Team Pyro gives Steven A. Kreloff a chance to ask the question, “is ‘Messianic Judaism’ a good idea?” I cannot tell you how very much I agree with this.
-
About
The weblog of Charlie Sebold, Tracey Sebold, and Patrick Chan. Reformed, Baptistic, Geek. -
Meta
-
Contents
-
Accountability
All-time low:
9/18/2008
161This week:
165 -
Twitter (Charlie)
-
Interesting Links
-
Recent Responses
-
Tags
Apologetics april 1 atheism bible blogging Britain Calvinism Catholicism Christ Christianity church David Tennant death Doctor Who entertainment fiction GCBC geek gospel Greek health Hebraic Roots humor James White
14 Comments
Wow, I totally agree. What a great article!
Also, I was thinking, some of what Pastor Kreloff said could likewise apply to churches which are (I guess for lack of a better term) ethnically exclusive. Like black or Asian churches which, although they’d probably never put it this way, nevertheless act and behave as if they’re the only ones who are allowed to minister to their respective ethnic groups.
Maybe by the grace and providence of God there are reasons they might be the best ones to minister to others of their ethnicity, at least during a certain time and in a certain place, but should ministry to blacks or Asians be something which falls under the exclusive purview of black or Asian ministries alone?
Then again, it’s possible I’ve misconstrued their actual intentions, and indeed, that’s not how they’d put it. Apologies if that’s the case. It’s just my impression largely based on my experiences with certain ministries; but yeah, my “impressions” may not necessarily lead to fair characterizations.
I don’t know about other minorities (being as I am the ultimate majority demographic in the US: WASP). But I remember one fellow whom you and I have both met, arguing that Gentiles should completely get out of the business of evangelizing Jews, and leave it to him and other Messianics. Of course, later he denied the deity of Christ…
I argued in my sermon last Sunday that the body of Christ needs to stop this drawing of lines. You’re not my kind, because you’re not… what? Asian? White? Jewish? Elbonian? White-collar? Poor? Homeschooling your kids? Public-schooling your kids? College-educated? Trekkie? Is this a reason to have separate churches, or to leave one and go someplace else?
Doctrines are good reasons. It is hard to live out the Christian life and ministry when you have a doctrinal issue with the rest of your church, particularly in practice (like Dan Phillips being in a Presby church, although it’s harder if you’re a paedo/oiko-baptist in a credo- church). But even that doesn’t have to be a deal-breaker. I’d rather go to an Arminian church where they believe in inerrancy and substitutionary atonement, than no church at all.
The Church Triumphant is made up on every people, nation, tribe, and tongue. The Church Militant ought to consider whether it has closed its doors to people with whom it will have to spend eternity, just because “they aren’t like us.” Christ broke down the dividing wall, and I am willing to argue that it goes beyond Jew and Gentile. The real unbreakable wall now is whether we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. That wall remains, because only in Christ are people saved. All the others should be down. Otherwise we’re being Peter in Galatians, and you don’t want Paul in your face.
So is there therefore an accepted way that ALL churches should act and behave? If ethnic and cultural expressions are not allowed, then must some sort of framework and rules be drafted that states the types of clothes that can and cannot be worn, the phrases that can be used, etc.
I am sure you could go to a dozen different churches in your area, churches where you would say they are doing well and correct on most everything, and find different expressions of the faith. Because a black church or an Asian church or a Messianic Jewish Synagogue seem different is not reason for a bigotry to form. As long as those groups hold fast to the truth of salvation based upon faith and faith alone, then everything else can be discussed as brothers in Christ and if there becomes no agreement, then agree to disagree, however that does not make one side sinful or wrong.
Bryan:
I’m not sure who you’re boxing with here. Is it Patrick, me, both of us, the original author, or who?
I’m not bigoted against “expressions of the faith” (assuming that they are doctrinally orthodox). I assume you are talking about cultural trappings, generally outer things, like music styles and speaking styles and so forth. There is room for diversity. Nobody wants to go to the church of the lowest common denominator, the least offensive or culturally differing church.
What I am decrying in my comment is building walls, whether by churches (not allowing certain people in for racial or cultural reasons) or by individuals (not feeling like they can fellowship in certain churches for racial or cultural reasons). I certainly didn’t say that “ethnic and cultural expressions are not allowed.”
However, if you mean by “ethnic expression” something like “we are such a white church that we are not going to do anything to make a black visitor welcome here,” then I would say that that is not allowed. Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles; Paul opposed him to his face. There is an accepted way that all churches should act: Christlike, welcoming ethnic and cultural diversity (within the bounds of this: that the culture itself is not sinful; just because we’re in Haiti doesn’t mean we should tolerate santeria, for example), and standing staunchly against doctrinal error no matter who is peddling it, for the sake of the sheep.
But the original article was more about Messianic Jewish practices being directly contrary to the Word, particularly regarding issues like keeping ceremonial restrictions in place and that sort of thing. I’ve seen too many people become functional Judaizers to admit that enforced or encouraged adherence to Jewish rituals within any kind of church is a good thing. It’s a short step from Messianic Jew who keeps sabbath and kosher to… Jew who keeps sabbath and kosher. And I’ve seen Gentiles - people nominally under my care in some respect as a shepherd - convert to Judaism because they thought it would give them a better relationship with Yeshua. And that’s where Gal. 5:2,3 comes in.
But are you not building a wall by making a Jew become a Gentile before they can become a believer?
I was originally responding the the comment taking it forth that black or Asian churches might not be a bad idea. I don’t get all this unity. Is the church in America the definition of what the unity of the body is supposed to be. If we are truly free are we not free to do as we are led by God to do, unless it is sinful. Is it sinful for me to celebrate the seventh day Sabbath, or to not eat a ham sandwich? Is my salvation riding on whether I eat ham or pork or shellfish? Where is the freedom in that.
I know nothing about the church. I was not raised with it. The concepts and words that you freely throw around are not words that are easy for me to follow, so I am unsure of what “doctrinally orthodox”, exactly means. Orthodox to me means Orthodox Jews, but I do not think that would be what you are referring to.
I know that I am not saved by doing anything, whether helping out a sick person, or going to services on Yom Kippur, yet because of my salvation it has been put upon my heart to want to help out the sick, the orphans etc, to love my neighbor as myself. In the same manner I want to love the Lord and I am lead to by following certain of the commands and traditions. I see nothing sinful in that. If it is just foolishness, then as I pray and study in the Word, then I am sure God will reveal it to me.
I also see many a Gentile become the same thing, by pushing Gentile rituals upon me, trying to force that. How is that any different? “You believe in Jesus, yet you do not celebrate Christmas?”, I am asked. Had a church school want me after reading the books and watching the required tapes, want me to go to a class that taught the basics of Christianity, because they could not understand when I mentioned that my kids would not be at school for a few Jewish holidays each year. And when I say Jewish Holidays, truthfully they are Biblical Holidays, and many of them are said in Scripture to be an everlasting sign between God and the children of Israel, so I still do not see anything wrong.
Have I seen Messianic Jews return to Judaism because they wanted more of the traditions? Sure, but have any ever left the church because they wanted something more mystical than just praying. They were not strongly rooted believers and as such the seed fell on bad soil and was unable to grow. Same for Jews that return to Rabbinic Judaism. The practice is not bad, but the people are weak and weak believers will fall to something at some point.
I just try to get Christians to see that it is more than the practices. The faith of a believer is salvation comes by the work of Jesus, not our works. If we agree on that, then to me we are brothers in Christ. We can agree to disagree on certain practices and traditions, that is fine. I will tell you what Scripture says to me and you will tell me what it says to you. If we walk away in disagreement I would not think you any less of a believer and I would hope you would think not less of me. God will work on our hearts and show us. I am growing in God and I have a long way to go. I am sure that you have a long way as well. If we can still be brothers even in disagreements like this, then I see no wall of separation between us. As a matter of fact I see it as how beautiful it is that there is no wall and that two people from vastly different backgrounds have come to salvation in the Messiah that was promised to Israel and through that Messiah the whole world could be saved. Isn’t that wonderful?
Hm, when did either Charlie or I ever say a Jew needs to “become a Gentile,” by which I take to mean something akin to “dilute or even give up his Jewishness, that is, his Jewish culture,” in order to become a believer? (Certainly one can’t give up one’s ethnicity! With the possible exception of Michael Jackson.)
What I would say, however, is that if there are aspects of one’s culture which run contrary to the Bible, or a Biblical worldview, then, yes, those must be forsaken — which can only come by the grace of God. For example, many Muslims live in a culture of violence and hatred. Such a mindset is ingrained within them from birth. When they are converted, if they continue to struggle with such things (a true believer would struggle with sin), then, yes, we would continue to exhort them to repent and leave such things behind by God’s grace. To renew their minds, etc.
I’ve never said that majority or even exclusively black or Asian churches in and of themselves are bad ideas. Otherwise, I don’t know what we’d do with churches in, say, Nigeria or China!
Again, sorry, I think you may be shadow boxing here? We’ve never claimed it was, if that’s what you’re implying.
Yes, I think I would agree with you. Not that you’re suggesting otherwise, but just to clarify, how do we know whether we are truly being “led by God” or whether we are being led by our lusts, by our deceitful and wicked hearts? By the Word of God: “So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’” (John 8:31-32).
Again, I don’t know who or what you’re arguing with, because neither Charlie nor I have claimed otherwise.
Ah, I see. This could explain a lot of your misunderstanding. Well, I’ll simply suggest it wouldn’t hurt to familiarize yourself with the various “concepts and words,” although obviously that takes time. A good place to start might be with an inexpensive paperback like A Concise Theology by J.I. Packer.
Now, this is an oversimplification, but by “doctrinally orthodox,” at a minimum I mean teaching which is faithful to the Bible (from a generally evangelical Christian perspective). Of course, we have to unpackage this statement and so on, such as by putting it in the context of what method one subscribes to for biblical interpretation and exegesis (cf. the Grammatico-Historical Method), what one’s view of the inspiration of Scripture is (cf. inerrancy), etc., but hopefully this at least gives you the gist of what I’m trying to get at.
For the record, though, Charlie and I are Reformed, Calvinistic, and Baptist. And both Charlie and I — and Charlie with far more knowledge and experience — used to belong to and participate in the Hebraic Roots and Messianic Jewish movements. You can check out Charlie’s ongoing testimony for more about all this.
Would I be correct in assuming you’re an ethnically Jewish believer in Jesus?
Also, you might be interested in this.
If it was just an individual trying to force you to do so, I’d probably just chalk it up to something like cultural ignorance or blindness and move on — unless there’s more to it than what you’ve said. Or, if I might kindly suggest, could it be that they were only wondering why you were not celebrating Christmas, but perhaps it came across the wrong way, and you felt that they were “pushing” you?
If, however, that person was a minister or other significant representative or leader of a church you were attending, and somehow truly did force you to celebrate Christmas, then I would agree that’s not right. However, I can’t see many churches these days forcing people to do something against their will. Although I suppose that depends where you live(d), too.
By the way, “Christmas” isn’t merely a “Gentile ritual.” It’s too simplistic to describe it that way. And if by “Gentile,” you associate the celebration of Christmas with “pagan,” I’ll confess I used to believe Christmas came from pagan roots. Putting aside the question, though, if we assume Christmas did come from pagan roots, does something coming from pagan roots necessarily imply it is bad or wrong? I’m curious, in your opinion would it be wrong for a believer to celebrate Christmas, assuming he actually wants to rather than because he’s forced to do so?
I understand their not understanding you. But I also understanding your not understanding them. How did you respond?
First, what would you include as the Jewish Holidays? Only the ones mentioned in Leviticus? Or would you go beyond Leviticus and Scripture to include, say, Chanukah? (And, as a preemptive point, I’m not sure it’s clear Jesus himself celebrated Chanukah in John 10.)
Second, in your view are Gentile believers in Jesus part of “the children of Israel”?
And third, I’m interested, where does it say in the Bible that the Jewish Holidays are “to be an everlasting sign between God and the children of Israel”?
And does a festival or holiday being an “everlasting sign” imply that it’s okay to celebrate it? What’s the connection between “everlasting sign” and the celebration of holidays? Going a bit further, would you also say it’s somehow “wrong” not to celebrate it?
Would you say God has separate rules in celebrating the Jewish Holidays for “Messianic Jews” and “Gentile Christians”?
Of course, this presumes Arminianism (whether or not you’ve ever heard the term is besides the point).
How do you interpret a passage like John 6:37-40 or 10:28-29?
Amen. That is wonderful.
That said, I don’t think we’ve ever not assumed that you’re not in Christ, have we?
As for differences, there are some which are more important than others. It’s fine to walk away from peripheral disagreements, to agree to disagree. But at the same time, there are pretty serious issues which, though there’s a lot of disagreement, we simply can’t agree to disagree on if we are to remain faithful to the Scriptures.
Of course, part of knowing which issues are peripheral and which issues are central to Christianity is knowing the Bible. The more of the Word of God we know, the better able we will be to tell what’s important and what’s secondary, and so forth.
In any case, I appreciate your comments here. Thanks.
I suppose that I am mostly responding to the Pyromaniacs article, which Charles said he agreed with totally. The net result of there being no more Messianic Judaism because it is a bad idea, which although not stated is the implied conclusion of the original post, would be that Jews need to give up being Jewish, their heritage, culture etc. and become Gentile. So I do feel that I am being asked to take on things in order to truly be saved.
My question back is what part of Torah (or Messianic Jewish culture) run contrary to the Bible?
It seems maybe I took Patrick’s comment about black and Asian churches too far. I took it as them being a bad idea, and maybe upon another reading, he was wondering if they felt a need for exclusivity in witnessing to their people. For that I am sorry, I was responding to the idea that Jewish, black, Asian churches are all bad ideas, and if that was the case, then there would need to be one approved cultural church, which I think we can all agree is not a good idea.
I have never heard nor read of any Messianic Jewish organization claiming to want exclusive rights to witness to the Jewish people. I think we can all agree that the history of the church to the Jewish people is not something to be proud of, and that the results of Jewish missions over the centuries are a result, which again are pretty poor and certainly nothing to be proud of. I think coming and talking with groups that are made up of Jewish believers would help Gentiles to understand that although Jesus Christ is a wonderful and blessed name to you, to a Jew it is a reminder of being called a Christ killer by the Gentile kids. Most Gentile Christians have no idea of the Jewish mind, and are poorly equipped to speak to a Jew about salvation in Jesus. One part of the Messianic Jewish purpose is to educate that church on these things. It is a very important ministry. My congregation, for example has a separate ministry called Yachad that does just this, it goes to churches and presents a program about the Jewishness of faith in Jesus, how it is totally consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures, and thus better equip those churches when they meet a Jewish person. The goal is for more effective witness to the Jewish people. The important thing is their salvation not whether they attend this church or that Messianic congregation. I would agree that if Messianic Jews wanted the church to cease witnessing to Jews that would be a bad idea. If there are some that do, I would say that they are in error, but I do not know of any.
Do I “need” to understand the words and concepts of the church to be saved? Do I need to read “A Concise Theology” or something else to be saved or is the Bible sufficient for my salvation? I know the answers to this, but my point is that I was not raised with it, so I see no need for it, just like in Acts 15 it was decided that Gentiles did not need to fully understand everything Jewish to be accepted as believers. What I see, although it is never stated is that I as a Jew need to know these things or else I am in the wrong. Possibly my salvation is not questioned, but the implication is that I need to be prayed for to be freed of these burdens, none of which are a burden. So do I fully need to understand Christian doctrine, whether Calvinism or any other”ism” in order to be saved, or can I be saved without understanding these very complex theologies.
This also brings up to me something that is interesting, because with the talk of unity and the importance of that, I see so little of that with every block having two or more churches, who seem to agree on so little. One Messianic Rabbi gave a message once that I thought was very good and very important. He said that the Jewish community, whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, whatever else, or totally non-religious are unifies on the fact that Jesus is not the Messiah, and the church seems so busy arguing with each other about little things, that they show forth little to no unity. I know that this is an argument that the Catholic Church would put forth, but to a Jew, he sees no difference, Catholic, Protestant is all Christians and all he knows is that there are so many different churches, with so many different things being taught. I put forth that the basic message of salvation, that salvation comes by faith and faith alone in Jesus and the atonement that is from his sacrifice and resurrection is what gives us eternal life. Other than that everything else seems to be able to agree to disagree on. Maybe this is a simplification, but I think that type of unity would really help the church and in course bring a great deal of glory to God. This is kind of off subject, but gets into some of the points that have been addressed here.
As to the Holidays being eternal signs. Passover and the Sabbath are both “throughout your generations, as a statute forever.” The Feast of First Fruit is listed as throughout your generations (as an aside many Messianic Congregation celebrate this 3rd day of Passover celebration as the resurrection of Messiah, for He is the first fruits of the resurrection that will come to the believer in Him). The Feast of weeks is called a “statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations”. Yom Kippur as well, and the Feast of Booths also.
Chanukah happened between the two testaments and thus is not mentioned in Scripture other than John 10. It is a very minor holiday and only has greater significance in America because of the large influence of Christmas. Christmas has too large of an influence and for all the wrong reason, but that is a subject for another time. I will leave it to say, I wish the church could separate themselves from the secular trappings of the holiday because I do not think it is a good thing how intertwined they are.
As for the Biblical Holidays. Is there anything sinful in celebrating them? I do not see anything sinful in that, and I do not put forth that all must celebrate them. Don’t see much Messianic literature that puts forth that concept, even for a Jewish believer. Once again I see these things in Scripture and to me if God Word says that it is forever, then I think there is a reason that wording was used and used so many times. To me it indicates that maybe it would be good for me to do these things. It is part of my walk with God. Should you do it? That is between you and God. A good Jewish response might be, “It couldn’t hurt!”, but I leave that between each of you and God.
Let me ask this question, we such all serve God and we should all help the needy. Does that mean everyone should be a part of every ministry at your church, that 100% attendance in the homeless ministry or the prison ministry or the sound ministry is necessary? Of course not, and this is the way I serve God, and Messianic serve God. It is a good thing, I believe and just like the sound ministry is a good thing, it is not necessarily for everyone. It is part of what God is calling me and Messianic Jews to. It is not a doctrine of salvation. If it is for some, then they need to learn.
You then get into much more difficult question about whether one can lose their salvation. For this, I will not get into because it is beyond the scope of Messianic Judaism being good or bad. However has no one ever been a member of your church and then left and left either for another church or to go away from God totally? That is what I was addressing. Some people have left Messianic Judaism for Rabbinic Judaism. One of the musicians at my wedding did so. He divorced his wife and last I heard he was doing music at a Rabbinic Jewish synagogue. I could question whether he was ever really saved or not, or think that the Spirit will bring him back at some point, but it does not matter. For this discussion, he left and I am sure others have left as well. It is either a sign of spiritual immaturity or a lack of real commitment, whether it happens in a Calvinist church, an Armenian church or a Messianic congregation. I think it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say because some Jewish believers go back to Rabbinic Judaism that mean Messianic Judaism is a bad idea.
I enjoy speaking with you on this topic. I truly hope that this can bring greater unity to the body of believer, regardless of which church they attend. May all true believers stand together in unity. There is a Jewish song Hiney Ma Tov, which comes from Psalm 133:1. It goes:
Hineih ma tov u-ma nayim
shevet achim gam yachad.
Behold how good
and how pleasant it is
for brothers to dwell together.
Peace to you and may you be blessed.Praise God!
Patrick already answered this, but this is one of the presuppositions on which the rest of Bryan’s comment was based.
Apparently Bryan, like the medieval rabbis, bases Jewishness on obedience to the modern Jewish redaction of Torah law. A Jew, in his mind, won’t eat pork. A Jew keeps the Sabbath. A Jew doesn’t celebrate Christmas.
Jews are defined by being holier - because, make no mistake, holiness to God in the Old Testament was the reason that Israelites were separated in cultural ways, like pork-eating - than Gentiles. If it had been a health issue, then God could have just ordered the Israelites to cook pork thoroughly. No, there is a symbolism of life and death in the clean/unclean distinctions in the Torah, and Israel was expected to remain holy to God. If that’s the difference between Jews and Gentiles even now, then the Jews aspire to a higher holiness than Gentiles do. One not found in Christ.
And that is a different gospel.
For Bryan to assume that, because we believe Jews are now permitted to do all these things, we are commanding that they do these things, is either to (a) conflate us with Crusaders and Inquisition-period Spaniards, in which case he needs to do a little more research into the Protestant attitude toward both Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the ethnicity/culture), or (b) to demonize us, to make the strawman building a little easier. I’ve never demanded that a Jew eat pork or celebrate Christmas or even break the Sabbath. I have, however, pleaded with Gentiles not to believe that they can be holier, or even have a slightly better relationship with God, by taking on themselves the burden of the Law which was fulfilled in Christ.
I do agree with Patrick that if somebody commanded him to celebrate Christmas, then they were wrong. However, I could see a Christian church educating one of its associates if he believes that he gains something by keeping types and shadows, in concern for his soul. If you demonstrated to me that you had a consistent and solid theology, and that the Torah holidays (and even Chanukah and Purim) are cultural celebrations for you, then I would let you go with my blessing. But surely you could understand that there would be some scrutiny, because it could either be innocuous, or it could be a movement away from Christ’s sufficiency. I would do the same for a Gentile in my church who asked if it was OK to do Halloween. I wouldn’t say “yes” or “no” right off the bat, I would ask how they planned to celebrate it, and then examine their theology and conscience a little bit to determine whether this was crossing a personal line for them. If you don’t do it in faith, it’s sin, after all. Same goes for Passover.
Sorry, communication gap there. You’re right, I mean “orthodox” with a lowercase “o,” that is, correct about necessary doctrines.
Doing what has been commanded in both Old and New Testament, in the moral law which is forever binding, is not the same as telling the Lord, “I know you fulfilled the Sabbath, Pesach, Yom Kippur, etc., but I’m sure it pleases you for me to also celebrate them in some lesser fashion.” I would encourage Bryan to look into the Christian consideration of the roles of the Law in the New Covenant. There are varying opinions on this, but at the very least, it is generally recognized that Christ perfectly fulfilled certain things, rendering the Old Covenant versions of those things obsolete, and certain other things are permanently binding. How many lines we draw, and where we draw them, is a topic of constant debate. But it might be edifying to get a grip on these things in general before proclaiming that you “are led to” follow certain commands and traditions. (And that could bring us into new territory, that is, does God speak to you and tell you to do things that have been declared unimportant or obsolete or only for the “weaker brother” in Scripture?)
And finally, I will note that Phil Johnson, who posted the original article on behalf of his friend, is a Dispensationalist - that is, he believes as a general rule that promises made to Israel will stay with Israel in the originally perceived context. If God said that National Israel would receive something, then National Israel will receive it. And while I disagree with that theological viewpoint, I would like to point out that among Protestants who are biblically sound on the important things (”orthodox” the way I meant the word earlier), Phil would be the most sympathetic to the idea that Israelites must, or should, keep certain commandments forever. The fact that he does not believe this with regard to Jewish traditions about the Torah should give one pause.
First of all, I am pretty sure I left a comment yesterday morning, but somehow it either never made it to you or you declined to publish it. Either way let me respond to some of the things in this last comment from Charles. It seems that you are saying that there is absolutely no difference between Jew and Gentile in Messiah. And also no difference between man and woman, based up the same verse. Would this be a fair statement? If so, then why are certain books written towards the Jewish believers, such as James and 1 Peter. It seems that the letters could be directed to believers, however James and Peter were inspired to direct the letters to Jewish believers dispersed. That seems curious if there is no distinction. In the same way there are different exhortations to men and women, yet this too seems in conflict with what you are putting forth.
Keeping Torah makes me no Holier than a Gentile is obedient to God. I stated it before and I guess I will have to keep stating it, but nothing I can do can earn me anything before God. My righteousness is like dirty rags. It is only through God and His grace that anything I do can bring glory to His Name. Once again whether I feed the hungry or refrain from certain foods, my salvation does not rest upon these things.
You mention me wanting to take on the burden of the Law. Although the Law does not make me any Holier, I am unsure of this burden you speak of. I keep Shabbat and enjoy a wonderful special bread called Challah, made with egg. It is wonderful, not a burden. I spend the evening with my family saying a blessing over my children. This too is not a burden. I go to services and I worship God and His Son, I hear a wonderful anointed message from the Rabbi. Edifying, but not a burden.
Passover, not a burden. I love matzah. Try it with butter and salt, yum yum. Shavout eat dairy foods, Rosh Hashannah apples and honey. Still finding no burden that you speak of. I am not trying to be sarcastic, but I so often here the burden word thrown around, and I look and my life and burden is just not something that I think anyone that saw me to label me with, unless (and I am not making any accusations) that person was a non believer who feels I should get drunk and have sex and do whatever my carnal nature wants to do. And that is a burden (of sorts) that I do take on, but keeping Biblical Holidays and the food I choose to eat are no burdens.
Let me put forth this and once again I mean this with no sarcasm, but I am afraid it comes across that way, however it easiest to explain this way. At least for me.
It seems like the common Christian approach here is that God gave the children of Israel these Laws to keep, Laws that He knew they could never keep, but wanted them to try as sort of a proof to the world that we needed God and could not be righteous on our own. He punished the children of Israel for failing to keep the Law, then sent His Son, to perfectly keep the Law and have Him die and be resurrected in order to save all men, and now if we believe in Him, keeping the Law is now, all of a sudden something that God considers a bad thing to do.
If all the commandments are summed up in love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind and number two, to love your neighbor as yourself, then how can the commandments that make up the sum all of a sudden be bad. If 1+1=2, then do we no longer need either one of the ones.
Explain how Jesus fulfilled the Law, yet not to abolish it, means that we should never keep it. Also it seems to me very difficult to see any distinction in Torah between so called ceremonial laws, moral laws, civil laws and however else you wish to divide it. Personally I do not see that division. They seem so very intertwined. Check out this from a Messianic Rabbi (http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/subdividing-the-law-moral-civil-ceremonial/):
Exodus 23:9-11 You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt. “You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.
Vs.9 is clearly a moral issue (not oppressing foreigners), but it is immediately followed by what many would call a ceremonial regulation (letting the land have Sabbaths). The Torah makes no distinction. Furthermore, this raises a philosophical question: what makes something wrong? Is right and wrong defined by God or does it define God? If God defines right and wrong, then isn’t it just as immoral to violate a Sabbath year as it is to oppress and stranger?
I see nothing wrong with my trying as best as I can, trusting in God to keep the commandments as laid out in Torah, especially since I am a Jew. I read so many times that these commandments and days are to be throughout your generations as an everlasting sign or ordinance or statue.
Another question, if the intent of the New Testament authors was that there would be no separation adn these so called “burdens” were gone, then why did Luke in Acts 27:9 just Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) as a way to show the date? He could have easily said in the seventh month. If I was to tell you about something that happened at Yom Kippur you would have little to no idea when that would be, since you are a Gentile and do not celebrate that day. You would respond back, when is that, and I would have to explain when Yom Kippur is. This is way towards the end of Acts, and Luke was writing it way past the point where what you call as mere shadows and symbols had passed away from the body of believers, yet Luke used it as a indicator as to the season that the events took place. They have nothing to do with the Temple, so it seems curious to me.
Look, I am not asking you to keep Torah or even necessarily agree with me keeping it, however to say that Messianic Judaism is bad indicates that it is Messianic Jews who are not as Holy as you and your church is. That kind of irks me, since I see that as very judgmental behavior. Seems to me all this about unity and freedom in Messiah would more be exhibited in a openness to other expressions of faith. Truly there is nothing special or magical about keeping Torah, but to a simpleminded Jew like me who has found His Messiah, I see it in the Word, and I see it in the Word become flesh and I see no conflict between the two.
May you go as God leads you and may you be blessed. I pray that these things come across in the spirit they are given.
One last thing, shadows is another thing I don’t get. There is a Switchfoot song called “The Shadow Proves the Sunshine”. If I am able through God who gives grace and the strength to do all things keep Torah better than even the Pharisees, does that not be the shadow that proves the Son. For if Israel was unable to keep it, but through Him I am able to be counted as righteous, that is not something that comes from me, but from Him. I am not there yet, but I am pressing forth towards the high calling.
Blessings and peace to you in the Name of Messiah, Jesus (Or Yeshua, which I prefer).
Hopefully this comment will make it to you.
Something did get caught in the spam filter, and no, I’m not sure why. But I just released it; of course, it will be above, in the chronological order you posted it, so it might render my own comment a little anachronistic. Well, them’s the breaks.
More response coming.
I was just going through your testimony, and I think I see a bit of why you have such a strong opinion. I have heard of groups like this that reject the divinity of Jesus. There is one that might be the one you are speaking of, that I like much of what they have, but at the same time there is much that I do not like. I started off very interested, but as time went on, after reading some of the books and magazine articles that they were too much trying to be Rabbinic. They put a great deal into the teachings of Rabbi’s who rejected the Messiah, and this makes no sense to me. I look to Scripture for my practices, not to the Talmud or Midrash. I might use some Rabbinic practices that do not conflict with Scripture, but I know (and most good Messianic Jewish organizations know) enough that Scripture is crystal clear as to whom the Messiah is and what that means. 100% man and 100% God is what my Rabbi often says.
I think that group is problematic and the more I read about them the more troubles I get. It seems like there mission is to make Gentile into Jews, and I do not see the need for that. I have seen Gentile groups who desire to keep the things of Torah, without becoming Jewish and I think that is a good thing. My best example of this is Rosh Hashanah, the Feast of Trumpets. If a church had a service where song were played that featured trumpets, to me that seems a fine thing to do, if they are so called. I do not see a need for what a Rabbi says to do or to blow a ram’s horn, etc. Doing that is taking these signs into something more than what they are. It is possible that we agree more than we might have originally have thought.
I have discovered that there are many fringe groups out there calling themselves Messianic Jews who do a disservice to the movement. It seems that Gentiles maybe come across them much more often and thus get a very bad impression of what we truly are. I have now decided to avoid any group that is not part of either the MJAA or the UMJC. Groups that do not come under one of those two banners are most likely off in some way. I used to go to a UMJC congregation in California and now I go to a MJAA congregation where I now live.
I think UMJC can also be prone to some odd teachings at times, and there is one going around that I reject and have been speaking about it on my site, called Postmissionary Messianic Judaism. I have been reading the book, and although it is very detailed, the final conclusions it makes to me are a huge jump of logic and contrary to Scripture.
Anyway enough on that, just wanted to state that although I have not read the entire thing, I saw enough to get a picture as to why you would have such a reaction to Jewish things. That also explains the comment about me and the medieval Rabbis, with whom I would agree with very little. I would encourage you to not throw the baby out with the bathwater however, as there are many more Messianic Jews with whom I think you could enjoy fellowship without needing to become a Messianic Jew. For we are brothers in Messiah. There is no need to become something that you are not.
Peace,
Bryan
Thanks, Bryan, for your responses.
Sorry, I’m a bit rushed, but just a few quick comments.
Charlie has addressed much of this here and elsewhere, such as in his testimony — which I note you’ve been reading.
As Charlie notes above, we sadly have met at least one.
Please note we’re not trying to tar the entire Messianic Jewish movement because of one ministry, though, or even necessarily because of our experiences. At the same time, there are important issues within the Messianic Jewish movement which needs to be addressed, but I’ll leave that aside for now since I’m writing in haste.
In part, that depends on which “church” you’re referring to. It’s true many Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have little to be proud of when it comes to how they’ve treated the Jews. But they’re not the whole story. For example, by and large, the Reformed churches have fared far better. See here.
I don’t claim to be able to completely identify, of course, but I think it’s fair to say Charlie and I are far more aware of this than perhaps you’re giving us credit for.
At the same time, we have to consider that, for example, in Asian and sub-Asian cultures, Christianity is viewed no more favorably than Jews view Christianity today. Many Chinese and Indians see Christianity and particularly Christian missionary activity as part and parcel of Western imperialism — which, to Asian eyes, has wrought considerably damage to their peoples.
However, does this mean that only Asian Christians should evangelize to Asians? Of course not. Asian Christians can serve an important role in helping other Christians to realize and deal sympathetically and so on with Asians, as you say Messianic Jews are doing for Jews, but who knows that God might not reach Asians with Latin American Christians or African Christians or Messianic Jewish Christians or others? Or, gasp, even American or European Christians, again, despite being Westerners?
It’s probably true that it significantly helps to be able to identify (as much as possible) with another person’s ethnic and cultural heritage, and logically that would seem to indicate that being from the same ethnic and cultural tradition would be best. But let’s not rule out the grace and sovereignty of God in this. We shouldn’t place stumbling blocks in evangelism and witnessing to Asians who may have hang-ups about Western missionaries, or Jews who have hang-ups about Christians in general. But at the same time, God is greater than people’s hang-ups, etc. More on this in a minute.
But I wanted to say, simply being Asian doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll inherently make a better witness for Asians. I don’t think a secular, Americanized Asian like me who was saved by God’s grace and is now a Christian, let alone my second or third generation children and grandchildren, if I ever have children, can necessarily identify with someone born and raised in communist China any better than a typical Westerner.
Even for American Asians, just because I come from the same background and culture and so on, doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll be any better to communicate the gospel than a non-American Asian or a non-Asian.
As you know, not all Jews are the same (just as not all Asians are the same). There are American secular Jews; there American Jews who come from a reformed, conservative, or orthodox Jewish background (which, by the way, mean significantly different things in contrast to when we use the terms); there are Hasidic Jews; there are Sephardic Jews who come from the Mideast or North Africa or wherever else, etc. Does simply being Jewish mean you’re better equipped to preach the gospel to any of these types of Jews? Maybe, maybe not.
In all of this, though, I fear that one of the main but mistaken assumptions is that, if we only did this or that, then we could save more people! Or if we were more sensitive, or culturally aware, or if we were just like them, then we can better reach out to them. There’s truth to this, and I don’t want to deny it. But at the same time, I don’t want to imbalance it either, lest we forget the fundamental problem for all peoples everywhere is not an ethnic or cultural barrier, but the fundamental problem is sin. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick. We don’t have any vying inclinations like the yetzer hatov and the yetzer hara in the sense the rabbis mean. No, we are sinners enslaved to sin. In fact, it’s worse, we are dead in our sins and trespasses. Hence, the fundamental solution isn’t better methods for evangelism and increased cultural sensitivities and awareness and so on, or necessarily even being able to identify with the group of people we’re witnessing to, as laudable as those can be; the fundamental solution to the fundamental problem of sin is the Savior. And we have to present him, not ourselves, to others. Again, I don’t mean there’s no place for ethnic and cultural identification in evangelism, but at the same time, I don’t want to lose sight of the most important thing, that is, Jesus Christ himself.
Superficial things like should we say Jesus Christ or Yeshua HaMaschiach when talking to a Jewish person (even a Jewish person who speaks Hebrew), or placing a (rabbinically blessed?) mezuzah on your doorpost, or wearing tallit, or whatever else mean little without explaining to them that they are sinners and in need of a Savior in a way that they can understand (which would likely entail going through the relevant OT/Tanakh passages). But it doesn’t necessarily take a Jewish person or ministry to do this better than others can.
Again, I’m not denying that Messianic Jewish ministries do not have their place, just as I don’t deny Asian ministries don’t have their place. But we can’t forget that, at the end of the day, the body of Christ is one. We shouldn’t solely look at a ministry and conclude, well, this ministry is a ministry for Asians while that ministry is a minsitry for the Jews, etc. — and leave it at that. All ministries are ministries of Christ working for the salvation of the lost.
I’m not saying you’re taking it this far, not by any means, because I’m sure you’re not, but it could happen that some ministries end up essentially saying, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or (for the super spiritual ones), “I follow Christ.” That’s one of the dangers I see.
Rather, Paul’s attitude was, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”
Sorry for my lengthy rant. I don’t know if it’s clear, as again I’m trying to be quick about this. Apologies if not. But I’ll have to write more later since I’ve eaten up so much time writing this. Sorry.
Hi again Bryan.
Okay, I’m back. Picking up where I left off…
Well, I didn’t refer the Packer book to you because I thought it’d be sufficient for salvation. I referred it to you because you said you didn’t understand some of the terms we were using and I thought it might be helpful for you in that respect.
If you’re again referring to my recommendation of Packer’s book to you, that certainly was not my intention let alone my words. I honestly have no idea how you arrived at what you say here from the fact that I recommended the book to you?
That said, assuming you truly trust in Jesus and him alone for salvation, I would love it if you would grow in the grace and knowledge of God. And part of growing in the knowledge of God is of course growing in a fuller, deeper understanding of his Word.
And, yes, I do believe that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth for the Christian, that it is authoritative. And I do believe that by God’s grace we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone.
And, yes, I do believe that the faithful, consistent, and systematic exegesis of the Scriptures (via the Grammatico-Historical Method) will reveal truths such as we are sinners and cannot save ourselves; sin has affected everything within us including our hearts, minds, wills, etc.; that God does not save anyone because of anything in and of that person, such as because that person had the wherewithal to choose God without God first choosing him, as it were, but solely according to his mercy and grace; that Christ died only for his people, not for everyone; that when God saves a sinner, he will be saved; that those whom he has saved, God will never lose, etc.
I don’t think people are not saved because they don’t understand all these things or even accept all these things. I think people are saved when, by God’s grace and the Spirit’s life-giving work, they trust in Christ alone for salvation. I think John and Charles Wesley were saved. I think Billy Graham is saved. But I think they don’t have as full an understanding of the Scriptures as can they can have. So I’d hope to see people coming to a fuller understanding of the Scriptures.
Neither of us has ever claimed that Messianic Judaism is an entirely bad idea because some Jewish believers go back to Rabbinic Judaism?
If what you’re implying is, given Gal. 3:28, that there should be no ethnic or cultural differences between Jews and Gentiles, I’m pretty sure Charlie would not agree with this.
Besides, that’s not what Paul is getting at either. The context of the letter of Galatians is that Peter (among others), who had previously had no problem grabbing a bite to eat with Gentiles or whatever, began not eating with them because of the influence of those whom Paul calls “the Judaizers.” The Judaizers were a zealous group of Jews who believed that the gospel did not abrogate the Gentiles’ need to be circumcised and become Jews, and practice Jewish ceremonies and customs, if they were to truly become part of God’s people. Influenced by the Judaizers, Peter started separating himself from fellowship with Gentiles. Note that Peter apparently also had a problem with Gentiles in the past (cf. Acts 11). Likewise, many of the Gentiles in the Galatian churches apparently believed the Judaizers and began to observe Jewish customs and so forth. Anyway, so Paul rebukes Peter and tells him that this attitude of separation is wrong. That’s the context in which Paul tells the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Paul is not saying that men and women no longer have physical or psychological or emotional differences or whatever. Or that, since they are now one in Christ, they should likewise extend this “oneness” in areas such as dress and behavior. He’s not saying that Jews and Greeks who are in Christ should now come together and become the same culturally and so on. Or, excepting cases which would conflict with the gospel and the Scriptures, such as in the letter to the Galatians, that Jews should forego their cultural customs and practices. Even Paul didn’t do this (e.g. Acts 16:1-3; Acts 21:17-26).
(By the same token, we could say there’s nothing wrong with Gentiles keeping their customs so long as it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. If Christmas can be celebrated biblically, as a day which the church uses to honor the birth and incarnation of our Lord and Savior — nothing less, nothing more — there’s no reason not to celebrate it, or so I understand.)
Paul is saying that, as far as being members of the body of Christ is concerned, we are all equal. No one is better than anyone else. No one is more spiritual or less spiritual than anyone else. As far as belonging to Christ is concerned, as far as salvation is concerned, which is simply by faith in Christ alone, a male Jew with Roman citizenship like Paul is no better than a Gentile woman who is a slave. As I understand it, that’s the point Paul is trying to get across.
Again, if you’re assuming Charlie is saying that since we are all one in Christ that there should now be no more cultural or other differences between Jews and Gentiles, I highly doubt he’d agree.
Well, we could throw Hebrews in there, too, couldn’t we? But the fact that certain letters are addressed to certain groups doesn’t need to mean anything more than the fact that there are certain letters addressed to certain groups.
At the same time, even if letters are addressed to different groups, they are letters for all Christians. For instance, the gospel according to Matthew is supposed to have a Jewish slant while the gospel according to Luke a more Gentile one. But the Gospels are for the whole church, Jew and Gentile alike.
Amen to that.
However, I think Charlie’s concern was more nuanced than how you’re reading him.
Another way to frame it might be to echo what Paul said in Gal. 3:3, “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
I don’t know you personally, so I can’t say whether you’re a true believer or not. But based on your words thus far, I have no reason not to think you aren’t, particularly given you have attested that you trust in Christ alone.
But I think that the danger for some of those who are part of the Messianic Jewish movement (not necessarily you) is that they may fall into the same trap that the Galatians fell into. And, indeed, as Charlie said, it is a different and thus false gospel and well deserves the harsh, condemnatory words and anathemas that Paul used against them. In the past, the Galatians trusted in Christ alone, perhaps, but because of the influence of the Judaizers, they then began to observe this or that ceremony and custom, including circumcision, as if they these things somehow pleased God more, as if doing this or that could win God’s favor. And that’s when they who began by the Spirit are trying to perfect themselves by the flesh. By their attitudes and actions, these professing believers were now denying the necessity and value of Christ’s atonement for their sins.
As Charlie talks at length above, in our experience, particularly with Gentiles who are part of the Messianic Jewish movement, the danger is similar if not the same as the danger Paul warns and condemns in the epistle to the Galatians. Gentiles who think it pleases God more to observe this or that Jewish custom than to not observe it; Gentiles who think they should become Jewish because somehow being Jewish is intrinsically better, even more spiritual, than being a Gentile, etc. Again, although they may not deny that Jesus is the Messiah by their words, by their attitudes and actions they are denying the necessity and value of Christ’s atonement for their sins. And thus, whether they realize it or not, like Charlie points out, they are denying the gospel.
To reiterate, as I read him, Charlie is couching what he’s saying in the language of warning and caution, not in language which is accusatory and condemnatory of your beliefs and practices. In fact, we probably couldn’t “judge” you even if we wanted to, simply because we don’t know enough about why you do what you do to say whether there is any danger for you.
Like I said, as far as I understand you at this point, I have no reason not to think you aren’t a true Christian or believer or however you want to put it, since you say you trust in Christ and him alone.
By the way, of course, if you are a true Christian, but were slipping into something contrary to the gospel and the Bible (or same goes for me, if I’m a true Christian and slipping into something unbiblical), then it’d only be out of love for your soul that we warn and caution you. So hopefully you don’t think we’re being unduly harsh or anything else if we bring up some issues we think need to be addressed.
The fact that you may not “feel” a burden does not necessarily mean that the practice or custom is not, biblically speaking, “burdensome.” To take it one step further, even if it gives a person joy to practice something, it doesn’t necessarily mean the practice is biblical. Our emotions are not exactly fair indicators regarding whether something is right or wrong. For example, it’s possible some of these Judaizers felt great joy in telling Gentiles that they needed to be circumcised and observe the Torah (as understood by them), the 613 mitzvot, and so on, and it’s possible that some of these Gentiles felt great joy in being circumcised (ouch! can’t imagine that, but I suppose it’s possible), because they believed they were pleasing God. But does the fact that they didn’t feel this to be a burden and even perhaps felt it to be joyful mean that it’s biblically warranted? Not necessarily.
I’d largely agree until “and now if we believe in Him, keeping the Law is now, all of a sudden something that God considers a bad thing to do.” Charlie and I have never argued along these lines. We have never said keeping the law is something “bad.”
On the contrary, the law is good. It’s we who are bad. We are bad, sinful, and evil; we cannot keep the law.
But obviously, we ought to keep the law. We ought to love God, to love our neighbor, to honor our father and mother, to clothe the naked, to feed the poor, to obey the commandments, etc. But the point, again, is that we are sinful, and we struggle to do so. However, as Christians, not only is it by God’s grace that we are saved, but it is also by God’s grace that we continue to walk in trust and obedience to him and his law.
Also, as Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:8, “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” Much depends on what you mean by the law or Torah. As I understand it, the Torah is not simply moral commandments or ethical requirements. That’s certainly part of the Torah. But the Torah also includes, for example, ceremonial laws which can no longer be observed since there is no Temple standing (e.g. sacrifices and offerings). So are we failing to keep the law because we no longer offer sacrifices to God? Of course not. The basic response is that Christ is our sacrifice.
But some sacrifices were not meant to make atonement. What about sacrifices of thanksgiving? I’m sure Charlie could talk far more knowledgeably than I can, and correct me where I’m wrong, but from what I understand, we ourselves are in a sense now such a sacrifice: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:1-3). Because Christ died for us to save us, are we not naturally thankful, and thus we genuinely, wholeheartedly, want to give him ourselves, our all and all, in gratitude for him who first loved us and gave himself for us? Even though we are imperfect and sin and fail, and can never fully give ourselves to him, nevertheless, that’s the cry and desire of our hearts as true believers, isn’t it?
I don’t know that the commandments to love God and neighbor are necessarily the literal summation of the law, as if every single commandment can be incorporated into, or alternately, derived from these two commandments? After all, Jesus said, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:40), but even if it’s possible to incorporate or derive the Law from these two commandments, how can we incorporate or derive the Prophets from them?
Rather, what I understand it to mean is that the commandments to love God and neighbor are what should underlie, inform, and inspire the believer’s obedience to all his commandments. We can’t truly obey God unless we first love him. And we can’t truly love him unless he has first loved us and saved us. Further, unless we are saved, and brought from death into life, and our old self crucified with Christ, and our hearts renewed to love God, we cannot truly love our neighbor either. However, if all these things have taken place in us by the grace of God, if we are truly his children, then we will love him and we will love others and thus it will be possible to truly obey him as he should be obeyed, that is, out of love.
Absent the love of God working in us and for us, our “obedience” to the commandments of the law will at best prove sterile.
Okay, let’s see if I can’t interact with the friendly rabbi (he seems like he has a good sense of humor, by the way, which I love):
I don’t see how it’s necessarily “judging God.” It’s simply trying to understand how the law is organized. Would it be judging God to divide up the Bible according to genres such as historical narrative, psalms, proverbs, epistles, etc.? I don’t think most people would believe it would be.
How is “this process of deciding which of God’s laws are moral” “judging God”? We are not making moral pronouncements, perhaps somehow stating, “Well, we agree, the commandment to steal is good while we disagree with the commandment to not kill,” etc. The use of the word “moral” in this sense is meant to be descriptive, not critical. We’re not sitting in moral judgment over God. We’re trying to make sense of the distinctions and categories supplied by the Word of God itself.
I’m not sure what he means by “decrees” exactly, but perhaps the rabbi is pointing out the distinction some of us make in regard to God’s preceptive and decretive will? To God’s revealed and secret will? If this is the case, as I understand it, the precepts would refer to what God requires of us while the decrees would refer to what God has decided will take place without necessarily revealing it to us. The precepts would include commandments like “you shall not murder” while the decrees could be something like God decreeing from before time began that Rome would fall at such and such a time by such and such a people. God’s decretive will does not run contrary to his preceptive will, and vice versa.
This is why the Reformed focus on a consistent and systematic exegesis of the Scriptures rather than taking isolated texts to prove or disprove a particular teaching.
Regarding kosher foods, what about Mark’s parenthetical remark in Mark 7:19, “Thus he [Jesus] declared all foods clean”?
Also, granted it was a vision, but nevertheless the question is raised, was what God said to Peter wrong in Acts 10: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat…What God has made clean, do not call common”? And granted that the ultimate implication is for Peter not to regard Gentiles in Christ as unclean, but this doesn’t dismiss the fact that God had commanded Peter to “kill and eat” animals which were hardly kosher. What if Peter had obeyed?
Paul had a lot to say about this as well, although in different contexts (to Gentiles). See Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 10 for starters.
Or are there different laws for Jewish believers in Christ and Gentile believers in Christ? So when the rabbi says, “Hey, Israel, don’t eat pork,” does “Israel” only refer to ethnic Jews, viz. children born from a Jewish woman’s womb? But since Gentiles are now grafted into Israel (Rom. 11), is the rabbi suggesting that Gentiles are now part of Israel and should likewise not eat pork? Moreover, Rom. 9:6-7 says, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring…” What does the rabbi make of this? Who constitutes “Israel” in the rabbi’s opinion?
The Sabbath is indeed a thorny issue. But because we can’t necessarily agree on whether it is moral or ceremonial or both or neither does not then imply that therefore, first, we are judging God’s law; and second, even if we grant for the sake of argument that we are “judging” God’s law in the sense that the rabbi means it, that we are wrong in doing so because it leads to moral confusion. It’s a logical fallacy to appeal to bad consequences in order to justify one’s argument.
Personally, I’m far from knowledgeable about how the specific divisions of the Torah work (perhaps Charlie can weigh in though), but why can’t v. 9 be considered part of the moral law (including its preceding verses) while vs. 10 and following part of the ceremonial law?
In philosophy this is known as the Euthyphro dilemma. You can google for responses to the dilemma from secular philosophers to ones coming from a Reformed Christian perspective, and everyone in between.
But let’s note for the time being that this is a question which someone from a Jewish background would also have to answer. It’s not as if it’s a problem restricted to the Reformed camp alone. Thus, I’m not sure why it’s raised in this context and framed such that it would somehow be a problem for the Reformed Christian?
As I remember reading once, it’s sorta like asking if water is wet because it’s water or is it water because it’s wet? The question makes no sense.
I should add that most Reformed Christians subscribe to Covenantal Theology, not Dispensational Theology. John MacArthur and Phil Johnson are notable exceptions, as Charlie has mentioned above.
Hm, what do you mean by “trying as best as I can”?
Actually, it doesn’t necessarily take a Jewish person to tell us what Acts 27:9 means (although your knowledge is helpful, thanks). It simply takes someone who knows enough about 1st century Judaism to tell us. Such as a historian.
Of course, because Yom Kippur had passed, Paul missed it, didn’t he? So, Paul was not in Jerusalem celebrating the High Holy Days. He wasn’t celebrating it on the ship as far as I know.
What do you mean by “keeping the Torah”? If by “keeping the Torah” you mean you are trying by God’s grace to obey his commandments, then that’s fine and good. But if you somehow think that obedience to God’s commandments makes you a better person, or more holy, then I would caution you that there might be possible dangers lurking around the corner.
Again, neither Charlie nor I have ever made a blanket statement about Messianic Judaism being entirely bad. To repeat what I’ve previously said, Charlie’s points are far more nuanced than I believe you’re reading them to be.
In any case, we see some good aspects and some bad ones in the Messianic Jewish movement. It’s true we see areas which one ought to be extremely cautious about, but we could likewise see more positive areas.
And certainly we’re not asking you to abandon your “Jewishness”! At least no more than you’d ask us to abandon our “Gentileness,” to stop being Asian or American or whatever else we are. Unless, of course, any aspects of our cultures or personality or whatever are contrary to the Bible and its worldview, etc.
By the way, even if it were true that we thought Messianic Judaism was bad, this would not then imply that we think our church or Reformed Christianity is somehow better or holier than Messianic Judaism. For example, it’s possible that we think both Messianic Judaism as well as Reformed Christianity are bad.
Why should it irk you when we’re not judging you?
Again, we’re not tarring the entire Messianic Jewish movement as bad through and through. Maybe some aspects are good while others are bad. Maybe there’s more good than bad. Or maybe there’s more bad than good. Whatever the case, we’re not universally condemning the Messianic Jewish movement.
Plus, even if we were judging you, it’s not as if the act of judgment is itself intrinsically wrong. As Jesus said, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24). If we were wrongly judging you, then, yeah, that’s wrong. But if we were judging you in accordance with the Bible, then wouldn’t that be for and to your ultimate good?
Who says we are not open to Messianic Jews and the Messianic Jewish movement? And if we are not open to certain aspects of the Messianic Jewish movement, then why not give us the benefit of the doubt (as befits a Christ-like attitude and Christian charity in general) and ask us whether we have good, biblically sound reasons for not being open to it rather than to assume we’re being bigoted or whatever?
True dat.
Regarding “types and shadows,” I’d recommend any or all of the following books (have a read through some of the comments on Amazon.com):
* The Servant King: The Bible’s Portrait of the Messiah by T.D. Alexander
* The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament by Edmund Clowney
* The Messiah in the Old Testament by Walter Kaiser, Jr.
* The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress
Hm, I gotta ask, what do you mean by “if they are so called”? Aren’t the Scriptures sufficient to determine whether or not a church should be celebrating Rosh Hashanah, or other Jewish holidays?
Also, regarding the blowing of the shofar, doesn’t Lev. 23:24 actually require one to blow the shofar? Why is it a rabbinic injunction or why would it be “taking these signs into something more than what they are”? I’m not quite sure I understand?
Also, isn’t the blowing of the shofar in the Bible usually associated with war and other serious occasions? I don’t recall it being a happy occasion, but perhaps I’m mistaken?
With that in mind, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it almost sounds like Rosh HaShanah is celebratory occasion for you. But isn’t Rosh HaShanah and in fact the entire High Holy Days (”Days of Awe,” as I recall) a rather solemn occasion — even if Rosh HaShanah starts out “happily”? Or is it perhaps because the Messiah has come and made atonement that there’s no more need to feel sorrowful or repent, etc.? But then, if the purpose of Yom Kippur has changed, then is it still Yom Kippur? If Yom Kippur has been modified to account for the Messiah’s atonement, then in essence, is it really any different than Easter? Why not join in with your brethren, Gentile Christians (assuming you don’t), to celebrate Easter then, the day Christ died and three days later rose again? But then Christ is also our Passover (which, as I recall, takes place around the same time as Easter)? Sorry for the string of questions. Hopefully it doesn’t come off as annoying.
By the way, Bryan, are you in Southern California? That’s where I currently live, although I may be moving next year.
Cool, talk to you later.
Patrick covered for my absence for most of the day yesterday quite well. (Sorry, I had work and family happenings yesterday, and today is work and preparation for church.)
I’m just going to comment on one series of comments.
The only valid expression of faith is one that is in tune with the foundation of faith, that is, Scripture. And Scripture (a) clearly draws lines between laws that are eternally binding (do not murder, do not worship idols), and laws that are fulfilled in Christ and whose carrying out implies a rejection of Christ’s sufficiency, at the very least (you, I suspect, do not burn animals on an altar made of uncut stone in your backyard, nor do you travel to Jerusalem to do so. Why not? Is this not commanded eternally of Israel? There is a distinction between laws), and (b) clearly states that the first century church was to make no distinction in practice between Jews and Gentiles as groups, while giving individuals freedom of their consciences regarding what God requires.
To make this point clear: nobody is forcing you to stop doing whatever it is that you are doing, as a man and as the head of your household. Keep whatever days you feel are necessary for you. What I think Kreloff is saying, and certainly what I am saying, is that Messianic Judaism needs to stop pretending that it has a more valid “expression of faith” than the Gentile-dominated churches, by virtue of keeping Torah differently or more stringently. And as long as Messianic Judaism pretends that rabbinic, medieval Judaism is a valid expression of first-century Judaism — that Mishnaic Judaism was always telling the whole truth about Second Temple Judaism, in other words, and objectively — then it will be historically at odds with the description of Second Temple Judaism that Paul and the Gospel writers give us, and it will always be playing games with people who called our Messiah “Yeshu” and claimed that He was a mamzer.
Holiness is only in Christ, not in doing church the Gentile way or the Messianic-Jewish way. And I’m a little tired of you imputing to me every mistake that the church has ever made with regard to Jews or Jewish believers. I read (past tense) the Torah Anthology. I read the Mishnah and large sections of the Gemara. I read many of the Tosafists. I read all the Rashi and Ramban (Nachmanides) I could get my hands on. I read Rambam (Maimonides) and “Guide for the Perplexed” and understood everything but the sections on Beresheit and Merkavah (which is understandable, I think, given my resistance to reading about mystical interpretations). I read Shulchan Aruch and tried to apply it to my daily life. I said “Asher Yatzar” after I used the bathroom, for heaven’s sake. I was married under a chuppah. I fasted from food and water on Yom Kippur. My wife and I got rid of all the leaven in our house for multiple years throughout Hag HaMatzot. We built a sukkah in our backyard and used it for several years. We bought the four species, flown in from Israel (there is nothing like the smell of an ethrog). My wife can still braid the best challah I have ever seen.
But the day that somebody who I loved and cared about, somebody who at that point was listening to my teaching and nobody else’s as far as I know except for a couple of Messianics, a Dutch-American woman, told me that she was converting to Judaism so that she could take the beautiful traditions for herself, so that she could be that much closer to Y’shua HaMashiach, was the day that everything changed for me. When my wife sent her a letter in which she pointed out that “if you receive circumcision [yes, I know, but conversion might as well be circumcision, and would be if she were male], then Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal. 5:2), and we never received an answer… that was the day that I realized that pretending that rabbinic Torah observance is pleasing to God is a deadly game. Then we had somebody in our local church, a Gentile without question, decide that she shouldn’t eat pork or shellfish because God’s law is eternal, and if we’re grafted into Israel, shouldn’t we have the same signs? I don’t know how she ended up, but I pleaded with her not to reject Christ’s righteousness for her own.
My problem isn’t with you. It’s with people who take the burden — and yes, I defend the word “burden,” because it is an added burden to Gentiles, and it is an unnecessary one for Jews because Christ has declared all foods clean, because the Sabbath started when He died and rose again for those who no longer have to work for salvation (Heb. 4) — and make it the focus of their spirituality. Keeping Torah (in laws that aren’t classified as moral) isn’t an expression of faith in Christ. It’s, at best, an expression of culture. At worst it is a statement that “Christ + Torah observance = faith.”
I know that slippery slope arguments aren’t sound as far as defining the truth. But they are sound in shepherding. I have to keep any sheep near me from sliding into a faith+works salvation, and Jewish customs aren’t any different from Catholic customs, or even Puritan ones (and I consider myself an heir to the Puritans, theologically), in terms of making it easy for the weak in their faith to be diverted from the sufficiency of Christ.
Presupposing that God might lead us differently in the matter of how He is to be served, worshiped, and glorified. There is room for people to draw their personal lines in different places, although Paul places these on the scale of “weak” to “strong.” But God prescribes His worship and His requirements. Yeah, I’m judgmental. I have to judge, so that I won’t be judged. And I don’t want anybody to ever come to my website, or listen to my voice, and ever think that Torah observance, whether it be rabbinic or Messianic, is inherently pleasing to God. Only one Man kept the Covenant of Works, and it is His righteousness and His perfect Torah observance that is the basis for our salvation. If we offend our brothers, and divide from them, because we choose to place more restrictions on ourselves, no matter how much we may say that we’re just doing this as an expression of faith, then we are dividing a body that is already way too divided as it is.
I have preached funerals, of people in my care who rejected sola fide for “Jewish myths” and “endless genealogies.” I already have blood on my hands. I cannot in good conscience allow this to continue.
One Trackback
[...] think most of my comments from the original site cover most of what I have to say. There was also a discussion that I particpated in on another site about this post. You can read that here. As of this time [...]