Y Not I

7 responses so far ↓

• 1 Joel // Jul 11, 2007 at 7:42 am

  Hey Bryan,

  Thought I’d drop by and say hello. Checked out your blog after seeing the link at Phoenix Rising.

  Two things came to mind:

  1) While the possibility of the Havdalah being an origin is a good thought, one I’m sure a lot of people have not thought of before (myself included), another thing might be a possibility. The first day of the week was still a workday in the Roman Empire, so a gathering anytime after dawn would have been a near impossibility. Gathering after sundown would have technically been after the end of the Sabbath, thus the first day of the week, but because of work responsibilities everyone met either late at night or early morning.

  A few of the church fathers testify to the pre-dawn worship on the first day of the week (Justin Martyr and Ignatius, I think, but I could be mistaken), though I don’t doubt at the time of Acts the Jewish believers both observed the Sabbath services and the first day gatherings of the fledgling Yeshuine movement.

  2) The first day gathering may also have a completely Jewish origin as well. The first sheaf of grain grown in Israel was to be brought to the priest on the day after the Sabbath, which would be the first day of the week. The New Testament bears out the early church belief that both Jesus, and they as his followers, were a kind of firstfruits to God the Father. It would also be no surprise that this is the day that Paul asked the Corinthian church to take up a collection for meeting the needs of their fellow believers. Perhaps he saw what they were doing as a type of Firstfruits offering, since in an agrarian society the harvest only comes once a year but in a market economy there is the potential for firstfruit giving on every payday.

  Anyway, good post, good topic. Keep writing.

  Peace.

• 2 B Z // Jul 11, 2007 at 2:20 pm

  Thanks for the kind comments Joel. One question I have regarding what you wrote on the Phoenix Rising comments string, about Jesus breaking the Torah. How could that be, for would that not then make him unsuitable as a sacrifice? I believe you would know of verses that say that Jesus is a perfect sacrifice without sin. I would put forth that as Banner put it, it would be tradition and not Torah that was broken, which is not sin, except to the Pharisee, since that is a place where they derived their power.

  Remember the Pharisees were not the power of Judaism of Jesus’ day. It was in the Sanhedrin. After the revolt against Rome, it was the Pharisees that rose in power and became the root of Rabbinic Judaism of today. As such they had the ability to define Judaism in any way they pleased, and they did so in a way that gave them great power, by making the traditions the same (or even greater) than the Torah.

  Another thing to consider when it comes to breaking the Torah, is that it was given to the children of Israel in love. If you think the only purpose of the Torah was so that you today can see your need for Messiah, then I put forth that you are holding a very myopic view of the Law. God loves Israel and gave the Law to them as something good, good for them as well as for you today. Even the New Testament understands the priorities in Torah, as a circumcision will be performed on the Sabbath, since that law takes precedent over the laws of not doing work on the Sabbath (see John 7:23). Could not the same type of precedent be in place in the examples you gave about the woman and the leper. Because Jesus was able to do what no other man was able to do, His power to heal took precedent over the Torah regulations about coming into contact. I am not saying this as fact, but putting forth an idea, since I find it hard, taking the whole of Scripture to see Jesus as breaking the Torah, or the Torah as something that was a bad thing for the children of Israel.

  When I hear the idea that I usually hear in regards to the Law in Christian theology, it seems to me that what is being said is basically this:

  Israel failed at keeping the Torah, so they lost their standing with God, and now God has chosen the Gentiles, but tells them not to keep Torah. So Israel was excluded by not keeping Torah, yet the Gentiles are accepted by their not keeping Torah.

  I know that sounds sarcastic, but I do not mean it as such, but in a nutshell that seems to be the general teaching, in regards to the Torah in Christianity, and it does not make any sense, unless God really hates the Jewish people.

  What I see is that salvation has eternally been based upon faith, faith in G-d to save us from our own sins, which is why I see Hebrews 11 speak of the faith of those Old Testament characters, and not their works, because that is how God judges them, not according to their works. Much of Torah was related to the Temple and the service there. One became unclean to worship God at the Temple, and thus a sacrifice was needed, it provided access to the earthly Temple, where Jesus provides access to the Heavenly Temple, of which the earthly one is a shadow. So it has always been faith in the Messiah, either in One coming, or One that is here, or One that has come and will come again.

  That for me works the best. I really think it is a shame the way believers can get so contentious. It seems that if we are all trying to bring glory to God, then we can disagree in a manner that brings God the glory. It seems to me that there is the issue of salvation, which is something that all believers should agree on, and think most do. Then there is discipleship, which is where I think most of the disagreements come from. In Judaism it is called Halakha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halacha), or the way to walk. For these matters I think the best approach is to show others what Scripture and the Spirit says to us and then leave the rest to God. In my heart I can think you or Banner or someone else is totally wrong, but it is God that will change the heart, so all I should do is give that information that God has put on my heart.

  I have stated that I am still not sure what is the way I should keep Torah, or what should Gentiles do in accordance with it. I tend to lean towards where Banner is, since to me a Gentile becomes part of Israel (God’s people), but I try to leave that to God and let Him work in the hearts of believers. My Rabbi always says that we need to have a teachable spirit, and if we do, the the Spirit can minister to that teachable spirit and change will occur. My walk is far from perfect and I have much to learn, so it is not my place to criticize where you or anyone else is in their walk. I used to do that more, but I have come to feel that it is God’s judgment and not my own that matters.

  So, in the end Banner may be right or wrong, or you or the host of Phoenix Rising site may be right or wrong, but ultimately it is God who makes that decision, and I would guess that we are all wrong in some way.

  Anyway, I would appreciate your rationale on the subject of Jesus breaking the Torah, especially in regards to being a perfect sacrifice, like the Passover lamb, without blemish.

  Peace to you.

• 3 Joel // Jul 11, 2007 at 3:57 pm

  *smile*

  I know my reasoning on Phoenix Rising was a bit unorthodox, to say the least, but I see it as a necessity in dealing with people who say things like, “yes, we are saved by faith, but TRUE faith looks like….” I think you hit on an important point in mentioning priority. To Jesus, a person’s wholeness took priority over his own personal ritual purity. Did this technically violate the ritual purity laws of the Torah.? There’s no question that he chose to do so, which did violate the letter of ritual purity, but the righteousness and love of God was best served by this action.

  But I see it like this. “Torah” is a concept for God’s ever-present and loving instruction to all the world. As I’m sure you know, the word simply means “teaching” or “instruction.” And there really does seem to be a trend of torah changing over time to fit the situation. While all of humanity is broken, our brokenness is sometimes dependent on where we are in time and space, and not all sicknesses require the same medicine. I have no doubt in my mind that there were good reasons for every one of the commands of torah given to Moses for that particular time and place. But those commands hold some tremendous difficulties for us now, given that there is no longer a temple, and even if there was, the distance involved to ensure kosher slaughter at the temple or cleanness offerings, or even agrarian offerings would be just about impossible. They really only work for a smallish group of nomads on the run from Egypt who needed a strong spiritual break from the iconic, polytheistic culture of Egypt. I don’t want to list all of the changes that we see in the law of Moses over time – I mentioned a few in the discussion – but when we root those commands in the time, space, and culture of the people, an image of YHWH’s character comes through. So we are left with a choice: do we follow the letter as it was written regardless if it “fits” where we are now, or do we look for the spirit of YHWH in the command and follow it? Sometimes I think we need to follow the letter of torah, sometimes the spirit.

  I also think the Torah was to serve the purpose of training a Messianic people. I think God did not expect Torah adherence for every nation, but he chose the Jews to be “a holy nation, a kingdom of priests” who had to be trained in righteousness, but who could then teach the rest of us goyim who were just beginning to crawl out of caves in Europe how to live righteously and worship one God. At the risk of sounding too Christian, Israel’s history tells us that despite brief shining moments at fulfilling this purpose, they didn’t do so hot. So Messiah came as a figure of Israel as a whole, fulfilling in himself the mission of the Jewish people, and bringing the nations to the God of Abraham.

  So while there is merit in seeing how God spoke torah to Moses, we also see torah move through history in the prophets and finally in Jesus, who once and for all summarized the character of YHWH in his very being. Torah and the actions of Jesus say the same thing, but in different time periods and cultural contexts. Think of it this way: when the people grumbled against Moses on the Exodus, God sent poisonous snakes whose bite could only be remedied by looking at a bronze serpent put on a standard. The serpent served a purpose because it was God’s command for that moment. Later, they worshipped the brass serpent and it no longer served God’s purpose. Today’s obedience becomes tomorrow’s idolatry.

  I realize thus far, this response has been more “philosophical” than anything else, and I promise I will write something more “theological” later, but shooting from the hip this is how I see it.

  As far as Jesus being a perfect sacrifice as the Passover lamb, I beleive this to be an incorrect interpretation of Christ’s sacrifice. Keep in mind, the Passover lamb was only slain for the firstborn, not for all of Israel. For atonement, you needed two lambs/goats: one an unblemished blood offering by fire, the other a “scapegoat” to bear away the sins of the nation. Jesus was both, as schizophrenic as that sounds. He was both perfect and bearing our sins. I have no doubt that when John the Baptist called him the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, that this happened on the day of Atonement. He was both perfect and without blemish, but at the same time, he bore the uncleanness of us all by his contact with lepers, unclean and loose women, and samaritans. His bearing of our uncleanness had to be as real as his perfection. But even his violations of purity laws served the perfect righteousness of his Father.

  I’ll write something more substantial when I have a moment tomorrow morning, so don’t quite label me a complete heretic just yet.

  Peace,
  Joel

• 4 Joel // Jul 12, 2007 at 5:10 am

  Bryan,

  Hopefully, this will be a little more theologically substantial in answering your question. You asked why I said Jesus broke the torah. While this may sound like nit-picking, that isn’t exactly what I said. What I said was Jesus broke the law of Moses. The concept of Torah that I defined earlier and the law of Moses are not always synonymous. Torah is the concept that God is always teaching and instructing his people in what is best for them in their particular context. The law of Moses is God’s Torah to the Jewish people as they began to conquest Canaan. It is rooted in that particular time and place, and any exegesis of it must keep this in mind.

  Jesus hinted at this in Matthew 19. The Pharisees try to haggle with him over what a man can divorce his wife over, and Jesus says that Moses (i.e. the law of Moses) allowed divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts, but it was not that way from the beginning. Now, if Banner’s position is correct and Torah has been the same from the foundations of the earth, wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar? He is clearly stating that the law of Moses is different from the righteousness that was from the beginning.

  This is also how we can explain some of the areas of the law of Moses that seem to be in contradiction with one another, like the instances I mentioned on the Phoenix Rising blog. But there are others. For instance, Exodus 12 requires ritual circumcision for any foreigner wanting to celebrate Passover. But Numbers 9 makes the allowance that the foreigner can keep Passover, just so long as he observes it the same as Israelites. We have a contradiction here. But root it in the situation. The first Passover was in Egypt. It would be necessary for those Egyptians to make a dramatic break from their culture and polytheism. What would be more dramatic than circumcision? The passover in Numbers is a different situation. Israel is in the land and beginning to carry out what God commanded. The foreigners are living and interacting with the Jews in their land. They don’t as dramatic a break as the Egyptians, they are already living in the land under the law of Moses.

  Do you see how God changed the command based on the situation, yet his character in both of those instances never changes?

  Here’s another: Deuteronomy 23 forbids a Moabite or Ammonite from entering the covenant community to the tenth generation. Yet Ruth did so, and from her came both David and Jesus. Furthermore, a man who was a eunuch was not to be allowed into the assembly of God, according to Deut. 23. But the prophet Isaiah in chapter 56 allows both foreigner and eunuch to be partakers of his covenant, a group previously excluded. God changed his commands to fit what was needed at the time, but his character remains the same.

  So in the big picture of scripture, I do see a shifting of the commands of torah to fit the situation in order to best embody God’s character. But as you stated earlier, there are some commands that God says are to be observed perpetually. But I will argue that “forever” does not always mean “forever.” Jeremiah 18:7-10 makes it clear that God will even revoke his promises and his curses depending on how people respond to it. For instance, in Numbers 25, Phineas is promised that his children would have a perpetual priesthood because of his zeal for removing iniquity from Israel. But because of the general rebellion of Israel and the subsequent destruction of the temples, they do not have a perpetual priesthood. We don’t even have any way of identifying the sons of Phineas.

  So while God did say that certain things were to be observed forever, I don’t doubt that this was spoken in the context of Israel remaining faithful. It begs the question: can things get so messed up that God would simply wholesale sweep away a set of teachings and practices? I think so. I think Daniel 9 and the 70 “weeks” are really talking about the coming of the Messiah to Israel, not the dispensationalist antichrist. The whole purpose of that passage is to “fnish transgression, put an end to sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness…” It doesn’t sound like something the antichrist will do. As contraversial as it sounds, I think that passage clearly speaks about one coming to decree desolation over the temple and the sacrificial system, which Jesus did do. When he rode into Jerusalem, he stated, “…your house is left to you desolate.” With the desolation and destruction of the temple comes an end to the need for sacrifice and the sacrificial system, which also eliminates the need for ritual purity and much of what God gave to Moses.

  But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. I’m not so arrogant as to say that what happened to Israel can’t happen to the church. Romans 11 makes that clear, and is a stern warning for anyone who thinks they have grace to do whatever they want because of Jesus.

  Anyway, here are a few thoughts. I’m not trying to be contentious or change your mind, just letting you know where I’m coming from.

  Peace,
  Joel

• 5 B Z // Jul 12, 2007 at 10:44 am

  Joel, you make some excellent points and you are obviously very well versed in Scripture.

  In the end it all comes down to our interpretations of the Scripture. You are correct that so much of the Law relates to the Temple, which is now not around. I look at this as similar to many cities that have old laws that are still on the books. For instance, maybe a city has a law concerning the tying of one’s horse to the hitching post. Most do not use horses for travel today and the posts are things of the past as well, so although the law is still on the books, there is no way to keep that law if you did ride a horse into town. However if horse travel was to return and hitching posts made a revival as well, then the law would be enforced again.

  Without a Temple the laws that pertain to the Temple are kind of dormant, they exist, but there is no way to actually perform them. There is obviously Scripture that speaks of another Temple, and it speaks of sacrifices as well. That seems interesting, especially when you think of the final sacrifice of Messiah. That is why I see the Temple sacrificial system as not something that ever provided salvation. Also there were periods without a Temple, such as between the first and second Temple. I think I figured that out to be about 75 years. Would God have all those people go through so many years without a plan for salvation? That is why I see their salvation based upon faith and faith alone, and the keeping of the Law was how our faith is displayed.

  I always look at it as a sign of love. My wife might say she hates when I leave the seat up in the bathroom, and I might think it is silly why she cannot check it prior to using it, but if I love her, I will put the seat down, not because it makes sense, but because it is out of pure love and that is something is asks of me to do. So out of love I do it. If God tells me not to eat pork or shellfish, I will do that as well for the same reason. I also figure God is smarter than me (I am actually sure of this), and so if He says it is good for me, then that is good enough for me. I also see blessings being promised and I do not know about you, but I could use as many blessing as I could get. If you want to send me some of your blessing, I will surely take them. Truthfully, I have been very blessed by God, but more blessing is not something I would turn down.

  It is funny that you mention Daniel 9. Generally Messianic Jews use that to show that Messiah must have come prior to the destruction of the second Temple and thus Jesus is the only one who could be the Messiah. I dislike however whenever someone says that the Temple is no more because Jesus did the sacrifice once and for all and thus God removed it, because that discounts the period between the first and second. The implication is that God replaced the sacrificial system and He would not leave His creation without a way for salvation and thus now that Jesus has provided it, He removed the Temple. Yet by that reasoning He would have left the people between the two Temples without a means of salvation. Before the Law was given I guess you could say that the means was different because the Law was not yet in place, but anyway, I have problem with the loss of the second Temple being because God is done with that. That is why I feel that the Temple sacrifices did not provide salvation, but were a means for a nation to come close to their King.

  I could ramble on for a long time, and I find conversing with you to be interesting and enlightening. As you are not trying to change my mind, I am really not trying to change yours, or anyone else’s. That is why I subtitle my blog, “Working out my salvation…”, because it is my way to work these things out. I think I have some insights that maybe others do not and I do feel the church has in many ways become Judaizers themselves, especially in regard to Jewish believers. Far too often we take what we do as the exact right way, when it is just part of our preference.

  I think that is why I like what Banner and his group are doing. They see these verses and they see the thread throughout Scripture of doing more than the church todays tells one to do, and they in their love of God and what He has done for them try to do those things they see in Scripture. I see nothing wrong with them worshiping on Saturday because they feel they are called to that. What I especially like is how they are doing it without becoming Jewish. There are other groups out there that try to get Gentiles to keep Torah (and by that I mean the Law of Moses, which would be the usual interpretation of the word), and they do so working to make them as Jewish as possible. I do not see this as necessary, and to me it comes off as phony. They can do these things in a way that is cultural attractive to them and their sensibilities, just as the wine and challah are to mine.

  From what I can see, I see neither you or Banner as bad, doing harm to God or bringing shame upon His name. I think with unity we can agree to disagree on certain things and continue to work out our salvation together through pleasing conversations like this. Trying to force others to do exactly as you or I do seems counterproductive and a disservice to God, so as I mentioned before I just say what God tells me and you can then work these things out with God, as do I with the things I read, both on blogs and in Scripture. I think I have a great deal to learn and at the same time, a great deal to offer.

  I hope you will continue to check out my blog and feel free to comment whenever you would like to add to my thoughts or the conversation.

  May God bless you and keep you. Shalom,

• 6 Joel // Jul 13, 2007 at 4:10 am

  Bryan,

  I agree with you: the temple sacrifices were not for the taking away of sin. I think God is the greatest psychologist and understands that humans need an event of cleansing or catharsis to look to when the conscience feels guilty. I also think the temple did serve as a powerful moral educator. When you did something that violated God’s character, you had to pay. Since they did not have currency like we do, they paid with what was most valuable: livestock and crops.

  Ezekiel had a vision of a grand temple. But Revelation says that there will be no temple. But since I tend to take a more preterist approach to Revelation, I’m certainly open to the possibility that during Christ’s reign there will be a temple. I figure I will have to wait and see.

  At any rate, I do think you and I could discuss this for hours and hours and not even scratch the surface of the wisdom of God. I definitely respect your approach to these issues, and as you keep writing, I will certainly keep reading.

  Peace and grace, brother.

  Joel

• 7 Daveed // Nov 3, 2007 at 9:14 pm

  I have been discussing the question of Shaul meeting on the first day of the week (HAVDALAH) Jewish 1st day but to the Gentile it is still Saturday evening, but still they cannot see it.

Leave a Comment