Y Not I

There has been a great deal posted recently about Postmissionary Messianic Judaism (PMJ). Derek Lehman’s blog has had some very interesting discussions, with comments from some of the heavy-weights of Messianic Jewish thought with people like Stuart Dauermann, Michael Brown and Rich Robinson of Jews for Jesus all either commenting on a post or getting the opportunity to post themselves. It has been very interesting to read the back and forth and good to see that even in a heated discussion, with passions high, that believers can remain loving through it all, apologizing if they say something out of passion that may be out of the bounds of the discussion or is just untrue. It is a good read and I suggest you take the time to read.

After all that, however one question is, what exactly is Postmissionary Messianic Judaism? The concept come from a book by Dr. Mark Kinzer titled Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People. I ordered the book today in order to read it and make my own opinion of it. I also downloaded a response to the book and the ideas expresses by Dr. Michael Brown and plan to read through that, so for now I am somewhat uninformed, although from what I have read thus far I think it sounds dangerous to me. Lets go over what I know thus far and some of the ideas that have been bounced back and forth and if there are any readers with more knowledge or more to add we can have a great discussion ourselves about what is being presented here.

First of all, what is PMJ propose? An article from the website First Things goes over PMJ from a Christian and Catholic perspective. The article describes the postmissionary part as:

The “postmissionary” in Kinzer’s title is crucially important. The ecclesiology he proposes on behalf of Messianic Judaism makes five basic claims: 1) The perpetual validity of G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people; 2) The perpetual validity of the Jewish way of life rooted in the Torah, which is the enduring sign and instrument of that covenant; 3) The validity of Jewish religious tradition as the historical embodiment of the Jewish way of life rooted in the Torah; 4) The bilateral constitution of the ekklesia, consisting of distinct but united Jewish and Gentile expressions of Yeshua-faith; 5) The ecumenical imperative of the ekklesia, which entails bringing the redeemed nations of the world into solidarity with the people of Israel in anticipation of Israel’s–and the world’s–final redemption.

Here is my take on these points (and I know I would need to read the book to get the fullness of what these five points propose.

1. I think point number one is not a problem at all. Certainly most Jews do not see the discontinuation of the covenants that G-d has made with the Jewish people. Actually He made the covenant with Moses to a mixed multitude that came out of Egypt that came to be know as the children of Israel. G-d’s covenants with Abraham and David would also still be valid.
2. I have a bit of a problem with the term, “Jewish way of life rooted in Torah.” If it was termed “the G-d commanded way of life as rooted in Torah”, then it would seem more accurate to me. I am not sure if this terminology used by Mark Kinzer or is from the author of the stories, but I find that the things often called Jewish are more accurately the things of G-d. The Holy Days are G-d’s Appointed Feasts (Lev 23:37), not the Jewish Holidays, things like the fringes (Num 15:37) are a commandment from G-d, not necessarily a Jewish thing. Something like the yarmulke is a Jewish thing for it is something that comes out of the traditions of man, developed by the Rabbis. Not necessarily a bad thing, but different from the things G-d commands. Certainly the commandments of G-d endure. Things like the circumcision are called an everlasting sign between G-d and the children of Israel, so as I am defining things, I do not have a problem with statement two. However, it appears based upon statement three that Kinzer means something more than the commandments of G-d and is indicating that the Rabbinic traditions are “the Jewish way of life root in Torah.”
3. Here is where I have a problem. While there are some traditions created by the Rabbis both before and after Yeshua that are fine, it is obvious that the entirety of what is Rabbinic Judaism far too often strays from the Torah and makes changes that are not consistent with the Word of G-d. This is similar to what I call Christians out for, being inconsistent and replacing the commandments of G-d with the traditions of man. I see no reason why I as a believer in Yeshua would need to follow the authority of Rabbinic Judaism, so I do not see validity in it nor do I see it actually rooted in the Torah. The roots that are there are very thin and they are covered with so much fencing that it has turned them into being rooted in Mishnah and Talmud, not Torah. I know these are strong statements but these are not much different that what Yeshua did when He confronted the Pharisees about their traditions. Paul so often does the same thing. One problem I think happens so often is that people think Yeshua or Paul are attacking Torah but what they are attacking is what was the beginnings of Rabbinic Judaism and so to call that valid seems to me to be very dangerous. I have no problems with Messianic Judaism taking what they feel is relevant and not against the Word of G-d from the Jewish tradition, but reject the idea of accepting it all as valid.
4. I can see the concept of churches for Gentiles and Messianic Synagogues for Jewish believers, but I am guessing that is indicating something further than what I would accept. I see no reason to force Gentiles who are called to be a part of the Jewish believers away, just because they are not Jewish. I think the example of Ruth is a good example of Gentiles in the Messianic body today. I also see no problem with Gentiles (and I guess Jews as well, although I have a harder time understanding that) who feel more lead and fed by being in a Gentile church. One is not the right church and one is not the wrong church, they are just different expressions of the same faith. So I have no problem with the point as expressed, I would just be against forcing the separation to happen and prevent Jews and Gentiles from being united in things like marriage and I think that is where the point might be leading to. Again, I realize that I am making assumptions based upon reading other peoples perspectives and not that actual work as presented, but this is where I am starting from based upon my knowledge thus far. I hope to read both the book and Dr. Browns response with an open teachable spirit and see what G-d ultimately leads on this.
5. For this point I guess there is really no arguement on the idea of all believers being united and helping all Israel to come to recognize and call for Messiah Yeshua.

I have more to write about this, but I will have to continue it at another time. For the next part I would like to go over some of the discussion that has gone on from blogs such as Derek Lehman’s, Jews for Jesus, Stuart Dauermann’s and possibly others. For now give input by commenting and vote on the new poll coming soon as to whether PMJ is dangerous or needed.

B”H