do not believe such a reading is sustainable.

Reading Ephesians 1 Again With First Century Eyes
In Ephesians, again and again, we see Paul comforting and edifying a non-Jewish community of Yeshua-followers who felt second class. These humble believers faced persecution from the synagogue. It is quite likely that in the heart of the Roman Imperial Cult (Asia Minor was a hotbed of rabid emperor worship), these non-Jews were being threatened by the synagogue as illegal cultists to be turned in to the authorities.

I do not have space here to detail the well-known issues of Roman law about religion, the exception made for Judaism, and the status of early believers in Roman eyes as a Jewish sect. If you’d like to know more, say so in the comments and perhaps I can gather some historical support and make a blog post of that as well.

Now, keeping in mind the Ephesians were suffering from a non-Jewish inferiority complex, read Ephesians 1:3-14 carefully, noting the pronouns such as us, we, and you.

Who does Paul mean by us and we? There are three main possibilities:

(1) The us and we are all Yeshua-followers regardless of status as Jew or Gentile

(2) The us and we are the apostles and the you are the believers who follow the apostles

(3) The us and we is Israel and the you is the growing community of Gentile Yeshua-followers

Ephesians 1:12 as a Clue
I will include a translation of Ephesians 1:12 from the RSV with only one minor change. I will use “Messiah” instead of “Christ.” When people read “Christ” in the New Testament, there is often an ingrained habit of seeing this as the last name of Jesus. This little habit can cause people to miss the obvious import of Ephesians 1:12:

we who first hoped in Messiah have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.

Who was the first group to hope in Messiah? Whoever it is, this is who Paul means by us and we.

It seems fair now to eliminate option (1). Paul is using us, we, and you to make a distinction. Vs. 12 makes this clear.

Were the apostles of Yeshua the first to hope in Messiah?

This will remain for some a debatable point. Yet I read in the gospels of an Israelite population under the thumb of Rome very much looking for Messiah and deliverance.

The first people to hope in Messiah is Israel. Therefore, the we and us in Ephesians 1:3-14 is Israel. This produces what may be for some people a shockingly positive view of Israel’s status with God. Yet I suggest this is exactly what Paul is saying, that it is consistent with the Torah and prophets where the same thing is said again and again, and that the New Testament elsewhere confirms it.

A Paraphrase of Ephesians 1:3-14
The following paraphrase is intended as an aid to reading the text more clearly:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who has blessed us [JEWS] in Messiah with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us [JEWS] in him before the foundation of the world, that we [JEWS] should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us [JEWS] in love to be his sons through Yeshua the Messiah, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us [JEWS] in the Beloved. 7 In him we [JEWS] have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 which he lavished upon us [JEWS]. 9 For he has made known to us [JEWS] in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Messiah 10 as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 we [JEWS] who first hoped in Messiah have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we [JEWS AND GENTILES IN MESSIAH] acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Strangers Choosing Jewish Life

I am a non-Jew converting to Judaism.

The stages of my journey can be summed up as follows:

(1) A reluctant conversion to Jesus-faith in college throws my secure world of science and mathematics into turmoil.

(2) Instead of simply fitting in with my newfound Christian community, within two weeks of turning to faith in Jesus I am questioning why the church isn’t more Jewish.

(3) I travel to Israel less than nine months after my faith commitment, seeking answers and sources.

(4) I experience a form of Messianic Judaism that is neither robust nor particularly Jewish, but more Pentecostal.

(5) I experience philo-semitic Christianity and the movement of Christian missions to the Jews.

(6) At the time, I found something more serious and with more potential for insight in the Christian missions movement.

(7) I now learn to approach Judaism as an outsider, a critic, and yet an appreciator.

(8) I have a long phase of, “Wow, matzah ball soup and Friday night candles! Let’s win a Jew for Christ.”

(9) In a long and disappointing stint as missionary, I grow disillusioned.

(10) I begin to think that the religious Jews I meet are better off in many ways than the people we confuse at the Jewish mission by encouraging them to be Christians and to assimilate into church life (thus losing their Jewish identity or at least sacrificing their childrens’ Jewish identity).

(11) I begin to wonder why there can’t be something more holistic for Jewish followers of Yeshua.

(12) I begin appreciating Jewish life more as an insider.

(13) It seems dangerous at first, but darnit I really enjoy worshipping God from within Judaism.

(14) In near total ignorance of Jewish life and tradition, I start a small Messianic congregation.

(15) From friends in the UMJC and at Hashivenu, I begin to learn what it means to be a Jew and how the theology of the New Testament deals with Jewish and Gentile identity.

(16) I grow increasingly embarrassed by my lack of real Jewish experience and long for a knowledgeable Jewish leader to serve or take over our synagogue.

(17) Lacking a more experienced Jewish teacher, I take responsibility to learn the liturgy and traditions for myself (in my “spare” time).

(18) The rhythms of Jewish life become familiar to me, but I reach an identity crisis. I am a Gentile living as a Jew. I start thinking of wearing tzit-tzit. I do for a day or two and then guilt overwhelms me. I cannot pretend to be a Jew.

(19) I start a swing towards an Orthodox Jewish practice and annoy my congregation members with pressure to be more Orthodox. Fortunately, this period was very brief.

(20) I finally understand that conversion is a must for me and my family. I apply with the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council (ourrabbis.org). I take forever to write up my paperwork and make arrangements so that, still, as of this moment, my conversion is not complete.

(21) I finally understands that Judaism is a conversation and that the Orthodox approach is not the most legitimate one.

(22) I write a blog post about strangers (sojourners, gerim) like me choosing Jewish life. I am in the middle. My odyssey is not complete.

The Dangers of Strangers
My story is not at all a paradigm. Many other sojourners have entered Messianic Jewish life for a wide variety of reasons. Common paths include:

I don’t sense any spiritual power in the church life I have experienced, so in turning away from the church, I found Messianic Judaism as the true church.

I grew up in a Sabbath-keeping Christian sect and Messianic Judaism is a whole lot more balanced than what I grew up in.

I discovered Israel as the center of the Bible and got tired of Israel being ignored in church. I wanted to keep God’s calendar and his way of life, so here I am in Messianic Judaism.

I married a Jew and had no idea what I was getting into, but in Messianic Judaism we find a sort of solution.

I heard about Messianic Judaism and had never experienced that kind of ancient-rooted tradition blended with contemporary worship. I was hooked the first time I worshipped there.

There are probably more journey stories than the ones I have listed. I would love to hear from you. What is your story?

A Free Offer!!
First Fruits of Zion recently published Messiah Journal #101. It contains an article, “One Law and the Messianic Gentile” and a new name for FFOZ’s view of Gentile relation to Torah: divine invitation.

This issue of Messiah Journal has caused people to abandon FFOZ by the bucket-load.

One Law and Ephraimite groups and many individuals are angry. They feel entitled and FFOZ’s article questions that entitlement. It exposes the dangers of strangers in Jewish life who never come to realize that the Chosen People of God are still the Chosen People of God.

I ordered a carton full of extra copies to give out to families in my synagogue. The article comes very close to me own position (not quite, I am a little less inclined to invite non-Jews to take on Torah).

I have six copies left. The first six people to share their own story in a comment on this blog using 100 words or less about how or why they came into Messianic Judaism and to request a copy, I will contact them and send a Messiah Journal 101 for free. (I have your email if you comment on this blog, so I will contact you).

So, please share whether you want a free copy or not. What is your journey story into Messianic Judaism? Please keep it to 100 words or less.

To see more about FFOZ’s Messiah Journal or get the article for a small fee online, click here.