Y Not I

I have now received the book by Mark Kinzer, and it has been thus far an interesting read. I am in chapter 3 right now, so there is still a long way to go. There are a few things thus far that I take issue with and a few things that have made me genuinely think in a fresh way about the verse or issue.

First, Kinzer takes it as accepted that Torah is not for Gentiles and that is something I actually struggle with. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Torah is just as important (and valid) today as it was when given to Moses. How that works out in the walk of a believer, both for a Jewish believer as well as for a Gentile believer is where I am just not sure. I certainly think it has bearing on the walk of a Jewish believer, but how that works out I am not sure.

It seems that Kinzer takes the traditions of the Pharisees through the traditions of Rabbinic Judaism today as basically G-d accepted Torah. To me that seems difficult at best. Certainly it seems to me that Yeshua had a great deal of problems with the traditions of the Pharisees, as did Paul later. I think many of the verses from Paul that are usually considered to be speaking about the Torah more likely speak about Pharisaic Law then Biblical Torah. I agree with the idea that Messianic Judaism could use some halakhah of it own to speak to what Torah observance should be based upon the Scriptures, but I think we should start fresh with it and not use as either the base for our standard or for most of what is the standard the opinions of well educated men, who totally reject the Messiah of Israel.

Also reading again some of the postings from Derek Leman’s site, I still have some problems with some of the arguments against PMJ. For example, Rich Robinson of Jews for Jesus had 2 posts of his own on the site (part 1 and part 2), In one he writes of the Torah that “it is no longer binding; instead we are under a New Covenant.” Here again is where I think that side goes too far. For me, I just do not see Scripture saying that Torah is no longer binding. If there Torah was once binding, then my question is were the followers of Torah in the Old Testament saved by keeping Torah? If so, then why can I not be saved by it today? Scripture seems to be clear that Torah could never save anyone, not Moses, not David, not a Jew in Yeshua’s day, nor me. Torah was the outworking of faith, bringing sanctification to the believer and glory and honor to G-d. I think it is the same today.

He also writes:

…some laws, such as those of kashrut, were intended as a symbol system to indicate that Israel was set apart from the nations. Under the new covenant, while Israel continues to play a role in God’s plan, the nations and Israel are not separate in the same way. It follows then, that the system of kashrut would not be obligatory.

I am unclear as to why just because Israel and the nations are not separate in the same way would that mean that the Torah teachings on what is food becomes an optional choice instead of a commandment. Is the same true of Shabbat? Of the Holy Days? It seems like pretty much everything distinctively Biblical becomes just a suggestion based upon that logic. To me G-d calls us to a changed life, a life of following Him and not our ways. Seems like verses like John 14:15, 1 John 5:3 and 2 John 1:6 all indicate the concept of following the commandments of G-d. Yeshua is the Word become flesh, and Torah is the Word. How would those commandments ever change? The other thing is exactly how separate were the nations and Israel as compared to now? Are we called to be unequally yoked now? To me things are basically the same, G-d has always wanted Israel to be a light to the nations and draw them to Him. They took it and added man made elitism and keep the nations far away, but called Israel to stay separate from those that practiced heathen ways. Seems to be similar to today, so I do not see a large change, except G-d has provided further education, especially through examples like Peter’s vision in Acts 10.

Peter’s vision told him (as Peter very explicitly states) that he is not to consider Gentiles who are believers to be unclean. It has nothing to do with eating Kosher other than the part that would have a Jew not eat with a pagan, since they are unclean to begin with. The point was that we can have unity, not necessarily ham sandwiches with other Gentile brethren. If after Acts 10 Peter sat down with gentiles believers and still at the same foods he always ate, and if the Gentile ate the same foods he always ate, is this not also showing that Israel and the nations are not separate in the same way?

I have much more to read, however I find that Kinzer makes assumptions and then basis his theology on that, and that does not seem too good to me. However I have much more to go before I am done, so I will try and remain open.

B”H.