Your questions and interactions last week were so relevant and weighty that you gave me very much to do myself. I am taking a somewhat andragogical approach to teaching you. The term, androgogy, was coined by Malcolm Knowles, and describes adult learning/the teaching of adults as contrasted with childhood learning/the teaching of children.
One of the key principles of andragogical learning that the learning experience is increasingly shaped around the problems the learners encounter in their own contexts, and it is the task of the instructor to facilitate the learners in discovering solutions to those problems. Therefore, my role here is not simply that of teacher: it is also that of responder to the problems and issues you are raising. Lots of work for me, but hopefully, suitable learning for you.
Rather than inundate you with an avalanche or information today, I am going to parcel out my responses to your work from last week over three or four days this week, with my last post being on Wednesday. (You will have until midnight Thursday to complete your work).
Your task will be to log on each day to see if I have posted (I will post no later than 2:00 PM Pacific Time each day), to read what I post each day, and to respond to at least one of my essays for that day indicating with some vigor your agreement or disagreement, or perhaps discussing applicability of this essay to your own context, or better alternatives you would propose other than the viewpoint I suggest. In other words, in your comment, I am asking you to engage with what I say and discuss its level of truth and applicability in reference to the MJ Movement and your own context. This will mean that you need to post a minimum of three or four comments this week (one for each day that I post). And please, realize that a one or two sentence comment is not adequate. Rather, demonstrate your critical engagement with the issues raised. Two hundred and fifty words is a good minimum to shoot for.
I also encourage you to interact with one another. The point of all this is for iron to sharpen iron—for you all to improve each other’s thinking through such interaction.
I will not be judging you by the length of your responses so much as by your authentic engagement with the issues. This should be fun! For today, we begin with responses to Paul’s three questions. In other words, three essays on my part. I hope you find this stimulating. Your task, pick at least one of these responses and engage!
Essay One - On which Torah to observe, written or oral, and our approach, embracing the entirety or piecemeal?
There is a crucial issue imbedded in this question of which few take note: The Torah was not given to Paul Kugelman, or to Stuart Dauermann, or even to Abraham Joshua Heschel—the Torah was given to the entire Jewish people throughout time. It was the entire people, both collectively and through their representatives, who took upon themselves the yoke of Torah at Sinai (see Ex. 24). This being the case, we ought not to conceive of our task as being (a) Looking at the Law as individuals and as a Movement; (b) Looking at the New Covenant as individuals and as a Movement; (c) deciding what we as individuals and as a Movement are going to do with the former in view of the latter. To so consider the issue is to act as though we are outside of greater Israel, that people throughout time to whom the Torah is given. We must also, on the basis of Matt 23:2-3, if not for other reasons, realize that under God, it is the leadership of Israel, and the people of Israel to whom interpretation of Torah’s demands and the responsibilility for covenant faithfulness have been given. In Matthew 23, when Yeshua says, “do whatever they tell you to do,” he is echoing the very words of Dt. 17:11 ff., which the rabbinic establishment use to support their authority. He is saying in effect, “The rabbis have the responsibility and the right to lead the way in interpreting halacha—the practical working out of obedience to this (Torah) covenant.” We as a Messianic Jewish community must work out the shape of our own obedience in respectful interaction with the history and the current reality of Jewish communal process.
Paul, in my mind this is similar to the case of Constitutional tax resisters. These are people who, looking at the Constitution and perhaps the Federalist Papers, draw the conclusion that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional and that therefore they should not be required to pay it nor will they. What is wrong with this picture? Just this: they have arrogated to themselves the right to interpret the Constitution independent of those bodies charged with its interpretation and the entire history of its interpretation since its inception.
Could not the same be said of us when Messianic Jews and MJ organizations act as if the task of Torah interpretation were ours, to be carried out in implicit separation from the very community to whom it was given and whose processes and leaders are the divinely appointed means toward its authorized interpretation?
Does this mean that we may not beg to differ, and may not have differences of opinion with the mainstream Jewish consensus? Of course not! Does it mean that we might not have contributions to the process which God wants us to insert, and which are important? Of course not! But it does mean that we must address the task of interpretation through respectful interaction with the tradition and those charged with its shaping and stewardship, and that when we do take exception, we do so in dialogue with that community and process, as participants, and not solitary isolation or disapproving removal from the wider Jewish community and its halachic process.
Finally, these are not decisions to be made by individuals—halachic norms are not only established by long and broad communal agreement, but also by broad-based contemporary communal process. In other words, the halachic norms your congregation adheres to should not, indeed, must not, be the product of your considerations alone, but should be the consequence of the knowledgeable and respectful deliberations of a broader group of rabbis. Such a group has formed within our Union, but is, as you may know, controversial for having done so. Sigh . . .
Essay Two: Paul’s question as to how communal halachic norms are to be carried out and inculcated in the congregation in view of the wider divergence of opinion and practice evidenced by some people.
I do believe that the Chabad approach is wise: to set a high standard for practice, but to accept people at whatever level of observance they are capable of along the way. My niece has experienced this treatment in her Florida locale, and it has resulted in her bonding with the local Chabad congregation despite her having negligible Jewish background, and has resulted in her slowly growing in observance.
To this I would add some details. Chabad has an advantage over us: they do not have to argue about, research, defend or sell others in their group as to what the standard is. Orthodox Jewish practice in their circles is well-established and in no need of being defended. Not so in our ranks. So first, the leader of a congregation and his leadership (at the very least) much reach some consensus on what MJ practice should be (see the preceding question). Then, they must embody it and see that the instrumentalities of the congregation embody it. It sends a very confusing message if the Rabbi is observant, and the oneg mixes milk and meat, or worse yet, includes ham salad. Nothing will be accomplished with that kind of craziness. Also, one must institute a cycle of classes in various aspects of observance—kashrut, prayer, etc. It will do not good to exhort people, and even to supplement that exhortaion with modeling, if this is not supplemented with regular instruction and accountability groups to facilitate shifts in practice. May of our people have changed their minds, but not their practice. This is inadequate, isn’t it? That’s all for now on this question.
Essay Three: How does one’s lack of conformity to this model of Messianic Jewish spirituality (the Cube) impact on our notion of one’s salvation?
Actually, I don’t think the two overlap. Salvation is the work of God. A Jew can be a pork-eating Sunday-observinig Cohen and still experience and benefit from the work of Messiah on his behalf. But that should not be the issue. Too many people evaluate the propriety of a course of action strictly on whether it will threaten their “salvation.” That is not the issue here at all. Rather the issue of the shape of our piety is that of honoring God as part of that people bound to His covenants with Israel through walking in the pathways he gave to our progenitors and to us. I will say it again: it is not about us: it is about the honor of God. So it is that Deut 4:5-8 tells us that keeping the decrees and laws of the Lord, observing them carefully, will Show our wisdom and understanding in the sight of the nations, and will point to how great this nation is, how great are our laws, and how great is our God. It is all about bringing honor to God—being a collective communal pointer too the God who gave us these laws, and a demonstration of the fact that because of His greatness, we honor Him in this way.
Another favorite passage in this regard is Jeremiah 35:1-16 (which you all should read), where the point is elegantly made that commandment-keeping is all about one thing: honoring the One who gave the commandments by keeping them.
When I became a Yeshua believer in a Church context (through InterVarsity Christian Fellowship), I assumed commandment keeping was a thing of the past, superseded with the coming of Christ. Then, when I worked with JFJ, I thought Torah observance was a matter of indifference: “If that’s your style, then go for it, but don’t lay your trip on anyone else and don’t go overboard.” In fact the credo in JFJ was that a person should only be as observant as a believer as he was before, as though any greater level of observance would be, by definition, an exercise in phoniness!! But later, in discussion with my wife, upon leaving JFJ, I asked her, “But suppose the low level of your observance before you became a Yeshua-believer was a manifestation of neglect? Should you then canonize he neglect now that you are a Yeshua believer?” She responded, “Good point!,” and it was—and still is.
When I came to the Fuller Seminary School of World Mission (now, School of Intercultural Studies), I developed the principle that it is appropriate for Messianic Jews to be observant—that it underscores the credibility of our gospel and our claim to still be Jews. In other words, I still looked at Torah observance simply as a matter of cultural loyalty and missionary expediency. But no longer.
I now see observance as more than this, as a matter of obedience, as a matter of honoring God. And I believe it is wrong, yes, sinful, when Jews do not honor God in this way. Is it going to send them to hell? That is not the point and should not be the question. Too often such a question comes from a “Do I have to do this?” mentality, reminiscent of those students, even in graduate school, who ask, “Is this going to be on the test?” Learning is more than passing tests: and piety is more than avoiding hell! And if the commandments are still commandments, then we are guilty of neglect and even show contempt for the Commander when we ignore them.
12 comments:
Paul’s Response to Essay 1:
Stuart makes an interesting point with his “tax resisters” analogy. We studied them in Tax and in Constitutional law. As Stuart suggests, these folks are taking well settled legal principles completely out of context and, as a consequence, are deemed to be “operating in their own universe.” Said a little differently, they operate in a paradigm that is unique and distinct from widely accepted norms established within the legal community. Likewise, the larger Jewish community believes that we are not only operating in our own paradigm, but are operating outside the Jewish one as well. With that in mind, we must go the extra mile to operate well within the paradigm of the Jewish community.
What is more, we need to be honest with ourselves here. When we claim that we are practicing Judaism, we are either acknowledging that oral Torah is our Tradition or attempting to change the definition of Judaism. Whatever you may call it, once you remove the oral Torah from the mix, it is no longer Judaism. With that, if we are sincere about Judaism, we are going to have to embrace and engage oral Torah on its own terms while taking deliberate steps to infuse it with what Messiah teaches. We cannot adopt a wholesale rejection and a piecemeal review/adopt approach.
Even with that, the rub, for me anyway, is what approach do we take? I agree that we cannot just establish our own halikah whole cloth nor can we do it as each individual or each congregation deems best. Halikah tells us how to live as a community of Jews in continual worship of and deference to G-d. It goes without saying that Chabad will operate as Chabad; the same with Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. And all are considered part of the Jewish community. I suspect that our point of departure should be from where all of these communities intersect, because that is what we all have in common. But where do we go from there? Do we develop a Messianic halikah or do we develop Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Messianic halikot? I don’t think I need to elaborate on the potential problems here. But with that, I do advocate the Chabad model, in which we allow for many levels of observance under one roof. However, I still cannot articulate a point of departure from the intersection of the communities. Perhaps it’s time for me to turn my cube.
Paul says "We must go the extra mile to operate well within the paradigm of the Jewish community." He is right in that, and, as much as possible, we need to be part of their universe and not a parallel universe. I know this sounds impossible to some, but you'd be surprised how doors open in the Jewish community once it becomes clear that we care about Jewish life and about Jewish lives. When our actions demonstrate that to be true, all of a sudden people say "Let's talk."
Paul is also right that once we remove Oral Torah, we no longer have Judaism. You can't even have the New Covenant Scriptures without Oral Torah . . . with Yeshua having a seder with his disciples, with him refering to "the fruit of the vine" in conjunction with the wine at the Last Supper (a reference to the b'rakhah "borei p'ri hagafen,') etc. People imagine Oral Torah is a straight-jacked fashioned by adamant Christ rejecting rabbis. Wouldn'td iut be better for us to view Oral Torah as the consensus of the Jewish community winnowed through centuries of discussion, indicating what obedience to Torah looks like?
As for what our halakhah will look like, and how observant we will be, this is a secondary matter. The first question is this: will/can our Union or a sizeable contingent within that Union reach the conviction that God holds us responsible to live a halachic life? Once that quesiton is solved, then the question of how to do this becomes a real question, rather than simply a matter for debate and argument. Then, through group process, our Union will perhaps develop differentiated camps, some more ORthodox, others more Conservative or Reform in the ethos.
This is something I defined years ago as "The Principle of Mirroring the Wider Jewish Community Congregational Context." which states, "A mature Messianic Jewish Movement will develop congregational expressions
mirroring the diversity of the wider Jewish community’s Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Renewal Communities. It is naive, unrealistic and
unhelpful to imagine that we can develop a one-size-fits-all model of Messianic Jewish
services and communities."
But of course, all of this won't mature and develop instantly but is the consequence of a process that may only be just beginning among us.
This discussion reminds me of Rav Shaul and his analogy of the Body having many parts. If every part was a foot then we wouldn't have much of a Body. Hence, it seems that a pleurality of parts with different expressions fits in with this analogy of the Body and it is all unified in Yeshua and through the work of the Spirit. So it would appear that the baseline would have to be a return to the "Law" and it's communal expression within greater Israel which takes into account Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Messianic Judaism. I don't have a problem following the material so far but when I start going over it in my mind- it almost gets overwhelming! It appears to me that there are a couple of issues here. One is rooted in the evangelical Christian model and the teaching of the dichotomy of law versus grace and the incessant negation of Torah despite the innumerable references in Brit Hadashah where love means keeping the commandments. I believe that there has to be a heart felt, Spirit led breakthrough in evangelical Christian circles and Christendom at large on this whole law issue in that Christians recognize that the Law is good and perfect in every way and to get away from this legalistic reductionistic view. The whole point seems to center on how one gains one's salvation and the equating of continued obedience to Torah by Jews or anyone as being works oriented ,while overlooking that salvation was not by Torah observance but coming by repentance to the Father through Yeshua. Somehow, the clarification of this is like looking through a glass darkly or dimly and has led to alot of confusion. It seems like there was clarity on this issue in the book of Acts. Correspondingly, in Messianic Jewish circles, there has to be acknowledgement that although the re-emergence of the Messianic Remnant came out of the evangelical mold as evidenced by its history from Rabinowiz onward, that this tradition is rightfully respected but is not encumbent of Jewish believers in Yeshua who according to scripture have to return to the Lord, to the Land and to the Law. Also that now is the time for the fullness of Israel.
Secondly,not allowing Jews to embrace the Torah and worship as Jews after accepting Yeshua has led to not only problems in exigesis and theology in Christianity but rejection of Messianic Judaism as a new religion by Jews as well as by the Church who state that now one only comes to God through Christ and enters this new entity called the Church.
This may seem off the mark from Paul's questions and Stuart's responses but to me we have to somehow prayerfully deal with the root issues while developing a community inculcated halahkic norms. It would appear that the Chabad approach is extremely functional in accepting people at whatever level of observance they are at while aiming at the highest standard which will come with practice, experience and with revelation.
With respect to commandments, it appears to me that both Jew and Gentile have a commitment in faith obedience to be observant of commandments as they submit to the Lordship of Yeshua in their lives. The Brit Hadashah is still Torah and much of it was as is my understanding halakhic standards written for the Gentiles who came to faith through Yeshua and the commonwealth of Israel. Hence the shape of piety of all believers should be that of honoring God by keeping the commandments. In fact, the Spirit now puts the convictions on us when we fall off the mark.
I hope I am making sense, It's late and I'm tired and I'm signing off.
In responce to Rabbi Stuart's first responce, and to Paul's comment:
I agree that often MJ live within our own paradigm, and not living within the normative Jewish model. Creating something that, as Rabbi Stuart has noted before, is neither Jewish nor Christian.
We as A MJ community will develop our own appraoch, like Conservative, Reform, Modern Orthodox, etc. What does unite these groups is that they establish their community standards by wrestling with the same halachah and texts. Often, especially with Judaisms that take Torah and Halachah seriosuly, the starting place is often the same. But the way the tradition is engaged and interpreted is often why the difference in the output.
In many MJ circles, this is not the case. Often MJ start from a completely different point, not taking the original starting point seriously, and wondering why the outcome does not really look "Jewish."
We must engage Torah, Jewish tradition, and Halakhah from an informed starting point. And by using Jewish methods of developing Jewish practice, the inspiration of the New Testament, and the engagement of the Ruach HaKodesh, we can begin to develop something that is truely Messianic Jewish.
In line with Dr. Dauermann's agreement with Paul, if we remove "Oral Torah" we do dismantle "Judaism" to a degree. As Jewish practice stands today, NOTHING is done without the influence of Rabbinic Judaism. Every practice, tzitzit, kosher, lighting candles, etc. is afffected by Jewish law.
Those Messianics who naively promote a pure "Biblical Judaism" unadulterated by the rabbis are ignorant of the fact that the kippahs they wear on their heads, the tzitzit they tie to their belt loops, and the shema they sing in the service are all influenced by Rabbinic Judaism. Jewish law must be engaged, but it cannot be simply ignored.
On Cornelius's statements, I respectfully submit that we in the MJ movement need to learn to not be church bashers. The Church is far more diverse than such polarized rhetoric indicates, and although the calling of the Church and of Messianic Judaism are diverse, it is not that Messianic Judaism is entirely right and the Church always wrong. Nothing is to be gained from such a mentaility, which is widespread.
Of course, neither should we simply be absorbed into the Church--we are partners with the Church as one ekkelsia, as Mark Kinzer masterfully demonstrates in Post Missionary Messianic Judaism, however we are parners with diverse callings.
In view of these diverse callings, it is crucial that we recognize that the halachic norms for Jews and for Gentiles--for Jews/Messianic Jewish groupings, and Gentiles, are different. A blurring of this distinctive has the effect of either weakening halachic observance to a new lowest common denominator religion, or of havinig Gentiles pretendinig or imagining themselves to be Jews which is not only untrue, but an offense to the the Jewish community.
We need clarity in thinking on these matters, and certainly some people are going to feel offended, not because any offense is intended, but because many people have a vested emotional interest in private opinions and personal preferences. This is one of the BIG issues that Messianic Judaism will need to face if it is to progress and realize its destiny.
I have more to say about this in one of today's postings.
Paul responds to Cornelius:
If I understand your concern with law vs. grace, I would ask you to consider this and let me know what you think. The law, in a general sense, sets forth the permissible scope of our behavior in objective fashion. It let's us know when we have broken fellowship with G-d. However, G-d's grace allows us to return to fellowship with Him despite our violations, read "sin." One issue that we have to deal with is "Are we having a relationship with G-d through his Covenant or are we having a relationship with His covenant?" A discussion for another time perhaps.
Regarding standards for MJ practice and life, I heartily agree that the traditions of Judaism are a source second only to the Bible. I agree that we are like tax resisters if we formulate Messianic Judaism without reference to the tradition.
But here is where the rubber meets the road: Jewish tradition speaks with many voices. The voices we tend to agree with on Biblical matters are the Orthodox. Yet their halakhah is extremely fundamentalist, to the point of absurdity. Pre-tearing toilet paper and sitting in the dark on Shabbos are ideas so foreign to the Torah I cannot bring myself to adopt such a halakhah.
So it seems as though the "trick" in MJ is to avoid Orthodox halakhah with some hermeneutic that will get us off the hook while still respecting tradition.
I am still new to the subtleties of this subject. From the responses I have seen on here, I am guessing most others are as well. I hear a lot of excitement about the new paradigm and being a real Judaism.
Let's quit being excited and do the work. (If you were with me as I am typing this, you would know I don't look nearly as pompous as this post makes me sound -- I think).
My concern is that we find a legitimate hermeneutic for reading Oral Torah and do not simply work off of convenience. I don't want to see us end up with a halakhah like the Orthodox, but at this point I am not sure how we can avoid it and be honest to the process.
Derek
Robert (response to Q1)
This question is such a MJ “classic,” because it presents all kinds of Jews across the board and yet it seems that everyone still holds firm to their convictions and interpretations. Stuart mentioned a critical verse that seems to draw a line within our movement specifically on this issue of the authority of Oral Torah and the limits of application. Stuart said, “on the basis of Matt 23:2-3, if not for other reasons, realize that under God, it is the leadership of Israel, and the people of Israel to whom interpretation of Torah’s demands and the responsibilility for covenant faithfulness have been given.” I happen to believe that Yeshua’s talmidim received the power to exercise halakhic authority, and that we as a movement collectively are to continue with this authority amongst the leaders of the movement. I certainly understand the importance of connecting with Klal Israel, but as I read the New Covenant especially this passage in Mat. 23, I would say that the Oral Torah as expounded in Orthodox Judaism is not binding to the Messianic Movement. I believe David Stern puts it quite well as he said in his commentary “. I do not believe this, because I think Yeshua had already initiated a process transferring halakhic authority from the cohanim, judges and rabbis to the emissaries and later leaders of the Messianic Community.” So maybe this ties into what Stuart was saying when he said, “We as a Messianic Jewish community must work out the shape of our own obedience in respectful interaction with the history and the current reality of Jewish communal process.” This whole notion of shape is crucial, but I see the early Talmidim beginning the process 2000 years ago. My question is didn’t Shaul try to be respectful with his history and the current reality of Jewish communal process back then? I would say absolutely! Didn’t the disciples? Certainly! Yet they were still deemed different and all over the issue of Yeshua and his Messiahship and all that he instituted for the Jewish nation. Without rambling on to much, I see Yeshua as the one who gave authority to his disciples (and to the future MJ disciples) to have the rightful authority to regulate Messianic communal life on how to live life. I don’t believe this was done to cause division (far be that from the plans of Hashem) but rather to demonstrate the unity he desired to have among all of Israel. So as to the original question “On which Torah to observe?” What does New Covenant Torah say about it and if something is not covered in the NC then the leaders of the MJ should have the wisdom to make those decisions as inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh.
Robert
Response To Rabbi Stuart:
Response to Stuart’s response to Paul he said, “As for what our halakhah will look like, and how observant we will be, this is a secondary matter.” I happen to differ, I think this is what people are wanting to see because this will be their life investment. The proof is within the following statements:
Paul said:
“But where do we go from there? Do we develop a Messianic halikah or do we develop Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Messianic halikot? I don’t think I need to elaborate on the potential problems here.”
Derek said:
“The voices we tend to agree with on Biblical matters are the Orthodox. Yet their halakhah is extremely fundamentalist, to the point of absurdity. Pre-tearing toilet paper and sitting in the dark on Shabbos are ideas so foreign to the Torah I cannot bring myself to adopt such a halakhah.”
So how our halakhah will look like is a very crucial question especially because so many within the MJ movement come from different levels of conviction and various Jewish backgrounds. Your cube is probably an initial step towards presenting the structure of a MJ movement and the development of an accepted halakhah, would this be fair to say?
Response to Question 3 + A quick observation on the growing dialogue:
“commandment-keeping is all about one thing: honoring the One who gave the commandments by keeping them.”
This is a very interesting observation that Rabbi Dauermann makes. How often have we observed “religious” people (and not just Jews, but people from all different religious perspectives) that keep whatever commandments they adhere to for the same reasons as the Pharisees? Their level of observance is actually their justification for honor, respect, position, etc. And how ironic is it, that although they speak of God, they did not honor Him or give Him glory in their observance.
I can see why Yeshua was so adamant in His view of them. He knew the truth, He was God, and these people claimed to be honoring God with their lips and their observance, yet did not honor and glorify Him in practice and in life. Yeshua told people to obey all their commands in the same breath that He told people to avoid doing what they did.
It’s hard to think outside the box of my life and congregational life into the life of the people of Israel as a whole, but we all can agree that there is something missing. And for all the commandment keeping that is done, is God being honored?
When we look at Yeshua He said the greatest commandments were to love the Lord and to love your neighbor. If we are not keeping God’s commandments from this standpoint, I believe that we do not honor Him.
And as I posted my thoughts later than most, I read the discussions over levels of orthodoxy, the role of the Oral Law, and NC Halakah, I come back full circle. What is our Halakah supposed to look like as MJ? Let’s remember, for all the traditions of the Rabbi’s not one of them grants eternal life, or a living relationship with a living God. What will bring us life, the yoke of Judaism, the yoke of the Kingdom, the yoke of Yeshua, or a combination of all?
Stuart Dauermann said...
I want to comment again on presuppositions that seem to underlie Cornelius' approach. He says,
"With respect to commandments, it appears to me that both Jew and Gentile have a commitment in faith obedience to be observant of commandments as they submit to the Lordship of Yeshua in their lives. The Brit Hadashah is still Torah and much of it was as is my understanding halakhic standards written for the Gentiles who came to faith through Yeshua and the commonwealth of Israel. Hence the shape of piety of all believers should be that of honoring God by keeping the commandments. In fact, the Spirit now puts the convictions on us when we fall off the mark."
What I want to suggest is that underlying his statements is an assumption that in our congregations and in our Union we are building a Jew/Gentile community, albeit one with diversified standards of Torah observance. I think the Bible nuances this reality a bit more than Cornelius seems to intimate.
If the MJ community is part of the Remnant of Israel, then our primary community of reference--that community in which we are imbedded and whom we serve, is Israel. The Remnant is not simply those called out of Israel--the saved residue, but rather that faithful core within Israel whose obedient faithfulness is destined to be a blessing to greater Israel. You might say we are the burning tinder within the fireplace of Israel.
Yes, we constitute the Jewish communal component of the wider ekklesia, but our primary communal task, our communal mission, is NOT simply to form a new communal entity, but to function within Israel as the Remnant.
Now it is ALSO true that we are the Jewish component of the One New Man. But we serve that purpose, and fulfil that identity only as and if we are the Remant of and within Israel.
The Church from among the nations joins with us in Yeshua faith, becoming their half of the ekklesia. But they do not thereby become Jews, nor ought they to adopt Jewish life as a sign of this identity. Their identity is designed to be different, and the glory of the One New Man is that it is a communal expression of Unity of those who are essentially (anbd not just genetically different).
There will be some Gentiles within our MJ ranks who help us to serve our purpose with respect to Israel, but they are neither elite Gentiles, nor in any manner superior to or more enlightened than those Gentiles who are part of the Church among the nations, which was, is, shall be and should be different from the MJ community.
Similarly, there will be Jews who are part of the Church from among the Nations, Although I might wish they were all part f the Mewssianic Jewish reality, this is not to be, at least not for now. They may find they serve best within the Church as they aid and serve the Church in all its differentness.
To summarize, within the Ekklesia there will be four kinds of individuals, broadly speaking: (1)Jews serving as covenantally faithful members of the catalytic Remnant of Israel, and (2) Gentiles who support and join with them in this endeavor, although with some differences in level of observance; also (3) Gentiles serving a differentiated and different kind of lifestyle and destiny as part of the Church from among the nations and, (4) Jews within their communal groupings who assist in this project.
Our Messianic Jewish Movement is a combination of (1) and (2). The Church from among the Nations is a combination of (3) and (4). The One New Man is essentially (1) plus (3), and also includes (2) and (4).
Post a Comment