ON EVANGELISM
Nathaniel raises some questions about evangelism, one of my favorite subjects. I want to raise some provocative issues in this regard, while recognizing that his questions call for better and more detailed answers than I can give here and now.
First, let’s look at the problem of sin.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—this includes all Jews.
I know myself to be a man of unclean lips who needs to be touched with the coal from off of God’s sacrifical altar in order to be cleansed . I know myself to be a person totally dependent upon the redemption which is in Messiah Yeshua. But I did not always know myself to be a Jew with covenant obligations.
Certainly pagans need to repent. Certainly adherents to idolatrous religions need to repent. Certainly Jews need to repent. But we also need to ask in each case the following question: “Repent for what?” Biblically, the answer to this question is different for Jews than for non-Jews.
Some wrongly imagine that I am weak on the teaching of repentance for Jews. Not true! On the contrary, I think I am more disquieted about Jewish sin than most people in our movement. And today and for the rest of my days I am calling for a deeper repentance for all Israel and for all of us than that we have inherited from the Hebrew Christian culture, a deeper repentance than generally inhabits the heart of Messianic Judaism as I have encountered it.
R. Kendall Soulen helps us with this clarifying statement:
Human sin is never merely the sin of the creature against the Creator-Consummator. Human sin is also always the sin of Jew and Gentile, of Israel and the nations.” (R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996:153).
The sins of the MJ movement and of the Jewish people are far more dire and extensive than simply the record of individual human failings. If we would think biblically, these sins include, and indeed are foundationally, our failure communally, familially and individually to live in covenant faithfulness to the God of Israel.
Do we and all Jews need the atonement Yeshua provides? YES, by all means YES! But for reasons deeper than we have heretofore realized and proclaimed. We, the seed of Abraham and Sarah, whose ancestors, standing at the foot of Sinai, said “na’aseh v’nishmah—we will do and we will hear/obey—all that the Lord has spoken we will do”—we must repent of our general, continual and pervasive neglect of the covenant obligations to which they implicated us and of which God spoke to our ancestors all the way back to Genesis 18 and 26, much less at the Holy Mount. All of the seed of Abraham in the MJ Movement, and all of Israel, needs the atonement Yeshua provides not simply because we are individual sinners who need to be saved by grace. We need His atonement and we need to repent because we are covenant breakers and because every day we as individuals, families, congregations, as a Union, and as a wider Messianic Jewish community fail to live in manifest Torah-based covenant faithfulness, we break the word of our ancestors to which we ourselves are honor-bound (Deut 29:9-15), and we rob God of glory (see Deuteronomy 4, Jeremiah 35).
We as a movement need to repent of covenant unfaithfulness—and this means not simply asking for forgiveness, but also returning to the faithfulness we have for so long neglected. This is a message that is alien to most of the missions movement, with the exception of Mitch Glaser of Chosen People Ministries who has begun to hear it and repeat. Can we say that this is a message our movement has, not in theory but in practice, unambiguously affirmed? I think not.
Of the seventeen sermons in Acts, nine are given to Jewish audiences [ten if you include Paul’s word to Herod Agrippa]. Repeatedly the context of repentance there is NOT repentance from individual sin, not seeking atonement and forgiveness for being sinners who need to be saved by grace, but more precisely, the need to find forgiveness for having been so out of touch with who God is and what He is up to in the world, that the community was complicit in the death of Messiah, rejecting Him who God had raised from the dead, rejecting the Messiah whom God had sent, as they had they prophets before Him. And in these sermons, the language of covenant is also invoked, so that, for example, Peter could say in Acts 3:25: “. . .you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers.” Stephen as well combines these two factors when he says in Acts seven. “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”
Do we see it? The sins of Israel, and of the Messianic Movement, from which we need to repent, are twofold, as is our responsibility. To love, honor and to obey. To love the Lord our God by honoring the Messiah whom He sent, and obeying the covenant he made with our ancestors and with us.
We Messianic Jews misunderstand and misrepresent the New Covenant call for Jewish repentance because we tend to construe it in individualistic terms, thinking and preaching that “Jewish people need to repent because they are individually sinners before a holy God.: There is truth in that statement, but that is far less than, and even OTHER than the New Covenant’s perspective. Rather, as Soulen so brilliantly notes, in the Bible, “Human sin is . . . always the sin of Jew and Gentile, of Israel and the nations, against the Lord, the God of Israel.”
We Messianic Jews need to repent because we have sinned as Jews, because we have been covenantally unfaithful to the God of Israel, in addition to what we have already repented of, our dishonoring the God of our ancestors in rejecting the Messiah whom he sent.
What should we do when we meet Jews who are endeavoring to be covenantally faithful. Should we call them to embrace the Messiah whom God sent? Absolutely! But we should also commend and applaud them for their pursuit of Jewish faithfulness. This is not generally the way we go about things! Not only are religious Jews doing what they should be doing: They are doing what we should be doing.
We must overcome the Second Century reflex of commending the gospel by downgrading Judaism. Rather, we should be telling them about Yeshua because we have been commanded to do so and because he IS the Messiah whom God sent, and it is a sin, yes, but more than that, a scandal and insult to the Holy One when Jews fail to welcome him.
I also suggest that we need to jettison couching our message in an avoid-hell find-heaven mode. Even though this approach is a non-negotiable for the Jewish missions movement and for many if not for most in the UMJC, it is not once demonstrated in the sermons of the apostles, and increasingly, the wider missions world has come to see that the emphasis is not biblical, and is effective in varying degrees depending upon contextual factors.
A month or so ago I spoke at the US Center for World Mission. The last question I was asked concerned what I would say to a hasidic Jewish man my questioner had met at an airport. Here is what I would say: “Sir, if Yeshua is not the Messiah, then you had better make absolutely certain. For if He is, and you do not embrace him, then you dishonor the God of your ancestors.”
Jews should believe in Jesus. Jews should also be communally covenantally faithful. Anything less, is sin. But that includes the MJ Movement.
Are we ready to repent of our own covenantal neglect and covenantal ambivalence? I suspect that the answers in our movement are uneven. For many of us, the answer is “Yes! But how?” But it cannot be denied that there are also some who will say, “I don’t see things that way—we are not under the law,” or perhaps, “Not entirely,” or, “Are you trying to make us all Orthodox?” or perhaps, “Please explain further.” And I continue to believe that part of the reason for this widespread communal reluctance and ambivalence on these matters is the spores of antinomianism, anti-rabbinism, and anti-Judaism, weeds that encumber our pathway of faithfulness.
By all means, let us preach Yeshua to all the people of Israel. But not because of their special neediness, which has often been predicated on the alleged futility of the Jewish way of life, but because He IS the Messiah whom God sent in fulfillment of his promise, whom God raised from the dead, whom our leaders rejected, but whom Israel is called to receive.
I think it better that we concentrate on why Jews OUGHT to believe in Yeshua rather than why they NEED to believe in Yeshua. The latter approach tends to focus on proving to the Jewish person their own neediness, sinfulness, and the inadequacy of their religious commitments. I submit that this approach is reflexive in our missional approach to Jews, and that it needs to be forsaken as both ineffective and inaccurate. I prefer the other approach, of stressing why Jews ought to believe in Yeshua, because it focuses on Yeshua’s credentials and why Jews should welcome him.
We must urge the Jewish community to repent wherever we find that these “. . .heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with our fathers” are guilty of (1) rejecting the Messiah whom he sent, and (2) failing to obey the Law we received from God. This call to repentance is enduring and vital. But this call to repentance is also directed to us as individuals, to our leaders, to our Union, and to our entire ambivalent movement, “who received the Law as delivered by angels but did not obey it.” It is time to believe, and also time to obey.
Against the background of such a view of sin, the good news of Yeshua for the Jewish world is different than we normally construe it.
Messiah died not simply for Jewish people’s individual sinfulness. Messiah has come to atone for Israel’s covenant failure. And he is coming again to take away ungodliness from Jacob, when all Israel will be saved (Romans 11). He has also come to atone for the Messianic Jewish Movement’s covenant disobedience and, for the most part, our abominable indifference to our covenant obligations. If we would receive His atonement, then, ought we not to turn to that obedience we have so long neglected, we “who received the Law as given by angels but did not obey it?”
And is it not part of the good news that the Holy Spirit comes to help us enter into that covenant obedience through the Son of David? (See Ezekiel 37:21-28 for example, and of course, Jeremiah 31:31 ff.). Again, if we are grateful for the atonement, are we going to repent of our covenant failure by seeking and cleaving to the pathways of covenant obedience?
ON LEGALISM
Nathaniel addressed the hot-button issue of legalism last week, which issue needs to be addressed. He said this:
So when I look at this issue of Torah-observance and NC halakhah, I think of Yeshua's words that all the law and all the prophets hangs on the 2 great commandments (love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself). Now how does this relate to handwashing or the proper amount of liturgy? Where is the line drawn between trying our best to live a life that is an authentic expression of a Jewish faith in Yeshua, and the danger (or fear) of becoming legalistic?
Robert responded with some maturity too the issue, saying:
I believe as MJ's we need to value some of the traditions of Judaism, yet not out of a legalistic tradition that is likened to a straightjacket, but allowing for the leading of the Ruach and the wisdom of G-d fearing leaders to discern what works for that community. Regarding liturgy and the other ceremonies you mentioned, I believe this is part of who we are as Jews and as MJ's we should have a goal to discern from the Spirit, submit to the Scriptures and realize that we are connected to Klal Israel although our involvement will bring forth respect as well as disagreement. Any viable relationship has its pro's and con's but ultimately there is a bond of commitment that cannot be broken. Hope this helps.
“Legalism” is a significant underlying issue in debates and feelings about Torah observance in our Union. Following is an article I found on-line, denouncing the kinds of things I champion as being Grace-less legalism, and my brief response. I cannot say too strongly that a misunderstanding of this term is a hindrance to our movement’s obedience, maturation and growth in covenant faithfulness.
What do you think?
Dismantling Legalism In the Messianic Jewish Movement Today
Marshall Beeber
Found on line 7/14/06 at http://www.messianic-literary.com/dismantle.htm
The greatest threat to the Messianic Jewish (Hebrew Christian) Movement in the 21st Century is the de-spiritualization of it's ranks by legalism in the form of mandatory Torah observance. I believe the reason why the "gospel of grace" was overtaken by "Torah observant legalism", is due to a spirit of unbiblical compromise and conformation to a false spirit of religiosity among Messianic Jewish leaders. To make the situation worse, grace oriented Messianic Jewish (Hebrew Christians) leaders have themselves been polarized by various secondary issues. To reverse the stemming tide of legalism before the entire movement is lost, we must put aside our differences and work together for the common goal of the gospel.
. . . . Let me take some time to explain why legalism in the form of strict Torah Observance has successfully overtaken the correct doctrine of Grace and how Grace oriented Messianic Judaism can regain the hearts and minds of believers.
The Messianic Jewish Movement grew out of rebellion against Protestant Christian missionary programs which did not understand the needs of Messianic Jewish (Hebrew Christian) believers. Doctrine was oriented towards grace, with oversight that would prevent believers from professing and teaching Torah observance. Such programs only perpetuated a "second class" Hebrew Christian citizenry within the Church, causing worshippers to mistrust their leadership. In the late 70s through the 80s the Messianic Jewish movement teaching in most congregations was still largely Grace oriented, accompanied with some Torah observance. This form of worship and daily practice still remained true to New Covenant standards and gave worshippers the freedom to express their Jewishness.
In the mid-90’s David Stern’s revolutionary book , "The Messianic Jewish Manifesto" started turning belief towards strict Torah Observance. I believe that Stern’s intent was that of dismantling the "Pauline" teachings of Grace, to revert back to the Law. He and other supportive Messianic Jews resented the teachings of Grace having supremacy over Torah. He therefore intentionally rebelled against New Covenant doctrine believing that Jews would not accept any Gospel except one that was totally Torah observant. In doing this, he and other supportive teachers adopted a dangerously heretical course. Strict Torah observance has now become the standard in much of the Messianic Jewish movement. Today almost all dissenting teachers have been ostracized from much of the movement. Those that remain but disagree have learned a certain "politically correct" posture to take regarding legalism and have therefore been neutralized. Both the UMJC and MJA are now supportive of Sternian doctrine. Major ministries like Jews for Jesus and Chosen People Ministries spend little effort in combating this legalism, despite their Grace oriented teaching. They have both largely capitulated their efforts in maintaining basic doctrinal integrity within the MJM as a whole. It looks like the battle against legalism is being lost! But the legalist leaders have not yet faced the repercussion of their folly , nor the full opposition of their Grace oriented Messianic Jewish and supportive Christian brethren. . . .
Legalists must realize too that they cannot continue to teach doctrine opposing basic New Covenant truths without suffering the paralyzing spiritual consequences. The constant hope for "revival" in the MJM cannot be met until the Spirit is given the freedom to touch individuals. The perceived strength in legalism is its insistence upon conformity within the movement. This of course, has always been the true weakness of the Law. It cannot succeed in emancipating souls by liturgical means. Only by the Spirit and the freedom of Grace are sinners truly freed from the power of sin and death.
How shall we respond to this? Well, many ways. There are a number of read herrings, half-truths and mischaracterizations in this document. But for today, let’s settle for just one—a better definition of “legalism.’
I like the definition given by Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a well-known Christian theologian, and icon of Dispensationalism:
"Legalism may be defined as a fleshly attitude which conforms to a code for the purpose of exalting self. The code is whatever objective standard is applicable to the time; the motive is to exalt self and gain merit rather than to glorify God because of what He has done, and the power is the flesh, not the Holy Spirit. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that having to do something is not legalism, but the wrong attitude is ----- Israelites had to bring their sacrifices, otherwise they would have suffered certain penalties. It was the attitude toward doing what they had to do that determined whether or not their action was legalistic ------ Having to conform to a law is not of itself legalism" (Charles Ryrie, "The Grace of God", pages 117-118).
“Legalism” is a word commonly thrown around by people seeking to either avoid or discredit Torah observance. It is not usually defined, and is seldom defined clearly. I believe that Ryrie’s approach is most helpful.
To put it in my own words, “Legalism is an attitude which seeks to leverage God through human performance, often serving as a basis for claiming or feeling oneself superior to others.”
Saying that God requires certain kinds of conduct from us, including commandment keeping is not legalism. It is obedience in the context of seeking to honor God. It only becomes legalism when it leads to feeling proud, superior, or entitled, when it is used as an occasion for dominating others, and when it obscures the fact that confidence with God is, was and always will be grounded on His grace and mercy, not our own achievement.
It is also wrong to imagine that something is “legalistic” except when it involves a subjective sense of being led by the Spirit. Think of it in terms of parent-child relations. When a child knows it is his job to clean up his room or wash the dishes, is it legalism that he is required to do so even when he doesn’t feel like it? The assumption that “the leading of the Spirit” must precede obedience is a product of post-Enlightenment rationalism which moved the center of authority from God to the individual. Obedience is not legalism: it is respect for authority.
ANSWERING SOME OF DEREK'S QUESTIONS
(1) Not directly on topic, but you brought it up—the Takhanun. When praying the core prayers of the Siddur, I pray in Hebrew and have gained enough familiarity to know what I am praying. But with prayers like the Takhanun that I am less familiar with, I pray in English. I always feel guilty. If I pray unfamiliar Hebrew I get nothing from it. Am I justified in praying some parts of the Siddur in English as I am learning? (I don’t mean to give the impression that I pray the Shakharit daily—I am lax in prayer).
Of course you are justified in doing so, and standard Jewish practice says as much, although some hard line halachic sources say that the obligation is only discharged when Hebrew is used. The latter is NOT the prevailing operational consensus.
(2) We frequently use the term Yeshua-centered in MJ. I read some years ago Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center. You persuaded me we must be God-centered. Now I am looking for a good verb to go with Yeshua: Torah-based, God-centered, Spirit-empowered, Klal Israel-oriented, Yeshua-________?
How about Yeshua-honoring?
(3) When you say that MJ spirituality involves Torah-based holiness exemplified by Messiah, are you being too weak on Messiah’s contribution? You also referred to Hays’ theory that Paul means “faithfulness” when he uses pistis. I find that thesis very problematic (consider Rom 3:25). Isn’t Messiah’s contribution far greater than an example of obedience?
Yes, Yeshua’s contribution is far more than obedience, far more than being simply the ideal/model/obedient Jew. See my response to Joshua concerning MJ Halacha. As for Richard Hays’ position and Romans 3:25, let me get back to you on it. Still, I think his emphasis that we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (through His redemptive and atoning obedience) rather than through something in ourselves (our subjective faith) is a healthy corrective to the notion that we are saved by our faith rather than by the grace of God!
CONCERNING PARADIGM SHIFTS
Nathaniel says:
Questions 2 and 3 are related: 2. Concerning paradigm shifts, where and when does the rubber meet the road? Can you give past examples of this from the Messianic Movement? 3. Is the Messianic Movement going through a paradigm shift right now? If so, what do you hold as the central truths that we need to gravitate to?
The entire Messianic Jewish Movement is an example of a paradigm shift. When I came to faith in Yeshua in 1961, it was universally assumed that Jewish believers in Jesus were to be functioning members of a local Bible-believing Church. This was the Hebrew Christian model. True, some Jewish believers would have fellowship meetings with other Jewish believers (the Hebrew Christian Alliance), but this was a side-line. In fact, the Hebrew Christian Alliance had gone on record as denouncing the idea of Jewish Yeshua-believing congregations as heretical, The very idea of Messianic Jewish Congregations is a huge paradigm shift.
Is the MJ Movement going through a paradigm shift right now? In parts of it, yes. The older Hebrew Christian paradigm looked at Torah living as an exercise in nostalgia and missionary expediency—a good way to attract and reassure other Jews. But some of us are saying that it is very much more than that: it is a matter of covenant faithfulness, or the lack of it, a matter of repentance, and a matter of eschatological inevitability. This is one of my chief contributions to the current climate in Messianic Judaism and I have written on it extensively, including a recent sixty page paper, “Seeds, Weeds and Walking the High Wire,” which I may share with you folks before this class is out.
Another paradigm shift taking hold in our Union is seeing the Jewish community as our primary community of reference, “raising up congregations for Yeshua within the Household of Israel.”
Finally, if you will look at the Definitional Statement on the UMJC homepage, and the supporting documents attached to it, you will see imbedded a number of paradigm shifts such as I have alluded to here. That definition is something that was unimaginable when I came to believe in Yeshua in 1961.
Mark Kinzer does a wonderful job of chronicling a number of our paradigm shifts in Post Missionary Messianic Judaism.
20 comments:
Paul responds to “On evangelism”
I agree with R.Dauermann’s proposed model for evangelism/in-reach and the basis for it. I suspect the rub lies with many who adhere to the belief that Torah covenant faithfulness is at odds with NC covenant faithfulness and faith in what Yeshua’s sacrifice means. And there is no way to get past this quickly or easily. As much as I know that R. Dauermann is correct in calling for a return to Torah covenant faithfulness as well as embracing Yeshua as a substantial component of teshuva, there are others who believe, with equal and perhaps greater conviction, that I am in serious error. All that I can say to “them” is that I am extremely grateful for Yeshua’s sacrifice and continual intercession but I do not see where that excuses me from my obligations under the covenant, which places me, at least in their minds, in danger of legalism.
Response to “On legalism”
I agree with Ryrie’s definition of legalism; it is one of the best one’s I have seen. With that legalism is a very real danger. One can exchange relationship with G-d for relationship with ritual acts. When I teach children or adults, I try to emphasize that the purpose of any ritual is to invite your attention to G-d. Once you lose that focus, you have strayed from the true purpose of the act. For example, I ritually wash my hands every morning and try to do the same before every meal. This is not required in the written Torah. I do not see anywhere where it is prohibited. And these are part of our Tradition. So I do it. And if that is the sum total of why I do it, it is not wrong, but I miss the fullness of the act. I wash in the morning because, through that act, I am offering that day, my time and life, to the L-rd. The same for the meals. Through this act, I am reminded that my service should be for Him, that I have a choice of whether I do that, and by washing, I am choosing, by means of this act, to serve Him.
Turning to obedience, leaving that to whether one “feels led by the Spirit” seems to fly in the face of a parable taught by Yeshua recounted in Matthew 21:28-31.
“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. ‘Which of the two did what his father wanted?’”
Hey everyone I will be putting up two posts.
The first is in response to yestardays essays. I will be responding to essay #1
Rabbi Stuart writes:
“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.”
I like your viewpoint here Rabbi Stuart, that the leader really does lead the people under his care into the Presence of God. This is a healthier approach than the “look at me and follow my example because I am more spiritual than you” approach (this of course is an exaggeration, but sometimes I have been hurt by that style of leading).
You also mentioned that, “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.”
This reminds me of John 3, where Yeshua talks about the wind going which ever way it wants. We also know that we do not conjure up the Spirit, but it pays to be attentive and receptive. This could lead to a deeper discussion of how we worship, what it’s supposed to look like, and how the wonderful traditions we have, “Jewish Space”, as it were, are the tools that we use to welcome our guest.
The flipside of this is not everyone entertains the same way. And this almost goes back to our discussion yesterday about levels of observance. Some people put out the best china, beautiful flatware, and a fresh bottle of wine for their guest, while others just leave the door open. The interesting thing is, I believe the Ruach will dine with us regardless of our table preparations, as long as we leave the door open. And sometimes, while He’s with us, then He shows us how to properly set the table. Isn’t that interesting. And the reverse is also true, we can put out the best everything, but if we lock the door and don't answer the knock, our work is in vain.
I don't know what to comment as I have not disagreement about you have written regarding legalism. Legalism is always the statement thrown out within Christian circles whenever Torah observance is brought up. I was not aware of the magnitude of a similar response within the MJM within some of the leadership. This point is what I consider a stumbling block in scriptural interpretation and exegesis and gets us back to the rubric of law versus grace which seems to be at the root of this situation. I should probably call it a paradox although in the dialectical sense it seems you can't have one without the other.
Your comments on repentance and a return to covenant faithfulness as being more than just an individualistic response for individual sin but a response of corporate Israel repenting and turning from breaking the covenant and turning to the Lord as one that should be undertaken by every Jewish person are well taken. This addresses the issues from Deut 30 where you mentioned return to the Lord, return to the Land and return to the Law as illustrative of the results of covenant faithfulness and restoration and incumbent on every Jewish person. Do you see that this has to be a paradigm shift from the mold of the initial Hebrew Christian movement coming out of the evangelical Christian mold ? The interpretation of New Covenant grace versus legalism which negates Torah observance ironically shows or demonstrates the legalism of the supersessionistic as well as non-supersessionistic Christian view.
Here is my 2nd post
Legalism discussion:
To put it in my own words, “Legalism is an attitude which seeks to leverage God through human performance, often serving as a basis for claiming or feeling oneself superior to others.”
This is very, very helpful. Legalism pretty much = pride. I can now admit that I have been legalistic in areas that had nothing to do with the Law or traditions. So let’s talk about this some more, as this is a main area that I am trying to wrap my brain around. I keep going around this circle of grace and legalism, because I have seen what appears to be legalism in those that are more observant, and also cases of those that are walk out the Torah the commandments as an expression of their freedom in Yeshua.
However, I keep going back to this questions though of, “Do I need to do this? Do we need to do this? I suppose that’s not really the right question, but it’s hard to get past it. I mean look, we all can agree that stealing is wrong, but when you have something like ritual baths, it just doesn’t hit the same chord of necessity and obedience. And of course we have Yeshua as an example, who I feel may look at some of the things we do today as Pharisaical (I hope I spelled that right). I don’t find a surety in the traditions of our people like I do in the scriptures themselves, and the NC writings. I do them because we do them, and I try and make them my own. I enjoy them to and there are some things that I don’t want to do without. But these things in themselves don’t give us life. Do they point us to the life? I suppose they do? They are supposed to point us to Yeshua, but what do we do now that He has our hearts, now that He’s given us life?
Now please don’t take this the wrong way for those here that do find life in the commandments and the traditions. I am not against these things, I just am trying to find out where they fit into my life. I hope that is not a selfish thing to do.
In reply to the question on Evangelism and legalism and in respnse to Stuart's reply:
Taking things apart:
1.We know that post-Holocaust the Roman Catholic church was forced to reconsider it's view and relationship with Israel as evidenced by writings aimed at turning the tide on supersessionalism(Nostra aetate 4)
2.However, relevant to our question is the "acid Test" proposed by Wyschogrod the Jewish theologian as to whether a "baptized Jew" needed to put all his or her practices to "Nought".
3.In reading Kinzer's book I discovered that throughout church history there has either Been tolerance or opposition to this idea of a two tier Eklesia.(Iraneus,Justin Augustine all pretty much against continuing any active participation on the LAW) 4.In fact as I learned Augustine even implies that Paul's sole reason for continuing with the Law was a sort of pretending to make it easier for the Jews to accept him!
5.Vital point!Vital point!
When a Yeshua believing Jew continues in Jewish observance is it "only pretending" "to make it easier for JewS to swallow "the rest" or is it with the same vision or absolute neccessity bound to coventental obligation.No-one has discussed this much.What is important is the "interior motive"Can a Yeshua believing Jew have the same interior motive as a Yeshua-rejecting Jewish believer? How are the two views altered ..if at all.
How we answer this question is the hinge for the rest.For me the question won't be should we be observant,do we NEED to be observant,if Yeshua died for us and we are saved by grace how can this help you or be a condition on that,etc,etc
6.Why tie them together at all? We are Jews, and thus,we partake in Jewish practices that are relevant as signposts bringing us into the presence of HaShem.No-one would deny that,probably.
We accept the sacrifice of Yeshua for Jews and Gentiles.I haven't really grasped why Sabbath observance,wearing titzits can change any of that.I haven't understood why Yeshua's sacrifice and Messiahhood is mutually exclusive to those with blood lineage to the Jewish peoples?
In reponse to calling it a "sin" to be non-observant is "meaty" to say the least!!I suppose we have to be careful about having "sins" for one group in the church and not another.I suppose it is a "sin" if you are convinced about the way that being observant impacts your daily life in a way that G-d is all the more honoured...and then choose not to do it.As for those who have never entered into observant practice and suggest that they "sin" by a lower level of observance seems to be a bitter pill to swallow for me...for the moment!
8.HOW we do something ..the internal.There's the crux.Viewed like this we can be sure that apart from all the papers written about observance,from papal documents to pentecostal articles G-d looks on our heart.
9.What has all this got to do with evangelism? Unless we get this straight how can we present a coherent picture to Jews in the street? Can't we admire their oservance,illustrate the priority of accepting Yeshua (not an option but probably related to the way we present the Massiach and probably dependant on a " very long road to travel" ...perhaps more than for the "usual" person turning to Christ) and let this Jewish part of the Eklesia a certain autonomy.
9.Dangers:Must make sure that evangelism directs Jewish believers to a place where they can be welcomed ad admired in their observance ...not ridiculed!!
10.Fr Cantalemessa wrote a papal document called the "mystery of christmas" (in Kinzer's book).He notes the greatest schism is not between Catholics and Protestants,east and west,but between Israel and the church
11."End -times eschatology". Purely supposition on my part but why is eVeryone now talking about Teshuvah and returning to observances,etc be that in the light of the Messiah or not(Traditioal jews).Is this not also the working of the Ruach HaKodesh ..The conflicts in the world ,the environment,etc ..all speak of a situation where something is not right.Although it's always good to remain "on the ground" and not too etherial this calling may be something that we haven't touched on.Our personnal" calling to observance in the context of our personnal vocation.
Question for Derek (or anyone else)
Derek, in an earlier response, you indicated that the authority to make halikhah was transferred to the disciples. How are we sure that it was indeed a transfer rather than a additional grant of authority? If Torah remains in place, doesn't the Sages' authority remain unless expressly revoked? I am interested in your thoughts on this.
In further response to Paul's reply to legalism and Rabbi Staurt's reply to legalism and the posting of the article by Beeber:
1.In read Paul's reply with interest.It's great that you carry out handwashing before you eat.I admire you..it is in acts such as these that we bring the daily into to contact with the Holy and transformation takes place.We hope we ourselves are transformed by them..others the value is dubious.So hand washing is great for you and I admire it...but can we go so far as to say those who don't do it ...SIN?
If they deliberately don't hand-wash to spurn G-d then..YES! But what if they never hand washed before..do they have to now?¨
This covenant faithfulness..why can't it be in the measure that he holy spirit has revealed in the hearts of the faithful.Doesn't Paul say in Rms that "for some one day is more holy than another,for another one food is seen as unclean ..although he is convinced that no food is unclean in itself ..." So the basic idea is tolerance and compassion with those travelling the same road in faith.
As to Stuart's question on sin..I do believe likewise that we all need to repent,Jews amd Gentiles alike.What I don't go along with are some who would say that legalism is just a reflex action by those who don't WANT to be "free".(Saw a site about this on the web today!)This is too simplistic by far.Around us and in ourselves we know that we are all too bent on turning away from G-d into all sorts of evil actions.Without limits (or possibly a "Cube") we go wayward very, very quickly.Did not someone say once "sin is the dizziness of freedom?".
The article by Beeber turns around on the assumption that those who are observant are de-spiritualising their faith.How can he know what I have in my heart..Who placed Beeber as judge of what motivates my putting on of teffilin each morning as I try to remember how I'm wed to Israel and it's Saviour Massiach Yeshua!
He likewise (Beeber) states in his final paragraph that spiritual paralysis results from our lack of freedom.What is this "Freedom".To do what we like,from the LAW,free from what? (I don't pertain to the idea that Torah observance is non-freedom at all,but rather increased freedom to be who I was supposed to be!!)
I suppose the key quotation is from Yeshua in the Brit Chadashah "I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it" and ALSO the following statement"Love the Lord your G-d and your neighbour as yourself..on these hang all the LAW and the prohpets"
No mention of abolishing the LAW here only placing the whole LAW in it's appropriate framework
Psalm 40-6/8: Sacrifice and oferings I do not desire....etc..I came to do your will, send me...etc..your LAW IS WRITTEN IN MY HEART"
Searching through Romans and especially Rms 4.16 "the promise comes by faith so that by grace it may be promised to all of Abraham's offsring-not only those of the Law...etc.
I still haven't found any explicit directive telling me to "chuck" observance and live in a cultural and ritual void.What I have found is that everything from ritual observance to prayer to serving Yeshua in our home communities must be done by faith in Yeshua and of course with his grace but also in his LAW(if you happen to be Jewish).This seems to make sense and be coherent with the sacred writings ..for me!
Paul briefly responds to John:
First, the issue of whether it is sin for me not to wash my hands. When R. Dauermann says that one is in sin when that person fails to live in covenant faithfulness, I get the sense that he is not speaking to each and every act set forth in the Talmud or Shulchan Aruch, although I could be wrong about his view. Regardless, I feel our Western thinking can sometimes be a hindrance in this context. Here, our Western thinking draws our attention to the individual acting as an individual, responsible only to G-d for his actions or omissions. However Torah also speaks to an individual’s spiritual responsibility to the community, to Israel, and, in some sense, to the nations. And that is where I suspect that R. Dauermann is pointing. Our sin for failing to live in covenant faithfulness has more to do with our spiritual responsibility to the community, to Israel, and to the nations. However, that is inexorably tied to our actions as individuals. With that, I think that entering into covenant faithfulness begins with acknowledging the community and your spiritual responsibility to it. From there climb the ladder of observance. (R. Dauermann, do I misunderstand?)
Secondly, on the Law applying to Jews, we have to remember that, in Gen. 9, G-d made a covenant with Noah too. That has not been abolished either.
Robert
Q1 (with many questions)
A) There are a variety of points and issues that really struck me on the question “On Evangelism.” To begin, I also am one who as R. Stuart said, “did not always know myself to be Jew with covenant obligations.” With good mentoring and teaching, I have been able to grasp more reality and also walk in deeper covenant responsibilities as a Jew. Although, when it comes to the next point where a Jew’s repentance is different than that of a Gentile, are you saying this only in relation to covenant responsibilities or on other levels?
B) R. Stuart said, “The sins of the MJ movement and of the Jewish people are far more dire and extensive than simply the record of individual human failings. If we would think biblically, these sins include, and indeed are foundationally, our failure communally, familially and individually to live in covenant faithfulness to the God of Israel.”
When I think Biblically on the issue of sin, I see the need for salvation. After all the Lord is seen as always “saving” His people from something ranging from their enemies to their idolatrous ways. Author Soulen in the book you cited, also said, “the antithesis of sin and redemption is not the central theme of the Scriptures, nor indeed is it an object of concern in its own right.(152) I have felt that Soulen has the tendency to downplay the importance of sin and redemption in his attempt to reconfigure the canonical narrative in a way that presents the story as more than a mere “repair job.” Do you feel Soulen grasps redemptive action?
C) R. Stuart also said, “I also suggest that we need to jettison couching our message in an avoid-hell find-heaven mode…… the wider missions world has come to see that the emphasis is not biblical, and is effective in varying degrees depending upon contextual factors.”
Maybe from the Tanakh the “avoid-hell find-heaven mode,” is a bit obscure, but certainly in the NC there seems to be more emphasis on this subject especially in Yeshua’s words. The prophet Daniel certainly brings Biblical emphasis to the issue when he speaks to this issue in Daniel 12, and Jewish writings certainly reflected much interest in the after-life which has much to do with avoiding hell, finding heaven. I may be wrong, but it is possible that you are so concerned with “divorcing” MJ from Evangelicalism (in the ways you have expressed) at the expense that your emphasis on these issues such as sin, salvation and grace is a bit extreme? When it comes to covenant fidelity versus issues like sin, salvation and grace – I don’t see it as an issue of either-or; but rather an issue of both-and. I feel your passion for re-writing many things in MJ due to the “sin” of supersessionism, but how far should we be distinctive without reaching the point of hostility or resentment with our other Gentile brothers & sisters ?
Robert
Response to Paul
You said, “ All that I can say to “them” is that I am extremely grateful for Yeshua’s sacrifice and continual intercession but I do not see where that excuses me from my obligations under the covenant, which places me, at least in their minds, in danger of legalism.”
Paul, this is well said and I agree with this profound statement. I do not see you in error at all although I do see our movement split on what “obligations” under the covenant are applicable. How do you judge what should be and what shouldn’t?
Robert
Response to Paul responding to John:
Paul, you touched on entering into covenant faithfulness beginning with (1)acknowledging the community and (2)one’s spiritual responsibility to it, and from there climbing the ladder of observance. Can you expound on those two crucial points?
To Paul's first statement re: evangelism and covenant faithfulness. One of the factors that has challenged me most on this matter is the testimony of prophecy (especially Ezekiel 36 and 37, Deut 30, Jer 31: 31 ff.) that eschatological times will see the Jewish people walking in the statutes and ordinances God gave to Moses at Sinai. And the book of Malachi ends by reminding us, "4 "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. 5 "Behold, I will send you Eli'jah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."
For me, if the Jewish past is anchored in the commandments, and if the Jewish future is characterized by the commandments, then how can we justify disengagement in the present?
For me, such passages stand in judgment over theological assumptions and preferences which assume the irrelevance or expiration of Torah faithfulness because of New Covenant realities. Indeed, THE passage which speaks of the New Covenant (Jer. 31), says of such times, "I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people."
I really don't understand how people can argue against such conclusions.
Hey everyone! Read Nathaniel's first comment! Beautifully and poetically said, well considered and convincing!
In response to Paul's comments that are a reply to mine about observance and "sin"
thanks's paul for your comments.I imagine you are suggesting that "sin" can be thought of as communal,global and in some ways distant from us..outside of our control as it involves larger groups,the whole community,nations,religious groups,etc. However,this view would be a little bit difficult to reconcile with passages spoken by yeshua such as "unless a man hates his mother, father, brother,sister...etc and follow me ,he is not worthy of the kingdom of G-d" It would seem to me that throughout the Tanakch and the brit chadasah a person must make a "personnel" choice for the L-rd that may result in persecution.
The other thing that I have to say on this is that we have to ask ourselves whether G-d really is in control or not.why do I mention this? Is it possible that this emphasis on "sin" in connection to non-observant indiviual behaviour is a reaction to the realisation of something very adrift in our "churches" (of course, the replacement theology types, but also the dispensationalists) who have turned the "olive-tree"analogy upside down(the Jewish people grafted into spiritual Israel,the present church).Even with the remnant theolgians who see a predominant eschatalogical relevance for Israel,few would endorse Torah based covenant faithfulness to be "bound to salvation" (repeated sin = loss of salvation).It could just be, in a similar sort of way that we can see G-d's hand in the Rabbinic tradition, that the Gentile church was called to witness to our saviour Yeshua, in a certain way relevant to that time.Now,as witnessed by increased interest in the "jewish question" ,we see the relation with Jewish believers very much back on the agenda.should we not see our return to Jewish observance purely as an individual calling,understood in a specific context(return of Israel to the Land,increased awareness of ritual in reform circles,growth of the MJ movement,etc).
One last comment..how ever are we going to explain all of this to the casual synagogue attender,or "on the fringe participant".We could run the danger of confusing an awful lot of people over this issue if we don't get the language right!
Rabbi:
The debate over "faith in Jesus" or "faith of Jesus" interests me. I note that:
1. The phrase is used only 4 times in Paul.
2. It could be either objective genitive "faith in Jesus" or subjective genitive "faith of Jesus."
3. Heavyweight non-traditionalist Dunn weighs on the side of "faith in Jesus."
4. It does not affect Paul's doctrine of Justification by Faith which is taught elsewhere.
5. A cool occurrence is Romans 3:22 where "faith in/of Jesus" is used with the phrase "for all who believe," indicating that any way you slice it, Paul teaches faith as the instrumental cause of justification.
Derek
Paul:
I too am thinking about the meaning and relationship of Matthew 18:18 and 23:2. You asked if the halakhic authority of the disciples outweighs or is supplementary to the halakhic authority of Israel's sages. I would think supplementary -- it's the only way not to assume Yeshua contradicted himself. Presumably the sages have authority and the disciples are granted authority to amend.
There are a number of questions:
1. Is binding and loosing clearly about halakha?
2. Are we reading rabbinic language anachronistically into an earlier context?
3. Is there another way to understand Matt 18:18 that is more compelling?
I think there is some interpretive ambiguity here.
You also asked in an email, are the halakhic rulings of the apostles available? Well, there are some issues, such as Acts 15 that fit into halakha. And there are teachings in the epistles, mostly for Gentiles and so not dealing with issues we would like answers to. Generally, I would say their halakha is lost--lost to the carelessness of the church which rejected Jewish norms early.
Derek
I have two questions. One is what is your understanding or interpretation of Romans 11:11, "but by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous" and Rom. 11:13-14, "Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry if somehow I might mve to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them". In other words, is there some form of conduct or observance by Gentiles that provokes Jews to jealousy or better still what is it that provokes Jews to jealousy?
The second question deals with circumcision. We have Moses speaking to the men of Israel in Deuteronomy 10:12-15 asking them what does the Lord your God require from you......., but to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the Lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the Lord's commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today for you good? Subsequently, Moses tells the people to circumcise then your hearts, and stiffen your neck no more". Then jump to Romans 3:28, "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law", and verse 30-31, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Paul then talks about Abraham's faith being reckoned as righteousness (Rom. 4:5) and then rom. 4:9-11 as follows: "is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? for we say, "faith was reckoned to Abraham as righeousness. How the was it reckoned? While he circumcised or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised but while uncircumcised; and he received the signe of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he lmight be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them, and the fathe of circumcison to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised". Then in Colossians 2:6-13 there are further comments on circumcision and uncircumcision. How do we view circumcision from a spiritual perspective? I am pressed for time and probably have not been able to formulate my question properly as I am about to leave for the airport.
Paul responds to Derek:
Thanks. Regarding Yeshua's charge to the apostles being supplementary, we are on the same page. While I have always heard it couched as a "transfer" it never really seemed accurate, for the reasons you point out.
Paul responds to John:
Again, I think our Western thinking (which I am not saying is bad) interferes with understanding what is being said. A community, by definition, is a collective of individuals. The behavior of the community is, likewise, defined by the behavior of individuals but also the community's response to the behaviors of individuals.
With that and without doing any cite checking, I invite your attention to Revelation as well as to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, where nations as a whole are judged. This suggests that, spiritually, nations are more than just a collective of people since the nation itself can be judged as well as individuals. Case in point is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; Abraham negotiates for the fate of the community. It was never a question of taking the righteous out.
Paul responds to Robert:
You asked me to expound on (1)acknowledging the community and (2)one’s spiritual responsibility to it, and from there climbing the ladder of observance.
Time constraints have prevented me from exploring a concept that I call “bare minimum Judaism.” Put another way, it seeks to answer the question of how do we know we are within Torah covenant faithfulness. That, in turn, begs the question of whether the answer lies in terms of subjective norms, objective norms, or a combination of them. The polar extremes are easy. One the one hand you have a Jew who knows the Torah, and yet works on the Sabbath although he doesn’t have to, and eats traif, especially on Yom Kippur, when he feasts on Lobster Bisque, Clam Chowder with bacon bits. He does not observe any Jewish holiday in any sense at any time. Clearly, he is not engaged in covenant faithfulness objectively or subjectively. The other extreme is a Chassid who faithfully observes both written and oral Torah and believes in Yeshua as the Messiah and trusts in His redemption. With these examples in mind, where do we draw the line where one has crossed the threshold of engaging in Torah covenant faithfulness? It has to be more than the first and I do not believe that there is any support for the second being the minimum. So how do we know? Again, I have not had the time to fully develop this. And as I wrestle with this now, I am led to conclude that it begins with a choice that acknowledges that G-d is who He says He is, that He meant what he said, and that He genuinely cares what we do and how we act. While this is going a bit beyond what you ask, I believe it is relevant. We have been charged with the care and restoration of this world. And if we acknowledge that Hashem is G-d, then we also have to acknowledge that we don’t know everything about how this world works. However, G-d gave us an owner’s manual of sorts – the Torah and the B’rit Chadashah. The Hebrew for a commandment from the Torah is mitzvah. The root for mitzvah, tzadee-vav-hay, is the root for “giving charge over.” So I strongly suspect that the commandments speak to how we are to take care of this world, even when we really don’t fully or partially understand why we should follow that commandment. And in so doing, we are engaging in tikkun olam on realms we cannot see or appreciate.
Post a Comment