Pages

Monday, September 17, 2012

A Refutation of the Divine Command Theory of Rabbinic Authority



There is a view gaining ground in the Messianic movement that credits Rabbinic Judaism with Divine authority--we'll call the Divine Command Theory [DCT].  The proponents are not even aware of the danger of this position--that it leads inexorably to the view that Halachic Codes have greater authority for practice than the New Testament!

Sounds crazy?  How could a Messianic ever allow a non-inspired text to have authority even over the New Testament?  I will now explain to you how it is not only possible but that it is already happening and may in fact be too late for some of the largest Messianic organizations.

First, I shall explain the implicit Rabbinic rationales for DCT, respond to those rationales, and then I shall explain the particular Messianic rationale for DCT which attempts to use Matthew 23 as a grant of Divine Authority to Rabbinic writings and respond to it.

The Rabbinic rationales for DCT are as follows:


(1) Power to Interpret Jewish Law.  Deuteronomy 17:9 refers to the "judge who is in office in those days" which is taken to mean that the institutional heads of Judaism have absolute authority to interpret Jewish Law.  Since the writings of the Sages were composed by the institutional heads of Judaism, the Rabbinic writings represent the official interpretation of Jewish Law;

(2) Power to legislate Jewish Law.  Numbers 11:16-17 refers to the establishment of the proto-Sanhedrin, a collection of leaders who are given "the spirit which is upon [Moses]".  The Sages of Rabbinic Judaism, while not having sat on the Sanhedrin, are a substitute for this institution and fulfill its role;

(3) Power to legislate/interpret Jewish Law (alternative theory based on Rabbinic writings carrying the authority of accepted practice).  Even if the Rabbis are not a substitute for the Sanhedrin or other judges, their writings have nevertheless undergone a transmutation of authority from personal to institutional by the process of their writings being endowed with the authority of accepted practice.  In Judaism, de facto authority is de jure authority.  Therefore, the Rabbinic Writings in partnership with contemporary communities, have collectively fulfilled the office of Moses.

Response to the Rabbinic rationales for DCT:


Of these rationales, the strongest by far is the third.  The other two don't work because Rabbinic Authority could never meet the criteria for the institutions referred to in Deuteronomy 17 and Numbers 11 and even if it did those institutions had very narrow jurisdiction and were not responsible for the legislation of halacha.  But the third rationale attempts to overcome these weaknesses by proposing that the real authority behind the Rabbinic writings is the authority granted from the contemporary institutions of Judaism--the authority of accepted practice.  If the end-product of Rabbinic Judaism--the Codes--have been accepted by a consensus of contemporary Jewish communities then that would make the Codes the de facto authority for halacha.

It's important to understand that Moses himself was bound by the Written Torah.  He was prohibited from making unConstitutional legislation, legislation that violated the letter or spirit of the Written Torah.  In other words, Moses was prohibited from going against the Divine will.  This means that he had to put into place measures to ensure that subsequent holders of the Mosaic office (i.e. various institutions) would not overstep their Constitutional authority.

One of these Constitutional safeguards was the prohibition of writing down the oral tradition (Gittin 60b).  Presumably, the fear was that a written oral tradition would finalize that which was intended to be continually evolving and, in the process of finalization, render unConstitutional errors permanent.

The Written Torah specifies that the oral tradition was a verbal dialogue:

"Every word [davar] which I am instructing you, you shall do it," (Deut. 12:32).

and:

 "..in each generation, the head of the court or the prophet of that generation would take notes of the teachings which he received from his masters for himself, and teach them verbally in public," (Rambam, Intro to Mishneh Torah).

There was deemed to be an ongoing dialogue between the halachist of each generation and G-d Himself:

  "A Talmudic expression of the dialogic view of revelation is the interpretation of the verse in Proverbs (1:8): 'Hear, my son, the instruction of they father, and forsake not the teaching (torat) of they mother,' where 'father' is said to refer to God, and 'mother' is said to refer to the community of Israel (Knesset Yisrael).  In this view, the Torah is revealed directly by God as well as through the community of Israel.  Torah is the product of an ongoing dialogue between God and Israel.  Accordingly, the dialogic view perceives the prophet as a 'partner in the work of revelation.'  An example of this perspective is the text, 'Rabbi Judah says: ...the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses:  Behold, I shall speak to you and you shall answer Me,'" pg. 25, In Partnership with God by Byron Sherwin.

The vertical dialogue took place between the halachists of each generation and G-d;  The horizontal dialogue took place between the teachers and their students.

Rambam describes the initial links in the chain of horizontal, oral transmission:

"Even though the Oral Law was not transcribed, Moses, our teacher, taught it in its entirety in his court to the seventy elders. Elazar, Pinchas, and Joshua received the tradition from Moses. [In particular, Moses] transmitted the Oral Law to Joshua, who was his [primary] disciple, and instructed him regarding it.

Similarly, throughout his life Joshua taught the Oral Law. Many elders received the tradition from him. Eli received the tradition from the elders and from Pinchas. Samuel received the tradition from Eli and his court. David received the tradition from Samuel and his court," (Intro to Mishneh Torah).

And Rambam goes on to describe the continuation of the transmission through the prophets, etc.

If it had been possible to effectively finalize the halacha in a code, would not these great men have codified the halacha?

It was because codification of halacha was impossible that they continued to transmit the oral tradition through the oral, dialogic process.

It's also important to understand that the dialogic process involved machloket (debate).  This active, critical process (as opposed to passive reception) ensured that any errors that came up could be resolved.  Debate was also seen as a necessary check to despotic tendencies which might eventually erode the supremacy of the Written Torah.  Nahmanides was a firm supporter of debating the supposed unquestionable authority of the Sages:

"...in thirteenth-century Spain, Nahmanides (Moses ben Nahman) expressed this view in his glosses to Maimonides's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, 'Notwithstanding my ardent desire to be a disciple of the earlier authorities, to establish and maintain their views, to [adorn myself] by making their [views] a gold chain about my neck and a bracelet upon my hand, I shall not serve them as a 'donkey carrying books.'  I shall explain their methods and appreciate their value, but when their views cannot be comprehended by me, I shall debate before them in all modesty, I shall judge according to what appears best in my eyes...for God gives wisdom in all times and in all ages,'" (In Partnership with God by Byron Sherwin).

The Messianic Rationale for DCT:


The Messianic rationale for DCT is based on Matthew 23:1-4 which says:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

Messianic proponents of DCT view this as a carte blanche authority for "normative" Judaism (i.e. the de facto authority of Judaism).

Response to the Messianic Rationale for DCT:


The response to this is twofold:

(1) Yeshua endorsed the pre 70 C.E. halachic system in which oral transmission was still employed.  For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely He could've endorsed the end-product of Rabbinic Judaism--codified halacha;

(2) The other problem with this view for Messianics is that Rabbinic halacha preempts all matters in which Messianics might like to someday establish their own halacha.  But if Messianics accept the divine command theory of rabbinic authority then they forfeit the right to establishing halacha that contradicts codified halacha--in effect, they grant the Codes a higher authority than the New Testament!

I've gotta run but I'll talk more about this later.  Hope everyone had a lovely Rosh Hashanah!

149 comments:

  1. Peter, those Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah who view the Jewish halachic tradition as authoritative for the Jewish people in no way see that tradition as authoritative in the lives of the Gentiles believers either in the Hebrew Roots (One-Law/Two House, a.k.a. "independent Messianics) or any related groups. That is to say that you don't have to convince me that you shouldn't obey the Oral Torah!

    And if I and my fellow Jews want to submit ourselves to the Oral Torah of our Jewish nation while we continue to hold that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel and our Redeemer even at great person cost, I think it's between us and G-d and nobody's business.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Addendum: I do not think that Jewish believers should ever establish a so called "messianic halacha", or one that is in opposition to the main halachic principals that are universally observed by the Jewish people. To do so would be a huge mistake and something that I, as a Jew, would oppose with every fiber of my being (I am not talking about minor or traditional variations present in different Jewish groups).

    Furthermore, there's nothing in what Yeshua or the apostles taught that can be said to be in a direct practical conflict with the halacha of the Jewish people today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Addendum: I do not think that Jewish believers should ever establish a so called "messianic halacha", or one that is in opposition to the main halachic principals that are universally observed by the Jewish people.

      The Apostles already did, see Acts 15.

      Delete
    2. My dear Gene,

      Re: "Furthermore, there's nothing in what Yeshua or the apostles taught that can be said to be in a direct practical conflict with the halacha of the Jewish people today."

      There are two types of rebuttals to this: (1) theoretical and; (2) practical.

      Theoretical Error 1: there's a big theoretical difference between the Rabbinic, monolithic approach versus dialogic approach to halacha. the monolithic approach (codified halacha) prohibits local communities from participating in the horizontal dialogue of the halachic process--there's nothing left for the local community to decide because everything has been decided and finalized in the codes. Thus, the monolithic approach conflicts with Yeshua's grant of halachic authority to the Messianic community (Matt 18:18, etc);

      Theoretical Error 2: there is a logical inconsistency in promoting codified halacha as objective truth. First, if codified halacha was objective truth then it would've been codified at the outset or by the prophets during the first Exile. Second, if codified halacha was objective truth then Yeshua couldn't have consistently argued for alternative approaches to halacha (see post entitled "Yeshua Violated Modern Rabbinic Halacha");

      Practical Error 1: Halacha by its very nature is political--it affects the political structuring of a community. You've stated that it's your business alone. This is an error. Your propositions regarding halacha have the potential to affect the entire political structure of the Messianic community.

      Practical Error 2: Since codified halacha doesn't represent objective truth, the local Messianic communities need to have the authority to interpret halacha to the changing needs of time and place. If you restrict them to only following codified halacha then they are prohibited from deviating from the codified halachot--they must follow the Codes rather than the teachings of the New Covenant. This is an error.

      Delete
    3. If by "messianic communities" you mean "Hebrew Roots" communities of Gentile believers - they should not concern themselves with the Oral Torah (but neither should they engage in pride-filled bashing of it!) The purpose of the Oral Torah is to serve as a halachic guide to the Jewish people and a multi-generational conversation between the people of Israel. It has fulfilled that function for my people quite well.

      Delete
  3. Great points Peter, keeping coming!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baruch Hashem! And thanks for your encouragement. Also, nice point above regarding Acts 15! The perfect example of Messianic halacha!!

      Delete
  4. Gene's position for rejecting Messianic Halacha stems from the unattainable dream that maybe one day mainstream Judaism will accept MJ into their midst...

    Keep dreaming, Gene....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Dan. They will NEVER accept Messianic Judaism as an "authentic" Judaism. The only way that Orthodox Jews will accept Messianic Jews is if (1) they reject Yeshua as the Messiah and (2) they accept the Divine Command Theory as regarding the Codes.

      But this "dream" of Messianic Judaism being incorporated into the brotherhood of halachic Judaism is actually a nightmare scenario: it would involve the total erosion of New Covenant authority.

      Delete
    2. The slander that Messianic Jews through their observance and allegiance to our own heritage somehow seek to gain acceptance of mainstream Judaism at he expense of Yeshua is just that - a slander. A hateful slander it is. This has been refuted over and over, including by many distinguished MJ leaders (Dan likes to bring it this lie out of storage now and then). It also makes zero sense - if we wanted to give up or lessen Yeshua just to be accepted, I and other Jews who are followers of Messiah could have done it many years ago.

      Instead of imagining the worst about us - that we are trying to have "Messianic" Judaism accepted as "authentic Judaism" (something that I and ALL the Jews I know DO NOT believe as possible before coming of Messiah)- how about accept our dream of uniting Yeshua with our own people instead and us simply trying to be faithful Jews for its own sake.

      Delete
  5. Though they clearly are because I end up dealing with them on a weekly basis I confess that I have difficulty understanding why these things are even an issue. It seems pretty clear to me what is d’var Mishnah and what is shikul ha da’at, what is kabalah and what is masoret. Obviously, we don’t want to be “freethinkers”, people who form their opinion about religion and G-d without regard to revelation, scripture, tradition or experience. Yet, isn’t there are clear understanding of what are minhagim? I mean we are allowed to create minhagim to promote worship, improve education or build fellowship within the body. But if we do so, we may not contradict the clear teachings of Scripture, we must maintain a proper view of what we are doing (it’s limited use and appropriateness), and keep the distinctions between valid Scriptural commands and minhagim evident to all. We try to tell our people, “this is minhag ha makom…this over here is clear, black letter law, biblical instruction”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brother, I hope I can visit your community one day. G-d has blessed the eldership of your community. Truly, Nahmanides was correct when he said that "G-d gives wisdom in all times and in all ages."

      Delete
  6. Please pardon my typo. My fingers are particularly stiff on this cold, wet day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Personally, my order of authoritative priority runs (from highest to lowest) something like:
    1. Explicit Scriptural teachings with examples
    2. Multiple teaching without example
    3. Multiple examples without explicit teaching
    4. Single teaching or example
    5. Instructions of congregation’s elders
    6. Advice from dayanim from other congregations
    7. Advice of the talmidim

    ReplyDelete
  8. The issue becomes muddy with the insistence for local Minhagim not only to not contradict written Torah, but also not to contradict rabbinic halacha.

    How do you argue with people who hold rabbinic halacha as equal or above written Torah?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I simply do not argue with them. We should not pay any attention to those who debate over foolish peripheral matters. Those kinds of discussions are "fruitless" and motivated by pride (1 Timothy 1:3-7). I agree that we should work hard at developing a sound and well-rounded grasp of the Scriptures. However, bashing others over the head with our new-found knowledge, while perhaps personally gratifying, reveals that though we may possess some limited knowledge and maybe even some understanding - we lack wisdom (2 Timothy 2:14-17, 22-26). The Apostle Paul, a master debater and evangelist, says that wrangling over mere words, splitting hairs, delighting in casuistry, sophistry or polemics is: useless, leads to the ruin of those who listen, leads to the furtherance of ungodliness, ends up spreading like gangrene, and produces quarrels. So the talmidim should avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels and disputes about the law for they are unprofitable and worthless. Simply reject a divisive person after a first and second warning, know that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned (Titus 3:9-11).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incidentally, Messianic Jews do not bash others over the head with Torah nor do we split hairs about it. Torah is simply a part and parcel of being a Jew. Even more importantly, when it comes to the Body of Messiah and those who make up the great majority of it, we not only do not obligate Gentile believers to live according to Jewish laws and traditions (including the Oral Torah being so incessantly bashed on this blog!), we discourage them to take on a Jewish lifestyle and especially to view a Christian lifestyle as somehow inferior. We, as Jews who follow our Messiah and are saved by the grace of G-d, believe that devout G-d-loving Christians already observe all of the Torah required of them, and we honor our non-Jewish brothers and sisters for their faithfulness to G-d.

      Delete
    2. Cajun,

      Are you saying that I'm being foolish and prideful? [by the way, i'm not offended if that's what you are saying]

      Delete
    3. No brother. I would not hesitate to tell you if I thought you were (Leviticus 19:17; Matthew 18:15), and though I would try to be tactful (Colossians 4:6), I would not be ambiguous or equivocate (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12). I'm simply saying that we must be careful to not be dragged into nit-picking casuistry and end up "casting our pearls" needlessly (Matthew 7:6). If some choose to equate Oral Torah with Written Torah, we should debate them calmly and rationally for a short while, then move away from the conversation when it becomes clear we are not going to convince one another. The days are short and evil, let's not waste them debating minutiae when there are souls unsaved, righteous lives to be lived and so much injustice to resist (Ephesians 5:16).

      Delete
  10. It's a false claim that the Oral Torah was somehow intended to "supersede" the Written Torah (and even a bigger false claim the rabbinic injunctions carry a greater weight than the Written Torah). The Oral Torah is merely an elaboration on the meaning of the Written Torah - it fills in the blank spots. The Oral Torah also supplies the how-to instructions for many Jewish laws, instructions which were most likely purposely left out by G-d out of the Written Torah so that the Jewish people will depend on their leaders, sages and judges (who, being the "Seat of Moses", were vested by G-d with power to "bind and loose") to understand the difficult parts of Torah (Deuteronomy 17:8-11).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene,

      I don't care what the Sages' intent was--all I care about is preserving the authority of the New Testament which grants halachic authority on the leadership of the New Covenant community.

      For example, if the Codes represent objective authority then Paul the Apostle was wrong to write Ephesians 2 which says that uncircumcised Believers are "citizens" in Israel, members of the covenants. This is flat out contradicted by codified halacha. So it really does matter whether we accept the Codes as Divinely authorized.

      Delete
    2. "uncircumcised Believers are "citizens" in Israel"

      Gentile believers are citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel, that is of the Kingdom of G-d composed of many nations and ruled by Messiah from Jerusalem. This is something that mainstream Judaism upholds.

      "I don't care what the Sages' intent was..."

      Peter, in that case, I do not see a further point of me discussing the Oral Torah with you.

      Delete
    3. Brother, I agree that the Sages' intentions were very likely good. They were human like us, and subject to the yetzer hara like us so I say "likely" because I even doubt my OWN motives (Jeremiah 17:9). However, we sometimes run into this problem in our congregation. The elders make a ruling based on their understanding of the Scriptures. Their intent is to follow the Law and please the Master. Yet the people sometimes begin equating their derashot with Scripture. Good elders will carefully guard against this ignorance by clearly and repeatedly raising the authority of the Scriptures above their own or any other human ruling. We must treat G-d's Word as we do His Son, saying over and over "He/It must increase and we/our rulings must decrease".

      Delete
    4. Cajun, the problem with imagining that our personal interpretation of scriptures is somehow superior or trumps that of the of the Jewish sages who were intimately familiar with the nuances of the Hebrew tongue and built their opinions on the scholarship of those who preceded them, of course, is that EVERYBODY - even subconsciously - consults "their own sages". For some, these sages go by such names as "Martin Luther", "Augustine", "Calvin", "the Southern Baptist Convention", "Tim Hegg", etc. You get my point. Now, while I choose to think for myself, I also realize that my knowledge is very limited and like all understanding, it must be invariably built upon those who preceded us. Because of that I choose to do what other devout Jews have done - I consult those who are wiser than me and those who came before me, for there's much wisdom in the council of many. I choose to consult the wisdom of my sages.

      Delete
    5. Gene,

      Mainstream Judaism does NOT accept uncircumcised gentiles as members of the covenants (Eph 2). Rather, uncircumcised gentiles are excluded from the covenants (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, chapter 20). Big difference between the New Testament and the Codes. : )

      Delete
    6. "It's a false claim that the Oral Torah was somehow intended to "supersede" the Written Torah (and even a bigger false claim the rabbinic injunctions carry a greater weight than the Written Torah). The Oral Torah is merely an elaboration on the meaning of the Written Torah - it fills in the blank spots. The Oral Torah also supplies the how-to instructions for many Jewish laws, instructions which were most likely purposely left out by G-d out of the Written Torah so that the Jewish people will depend on their leaders, sages and judges (who, being the "Seat of Moses", were vested by G-d with power to "bind and loose") to understand the difficult parts of Torah (Deuteronomy 17:8-11)."

      But what is the reality? 90% of Judaism who include Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist, reject this premise. I guess they thinking a nd beliefs are false according to Gene.....

      Delete
    7. "Mainstream Judaism does NOT accept uncircumcised gentiles as members of the covenants"

      Gentiles are not "members" of the Mosaic Covenant. However, they are partakers in the spiritual benefits.

      Delete
    8. "Gentiles are not "members" of the Mosaic Covenant. However, they are partakers in the spiritual benefits."

      According to who?

      Delete
    9. "But what is the reality? 90% of Judaism who include Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist, reject this premise. I guess they thinking a nd beliefs are false according to Gene....."

      Ah, your favorite retort, Dan. Liberal Judaisms are not "90% of Judaism". The majority of Jews who are considered affiliated with them are secular Jews who do not "practice" those Judaisms or even attend the services other than on holy days. So, those stats are bogus. Furthermore, these liberals streams are little over 100 years old (only 45 in case of Reconstructionists) and are confined to the United States. In the big scheme of Jewish things they are but a blip. Traditional Judaism (that is a halachic Judaism that's dedicated to divinely-inspired Torah), it its various forms and streams, has survived for the last two thousand years and will continue to survive.

      Delete
    10. Gene,

      Ine more time, stop putting words in people mouths...I did not mention "liberal," you did...Why do you need always to create a straw-man when you have no answers.

      Bottom line is that the three Jewish branches I mentioned comprise of 90% if Judaism as we know it today. you can twist it until you are blue in your face, but, then who are you?....

      Delete
  11. I agree that we should seek out those who are wiser than ourselves (Proverbs 12:15; 13:20; 15:7) and I admit to having learned much from many of our forefathers.

    Yet I remember that they were also human, and equally prone to error. Even Solomon, with all his wisdom, was besotted by women (1 Kings 11:1-2) and contravened Hashem’s injunction to not intermarry with heathen women. In the end these turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:3-10).

    So I welcome the instruction of the Sages with eagerness, but examine the Scriptures daily to see if their teaching is correct (Acts 17:11).

    I applaud your spirit brother, and appreciate the humility of wanting to submit to a greater mind and heart than your own. I'm simply afraid that most people do not have your same desire and for that we must prepare. We must clearly distinguish the levels of authority in our teachings and judgments.

    Brach’a vehazlaha

    ReplyDelete
  12. I apologize that I cannot continue this interesting conversation but I have a beit din for which I am serving as av beit din starting momentarily and will not be able to return to this site tonight. Please do not consider a lack of response on my part as disrespect.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For any Jew coming to your blog, the impression he or she would invenitebly get is that you preach, almost obsessively, anti-Judaism. That is your blog as it stands today is a microcosm of the deep-seated anti-Judaic and classically Supersessionist attitude found across much of the Hebrew Roots spectrum (especially the "One Law" part of it). Similarly and unfortunately hypocritically, like the rest of Hebrew Roots by their very definition, you try to project a veneer of appreciation (a form) for Jewish things, but you deny the power thereof.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above was addressed to my friend Peter.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your comment, Gene. I actually agree with a halachic Judaism--just one that isn't codified. Codified halachic Judaism inhibits (1) the guidance via Ruach, (2) the on-going process of halachic development, and (3) the authority of the Tanak and New Testament.

      But, as it is the ten days of awe, I will spend some time thinking about your criticisms to see if they have merit. For the record, I do not intend to project anti-Judaism. Quite the opposite.

      Delete
    3. "I actually agree with a halachic Judaism--just one that isn't codified."

      Peter, the Judaism you agree with is the one that just doesn't exist. It's not the Judaism of the Jewish people.

      "But, as it is the ten days of awe, I will spend some time thinking about your criticisms to see if they have merit. For the record, I do not intend to project anti-Judaism. Quite the opposite."

      That's certainly commendable.

      Delete
    4. I actually agree with a halachic Judaism--just one that isn't codified.

      Agreed, without halachic Judaism, half of us would not know what we are doing. The issue is a codified halacha across the whole Messianic or One Law sphere, as Boaz wants it to be... And as Peter pointed out, it would ignore the Apostolic Writings, which are also the inspired words of God, not just the Tanakh.

      Delete
    5. Peter, the Judaism you agree with is the one that just doesn't exist. It's not the Judaism of the Jewish people.

      Gene, you have obviously never been to a reform or conservative synagogue, I grew up attending both, and they fit just nicely in what we are describing. But even then, we have to take into account the Apostles, what did they think on all of this, something that is more than simply just asking what Orthodox Judaism would think.

      Delete
    6. "we have to take into account the Apostles"

      I am looking forward to the time when the One Law folks decide to start doing just that.

      Delete
    7. I am looking forward to the time when the One Law folks decide to start doing just that.

      Gene, I have yet to see you address any of the points raised concerning conflict in Halacha.

      Delete
  14. The Scriptures unequivocally state that the same laws, including those regarding Passover, applied to both native Israelis and Gentile converts (Exodus 12:48-49; Numbers 15:13-16). Gentiles who desired to serve the Lord and were willing to abide by Hashem’s mitzvoth were to receive the same consideration as native-born Jews (Leviticus 19:33-34). Ruth was not told to live a different lifestyle from the time she declared her loyalty to Yahweh and His people. Regardless of their genetic background, Hashem’s people were subject to the same disciplinary methods (Numbers 9:13-14; 15:29-31). They were all to pray toward the Temple (1 Kings 8:41-43 cp 2 Chronicles 6:32-33). The prophet Isaiah predicted that there would be a time that would be characterized by Gentiles being united with the house of Jacob (Isaiah 14:1) and that the converted Gentile should not say “The Lord will exclude me from His people” (Isaiah 56:3). Gentiles are to have equal access to Zion and the Beit ha Mikdash (Isaiah 56:6-8). They are to get equal allotments of land (Ezekiel 47:21-23). Whoever does the will of Elohim is in the Family (Matthew 12:50). It is not genetics but our circumcised hearts that determine whether or not we are Israel (Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-8 cp Revelation 2:9; 3:9; Galatians 3:6-7, 29). So there is to be no more distinction between Jews or Gentiles in the Kingdom (Galatians 3:27-28).
    How we can go from these clear, cut and dry, explicit, Scriptural statements to the beliefs that
    Gentile believers are:
    To be discouraged from living a “Jewish lifestyle”,
    Citizens of the “Commonwealth” of Israel rather than Israel,
    illustrate for me the dangers of elevating Oral Torah too high, even unintentionally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cajun, I have a detailed 2 part study on the topic of Gentiles being "spiritual Jews" posted on my blog:

      http://dailyminyan.com/2011/05/25/are-christiansgentile-believers-spiritual-jews-or-israelites-part-i/

      "To be discouraged from living a “Jewish lifestyle”,
      Citizens of the “Commonwealth” of Israel rather than Israel,
      illustrate for me the dangers of elevating Oral Torah too high, even unintentionally."

      Cajun, Oral Torah has nothing to do with this - the Written Torah and the New Testament have enough to say on this particular topic. In my study linked above I purposely omitted any mention of the Oral Torah, using "Sola Scriptura" for support.

      Delete
    2. I acknowledge my ignorance of the nuances of what has obviously been a long-standing debate. I need to heed Solomon's warning that "A passerby who meddles in a quarrel that's not his is like one who grabs a dog by the ears." (Proverbs 26:17) I can only speak from what I have learned in the Scriptures. It may be that because of my background I have developed a hyper-sensitivity any appeal to human-made laws or codes of conduct. From Hammurabi to Napoleon to the English Common Law to the Constitution, they all seem to fall short. When we obeyed the Scriptures our nation was great. When we disobeyed, choosing instead laws and ways of other nations, we failed miserably. If you can show me from Scripture, I'll follow it every time. Thank you for the link. I'll be sure to read it over.

      Delete
    3. Gene,

      We all know your teaching regarding gentile identity. You believe in a version of Ephesians 2 that reads like this:

      "…remember that at that time you were excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise? well, sorry, you are still foreigners and strangers and definitely not fellow citizens…"

      But it doesn't really go like that, does it? : )

      You're resurrecting the debate of "Who is a Jew?" This is really about "Who is a member of Israel?" You can enter Israel even if you don't have the physical bloodline. There IS a spiritual bloodline through Yeshua--but this doesn't negate the physical bloodline. And His Passover Feast doesn't prohibit those who are uncircumcised but allows all of His children to join the covenant made with Israel. How else could Paul say that the uncircumcised had become members of the covenants (plural)?

      Rabbinic halacha rejects Paul's teachings. Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer) says that one is an Israelite through matrilinear descent. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah) says that a convert must be circumcised before undergoing immersion and then, after the prescribed process is completed, he is considered like a native Israelite (i.e. citizen).

      So this is why I must, in good conscience, not accept the codified halacha as Divinely Authorized. If I did, then I'd have to reject the teachings of the New Testament which I'm not prepared to do.

      Delete
    4. Peter, I am glad that you used the word "authorized" instead of "inspired". A pastor of a church (or a group of elders, if you prefer that style of leadership) is right to make a serious decision because as a spiritual leader of his congregation he is divinely authorized, even though he may not necessarily be "divinely inspired" (in the way a prophet would be).

      Regardless - if you don't accept the Jewish interpretation of the Torah as divinely authorized, fine - don't! It doesn't impact you. You are certainly within your right to express whatever opinion about any subject in the world. However, halacha only impacts the Jewish people, i.e. those who to whom it applies and choose submit to halachic authority.

      Delete
    5. However, halacha only impacts the Jewish people, i.e. those who to whom it applies and choose submit to halachic authority.

      So the judges who ruled over Israel had no authority over Gentiles living in the Land? I could completely ignore their authority as a gentile?

      Since I am a gentile, I can ignore the authority Yeshua put into place, such as the Apostles and their verdicts...

      You are approaching this whole argument with a faulty premise. As if gentiles have a completely different religion. The Apostles did not view it that way, time to rethink.

      Delete
    6. "So the judges who ruled over Israel had no authority over Gentiles living in the Land? I could completely ignore their authority as a gentile?"

      Zion, you and most Hebrew Roots Gentiles do not live in the Land nor do you or they place themselves under any Jewish authority even in the lands where they do live.

      "You are approaching this whole argument with a faulty premise. As if gentiles have a completely different religion. The Apostles did not view it that way, time to rethink."

      One thing is for certain - the Apostles did not see Gentile believers as converts to Judaism or as persons obligated to the strictures of Judaism. Connected to Judaism as rightous Gentiles - yes. Practicing Judaism as de-facto Jews? No!

      Delete
    7. Zion, you and most Hebrew Roots Gentiles do not live in the Land nor do you or they place themselves under any Jewish authority even in the lands where they do live.

      Then you just disqualified yourself. As the ruling is per the land.

      One thing is for certain - the Apostles did not see Gentile believers as converts to Judaism or as persons obligated to the strictures of Judaism. Connected to Judaism as rightous Gentiles - yes. Practicing Judaism as de-facto Jews? No!

      The Apostles never built upon Judaism period, we see no claims to such, and they definitely did not make claims on Christianity. We know they continued to follow Judaism, and we know they saw Gentiles coming in to be part of their faith as well. They did not tell them to not go to Synagogues, instead they are going to learn Moses in the Synagogues. They did not tell them to created their own religion... again you have a faulty premise.

      Delete
    8. Zion, I am sorry, I am trying to make sense of what you wrote above, but I can't. Please rethink and rephrase.

      Delete
  15. "Peter, the Judaism you agree with is the one that just doesn't exist. It's not the Judaism of the Jewish people."

    OK, Gene, then you define "Judaism" for us,

    Orthodox--who regard the word of the Rabbis as equal and sometime higher than the written Torah?

    Reform--Who ordains gay rabbis and perform same sex marriages?

    Conservative--Who sit on the fence not knowing which way to go?

    Reconstructionist---Who took God completely out of the picture?


    You tell us, smart boy.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the Danbenzvinian Judaism, the one that got it right.

      Delete
    2. He does not have an answer Dan, because this is just a game to him.

      Delete
  16. Gene, I've begun reading the material you suggested. I have to say that, though we may disagree on some things, your study on the use of the terms "Hebrew", "Jew" and "Israel", is very well done. Good job!

    You are in fact a "smart guy" who seems to be well read in the Scriptures and very good at drawing connections between its varied parts and making a good derash.

    Though I again would disagree with you on the issue of the differences of observation of the niceties of the Law between Jews and Gentiles, I would certainly not discount you or your opinion.

    If the group ever tires of beating this particular dead horse and simply agrees to disagree on the issue and quit bringing it up, I would personally look forward to cooperating with you on more fruitful endeavors.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice, logical, straight line between argument and counterargument, Peter. However, I think that the jury is still out (PDF) as far as Matthew 23 is concerned.

    Does Jewish halachah "override" the New Testament? Depends on the authority of the New Testament. If it exists on the same level as the Tanakh, probably not, but then, typically the Rabbis agree that written Torah has more authoratative weight than a Rabbinic ruling). If it is considered (for the most part) midrash, maybe so. I'm not really concerned because Jewish halachah doesn't apply to non-Jews and non-Jewish congregations of Christians/Hebrew Roots folks, so the only people who really have to wrestle this around are the halachic Jews within the Messianic Jewish movement.

    "The other problem with this view for Messianics is that Rabbinic halacha preempts all matters in which Messianics might like to someday establish their own halacha."

    I really don't see the problem here. If you or any congregation to which you belong wants to establish halachah or any principles of religious and lifestyle practice, I don't think anything's stopping you. After all, your friend Cajun said he serves on a "Beit Din." Your halachah just won't be Jewish, though I imagine it will borrow somewhat from the traditional Jewish writings.

    JMHO.

    Keep in mind that I'm even visiting here against my better judgment, but since I was invited, I thought I'd say a few words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That paper looks amazing! I can't wait to read it. Thank you, brother.

      Delete
    2. No worries, Peter. I thought you were already aware of it because it was linked to the Rosh Pina Project blog.

      Delete
    3. Just finished it. His conclusion is identical to mine. In his conclusion, he says:

      "I have argued, however, that this apparent contradiction can be resolved by understanding that Jesus did not mean for his disciples to literally do “all” that the Pharisees taught. He meant rather that they were to obey their teachings regarding the Torah and halakhah in principle, a fact supported by Jesus’ own basic observance of oral tradition."

      This "principle", as I've stated, is that halacha is not objective truth. Had it been so, it would've been codified at the outset. This principle is completely at odds with modern Rabbinic Judaism which has replaced principle with code. Do you see, James, how this confirms my premise?

      At any rate, even if you disagree, that article was a pure joy to read. Thank you for sharing!

      Delete
    4. Thanks. Glad you enjoyed the article. For me, halakhah isn't a static set of behaviors, nor do I think it was ever intended to be. The whole I idea (and I think you even say this somewhere on your blog) is that the rulings and judgments are supposed to be dynamic in order to meet the needs of each generation. Just look at the Talmud and you'll see an ongoing "conversation" between the Rabbis of different generations over a wide variety of topics. Sometimes there's consensus but occasionally there is not, and you'll find differing halakhah between Judaisms, such as the differences between the Ashkenaz and Sefards over what is considered leaven during Passover.

      However dynamic halakhah may be though, the underlying principles are enduring of course, even though how they're applied "flexes" over time. I think that's what happens to "religion" in general (the subject of a future "meditation"). I think religions "evolve" over time as a sort of "partnership" between people and God. Otherwise everyone would be Amish or Haredi and have practices and beliefs that are partially or wholly disconnected from the environment and generation, and anchored in lifestyles and interpretations that are hundreds or thousands of years old. I mean, look at the Reformation. That was certainly an "evolutionary leap" in the very fabric of Christianity.

      I wrote my own response to the Rabbinowitz article in today's morning meditation (I don't know if you've seen it or not), and I take the paper's conclusions in a somewhat different direction. Carl Kinbar left a comment that is especially compelling and which suggests that Yeshua may have had a wider acceptance of Jewish religious authority in the Second Temple era than even Rabbinowitz presented.

      Delete
    5. Peter, you are wrong in your perception that the Jewish halachic code (interpretations and applications of Torah) is set in an immovable stone. If you read all the diverse opinions of the sages, you will see that there's a range of views, sometimes divergent, with arguments going back and fourth. In the end, the Jewish sages settled on those arguments that made most sense to the majority of them and those became the accepted codes of conduct to be followed by all Jews everywhere. Case law, precedence, majority rule. True, today the changes do not happen very quickly, but even in the absence of Sanhedrin some new opinions are still issued on controversial subjects that have to do with our modern world (e.g. shaving with an electric shaver). You of all people, having been to law school, should relate to this.

      Regardless - my point is still the same. Hebrew Roots folks need not worry themselves with applicability but especially the requirements of the Oral Torah on their lives. It's for Jews to deal with and sort out.

      Delete
    6. James,

      Re: "For me, halakhah isn't a static set of behaviors, nor do I think it was ever intended to be."

      James, I'm not trying to be rude when I say this but the Codes are what they are regardless of what you want them to be. The Shulchan Aruch is a code, not a conversation. It is as inflexible as stone. And it carries the force of law whether or not you feel that it does.

      Re: "However dynamic halakhah may be though, the underlying principles are enduring of course, even though how they're applied "flexes" over time."

      Again, you cannot "flex" a code. The law is the law and you can't flex your way out of it or flex it into non-existence. The Codes are rigid.

      Re: "I wrote my own response to the Rabbinowitz article in today's morning meditation"

      I'll check it out now. I'm glad to see you've explored this topic. I admire that about you.

      Delete
    7. Gene,

      The rigidity of Orthodox halachah is precisely why Conservative Judaism started. They do not want a Code; they want flexibility. Don't act like I'm the only one who perceives the codes as set in stone.

      Re: "If you read all the diverse opinions of the sages, you will see that there's a range of views,"

      Absolutely! And if it had been left at that we wouldn't be arguing right now. But in devising the codes, in FINALIZING halachah, the authors of the codes have eliminated all those different points of view and presented a single, unified point of view (which is really the authors subjective point of view which often sides with dubious opinions).

      Delete
    8. "The rigidity of Orthodox halachah is precisely why Conservative Judaism started."

      Not so, Peter. Conservative Judaism started as a reform of the Reform Judaism, by a Jew (Jewish German theologian Zecharias Frankel) who felt that the sweeping reforms of the Reform Judaism of his day (which discarded even such basic things as kashrut and Hebrew liturgy in worship) went too far. He wanted to scale back the reforms, and thus Conservative Judaism was born.

      Delete
    9. "the authors of the codes have eliminated all those different points of view and presented a single, unified point of view"

      And yet, that's how the legal system in at least America operates.

      The different points of view were not eliminated - Judaism, uniquely I believe, presents all points of view for everyone to see and examine. Once a new Sanhedrin is in place, there's a possibility of new changes being introduced. And of course, when Messiah rules from Jerusalem, he may introduce further binding changes to Torah interpretation. Until all that happens, Jews have Halacha.

      Delete
  18. "I'm not really concerned because Jewish halachah doesn't apply to non-Jews and non-Jewish congregations of Christians/Hebrew Roots folks, so the only people who really have to wrestle this around are the halachic Jews within the Messianic Jewish movement."

    Well. that is not what your new mentor Boaz Michael says...I guess you did not drink ALL their Kool-Ade lately.....

    " Your halachah just won't be Jewish, though I imagine it will borrow somewhat from the traditional Jewish writings."

    So, I guess wearing a Tzitzit with a blue thread is not Jewish...So why are they complaining?

    You need to ask for more Kool-Ade from Boaz......

    Invited? some people know not to overstay their welcome.....LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, I mean Peter emailed me and asked me to have a look at this specific blog post, Dan. And as I recall, the issue isn't whether or not non-Jews choose to develop their own religious standards and practices and call it "halachah." The issue is that such "halachah" doesn't define that group as a "Judaism."

    Oh, and good morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue is that such "halachah" doesn't define that group as a "Judaism."

      I think the issue is more of a claim that Jewish identity is being stolen, more than whether or not a claim to Judaism is being made, as they are ruling themselves out of being a Judaism as well.

      Delete
    2. I was just thinking this morning how (non-Messianic) Judaism sees Gentiles in the Hebrew Roots movement when these "Goyim" practice apparently "Jewish" religious behaviors. It's sort of how my wife reacts when I tell her that I write a Christian blog using Jewish sources. She's not upset or angry, but it is terribly confusing to her. In her mind, it's like "what does one thing have to do with another?"

      I think that's how modern normative Judaism looks at the issue. A bunch of Goyim saying the Shema, wearing tzitzit, laying tefillin and still praying to Jesus is very baffling and yes, kind of insulting (I think you have to be Jewish to really get this perspective or at least, like me, be married to a Jew).

      Rather than beat my head against a stone wall over the whole "One Law" thing, the simplest "solution" for me is to say that any non-Jewish group that takes on modern Jewish practices for religious purposes may indeed be a method of worshiping God and honoring the Messiah...but it's not a "Judaism" in any conceptual or practical sense. In essence and by definition, One Law completely exits Messianic Judaism when it rejects Jewish authority to define itself. It becomes a form of Gentile Christianity that, to varying degrees, has taken on some modern synagogue worship practices in the worship of Jesus.

      Of course, how Jewish people react to One Law "Jewish" behaviors may be a different story. As for me, I'm just a Christian who enjoys reading Jewish commentary and who blogs a ridiculous amount.

      Delete
    3. "The issue is that such "halachah" doesn't define that group as a "Judaism."

      This is not the "issue" with OL people. It is only an "issue" with the BE/DI club...They created a straw-man and trying to beat us over the head with it...

      When Peter started to talk about a Messianic Halacha he did not call it a Messianic JEWISH halacha, because unlike your crowed, we understand that our Identity in in Messiah, not Judaism or Gentilism..

      James, I know you heart, but even you have to adnit that we should not be labeled "sons of Korach," this is divisive, not inclusive....

      Delete
    4. Rather than beat my head against a stone wall over the whole "One Law" thing, the simplest "solution" for me is to say that any non-Jewish group that takes on modern Jewish practices for religious purposes may indeed be a method of worshiping God and honoring the Messiah...but it's not a "Judaism" in any conceptual or practical sense. In essence and by definition, One Law completely exits Messianic Judaism when it rejects Jewish authority to define itself. It becomes a form of Gentile Christianity that, to varying degrees, has taken on some modern synagogue worship practices in the worship of Jesus.

      Few problems, there are Jews who are also One Law, so what do you do with them?

      Second, whether or not we are a Judaism is technically fine, as long as we are obeying the Messiah, but I would rather find my beliefs connected and linked to both Christianity and Judaism to keep family together.

      Delete
    5. "Few problems, there are Jews who are also One Law, so what do you do with them?"

      Zion, that's not really a problem. There are so few of those, that they are virtually statistically irrelevant.

      Delete
    6. "Zion, that's not really a problem. There are so few of those, that they are virtually statistically irrelevant."

      The pot calls the kettle black...LOL!

      What is the ratio of Jewish-Gentile in MJ?

      Delete
    7. "The pot calls the kettle black...LOL!"

      Dan, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." There's simply no comparison between Jewish presence in OL and in mainstream MJ congregations.

      Delete
    8. Gene,

      סבלנות, it will come....

      Delete
  20. I'm not really concerned because Jewish halachah doesn't apply to non-Jews and non-Jewish congregations of Christians/Hebrew Roots folks, so the only people who really have to wrestle this around are the halachic Jews within the Messianic Jewish movement.

    But you are also saying that Yeshua's words do not apply to you. So since you do not have to listen to Yeshua in that regard, do any of His words apply to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're experiencing some sort of disconnect, Zion. I don't believe I ever said that. Jewish halachah as it exists in the various Judaisms of the 21st century, isn't designed to be applied to Gentile Christians. A great portion of that halachah may well apply to Messianic Jewish people (apart from those tiny bits that directly deny Jesus as Messiah), however. What part of the teachings of Jesus can you infer I don't listen to based on what I just said?

      Delete
    2. What part of the teachings of Jesus can you infer I don't listen to based on what I just said?

      Matthew 23, which is what we were discussing. You don't obey Yeshua's directive concerning authority?

      Delete
    3. "Matthew 23, which is what we were discussing. You don't obey Yeshua's directive concerning authority?"

      This is because James understands that Yeshua did not expect Gentiles to submit to halachic standards applicable to Jews. He healed Gentiles, but he never sent a single one of them to be examined by priests at the Temple.

      Delete
    4. Gene said: "This is because James understands that Yeshua did not expect Gentiles to submit to halachic standards applicable to Jews. He healed Gentiles, but he never sent a single one of them to be examined by priests at the Temple."

      True enough. Contextually, Yeshua is addressing his Jewish disciples within the Matthew 23 discussion. That discussion doesn't have to disseminate down to his later command for them to make disciples of the nations. Of course, we have to be careful how we apply Yeshua's statements (which apply to only Jews and which apply to everyone), because, as everyone who has read the Rabbinowitz paper has seen, just trying to derive the Messiah's intent out of a few sentences can be enormously challenging.

      However, Gene is correct in that, based on the Gospel record, Jesus did behave differently in his encounters with non-Jews vs the Jewish people, so that tends to bend our interpretation in a certain direction.

      That would also be my response to Zion who accuses me of not obeying the teachings of the Messiah because I don't fully adopt modern Jewish halachah.

      Delete
    5. That would also be my response to Zion who accuses me of not obeying the teachings of the Messiah because I don't fully adopt modern Jewish halachah.

      No accusation, just wondering how you are determining which words of Jesus apply to you? Where can I read which words Jesus spoke that apply to Gentiles versus Jews. Since you claim there is a difference, I am interested how you come to your conclusions.

      Delete
  21. "I think that's how modern normative Judaism looks at the issue. A bunch of Goyim saying the Shema, wearing tzitzit, laying tefillin and still praying to Jesus is very baffling and yes, kind of insulting (I think you have to be Jewish to really get this perspective or at least, like me, be married to a Jew)."

    That is not accurate, James. Because there is a bunch of Jews there right besides the goyim...Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no?....

    "but it's not a "Judaism" in any conceptual or practical sense."

    Who says it is? Only the ones who create a straw-man....

    "In essence and by definition, One Law completely exits Messianic Judaism when it rejects Jewish authority to define itself."

    Come on James....You know better than that...OL does not define itself as Messianic Judaism. OL is a messianic Torah communities....But i guess if you address us as such it will destroy your argument, no?

    "It becomes a form of Gentile Christianity that, to varying degrees, has taken on some modern synagogue worship practices in the worship of Jesus."

    This is another ignorance on your part....So let me tell you a secret....There are Jews in the OL movement...Hope this did not shock you....

    ReplyDelete
  22. I said: "I think that's how modern normative Judaism looks at the issue. A bunch of Goyim saying the Shema, wearing tzitzit, laying tefillin and still praying to Jesus is very baffling and yes, kind of insulting (I think you have to be Jewish to really get this perspective or at least, like me, be married to a Jew)."

    Dan said: That is not accurate, James. Because there is a bunch of Jews there right besides the goyim...Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no?....

    Actually, it is true for the Jews I know who are not Messianic and probably for the Jews I know who are.

    Dan said: Come on James....You know better than that...OL does not define itself as Messianic Judaism.

    That's not true across the board. I believe in the past, Peter said that he believes OL is Jewish or a Judaism (correct me if I'm wrong, Peter) and in a recent blog post of his, he talks about his desire to live a Jewish lifestyle. That's at least a blurring of the lines.

    As far as the application of Jewish halachah among the Jews in OL, ultimately, that's between them and God. They can choose to take on board the additional responsibility, but only the Creator will decide what it all means in the end.

    I do know however, that there are Jews in the Messianic Jewish movement who desire to live in the traditions of their Fathers and that experience their Jewish identity in such a manner. It would be a little silly of me to try to imitate Jewish religious behavior, even in part, and yet claim it had nothing to do with Jewish identity or Jewish practice.

    In other words, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may not actually be a duck, but it wants to be. Sorry if that sounds disrespectful, but it's a good metaphor.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry, James, you don't get to have the cake and eat it too...

    "Actually, it is true for the Jews I know who are not Messianic and probably for the Jews I know who are."

    All you had to say was: It is true. Not trying to confuse us with the rest...LOL!

    " It would be a little silly of me to try to imitate Jewish religious behavior, even in part, and yet claim it had nothing to do with Jewish identity or Jewish practice. "

    So, you mean to tell us that you, who is married to a Jewish woman and lives with her in the same house, but you live a completely separate life style from her Jewish life style? Give us a break.....

    ReplyDelete
  24. So, you mean to tell us that you, who is married to a Jewish woman and lives with her in the same house, but you live a completely separate life style from her Jewish life style? Give us a break.....

    I don't pray while wearing a tallit. There are many other Jewish religious practices in which I don't participate. Whatever I do that you might consider "Jewish" is because, as you say Dan, my wife is doing it (eating the same foods, for example). I don't do this because I feel I'm identical to the Jewish people. I do it because I'm married. And yes, there's a part of me that has an "affinity" with aspects of the Jewish lifestyle, but that's a long way from me being obligated to that lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
  25. James,

    Do you participate in the erev Shabbat lighting of the candles? The blessing is from the Siddur, do you walk away when your wife is saying the blessing?

    You say that you do it because you are married to a Jewish wife,but I would say that you also are married to Yeshua, so what is the difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, I venture to say that James doesn't wear his wife's dresses and high heels (although we do live in strange days).

      Delete
  26. Here is where your argument and your side's argument falls apart, Gene,

    While Scriptures clearly Prescribes different rules and commands between a man and a woman, a priest and a lay man, it does not offer a specific list for a Jew or a Gentile....I understand that you are trying to produce one, but so far, zilch.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, if you want to know which commandments apply specifically to Israel, just look up any commandment (or a section of commandments) that starts with G-d saying "Say to the children of Israel" and you'll know who G-d meant them for.

      Delete
    2. Gene, and yet you admitted that Gentiles in your congregation are participating in commandment that according to you were only given to Israel. Are Gentiles excluded from coming to your congregation on Shabbat?

      Square it up for me please?

      Delete
    3. Dan, it's not a "commandment" for someone if they were not actually commanded to perform it. To give you an analogy: I am not an Israeli and therefore not legally obligated to pay an income tax to the Israeli government. But, I could still send a check to the Israeli Treasury if I so choose. Even if I were to pay this tax that I am not obligated to pay, I would still be ineligible to receive any benefits accorded to someone who is an Israeli citizen.

      I have no problem with Gentiles voluntarily choosing to honor the Shabbat (or other Jewish holy days for that matter) and celebrate it in some fashion, but they would not be fulfilling a commandment as it was never given to them.

      Delete
  27. Zion (sorry, but blogger is being stubborn and not letting me provide your answer, "in line"), you asked me which words Jesus said that we can apply only to Jews and which ones apply to everyone.

    This is getting a little far afield from the original topic, but see examples of how Jesus treated Gentiles differently than Jews in Matthew 10:5-6 and Matthew 15:21-28. Also, look at Acts 21:27-29 about how the Jews reacted when Paul was falsely accused of taking a Gentile into the Temple. There seems to be an intent of distinction right from the start, even before Jesus gave the "great commission" to his Jewish disciples to make disciples of non-Jewish people (Matthew 28:18-20).

    If you'll recall my words from another comment in this blog post, if you read the Rabbinowitz paper, you know that it can be very difficult to derive the intent of the Master's words, even in a few sentences. But you want me to give you answers to questions believers have been asking for 20 centuries. Sorry, but the above is the best I can do with five minutes of Google.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the response James, my question was more or less rhetorical. If we take your approach to say that the context of Jesus words were/are to Jews, then technically none of Jesus words apply to Gentiles, because His audience, spare a few individual gentiles, was not gentile.

      Delete
  28. Like I said Zion, it's a difficult task, but on the other hand, we see from Matthew 10:5-6 and Matthew 15:21-28 that Jesus did treat Gentiles differently than he did Jews, so I think we can infer that he had different expectations relative to the two groups. I suppose we'll spend all our lives trying to figure out exactly what those expectations were, but it's a quest worth engaging.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,

      If Yeshua gave His disciples authority to render halacha then it's irrelevant that the halacha came only from Peter, Paul, James. In Acts 15, halacha was CREATED. It deemed the uncircumcised Believers to be IN COVENANT (i.e. "a people for His name"). This gave them the right to be admitted into Jewish communities provided they abstained from the defilements of pagan practices. This gave them the right to be in synagogue and to start learning the Torah of Moses. After all, they were covenanted and thus they were citizens (Eph 2) and they could not be denied. Note that Peter realized this with Cornelius. He could not be denied immersion (even though halacha mandated that only circumcised converts could undergo immersion).

      Yeshua said nothing about this decision in Acts 15. And you know what? It's irrelevant. He authorized it.

      Delete
    2. Peter,

      Is there a way I can contact you by email?

      Delete
    3. Ha, scratch that, just seen the link at the top.

      Delete
  29. Clarify for me when Yeshua gave his disciples the ability to render halachah, presumably binding on the Messianic Jewish (and Gentile, if we take Acts 15 into account) community. Are you talking about Matthew 23:3 still?

    As far as the rest of it, you made this comment on my blog as well, and my response is that I will continue to address the topic on my blog, probably next week. Chances are my thoughts will be a little too lengthy for a blog comment (you know what a chatterbox I can be). ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,

      Yeshua gave halachic authority in passages such as Matthew 16:19, the expression "bind and loose" referring to prohibiting and permitting, a halachic concept. You also see this in Matthew 23. Yeshua refers to the Pharisees/scribes authority to "bind" grievous burdens upon the people.

      Halacha is a political concept and so we don't actually see the disciples establishing halacha until the New Covenant community is established as a political entity as we see in the book of Acts.

      Delete
    2. "Halacha is a political concept and so we don't actually see the disciples establishing halacha until the New Covenant community is established as a political entity as we see in the book of Acts."

      It appears that the only apostolic ruling that NT records does not in any way modify Halacha as it existed in the Jewish world at the time, but simply directs Gentiles, i.e. those outside of the Jewish community and outside of the Land of Israel, to stay away from blood, idolatry and fornication - something that was forbidden even before Torah was given to Israel. All that was likely already practiced by G-d fearers associated with synagogues. In other words, there's really no direct precedent of disciples of Yeshua of unilaterally changing Halacha as it applied to Jews. And of course, we have a statement from Apostle Paul claiming that he has done NOTHING against either Torah or the traditions of the fathers, as unilaterally changing Halacha apart from the Jewish community would inevitably entail.

      Delete
    3. Gene,

      Even when Yeshua violated halacha, did things or taught things that the Pharisees could legitimately say were a violation of their halachah, Yeshua wasn't going against the "tradition of the fathers." He was merely arguing for a different interpretation of it.

      Likewise, Paul could be in tension with various strands of first century halacha and still legitimately say that he had never gone against the tradition of the fathers.

      The fact that Peter and Paul's teachings were an innovation are evidenced in a myriad of ways. To use the obvious example of Cornelius, note Peter's surprised that an uncircumcised man could be immersed:

      "Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

      Notice that the Jewish reaction was to object to the baptizing of uncircumcised gentiles and that they had to be won over:

      "18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”"

      They had to be persuaded to go against the prevailing strands of first century halachah. But the fact that they could be persuaded to violated certain strands of halachah indicates that first century halachah was flexibile--if you could show that the innovation was authorized through Tanak or, as in re Cornelius, if you could demonstrate a DIRECT approval via the Ruach. But, as I recall, James was able to support the inclusion of the uncircumcised into the covenant family by gezerah shavah--a conflated quotation of the prophets. James was adept enough to link the innovation to Scripture. But it's likely that few understood the nuances of his teaching (just like today).

      Delete
    4. I don't think that these are examples of changes in Halacha. Rather, it's an example of spiritual changes in Gentiles as orchestrated by G-d, i.e. former idolaters coming to faith. Once these Jews were satisfied that it was G-d Himself behind the changes, they dropped their opposition on halachic grounds (since these Gentiles were no longer idol-worshippers).

      Delete
    5. Gene,

      Then on what basis did the Jews object to the immersion of the uncircumcised? Was it mere whimsy? Get serious. The halachah in that age (as Rabbinic halacha of our age) prohibited the immersion of uncircumcised gentiles. It is no different today. We know precisely why Peter was shocked and why the others "objected".

      Delete
    6. "Then on what basis did the Jews object to the immersion of the uncircumcised?"

      Because as Jews some of them thought that it was G-d's intent to convert Gentiles to Judaism and to live as Jews and that Yeshua's immersion was part of the Jewish conversion ritual (and circumcision was another part). Once they learned that this was not the case, that Yeshua's immersion was quite different and especially once they saw the evidence that G-d has accepted Gentiles as Gentiles, they had no further objections.

      Delete
    7. Gene,

      (1) it was a conversion (note that epistrepho is used TWICE in Acts 15 in regard to the uncircumcised);

      (2) that the Apostles expected uncircumcised gentiles to conform to Mosaic Torah is evidenced in many places. We see this expectation in Acts 15:21, we see it as historical reality in Colossians--the fact that they were observing Shabbat, etc, and being "judged" for their oneg in Shabbat and the other moedim, we see it in Paul's teaching that the gentiles were to put into practice EVERYTHING that they saw him practice, we see it in the ecclesiology, we see it in the command to observe Passover with proper kavanah, we see it in immersion of uncircumcised converts, we see it in the "former" status of gentileness, we see it in the covenantal identity given to uncircumcised gentiles (Eph 2), etc, etc.

      Delete
    8. 1) No, it has nothing to do with conversion to Judaism and that term is never used to describe formal converts to Judaism in the NT. It means to turn to G-d. Also, NT is quite consistent in identifying Gentile converts to Judaism as "proselutos".

      2) Gentiles are not "former" Gentiles, as evidenced by NT always used that term to describe non-Jewish believers. Acts 15 is a great example of not expecting Gentiles to conform to Jewish standards of observance.

      Delete
  30. "I have no problem with Gentiles voluntarily choosing to honor the Shabbat (or other Jewish holy days for that matter) and celebrate it in some fashion, but they would not be fulfilling a commandment as it was never given to them."

    Gene, do you have uncircumcised Gentile members in your congregation? If you do I will assume that they are part of your community.

    If they will come to you with Numbers 15:15-16, how are you going to deal with it in light that there is no mention of "voluntarily" in there at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, I am a member of a mainstream Orthodox congregation along with my family. But, speaking of the congregation that I was formerly involved with but still connected to, there was and is no formal "membership". Furthermore, Gentiles worshipers coming to that synagogue do not live in Israel or in a Jewish community, they only attend synagogue services and fellowship with Jews. This being the case, both Biblically and halachically speaking, they are not obligated as "sojourners" who live among the Israelites to observe any Jewish laws. At the same time, they are certainly expected to engage in proper synagogue etiquette while IN a synagogue. Jews do not expect Gentiles visiting or attending their synagogues to become observant in their daily lives.

      Delete
    2. "Dan, I am a member of a mainstream Orthodox congregation along with my family."

      Do they know you believe Yeshua as Messiah and savior?

      Do they know you believe Yeshua to be God?

      "This being the case, both Biblically and halachically speaking, they are not obligated as "sojourners" who live among the Israelites to observe any Jewish laws. "

      The verse says "assembly," It does not say the Land of Israel. Are you denying that the MJ congregation you attended is an assembly?

      "At the same time, they are certainly expected to engage in proper synagogue etiquette while IN a synagogue."

      How about Alyah la'Torah? Is this not a "proper Synagogue etiquette?"

      How about Talit, Kipah? No "proper Synagogue etiquette?"

      "Jews do not expect Gentiles visiting or attending their synagogues to become observant in their daily lives."

      Maybe not Jews, but God does. i just gave you the Scriptures.....

      Delete
    3. "Do they know you believe Yeshua as Messiah and savior? Do they know you believe Yeshua to be God?"

      Dan, that's between me and my rabbi.

      "The verse says "assembly," It does not say the Land of Israel. Are you denying that the MJ congregation you attended is an assembly?"

      The verse refer to the "kahal" and in context the WHOLE community of Israel, not an individual synagogue or a congregation, which did not even exist as an institution until much later. In Christianese, "the Church" vs "a church".

      "
      How about Alyah la'Torah? Is this not a "proper Synagogue etiquette?""

      No, not for Gentile worshipers.

      "How about Talit, Kipah? No "proper Synagogue etiquette?""

      Kipah - yes, Talit - no.

      "Maybe not Jews, but God does. i just gave you the Scriptures....."

      And I just corrected your use of the Scripture above.

      Delete
    4. "Dan, that's between me and my rabbi."

      No, it is not. You believe in Yeshua as god you are not a Jew. That is universal...So get ready to go through giyur....

      "No, not for Gentile worshipers."

      So, I guess they never called you up to read Torah since to them you are a Gentile, or maybe a meshumad..

      How is it to feel as a second class citizen? Feel the urge to tell them you are from the tribe of Judah? Feel the urge to form a new "One house" movement?

      Delete
    5. "You believe in Yeshua as god you are not a Jew. That is universal"

      I believe the Yeshua is the Divine Messiah, the Son of G-d with fullness of Father in him. How that works out - I don't know. However, I don't go around telling Jews that "Jesus is G-d" - even Michael Brown thought that was a bad idea (even though he believes that)!

      Halacha specifically says that even a Jew who worships idols is still a Jew. You know that full well, and I am sad that you know that and unethically ignore that when making your claims that an "apostate Jew" is no longer a Jew.

      Delete
    6. Gene, If you remember, on another blog i pushed you to admit that you believe Yeshua is God. Please don't try to backpedal now.

      "Halacha specifically says that even a Jew who worships idols is still a Jew. You know that full well, and I am sad that you know that and unethically ignore that when making your claims that an "apostate Jew" is no longer a Jew."

      So, either there are a lot of Orthodox Jews who ignore halacha, or there are Orthodox Jews who spit on other Jews when they don't believe like they do...

      "Unethically" my left ear...Behind your back they call you meshumad...And the sad thing is that you turn around and do the same thing to Gentiles in your midst...A Shandeh....

      Delete
  31. Gene said to Peter: "Because as Jews some of them thought that it was G-d's intent to convert Gentiles to Judaism and to live as Jews and that Yeshua's immersion was part of the Jewish conversion ritual (and circumcision was another part). Once they learned that this was not the case, that Yeshua's immersion was quite different and especially once they saw the evidence that G-d has accepted Gentiles as Gentiles, they had no further objections."

    Peter said to Gene: "(1) it was a conversion (note that epistrepho is used TWICE in Acts 15 in regard to the uncircumcised);"

    Gene said to Peter: "1) No, it has nothing to do with conversion to Judaism and that term is never used to describe formal converts to Judaism in the NT. It means to turn to G-d. Also, NT is quite consistent in identifying Gentile converts to Judaism as "proselutos"."

    I'm quoting this conversation to point out that at least Peter is suggesting that when non-Jews become "Messianic disciples" (i.e. Christians), that we actually convert to Judaism.

    This may be a minority view on One Law, but it goes to the heart of something I was saying earlier in this conversation as well as on my own blog. The fact that non-Jewish groups choose to adopt modern synagogue practices as part of their worship of God and the Jewish Messiah does not make them a Judaism, particularly when the traditions as defined in modern Judaism are either disregarded or significantly altered so as to be different than what the authors of these traditions intended.

    I've heard more than one OL person refer to himself as a "spiritual Jew." If (and I think Zion said this) OL acknowledges that it is a non-Jewish group (for the most part) that chooses to use certain elements (in varying degrees on a congregation-by-congregation basis) of Jewish religious practice to worship Jesus, while it creates a mish-mash out of their presenting "identity," I suppose it's their choice. When OL says it is a "Judaism" however, based on a single word in greek that may be translated as "convert" (but convert to what?), then it becomes a mess. How does a Gentile declare himself "Jewish" based on just a few lines in the Bible that are almost never interpreted in such a manner?

    Sorry Peter, I can't go for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've heard more than one OL person refer to himself as a "spiritual Jew."

      Don't tie me into that sentence, lol, I am 100% gentile, no one can take that away from me. :D

      If (and I think Zion said this) OL acknowledges that it is a non-Jewish group (for the most part) that chooses to use certain elements (in varying degrees on a congregation-by-congregation basis) of Jewish religious practice to worship Jesus, while it creates a mish-mash out of their presenting "identity," I suppose it's their choice.

      I never said that, instead I said that OL does not have an objective to be Modern Judaism or to fit in... OL has Jews and Gentiles as part of its group... We are more focused on what it means to follow a Jewish Messiah.

      When OL says it is a "Judaism" however, based on a single word in greek that may be translated as "convert" (but convert to what?), then it becomes a mess.

      I don't think anyone made this claim, when I understand convert, I understand that I have converted to the same Faith of the Apostles... whatever you want to call that, does not change the fact that I came into their religion, and am fellow heirs with them as one body.

      How does a Gentile declare himself "Jewish" based on just a few lines in the Bible that are almost never interpreted in such a manner?

      I don't, I am one juicy gentile, following and working to imitating a Jewish man who happens to be the Messiah.

      Delete
    2. "OL has Jews and Gentiles as part of its group"

      No, you don't, Zion. An odd Jew here and there (well, just Dan, really) doesn't make OL into a "group of Jews and Gentiles". OL is a non-Jewish movement through and through (not that there's anything wrong with that) - the mainstream Christianity is far more integrated than OL.

      Delete
    3. No, you don't, Zion.

      Correct, I a just a person not a movement.

      An odd Jew here and there (well, just Dan, really) doesn't make OL into a "group of Jews and Gentiles".

      How many Jews does it take to be a Jewish movement?

      Arguing whether or not we are a Jewish movement is kind of moot, we follow a Jewish Messiah, once Jesus becomes a gentile, I will start following a gentile, but until that day comes, you are out of luck.

      Delete
    4. They can't get this Zion. Or maybe they refuse to get it...

      Delete
    5. I never said that, instead I said that OL does not have an objective to be Modern Judaism or to fit in... OL has Jews and Gentiles as part of its group... We are more focused on what it means to follow a Jewish Messiah.

      That's the short definition of Christianity, Zion. All Christians follow the Messiah (Hebrew) or the Christ (Greek).

      I don't think anyone made this claim..

      I believe Peter has, although I imagine it's a minority opinion in OL since Dan is opposed to the idea as well.

      I understand that I have converted to the same Faith of the Apostles... whatever you want to call that...

      That's the interesting part. While both Gene (a Jew) and I (a Gentile) both have faith in the Jewish Messiah and worship the God of Israel, that makes us aligned but it doesn't make us identical. If I come under the blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenant (the people of those covenants are Jewish but they have blessings for the Gentiles), Gene comes under the same covenants plus the Sinai covenant (which has no blessings or applications for non-Jews), so he has additional obligations under the conditions of the Sinai covenant (the Torah).

      And I would tend to agree with Gene that in ten years of exposure to various One Law congregations all across the Northwest, I met just a tiny few who were halalacally Jewish. Some folks may have had a great-grandfather who was Jewish or something similar, but the connection was always tenuous and none of those people had been raised in a Jewish home or had a lived Jewish identity of any sort prior to entering OL.

      Arguing whether or not we are a Jewish movement is kind of moot, we follow a Jewish Messiah, once Jesus becomes a gentile, I will start following a gentile, but until that day comes, you are out of luck.

      Yes, you follow the Jewish Messiah. So does every Christian congregation on earth and they've been doing so for the past 2,000 years. If you factor Messianic Judaism into the picture, then there are both Jews and non-Jews following the Jewish Messiah. We are all children of God, but unity does not mean (and I know you've heard this before) uniformity.

      Delete
  32. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of G-d"

    NOT "Israel shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of G-d"

    I see Yeshua, after receiving "all authority in heaven and earth", commanding the Apostles to "teach all gentiles to observe ALL THINGS I have commanded YOU".

    Considering those things he commanded his disciples....does this have any bearing on this discussion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I see Yeshua, after receiving "all authority in heaven and earth", commanding the Apostles to "teach all gentiles to observe ALL THINGS I have commanded YOU".

      I am quite sure he didn't have to RE-command them everything that Moses already commanded them long ago. This means that Yeshua must have been speaking of something else, something unique to the message he came to deliver.

      Delete
    2. "I am quite sure he didn't have to RE-command them everything that Moses already commanded them long ago. This means that Yeshua must have been speaking of something else, something unique to the message he came to deliver."

      Well he DID answer the one who asked how to inherit eternal life "keep the commandments" so I would disagree with you.

      "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."

      and John wrote

      "2 John 1:6
      And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it."

      So, what was unique to the message he came to deliver?

      Delete
    3. "So, what was unique to the message he came to deliver?"

      Anonymous, you can find that unique message in John 13:34-35

      "A NEW command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

      The command is also repeated in John 15:12 and John 15:17. A specific command, which is described as "new". 1 John 3:11 and 2 John 1:5 for more of the confirmation of that specific command, including this one tying in the Father as well:

      1 John 3:23 "And this is HIS COMMAND: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."

      Delete
    4. Gene, so are you saying that although Yeshua taught his disciples to keep the commandments to enter eternal life....and that when he raised them up to status of "Apostles to the Gentiles" and commanded they "teach the Gentiles to observe all I have commanded you"....this did not include the commandments of Moses?

      I don't see Yeshua making this distinction. To me, "all I have commanded you" would include the law.

      Delete
    5. "I don't see Yeshua making this distinction. To me, "all I have commanded you" would include the law."

      Well, Anonymous, I suppose we'll just have to disagree on this.

      Delete
    6. "Well, Anonymous, I suppose we'll just have to disagree on this."

      While you may want to "just have to disagree" I would like you to show me where Yeshua made this distinction. At least that way I could understand our disagreement and know where you are coming from.

      Delete
    7. We non-Jewish people come into covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ (Yeshua). We see Jesus announcing the inauguration (but not the completion) of the covenant at "the Last Supper." As far as I can tell (and I'm still working on this), the blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenant as recorded in the Old Testament (Tanakh) are the ones that most likely have blessings for the non-Jewish people, but there are no inherent blessings in the Mosaic or Sinai covenant for us.

      That means the conditions of the Sinai covenant (the Torah) would not apply to the non-Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah.

      I don't know about Gene, but that's where I'm coming from, Anonymous.

      Delete
  33. I'm inserting this "interlude" into the current conversation to address everyone who desires to live by the Torah. If you truly want to live by God's Word, particularly in the blogosphere, I think the following is a good place to start.

    "The Torah obligation starts with our thoughts. When you master the ability to see what is good about other people, their virtues and positive attributes, their strengths and accomplishments, then you will speak positively about them. Knowing that they have many positive qualities and have done much good, you will find it easier to refrain from violating the Torah prohibition against negative speech."

    -Rabbi Zelig Pliskin

    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I'm quoting this conversation to point out that at least Peter is suggesting that when non-Jews become "Messianic disciples" (i.e. Christians), that we actually convert to Judaism."

    Peter is wrong, plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  35. When Gentiles convert, what do they convert to?

    What is the Truth? Is Judaism the Truth? Is Christianity the Truth? Is Messianic Judaism the Truth?

    What is the way that leads to eternal life? Why does one teach there is no Jew or Gentile in the Kingdom of G-d? If we can't understand earthly things how will we understand heavenly things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like you are not looking for answers, even if you put question marks at the end of each sentence.

      Delete
  36. Gene, good observation, I am pointing to something with these questions, not looking for answers....and you Gene, are YOU looking for answers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Gene, are YOU looking for answers?"

      I never stop learning and looking for answers. That's part of being a disciple.

      Delete
  37. "I never stop learning and looking for answers. That's part of being a disciple."

    Gene, did you look for answers in my questions, did you learn anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Gene, did you look for answers in my questions, did you learn anything?"

      Anonymous, for the learning process to take place one would need new and challenging questions. If you ever come up with those, be sure to share them with us.

      Delete
  38. "Anonymous, you can find that unique message in John 13:34-35

    "A NEW command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

    The command is also repeated in John 15:12 and John 15:17. A specific command, which is described as "new". 1 John 3:11 and 2 John 1:5 for more of the confirmation of that specific command, including this one tying in the Father as well:

    1 John 3:23 "And this is HIS COMMAND: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.""

    Last time I checked, Gene, john was Jewish.....Can't have the cake and eat it too.....

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Anonymous, for the learning process to take place one would need new and challenging questions. If you ever come up with those, be sure to share them with us."

    hmmmmmm???

    ReplyDelete
  40. as they say, you can't fill an already filled glass...but I do want to say thank you very much for discussing this topic and not being afraid to debate because I have learnt so much of how truly ignorant I am, being new to this belief in the Jewish Messiah, I did not have a clue of the diverse issues within our belief. I was happily going along "observing Torah" (as much as possible, knowing there is NO WAY I can do much) but thought I was showing Yeshua I loved him, until I was told I am not obligated then I got so lost and very sad. I didnt know how to show my Lord how much I love him because I thought that was the standard he accepted, anyway, thank you very much for all this discussion its made me realise how humbly I must approach him regardless of what men say, my designation may not be that of a Jew but I am sure assigned a job I thought it was to provoke the Jew to jeleousy but now I dont know how to do this, can someone pls explain, unless its already here somewhere. thank you once again, I am grateful I feel the Lord heard my cry for understanding and lead me here..now I am to study the scriptures given by Cajun because this can be my only basis, I pray one day I will speak with as much conviction and confidence as many of you have displayed and I hope it is pleasing to my Father in Heaven the only thing I fear at the moment that I dont know which one of you is rightly interpreting the Word so leaves me with little hope a "newborn" such as myself will get much further, May HaShem raise good men and shepherds because one thing I know is that there is only One Shepherd. (not one for jew or gentile)one question, does the verse in Mathew 5:19 re teaching the least of this commandments,is that for gentiles or jews?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous.... (the one who commented on Sept 27..right above). Please shoot me an email through address listed here http://dailyminyan.com/contact/ - I would like to communicate with you and send you some info for your walk.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      G-d bless you brother. We're all still trying to figure out what to do for our day-to-day walks. There's no easy answers. That's why I open my blog posts to comments--I want a record of ALL opinions, no matter how silly they might sound or how "peripheral" to main line Judaism.

      Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellers they are established. We should learn from each other, from the diverse views that exist within Messianic Judaism. That's why, in my links section, I've listed every view I could think of.

      Personally, I like the practical teachings of grass-roots leaders like Cajun. Check out his site Adonaism in the links section. Also, if you shoot him an email, I'm sure he wouldn't mind including you on his mailing list. He's done this for me and I'm very grateful. It feels like belonging to a community even though I don't have a Messianic community right now.

      Your comment makes me realize that I need to create a FAQs section...

      Anyway, don't hesitate to use the "Contact Me" tab at the top if you ever want to ask me something of a more personal nature.

      Blessings in Yeshua,

      Peter

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      Keep obeying the Torah, don't let any man change what God has put in your heart. You as a gentile are to provoke the Jew to jealousy. Keep going baby, I got your back. Ask any questions you like, and I will be more than happy to clarify among all the confusion.

      Delete
  41. Do Quixote Shlomovich in action...

    Saving Gentiles from the boogie-man of OL.....LOL!

    Anonymous, get ready and prepare for circumcision....That is the only way you get to be like Don Quixote here.....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yeshua resolved this entire issue already. There is only one Rabbi. Rabbi Yeshua said call no man Rabbi, in this one sentence he makes clear that there is no other authority in the earth besides Him. None are strangers (Gentiles) who believe in the Fullfiller of the Torah and those who Reject the Full-filler of the Torah, have made themselves the Gentile. (*gasp* says the blinded rabbi *gasp* "surely not I" "Surely not you" agrees his proselyte stranger. But pride does not tell it that way. Pride has its own brand of doctrine. Who then are to be likened to the sons of Korach?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction....Korach, drop "The sons of"

      Delete