I have been meaning to get back to this for awhile, but have not had the time to spend on a long detailed post that this would take. So, back into the book, “Postmissionary Messianic Judaism - Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People” by Mark Kinzer.
Chapter 5 is a very interesting and I think important one. It covers a great deal of history of the years when the body of believers went from one that was mostly Jewish to one that was mostly Gentile. A Messianic Rabbi used to always say that as now it is strange and odd to a Gentile to meet a Jewish believer in Messiah, back in the first century it was exactly the opposite, it was the Gentile believer that would most likely raise eyebrows and cause one to say, “You believe in the Jewish Messiah?” Kinzer covers how this change has happened and how the church fathers handled it and Jewish practices (both Torah and traditions). He goes over a number of writings and edicts that were written from the second century over to around the fourth century. He covers Marcionism and the response of the church fathers to it. He covers the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, writings of Justin Martyr, the Epistle to Diognetus and the writings of Irenaeus. He then covers the Quartodeciman controversy through Constantine and over to Augustine, Jerome and John Crysostom, finishing with Thomas Aquinas. To me this is a very detailed work and analysis, although maybe there are more writings that exist on the same subject that Kinzer left out (possibly because they do not show the things he is pointing out). Nevertheless, I found the chapter quite enlightening and a definite page turner. It also showed how many of the attitudes formed during these early years still exist many hundreds of years later.
The title of the chapter is called “The Christian No to Israel.” After covering in the earlier chapters how Jewish practices (both Torah and traditions) are affirmed by the New Testament, Kinzer is now showing that the church however rejected these practices and said no to them. What I found fascinating is the different reasons that where used to justify rejection of Jewish practices. Also very interesting was how they reacted to Marcionism, which would have totally done away with the link to anything Jewish, including the Old Testament. What sometimes seems to happen in modern day Christianity, the use only of the New Testament and the Psalms and Proverbs, was what the Marcionist movement was looking to make the mark of Christianity. From what the book presents, we can be thankful that the early church, although seemingly sympathizing with some of the ideas of Marcionism, ultimately rejected it and affirmed the Old Testament and ultimately the Jewishness of all of Scripture.
So why did the early Christians say “No” to Israel? Actually the book makes a point that I find fascinating. It speaks of a secondary voice in each of the documents and quotes from the book Related Strangers by Stephen Wilson, and others that are saying, by these early church fathers arguing against Jewish practices indicates that in actuality “on the ground” much of the Jewish practices were being kept, and thus the writers felt the need to try to combat it by arguing against the practice. It certainly makes sense, for it no one was keeping Torah, then there would be no need for a epistle or other writings explaining why these things are no longer to be done.
The chapter covers different thoughts on Jewish practices from that Jews were interpreting them wrong and they were never meant to be literal, to they were because the Jews were especially sinful and needed these constant reminders to keep them focused on G-d to question as to whether a Jew could be saved, at least one who practiced Jewish things. There were also opinions that the 10 Commandments were good Laws from G-d, but the rest of the Law was a punishment because of the Golden Calf. There were also some interesting positions that accepted Jewish practice for Jews, but only as a sort of mourning period since they had died away. The concept was that Yeshua put an end to the Law and so it dies and in respect the traditions were kept by Paul and other Jewish believers until around the time of the destruction of the Temple. Kind of like sitting shiva in Judaism, but now that the time of mourning has past, we as believers are to put the past beside and to live without those things from the past. It is actually an interesting argument, but the secondary voice indicates that it is one that did not happen in reality and that believers, especially Jewish believer stayed with the Jewish practices long after 70 CE.
As I stated, I think this is an important chapter to be read and understood by both Jewish believers and Gentiles. To know how we got from the Book of Acts to where we are today is quite interesting. I think a reading of this might change the attitudes of many in the church, however I could be wrong about this, as it pertains to Messianic Jews and Jewish practice.
Presently, I am in chapter six and here is where I think I am starting to disagree with some of the ideas, for it seems the seed of where we are to come under the authority of Orthodox Rabbis is being berthed in chapter six and this is where I believe I will break with Kinzer and his solutions. It seems like the idea of coming under the authority of the Rabbis is very problematic and something that could never work. I saw evidence of that today on Derek Lehman’s blog. He has been posting about a New Look at Paul and after the post that I read today, he had some comments from a Jewish man married to a Gentile woman with two children. The commenter wanted to know about how to raise the children and Derek stated that this was a very complicated thing that was difficult to cover in the comments of a blog. He did state this,which I found interesting for it shows the difficulties that would happen when Messianic Jews come under Rabbinic authority:
While rabbinic halakhah may not consider your kids Jewish, I feel that Torah says your kids are Jewish.
Well, unless I am mistaken rabbinic halakhah is what Kinzer is arguing for in PMJ and thus in this case the children and the wife would need to convert to Judaism before they could practice their faith in Yeshua. It seems a very twisted thing, if this is actually the case. However, I still have some way to go in the book, so I will read the proposed solutions for myself and report back. As always, I welcome comments from others that have read the book and want to provide insight or amplification on the subject. As always I encourage voting on the poll question about PMJ. I posted the link to the book and Derek Lehman’s blog. Let me also include here Dr. Michael Brown’s paper about the book, so you can form your own opinion and then vote with some knowledge and not based upon just the voice of me.
B”H
Loading ...
12 responses so far ↓
1 Derek Leman // Aug 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Dr. Kinzer would likely agree with me that the authority of the rabbis as the judges over Torah (see Deut 16
and 17 as well as Matt 23:1-3
) does not mean all opinions in rabbinic literature are of equal weight nor can a rabbinic opinion trump the plain meaning of Torah. First, let me ask anyone who is interested in this topic to read the 7-part series on my blog, “Should We Follow the Rabbis.” Second, know that accepting the rabbis as the judges of Torah a la Deuteronomy does not mean agreeing with all theological points and it does not mean that our halakhah will be an exact copy of the current Orthodox practice. The truth is more subtle and complicated.
Derek Leman
2 B Z // Aug 14, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Thanks for the input. I truly appreciate hearing your point of view. Here is a link to the first part of the 7-part series for anyone looking to read through it. Derek’s blog is always an enjoyable read. It is usually a part of my at desk lunch ritual.
3 Tom Albrecht // Aug 16, 2007 at 9:45 am
It covers a great deal of history of the years when the body of believers went from one that was mostly Jewish to one that was mostly Gentile.
Didn’t this essentially happen as a result of the ministry of the apostle Paul? The testimony of the Book of Acts and the epistles is that the Church grew from a fairly insignificant number of followers (perhaps 10-20 thousand mostly in and around Jerusalem), but outside of Judea the gospel had tremendous success among the gentiles.
“8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 19
)
This situation in Corinth seemed typical of Paul’s ministry. Some Jews and a number of gentiles came to faith in Messiah and so the number of Christians increased, as both Jews and gentiles were added to the Church.
Of course we don’t see a lot of head counting going on in the NT, esp. Jew vs. gentile, and I think for very good reason. The entire tenor of the testimony is to not divide along racial lines within the body of Christ. No one was counting Jewish heads vs. gentile heads, for all were one in Christ. The racial distinctions fell away within a generation or two of Paul’s ministry as Jews migrated from their synagogues to the Church assemblies. It was only the heretical sects like the Ebionites that continued to insist on racial distinctives in the name of Messiah.
4 Tom Albrecht // Aug 16, 2007 at 12:05 pm
It’s also interesting to note that even within Judaism of the 1st century there was no cultural uniformity.
“1 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. 7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6
)
The Greek-speaking Jews were set at odds with the Hebrew-speaking Jews. The solution was not to make the Greeks speakers act more like Hebrew speakers. Nor to suggest that Hebrew speakers were superior to Greek speakers (BTW, it annoys me to see all these phony transliterations in MJ writing; e.g., Moshiach, Yeshua, Yaakov, Sh’aul. I wonder sometimes if the Greek-speaking Jews in Acts 6
felt compelled to say “Yeshua” rather than “Iesous”.)
The Church flourished, not because one group tried to make people think their culture was superior to another, but because the apostles’ teaching was being faithfully followed in the spirit of love and unity.
I’m not trying to pick on you personally, and I respect your desire to know God more intimately and be faithful to His expressed will. I just have many reservations about “the movement”.
5 B Z // Aug 16, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Tom has anyone been compelling you to say Yeshua, Moshiach, Sh’aul or anything else? I personally do not see Messianic Judaism as forcing our culture upon anyone that is not interested in it. I am not sure how Sh’aul or any of the other names are “phony” since Sh’aul would be his Hebrew name. Even the Greek rendered that as what is translated as Saul. Messianic Judaism is not giving names to people and titles that does not exist. It is a cultural framework. If you go into a Scandinavian church and see a picture of a fair skinned blue eyed Jesus, should this not be just as offensive to you, since He was a Semitic man, much more likely rather dark skinned and less likely to have blue eyes, being not very common for a Jew. That cultural representation helps those people to identify and the Hebrew names and context help me and many other Jews to identify with.
There is so much about what has transpired in the past 2000 years with both Jews and non-Jews running from each other in a concerted effort to make a large separation between the two groups. It has made the Gospel into something that is much harder for a Jew to accept. You might think that is tough for the Jew, however I would guess you would have no trouble with bridging the gap for peoples of other cultures. If someone in South America heres about “Hey-sus” and comes to faith, after that is there a need to correct the pronunciation to “Gee-sus?” I would think not, even if they lived in the United States. So why this need to get Jewish believer to say Jesus to say Christ to say these words that, although there is nothing wrong with them, they are just foreign and foreign sounding to us. I go by churches all the time and look at the names or read text and see words and phrases that just seem so foreign to me. Some words I grow to like, others remain far off to me. The Jewish contextual equivalents work for me, and as much as you feel that someone might be forcing them on you, why should I be forced to use words that are comfortable to you. Taking your argument further, I guess we could ask why do we say Jesus and why not say it the way it was written and pronounce it in the Greek manner (ee-ay-sooce)? After all if Juan from Mexico comes here, I do not insist that he must be called John while around English speaking people. Even Jesus is an English adaptation of the Greek.
Anyway, I certainly as well respect your opinion and desire in serving God as well, and appreciate the respect and civility that you show when commenting here. I am sorry about your reservations with the movement, and do agree with the need for more maturity in Messianic Judaism. Ultimately of course I think we all seek the approval of God and not necessarily of each other. Hopefully the Messianic movement will meet with God’s approval, regardless of what Bryan or Tom or anyone else thinks. Hopefully we, as we come more in line with God will agree with His assessments. And of course the best indicator, especially for us is the fruit. Let us not be judgmental but at the same time be fruit inspectors. Praise God, Baruch HaShem.
6 Tom Albrecht // Aug 16, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Tom has anyone been compelling you to say Yeshua, Moshiach, Sh’aul or anything else?
That’s an interesting question in that I think it means you missed my point. Also, I notice you didn’t comment about Greek vs. Hebrew-speaking Jews, which is more to the point.
How does all this “Yeshua, Moshiach” stuff come off to the uninitiated? If your native language was Hebrew, then, perhaps, saying “Yeshua” to another Hebrew speaker would be appropriate and not appear condescending. Just as a Spanish speaker saying to another “Hey-soos”. But the fact that many MJs seem to go out of their way to use excessive transliterations to no meaningful end is really where a good portion of the movement seems to be. For example, why the need for a “Jewish New Testament?” (which I own a copy of, btw.)
This excess almost gives the impression that these folks believe Paul was running around among the members of the Church saying “Yeshua” and “Moshiach” all the time. And perhaps these same people are a bit embarrassed by the fact that when Paul wrote his letters to Greek speaker he didn’t feel compelled to dust the writing with Hebrew transliterations.
Ultimately of course I think we all seek the approval of God and not necessarily of each other.
God’s approval ultimately comes from obedience to His Word. The MJs must be willing to set aside their pet theologies and be able to clearly distinguish those things that are purely cultural and therefore not religiously binding in any way on either Jews or gentiles from that which is eternal and appropriate for all God’s household.
I’m not saying that these things are characteristic of your approach, but they are all too common in my interaction with those who call themselves adherents of Messianic Judaism.
One thing I did not see in your bio, your background and whether you consider yourself ethnically Jewish. Forgive me if I missed this in our exchanges?
7 B Z // Aug 17, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Tom,
Yes, I would consider myself ethnically Jewish. All the way as far back as I know is all Jewish, parents, grandparent, great grandparents, etc. The only person I can think of is an aunt who converted when marrying my dad’s brother. However, most of my family was not very observant. I come from a background, of this is what we believe, even if we don’t practice it. I think one thing you don’t see is what a treat to find that many of these things that seemed to be just foolish and meaningless rituals now has all of a sudden gained great meaning because we as Jews have come to faith in Messiah. It is a wonderful thing and something that excites many Jews when they come to faith. Things that excite one makes one want to share that excitement with others. Obviously many non-Jews do not share the same excitement and that is fine.
I think a good recap of the things you and I continue to speak of is Romans 3
. Is there a value in being Jewish (Romans 3:1
)? Much in every way (Romans 3:2
). However, are Jews better off (Romans 3:9
)? No, not at all. So I am excited about these things that God has entrusted as part of my heritage and I treasure it and try to bring as much honor to him as I can. Being Jewish does not make me any better than a non-Jew, but it is different, like a man and woman are different. At least that is how I see it.
It is interesting because a great deal of the book I am writing about here is talking about Christian supersessionism, and actually that is part of the title of Chapter 5 that I write about in this post. The title of Chapter 5 is, “The Christian No to Israel-Christian Supersessionism and the Jewish Practice.” It seems that you feel there is a MJ supersessionism, and here are MJs that see Christian supersessionism. It does seem to me that some of the early writings do indicate a feeling of superiority over the Jewish people, especially those of the Old Testament. They appear to be looked upon by some of these writers as failures and punished by God.
I think a good deal of this came from the events that happened with the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kochba revolts. I think association with anything related to Judaism appeared to be very bad, and many non Jewish believers would naturally distance themselves from these rebels. At the same time the Pharisees who now rule Judaism as the Temple is now gone as also defining Judaism as they see fit and anyone who recognizes Jesus as the Messiah was certainly defined as not being a Jew. And thus, I think was the birth of what we have now two thousand years later, and Jews are now returning to faith, returning to the Land and things are seemingly moving towards a conclusion.
Anyway, I hope this answers about my heritage and maybe enlighten you as why we get excited about our Jewishness. I hope you are as excited about the things God is doing in your life as well. And with that I wish you continued blessings. Peace to you, my friend and my brother in Christ.
8 Merlin Fields // Aug 18, 2007 at 11:02 am
I answered your poll on whether Messianic Judaism is needed or is a danger and was suprised to find the majority saying it was a danger. I am assuming that the majority of the 15 people who had voted were probably Jewish and for the life of me I cannot understand why we must continue with the animosity between Orthodox and Messianic Judaism
What could possibly be wrong with being a Torah observant follower of Yeshua?
But having answered the poll I though I should find out what was meant by ‘Post Missionary’, possibly that had an influence on the poll’s outcome.
So I came to this comment and before I had gotten too far, I was taken aback by a statement that has puzzled me since I accepted Yeshua as my Savior. It involves the word ‘Believe’ and how we have distorted the meaning of the word and I have for a very long time have tried to find the words to explain this. Thank You, I believe you have given me the ‘analogy’ I needed to put this into context.
The statement was made about being from a Jewish background, but that does not matter as the same idea can be from someone coming from a xtian background or agnostic or Muslim or any wierd belief you can think of.
It is the word ‘BELIEVE’ that is in question!
I quote:
Da Da Da “…was my background, However, most of my family was not very observant. I come from a background, of this is what we ‘believe’, eventhough we don’t practice it.”
This is precisely the problem in having any kind of ‘Faith’, how can one ‘believe’ something without practicing it? They must have only thought they believed!
I think I have planted the seed with the question and I will leave now to go to my own site and write an article on the word ‘Belief’.
Again, thank you for the analogy!
Merlin
9 B Z // Aug 20, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Merlin, I think the danger that many see is in this is a slipping into legalism. Dr. Michael Brown has a paper about the subject at his website. There was also a great discussion with many different participants, including Michael Brown, Stuart Dauermann, Rich Robinson and of course Derek Lehman. There were many thoughts going back and forth on both sides of the issue. It was a very interesting discussion. The best way to access all that would be here.
As for myself, I am still researching it and in the process of reading the book. Although I am slanted to one side a bit, I can see some points from both sides, and I believe it best to keep an open mind and let the Spirit speak to me as I work all these types of things out.
As for the word believe and it’s misuse yes, for many both Jewish and Christian, their faith is real more a culture. My family was Jewish by heritage and culture, but really not by faith. Even when they did Scriptural things, Passover, High Holidays, it was mostly because of heritage and not because of any real belief in the actual commands, or any real relationship with their Creator. At least that is my impression from growing up in the family and what I have seen as an adult and as a believer.
In regards to PMJ I think the important thing is to not sacrifice our faith for acceptance by the Orthodox. I am not saying that PMJ does that, but it is a test that it must pass, I think. Some things I have heard seem to indicate that it could do that, and even if believers were to compromise, I do not know if that would make any difference to people who regard Messianic believers as idol worshipers. That seems a high hurdle to jump.
I think there is a great deal of similarity between Messianic Jews and the Orthodox, actually I see that group as being then closest in the Jewish community to our beliefs. We both share Messiah, although differ on who the Messiah is. Both tend to lean conservative in values, take great joy in Scripture and the Holy Days and such. I worked with a Lubavitcher and always enjoyed speaking with him. We had a great deal in common, and a big difference that divided us as well. I truly think of them as very close to the Kingdom of Heaven, as Yeshua describe to the one of the Scribes (Mark 12:28-34
).
Thanks for your excellent comments and thoughts. B”H.
10 Tom Albrecht // Aug 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I think a good recap of the things you and I continue to speak of is Romans 3
. Is there a value in being Jewish (Romans 3:1
)? Much in every way (Romans 3:2
). However, are Jews better off (Romans 3:9
)? No, not at all. So I am excited about these things that God has entrusted as part of my heritage and I treasure it and try to bring as much honor to him as I can. Being Jewish does not make me any better than a non-Jew, but it is different, like a man and woman are different. At least that is how I see it.
Bryan,
I think you need to account for the fact that the Judaism of Jesus and Paul’s day is very different than the Judaism of today, i.e., the Judaism that you inherited by birth.
The covenant that God had established with Israel through Moses as the children of Abraham is no longer operative. It passed away with the establishment of the new covenant in the blood of Jesus. The Judaism that has existed for 2000 years is not old covenant Judaism, in other words it is not the Judaism of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Jesus, Peter, and Paul. It is not the Judaism of the Bible.
The Word (The Law and the Prophets) was entrusted to the nation of Israel and kept pure until the true Word of God was incarnate by the Holy Spirit. Since the time of Christ the Word of God has been entrusted to the Church, through the apostles and prophets. “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Matt. 21:43
). The leadership of Israel abdicated their responsibility as keepers of the Law, they persecuted the prophets and murdered the Son of the Landowner. The Word of God no longer came to the prophets of old Israel, but God instead began to speak through His Church, the body of Christ. God’s demonstrated this judgment by speaking to Israel by people of a foreign tongue (1 Cor. 14:21,22
). Jews could no longer go to Israel to hear the Word of God, but they needed to come to the Church. Rebellious Jews have been kicking against this truth for 2000 years.
You perhaps feel that the Church is not Israel, and in a sense I agree. Old Israel as we see it given in the Old Testament no longer exists. God never intended His people to exist as one purely ethnic nation, and the promise to Abraham was that he would be the father of many nations. The fulfillment of that promise came in the person of Jesus Christ. He has gathered all the nations together into one new people. Whether you want to see that as “new Israel” or not doesn’t matter much to me. The fact is that is how Peter, Paul and the other New Testament writers saw it.
“9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. 11 Beloved, …” (1 Peter 2
)
Any Jew 2000 years ago reading Peter’s words could not mistake his intent. Peter used the exact same Old Testament phrases for Israel to refer to the Church. God’s beloved was now embodied in the Church, the people of God from every nation. Some folks call that “supersessionism”. To some it is a derogatory term. But it is intended to reflect the great expansion of the people of God envisioned in the prophecies given so long ago. (A good article on this view is Not Replacement…Expansion! by Rev. Fred Klett at CHAIM, a ministry I very much respect.)
I do not mean for these words to be offensive to you. As brethren in Christ we can honestly wrestle with God’s Word to discover the truth. God desires those who would worship Him to do so in Spirit and Truth.
11 B Z // Aug 21, 2007 at 10:18 am
Tom, when exactly did this changeover occur with the Word of God being entrusted from one group over to another? Was this at the birth of Messiah? The death? The resurrection? Sometime later? I am just wondering, since you indicate that Israel kept it pure until that point. Since Jesus had a great deal of conflicts with the Jewish leaders of His day, it seems like they were not really keeping the Word pure. To me that seems to be a large portion of His disagreement with the religious leaders of His day.
If Israel was not keeping the Word pure at the time of Jesus and they are not keeping it pure today, then where is this difference that I need to account for. Also when did Paul write the Book of Romans? Somewhere around 50 AD or so I believe. Were the Jews keeping it pure at that point? If not, then what is the meaning of the verses from Romans I quote. If it was to the Church, then it makes no sense, since it is a comparison between Jews and non-Jews.
It appears that you are saying that sometime after Paul wrote the words in Romans 3
that Israel radically changed and somehow no longer merit these words of it being an advantage to be Jewish. I am just curious as to when this change took place.
Your words are in no way offensive to me. I may disagree with some of them, most of them or all of them, however, as you state we are honestly working through things as brothers and in that I have a great deal of respect. We may come to some agreement, total agreement, or agree to disagree, but the fact that we can do so as brothers brings great joy to me.
May God continue to bless and teach us both.
12 Tom Albrecht // Aug 21, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Tom, when exactly did this changeover occur with the Word of God being entrusted from one group over to another? Was this at the birth of Messiah? The death? The resurrection? Sometime later?
Bryan,
There are many places where we see Jesus uniquely anointing and appointing the apostles. “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:22
). Jesus never conferred this power on the leadership of old Israel. In fact He specifically said it would be taken away from them. (How to you interpret Matthew 21:43
?) The Church was never called to consider the authority of the leadership of old Israel, but rather we are told they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42
).
So it quite clear that somewhere between the resurrection and the day of Pentecost Christ poured out the apostolic ministry in fullness upon His disciples for the benefit of the Church.
But we also realize that Peter and Paul and the other lived in a day of transition. The old covenant and old Israel did not end in a day. It was, as we are told in Hebrews, “decaying away” (Heb. 8:13
). Decay is a gradual process. Christ and the apostles recognized that cultural transformation takes time, and those raised for many generation in one tradition would need time to adjust to the material changes and improvements of the new covenant. I believe the decay ended in AD70 when the temple was destroyed, the Levitical priesthood vanquished by the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ, and old covenant sacrifices were finally brought to an end. God said, “That is enough. Look to Christ and nowhere else.”
The shadows of the old covenant — food laws, annual holy days, etc – passed away gradually by the express teaching of the apostles under the authority of Jesus Christ. These were the burdens spoken of by Peter when he said, “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10
). Notice how Peter says that any attempt to bring gentiles under the “yoke” laws of Moses was in actually a testing of God. And this “testing” of God is not a good thing.
But yet we have adherents of so-called Messianic Judaism suggesting, even encouraging, gentiles to voluntarily take this yoke upon themselves. They are “testing” God today. I think that explains the harshness of Paul’s words in places like Galatians where he describes such a view as anathema. Christ has set us all free from the yoke of the law. To be compelled or voluntarily take that yoke is a fundamental denial of the work of Jesus Christ on behalf of His people.
This is what happens when a new movement pops up out of nowhere with an almost total disregard for 2000 years of church teaching on this very subject. You end up making the same mistakes and fumbling over the same errors that were dealt with long ago. A good example here is that I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard adherents of Messianic Judaism explain the trinity in a way that would make a modalist proud. In their zeal to not look to “Christian” they are repeating errors which the Church condemned centuries ago.
If Israel was not keeping the Word pure at the time of Jesus and they are not keeping it pure today, then where is this difference that I need to account for.
Actually, the Word was being kept fairly pure in Jesus’ day, pure enough at least for those who were called to salvation to recognize the Messiah of Israel when He appeared. Recall what He told the disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do” (Matt. 23:2,3
). In this same section we read Jesus’ words to the disciples, “6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.” Except for Jesus, none of the apostles or teachers under the new covenant were called “rabbi”. How ironic, then, that the modern adherents of Messianic Judaism are pleased to call their teachers “rabbi”, copying the rabbinic traditions.
But then we have 2000 years of rabbinic twisting and torture of the Word. We have the Talmud and the Mishnah, the systematic, over-developed errors of the rabbis. It was Alfred Edersheim, a 19th century Jewish convert to Christ, who said, “He who has thirsted and quenched his thirst at the living fount of Christ’s Teaching, can never again stoop to seek drink at the broken cisterns of Rabbinism.” Many of these traditions were meant to purposely obscure the work of Messiah, yet some in the MJ tradition seem to have a hard time differentiating truth from error.
Leave a Comment