Week Two - Responding to your Questions: Part Three

Josh asks 

1) Could you slightly elaborate a little more on how exactly Rom. 11:12 supports something greater than the Great Commision? (Not that I disagree with you, just curious at your conclusion)

Joshua, in the NIV translation of Romans 11:12, 15, 25, 26, we read: “12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! . . . 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in [the same term as in verse 12, pleroma] 26And so all Israel will be saved,” Paul compares the fullness of Israel with that of the nations, and calls the former greater. I point out that the fullness of the Gentiles [or the full number of the Gentiles, as the NIV puts it] may be understood as the Great Commission, and the differentiated destiny of Israel—her fullness—which Paul compares with that of the Gentiles and calls “greater”—may, in terms of the responsibilities of the Remnant, be rightly termed “the Greater Commission, greater because it leads not simply to the salvation of the nations, as in the former case, but to “life from the dead” (verse 15)—that is, the General Resurrection, and therefore, party time for the entire cosmos.”





2) In your version of the 6 points of a Messianic Jewish Spirituality, you mention the inclusion of a “Messiah-honoring halachic, covenental and developmental perspective.” Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean exactly by a Messiah-Honoring perspective? Does Yeshua in any way modify or alter any aspects of halacha? What do you see as central to a Yeshua centered Halacha? (ok, I know that is three questions)

You are asking crucial questions here, Josh. I think they can only appropriately be addressed by a halachic council of appropriate leaders (there is one that has been instituted within the Union, but not everyone is happy. However, it has taken visionaries to see the need for this years ago, and this halachic council, now called the Rabbinical Assembly, has been meeting for a few years to get this ball slowly and responsibly rolling). Again, this is a matter for group process, not individualistic or congregatioinal innovation. I believe that such a halacha needs to bear in mind that Yeshua is not simply the exemplary Jew: as Messiah he is not only Torah-obedient, but also Law-giver, and we need to work out a halacha which hears “that all might honor the Son even as they honor the Father” while not wrongly assuming that Messiah comes and sweeps aside the old Law to institute something new. These are decisions requiring knowledge and balance.

Robert - 

Q1 – From the 6 six treasures of ancient Christian spirituality that Demarest mentioned the one where the spiritual leader’s primary role is, “to lead others into the presence of God” really gripped me as I also believe a spiritual leader must have this as high priority. In your experience and throughout your entire history of paradigm shifts mentioned in lecture, how have you accomplished this task? Do you have practical or even systematical steps for the younger leaders of the MJ movement? This is my first and foremost question since there are those in our movement who are dissatisfied, without a sense that they really know God. 


Q2 – In the lectures you spoke of the results of how to pursue outreach and then gave some reasons on why this is crucially important giving 6 illustrations on why. I wanted you to expound upon number 5 which stated “It is important because it challenges us to expand and reevaluate the role of the Holy Spirit’s presence in our congregations and our Union.” Being that you mentioned the Ruach as the “in the mean time G-d,” how do we expand upon the role of this important presence in our movement? 




Leading people into the Presence of God requires first some familiarity with/experience of the Presence of God in one’s own life. For me, that required crises and mentors. The crises made me aware of a deep need for God’s intevention, and the mentors—literary, recorded and actual—guided me into two kinds of shifts—theoretical and experiential.

One needs to develop a certain acquaintance with the Spirit of God, and above all, a discernment to not confuse manipulation, emotionalism, or the merely customary with being a sure sign of the Spirit’s presence (Everyone’s hands are up: the Spirit must be moving!)

Supposing one has this kind of aquaintance, one seeks to make the service/meeting a welcoming place for God. One seeks to foster a thankful attentiveness to God among the people during the service. If you feel moved to pray for a particular person’s need, do it. When, after a stretch of time in a service, you have sensed an unusual attentiveness, focus and quietness among the people, pause to point this out: “Did you notice how intent we all were during that stretch of the service? Did you sense a certain peaceful gladness?” (one of my pet indicators for the Spirtit’s working). In other words, when you have sensed the Spirit’s presence in the service, pause on some occasions to point this out to people. The result may be a greater attentiveness on their part.

Above all, I think we need to avoid manipulation and cultural shtick. Just because hands are going up in the air doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the sense of the Spirit. And making the music faster, or slower, or raising the lights or lowering them, or changing one’s rhetoric or tone of voice are usually only culturally determined substitutes for the free operation of the Spirit of God.
Actually, more often than not, the sense that the Spirit has been working is something one notes in retrospect—not at the very moment it is happening, but later.

In keeping with my continuum, explained in the DVD’s, what we can do is make our services a welcoming and attentive place for the Divine Presence—that means worshiping Him with attentive thankfulness. You throw out the welcome mat: it is up to the Visitor to decide if He is coming.

I have a special service at my congregation once a month which focuses on this aspect of our communal life. It is called an Emmanuel Service. If I can get my synagogue computer to work properly (it is currently down) I will send some materials about how this is run to further flesh out how we do things at Ahavat Zion.

I will say this in closing: We must learn how to welcome and interact with the Divine Presence without feeling we must behave like Benny Hinn, or 1980’s charismatics, in order to do so. This means learning to welcome the Divine Presence into Jewish space without feeling we have to import American Charismatic/Pentecostal culture in order to do so. In my opinion we have yet to learn how to do this.

You spoke of the Cube of MJ Spirituality, which was very enlightening and most helpful, yet I wanted to inquire as to how this model is aligned with New Covenental scriptures. Understanding that “The Light within the cube is the Divine Presence, and through any and all of the sides of the cube shines the image/face of Messiah who is Himself the embodiment of perfection in Jewish Spirituality in all of its aspects” can you back this fine cube and its various sides with New Covenant references? I feel this is a crucial question because my theory is we as MJ’s should be able to show the connection of the Tanach into the NC since this is the teaching of Yeshua and the apostles which provides our foundation of Torah and also application of the Torah as fitting to the NC order/halakhah.

Robert, thank you for this question. I wonder if it is not a bit artificial for us to imagine that we must find New Covenant texts to support practices coming out of an Old Covenant or Jewish communal context. It seems to me that supersessionism is at the root of this habit, which all of us have evidenced in one degree or another. In such a view, the assumption is that the New Covenant trumps the old in all its aspects, and that the New Covenant community trumps the old as well. Therefore, the only way we can justify practices is to find New Covenant evidence for them. This is supersessionism and leads directly into Hebrew Christian DIspensationalism which states that the Mosaic Code is now rendered null and void, and that the only practices we should entertain are those explicitly affirmed in the New Covenant Scriptures.

I don’t think it correct to imagine that the New Covenant Scriptures were given as a manual of practice for Messianic Jews, and certainly not as a replacement manual. Not all matters are taught in the New Testament—many things are either unaddressed or assumed. So it is that we see the Jewish believers in Jerusalem still leading observant Jewish lives decades after Pentecost (Acts 21). Richard Bauckham, consummate British scholar and expert on the family of Jesus, writes in his commentary on James, “As far as we can tell, the vast majority of Jewish Christians in the NT period continued to observe the whole law, taking for granted that they were still obligated to do so.” Notice not only the content of what he is saying, but also that he says “as far as we can tell.” This means that this is an inference drawn from NT practice and historical data, but not something that is specifically and systematically addressed. Therefore, since the New Covenant does not systematically address every matter, is it not artificial to require New Covenant corroboration for our practice in all points?

Perhaps we should rather assume that generally, things are permitted that are not otherwise forbidden.

Finally, we need to realize that ALL of us and everyone constructs their theology out of assumptions, constructs, and theories we bring TO the Scripture, and not simply derived from the Scripture. I taught recently at Indiana Wesleyan University, and was given a booklet written by one of the faculty there, Ken Schenck. On the subject of Hermeneutics, he says the following:

“James does not tell us how to connect his ‘a person is justified by works and nt by faith alone,’ (Jas. 2:24) to Paul’s ‘a person is justified by faith and not by works of law’ (Rom. 3:28). An important step toward a mature use of Scripture is the acknowledgment that the glue that holds these concepts together in our thinking is not biblical glue—it ultimately cannot come from the Bible itself. Rather, it is glue that we bring from our personalities and backgrounds, not to mention the broader Christian (and Jewish!) traditions of which we are a part. This is nto a bad thing—it becomes bad primarily when we do not recognize it. . . We note that the most important steps in the appropriation of the Bible for today are steps that the Bible itself cannot tell us how to take” (A Brief Guide to Biblical Interpretation. Marion, Indiana:: Triangle Publishing, 2005:18).

I think all of us are knowledgeable to discover areas where the practice of Yeshua and the Apostles touches one or the other aspects of our cube. But that is not really the point. The point is, does this construct help us to relate with integrity to the heritage and revelation we have received? Does it feel right? Are there any essentials that are glaringly omitted?

I confess that this cube is my construct, not God’s. But does it help us serve God and integrate our lives in his service as members of the Household of Israel in a suitable manner?