On Knowledge in the Tanakh

The following was written as an answer to an inquiry received by our ministry. It's a bit outside of our normal purview, but I thought I'd post it here. The question was in regards to the word "knowledge" in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and whether it was significant that "knowledge" rather than "discernment" was used.

The name of the tree in question, in Hebrew, is Eytz haDa’ath Tov v’Ra’ (עצ הדעת טוב ורע), with da’ath being the word for knowledge (Strongs #1847). Da’ath is actually a fairly common word, appearing 92 times in the Tanakh. Of those 92 times, it is translated “knowledge” 81 times in the NASB and 80 times in the KJV. Of the other uses of the word (going from the NASB, which is easier to search for hits with my current tools), it is used to mean concern (1), know (3), premeditation/ intentionally (4), skill (1), truth (1), what (1). Of the four times it refers to premeditation or intentionally, two are with a negative participle (that is, “unintentionally”).

In all cases, the word simply refers to conscious knowledge of a matter. If you are interested in Hebrew root words, the root of da’ath is da’ (דע), which literally means “door of the eye”—the eyes being the principle way in which humans gain knowledge about the world. The equivalent Greek word, used in the Septuagint translation, is gnooston (γνωστον, Strongs #1110), from gnosis, or knowledge. Lest anyone try to draw a connection between that and Gnosticism, I should point out that the word has no negative context in and of itself, appearing in various conjugations 15 times in the NT to mean simply something known.

Indeed, the Scriptures are overwhelmingly positive about Man having da’ath, particularly in the Proverbs. It is often paired with the ideas of wisdom (cf. Exo. 31:3, Ecc. 7:12) and self-discipline (Pro. 12:1 and 17:27). Outside of the narrative of the Fall, the worse the Bible has to say of it is that an increase of knowledge can bring one pain (Ecc. 1:18)—of course, given the genre of Ecclesiastes, perhaps we should consider that to mean knowledge outside of the Eternal One’s.

I’ve given you the Strong’s numbers so that you can double-check my research. However, I have to say that “knowledge” really is the best translation of the idea of da’ath. Given the overwhelmingly positive view the Bible takes of real knowledge, I would suggest that if anything, we can understand this passage to teach that the knowledge of good and evil were not sinful per se, but rather that the avenue that Adam and Havah took (disobedience to the Father’s clear command) in pursuit of this knowledge is the reason behind the Fall.

In other words, the ends—however noble—do not justify the means of disobeying ADONAI.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 6

Well, I'm back. I've finished moving into the new house, with the exception of a couple of pieces of furniture which I will get next week, and a few dozen boxes of books to be put back on the shelves. So let's return to our regularly-scheduled blogging:

The purpose of this article is to defend Messianic Judaism against what I believe to be an unfair and unscriptural attack. While this of necessity requires a certain amount of “counter-attack,” I will try to keep the focus on the arguments rather than the person, though some comments about Vicki’s general tendencies in her writings are necessary.

To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part II
The Bible & The Talmud

Vicki begins her section on the Talmud with a personal note, expressing her love for those she in her article argues against despite finding ”material that I have found disturbing.” She goes on to say, “What I feel very strongly is that all the issues addressed were dealt with at the cross. Truly, His grace is sufficient.” Very true; however, the Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements have never been about overturning a belief in salvation by faith (though we would argue, as would Vicki, that faith without works is dead, per Jas. 2:17; cf. Eph. 2:8-10)—it is about how we who are already saved should now live. To repeat the mantra I am trying to promote throughout the Messianic world: I do not try to keep the Torah in order to be saved; I follow the Torah because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

Vicki next writes,

What I do have, is a strong sense or desire to see deceptions--regardless of who propagates them--exposed. This issue is very large and complex. Not all that is said about one group's views can necessarily be applied to all.

Now this is an amazing admission, since her previous section did indeed take “one group’s views” and apply them to all Messianics, and did so several times, at that! It is also surprising to see her admit the complexity of the issue, as she is about to take a very large, complex set of documents, the Talmud, and try to reduce it to a handful of distasteful passages without regard to the historical or cultural context, or even a fair comparison to Christian writings from the same period. I shall demonstrate this as we proceed.

Let me start out with a warning, however: As my own writings on the subject indicate, I am not one who regards the Talmud as holy, though I do think that it is useful in understanding 1^st Century Judaism, the crucible that forged what we today call Christianity, and I do find the rabbis’ understandings of certain passages and concepts to be extremely insightful and thought-provoking, especially when we see the parallels in their beliefs and a New Covenant belief. I also believe that a Messianic Jewish believer living in a Jewish community is as bound to follow the authorities of that community, the rabbis, as we are bound to follow the authorities of our country, state, etc.

However, I would be the first to admit that there is much material in the Talmud that is frankly wrong and embarrassing; I would also be the first to admit the same of the great body of Christian writings through the centuries. In both cases, one must learn to understand the text in its original context, then to chew up the meat and spit out the bones.

With that in mind, let us look at Vicki’s claims about the Talmud and its relationship with Messianic Judaism and the Hebrew Roots movement.

Overview

Vicki’s overview is just that, and overview, and does not contain enough information for the first several paragraphs to dispute; she is simply framing her argument. She then writes of her intent,

[This section] evaluates the need for Midrash, Mishnah, Haggadah, Halakah, and the use of the "Ancient Wisdom" versus the teaching of the New Testament and the sufficiency of Scripture with the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

First of all, on what basis are the two necessarily opposed? She argues in favor of the Received Text—but does the Bible itself speak of the RT? No; rather, Vicki is the beneficiary of centuries of “ancient wisdom”—tradition and scholarship—in reconstructing the Koine Greek of the NT (and the Hebrew of the Tanakh), and even in knowing which books to include in the Bible!

And let’s look at what she’s arguing against here:

• Midrash – this just means “teaching” or “delving”; is Vicki claiming to have never received teaching about the Bible from extra-Biblical sources?
  
  
• Halakhah & Mishnah – literally translated, halakhah is “the way you walk,” this is how the rabbis understood how to apply God’s commandments to our lives. The Mishneh is the compilation of the 2^nd Century rabbis’ halakhah. Does Vicki refuse all discussion on the proper application of God’s commands in our lives?
  
  
• Haggadah – this is simply the “order of service” for a Passover Seder. Is Vicki against all orders of service in all churches everywhere?

When we get past all of the Hebraisms, we find that there are parallels in Christian teaching to virtually every aspect of Jewish interpretation. Consider the long-standing debates on the proper way to baptize, the proper description of the Trinity, whether one can drink or smoke, etc. before we condemn the rabbis for having the same sorts of discussions on their side. Therefore, Vicki cannot object to the fact of such interpretive methods and applications; she can only object to the form—in this case, a distinctly Jewish form. But is it really illegitimate to refer to Jewish sources as well as Hellenized (Christian) sources in understanding the Scriptures? On what basis? Should we not consider a culture’s language, idioms, practices, etc., in understanding such an important Book from that culture?

If Vicki is so certain that the Holy Spirit is meant to be our sole source of information about the Scriptures, then let her no longer quote from any translation, but hereafter read only the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, trusting in the Spirit—not human translators—to interpret the words for her.

But if she relies on scholarship to translate the words of the Bible into her own language—scholarship which does in fact use extra-Biblical Jewish and Greek literature in order to interpret the meanings and connotations of the words of the Bible—then let her cease from disparaging those of us who rely on scholarship to translate the cultural idioms of the Bible into our own language as well!

Regarding those of the Hebrew Roots movement who challenge the Greek New Testament, I will say first and foremost that such are the minority. Most of the movement bases its arguments not upon what the original Hebrew might have been, but on the Greek manuscripts that we do have (see, for example, Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary). Where some (like FFOZ) do occasionally refer back to what Yeshua’s original Hebrew and/or Aramaic words might have been, no significant Christian doctrine is challenged in the process; rather, such excursions are generally taken either a) explain the “hard sayings” of Yeshua (particularly in the book of Matthew), or b) to compare one of Yeshua’s sayings or that of an Apostle to that of a Jewish source (such as the commentaries on John 1:1 by Lightfoot and Holding, which we reference here).

In any case, it is almost a given that Matthew and Hebrews, at the very least, have a Hebrew origin, as attested to by the early Church fathers. Papias (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. His. 3.39) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.1.1) both report that Matthew was originally written “among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” Jerome likewise bears witness to this when he writes (On Illustrious Men, ch. 3):

MATTHEW, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.

Likewise, the book of Hebrews has a witness in Clement (Fragments, 1) that it was translated from Hebrew to Greek (by Luke). If indeed it was originally written to the Jews in the vicinity of Judea to correct a dependence on the Temple service, it could not have been written in Greek originally, for as Josephus notes in his Antiquities (20.11.2),

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations . . .

While it does not follow that every book of the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the fact that these two most likely were—and more importantly, the fact that virtually every word our Lord originally spoke would have been in those two languages—means that going beyond the Greek and attempting to reconstruct the Hebrew is a worthy venture. Nor does it deny the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, for inspiration and inerrancy has always been understood as applying only to the autographs, not to copies nor translations.

After quoting 2 Pt. 3:16—what significance she finds for the current subject is not given—Vicki writes, “Orthodox scholars agree that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.” How she defines “orthodox”—does this merely mean scholars that agree with her views?—or how she arrived at the unspoken “all” in her statement are not given; she quotes only two sources. A far better treatment of the issue of Matthew’s original language, for example, which acknowledges an ongoing discussion as to the possibility of an Aramaic/Hebrew original of Matthew, is presented by the non-Messianic apologist J.P. Holding here.

Vicki next quotes one Hyram Maccoby as stating that the Gospel accounts reflect an anti-Semetic bias. Here she once again has not done her homework, as the mainline Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements have done a great deal of scholarship to prove that the Gospel accounts and other NT writings, far from being tainted by anti-Semetism, actually reflect an internal debate between Jews and a great concern for the Jewish people as a whole, not the external debate between “Christians” and “Jews” that many Christian commentators consider a given when reading them. For example, Lancaster writes in the introduction of King of the Jews,

Jesus was really Jewish. If you saw Him, you could not possibly mistake it. The man was Jewish. Everything He did and said was patently Jewish. That’s what this book is about. (p. ix)

After describing the shift from being a distinctly Jewish faith to “a new Christianity” which “defined herself against Judaism and Jewishness” (p. xi), Lancaster states,

However, the church’s sacred writings—the Gospels and Epistles left behind by those earliest believers—testify to the absolute Jewishness of the man and the original faith. The evidence remains within the books of the New Testament, like an ancient, hidden code. Most Christians read over it without ever suspecting its existence. (p. xii)

As one reads through the books and articles written by dozens of Messianic authors (including this author’s own webpage), one finds the same conclusion repeated over and over: The problem has never been with the New Testament, but with the presuppositions we have read into it. Maccoby would therefore actually be on the far fringe of the movement, and certainly not a spokesman for it.

Once again, Vicki has displayed a complete lack of discernment in choosing who to hold up as indicative of the direction of the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movements as a whole.

Shalom!

Still Alive!

Well, I survived the move . . . if only barely. I've still got a lot of unpacking to do, but it's mostly just moving stuff from boxes to shelves now.

Tonight should be interesting; I'll be sleeping in a bed I've kept in storage for about five years now--all of the places I've lived since then have been furnished already, so I haven't had need of it. I hope it's as comfortable as I remember.

Thank you, Father, for keeping us safe on the road today, and for providing a roof over my head.

Shalom!

Random Update

It's been a busy few days, and lest I drop out of sight for another six weeks (Heaven forbid!), I thought I should post at least something briefly.

I'm currently in the process of getting ready to move, which means lots of planning and packing. The move is being driven by my financial situation not improving as I'd hoped, but it's also beneficial to the family as a whole; if all goes well, I'm taking over a house my parents haven't been able to sell and moving in with my brother. It also puts me closer to my SO.

While I've got more material on the SeekGod front, I'm holding off posting it for a bit, mostly so I can space posts out if things stay crazy for a while.

Be back soon!

Shalom!

Tisha B'Av

Tisha B'Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, has just passed. It's a solemn occasion, a time to remember the destruction of the two Temples as well as numerous other calamities that have befallen the Jews on this day since. For example (with thanks in part to KHouse for the list):

• 135 CE - The Bar Koshba revolt is squelched with the fall of Bethar, the last Jewish stronghold
• 136 CE - Emperor Hadrian establishes a temple of Zeus and the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem
• 1095 AD - The declaration of the Crusades by Pope Urban II, which resulted in many Jews being attacked by Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land
  
• 1242 AD - The burning of the Talmud
  
• 1290 AD - The signing of the edict by King Edward I expelling the Jews from England
• 1492 AD - Ferdinand and Isabella issued a royal decree that all Jews must leave the Spanish territories by August 3rd (9th of Av on the Hebrew calendar)
  
• 1914 AD - The start of the First World War
  
• 1942 AD - The first killings at the Treblinka extermination camp in Poland
  
• 1994 AD - And the AMIA bombing by Arab terrorists in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 86 and wounded more than 120

It is also tradition that it was on the 9th of Av that ten of the twelve spies that Israel sent into Canaan came back with a bad report, causing Israel to lose faith and wander the wilderness for 40 years (cf. Num. 13). I also think it likely that Moses removed the Tent of Meeting from the camp on Tisha b'Av, as we explain in our article, The Feasts and the Exodus.

We praise ADONAI that Tisha B'Av has passed this year without trouble, and pray His continued protection over Israel, both the land and in Diaspora, throughout the year.

Shalom!

A Response to Pyromaniacs

Per reader Bryan Z’s request, we’re taking a break from responding to SeekGod’s Vicki in order to respond to another article written on the Pyromaniacs blog. The article in question is written by Steven A. Kreloff rather than the blog’s owner, Phil Johnson. Pardon the length; I wanted to answer a whole post in a single post, and these are not simple issues to be addressed.

While the article is very well written, and is instructive for making a very (if I may say so) typically Christian argument against Messianic Judaism. Many of its arguments have been previously refuted on HebrewRoot, and in those cases, I will of course refer readers to the appropriate articles rather than re-invent the wheel. I also suggest that all readers refer to our general article Why the New Covenant Doesn’t Do Away With the Torah for a general overview of arguments in favor of a Torah-observant Body of Messiah.

Kreloff’s opening paragraphs explain exactly what he sees wrong in Messianic Judaism:

A number of years ago, when my son was young, we attended a baseball game. Not only was my son a baseball fan, but he was also an avid collector of baseball cards. When we arrived at the ballpark, though, I noticed that he seemed more interested in looking at the pictures of the players on his cards than in watching the ball players on the field. In my astonishment I asked him, "Why are you looking at the pictures, when the real living players are standing right in front of you?"

What my son did with baseball cards and players, many Jewish Christians today do with their faith. Embracing a concept known as Messianic Judaism, these Jewish believers emphasize Old Testament laws and practices (such as dietary laws, feasts, and Sabbath days) as the way to please God. Yet Paul referred to these kinds of observances as "shadows" pointing to the reality of Jesus Christ (Col. 2:16, 17).

Our fuller response to the argument from Colossians can be found here. To sum it up, I will make two illustrations here. The first is to ask whether Mr. Kreloff keeps a picture of his wife or significant other in his wallet? If so, why? Doesn’t he have the real wife to look upon? And yet he, and most other Americans, keeps pictures of his loved ones as reminders of them and a way of keeping them close as he goes through his day.

In the same way, the Feasts of ADONAI serve as reminders of the Messiah. Consider the first Feast commanded, Passover. It celebrated Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Would we ask why Israel continued to keep Passover after they had already been redeemed? Or do we understand that it served like a picture in the wallet, reminding Israel every year of her great Loved One and how He saved them from bondage? In the same way, Messianics keep Passover as a yearly reminder of our Beloved Lamb, who gave His life to redeem us from bondage to the world—and really, don’t most Christians keep Easter for the same reason?

The second illustration is derived from water immersion, or baptism. As Col. 2:11-12 explains, baptism is symbolic of our dying to our old lives with Yeshua and being raised with Him into a whole new life to be lived in the Spirit. Now, knowing the reason for this “shadow,” how many Christians think that we should cease to keep baptism simply because we have the Messiah, the reality to which the baptism points?

Kreloff continues by stating that Yeshua is superior to the types of the Tanakh that point to Him. We agree completely; that doesn’t in and of itself change whether we should continue to keep God’s commandments. The argument that he alludes to, but doesn’t yet make, from Hebrews is answered here and in my debate with Myles Davis: No part of the Torah was done away with, and only the High Priesthood and sacrifices were transferred to Yeshua.

Kreloff’s next argument is both very typical of mainline Christianity and utterly without Biblical support: “Instead of encouraging these Hebrews to remain within their comfortable religious practices, the inspired penman pleads with them to abandon these customs in favor of loyalty to Jesus Christ.”

Such a thought never entered into the Apostles’ minds, let alone their pens! In Acts 15, the subject of whether Jews should continue to keep the Torah is never even raised; it is considered a given that they would and the question is wholly on how to handle the Gentile converts flooding the synagogues every Sabbath to hear of Yeshua. In Acts 21:20ff, we are told that the tens of thousands of Messianic Jews “are all zealous for the Law,” and that Rabbi Sha’ul, aka the Apostle Paul, took a Nazrite vow with four others and went to the Temple to make sacrifices (v. 26) in order to refute the idea that he was telling Jewish believers “to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (v. 21)! We also refute the argument that the Apostles had ceased to live as Jews that is often made from Galatians here.

Note that without this foundational assumption that the Apostles saw themselves as the forerunners of a new religion rather than as Jews who saw their Judaism made complete (whole) in the Messiah, Kreloff’s entire article falls apart. Note also that Messianic Judaism has long had substantial rebuttal arguments to this assumption, arguments that Mr. Kreloff does not even mention, let alone address. With all respect to Mr. Kreloff, this speaks of a knee-jerk response, not of someone who has carefully studied Messianic Judaism so as to be able to write a viable argument against it—and reflexive opposition has never been an ally to the truth.

A Theological Danger?

Kreloff’s next section begins,

The greatest menace posed by Messianic Judaism is that, by encouraging its followers to diligently observe Old Testament laws, it obscures the foundational truth of Christianity, which is justification by faith in Christ. Though many within this movement are born again and would affirm that their salvation is based upon Christ's substitutionary atonement, yet their emphasis upon Old Testament ceremonial laws gives the distinct impression that the observing of these laws are necessary for salvation.

A distinct impression to whom? And on what basis? Does simply obeying a command of God automatically imply that one is doing so with the belief that one is working towards his/her salvation?

I assume that Mr. Kreloff opposes adultery and homosexuality, and his faithful to his own wife. Would he accept the argument that by doing so, he “gives the distinct impression that the observing of these laws are necessary for salvation”? He might, at that, but would such a stance in any way diminish Grace? What about the command to be baptized into the Name of the Lord Yeshua? Is doing it in just the right way—whatever way Mr. Kreloff thinks is correct—necessary for salvation?

Obviously, any command can become the basis for a legalistic attitude. Many Christians have killed each other in arguments over baptism in darker times, and even today many Christians condemn those who drink, smoke, listen to the wrong music, etc.—none of which are even part of the Biblical commands! Do these errors mean that mainline Christianity should be considered a “menace”?

Let’s be clear about this: Repentance (turning away from one’s sin) is necessary for salvation:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1Jn. 1:5-10)

Does this mean that someone who sins unintentionally and doesn’t realize it is condemned? Not at all—the sacrifice clearly covers sins of ignorance (Lev. 4:2ff, Heb. 9:7). This is one reason why the Apostles did not see keeping the Torah as a prerequisite for salvation, and instead only laid down four basic laws that would separate the Gentile converts from paganism (see again our article on Acts 15). However, it does mean that just as the Israelites who sinned out of ignorance and then came to realize it were responsible for repenting from that sin and making the appropriate sacrifice, those of us in Messiah who find out that we have not been keeping one of His commands because we didn’t know about it or didn’t know that it applied to us are likewise responsible for thereafter keeping the command and relying on Yeshua’s sacrifice to cover us.

So then, do I believe that we who are in Messiah should continue to keep His Feasts and other “Jewish” commandments? Absolutely. Do I see it as a matter of salvation? Absolutely not. Since we are indeed saved by faith, we can afford to honestly disagree about the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture.

I trust that clarifies the erroneous “impression” Mr. Kreloff has. On to his next objection:

Indeed, there are some within the messianic movement who teach that Jewish believers are obligated to observe all the Old Testament laws. They would in fact associate their salvation with keeping these laws.

For the former, yes, on the basis (Acts 21) already given. For the latter, who is Kreloff claiming takes this position?

Kreloff next argues from Galatians as a whole We’ve previously touched on this in part, but have not yet finished a full article on Galatians as a whole. While our previously cited articles address Kreloff’s specific points, let us take a moment to address the specific points he makes here:

He called their rejection of grace for law "a different gospel" (1:6) and a distortion of the gospel of Christ (1:7).

This is true. However, the issue was neither one of Jewish believers remaining Jewish nor even of Gentile believers keeping the commands of the Torah. Rather, the issue, per Acts 15:1 & 6, was that circumcision (being Jewish) and keeping the Torah were being distorted into prerequisites for salvation and fellowship. As I pointed out in my debate with Myles Davis,

In fact, it was to combat this then-prevailing rabbinic error that the Apostles forbade Gentile believers to circumcise, as explained before. The command to be made righteous by trusting in God alone (Gen. 15:6) preceded (both chronologically and in importance) the command to be circumcised (Gen. 17). So long as the misperception ruled that one had to be circumcised to be saved, and to be circumcised meant to become a Jew, the two were in conflict.

In order to preserve both the true way of salvation as commanded by the Torah—by faith—and to preserve God’s promise to call Gentiles—not just proselytized Jews—by His Name, the Apostles had to put the command of faith ahead of the command of circumcision. They did not annul the Torah by so doing: They actually preserved and upheld it according to its true meaning!

Note that the emphasis against circumcision was meant to be a general rule, not an absolute prohibition; otherwise, Paul damned both Timothy and himself by circumcising the young Greek (Acts 16:3; note that this was many centuries before the rabbis ceased to trace one’s ancestry through the father).

So long as justification by faith, just as our father Abraham was, is kept foremost in mind as the reason for doing good works (cf. Eph. 2:8-10), there is no contradiction between faith and works. Let me repeat again: I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved; I seek to keep it because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

A Ecclesiological Danger?

Kreloff’s next objection is, to put it plainly, nonsensical:

One of the great truths of the New Testament is that the Body of Christ is made up of both Jews and Gentiles. It is an unbiblical concept to have a local church that is distinctively Jewish or Gentile (by necessity the early church in Jerusalem consisted of all Jews because the Gospel had not been presented to the Gentile world). Thus, the nature of messianic synagogues—with their unique Jewish distinctions—violates the very spirit of fellowship among believers of all backgrounds and cultures.

If it is unbiblical to have a local church that is distinctively Gentile, then by definition virtually every church in the world is unbiblical! Would Kreloff argue that having a church with a distinctly American culture—as his doubtless is, though he may be so immersed in our culture as to not notice it—is a violation of Scripture? What about a church with a distinctly Chinese flavor? Hispanic? African? What exactly is wrong with having a church with a particular cultural tradition?

And if one may have a Biblical church with a distinctive American, Chinese, Hispanic, or African cultural tradition, exactly on what basis can one object to an assembly with a distinct Jewish cultural tradition?

Of course, this "any culture but Jewish" attitude in the Ekklesia goes back a long way, with Jews who wanted to worship a Jewish Messiah being forced to take oaths to give up everything Jewish about their heritage, as Dan Juster documents in an article on our home site. Even today, Jews who come to the Messiah in a Sunday church are nearly always pressured to become “uncircumcised” in direct violation of 1Co. 7:18 and Acts 21. “You know Jesus now? Congratulations! Here, have a ham sandwich. What? Don’t you know that only the weak in faith keep kosher?” etc.

That being the case, it’s hardly surprising that Messianics would rather a new Jewish believer come to one of our synagogues. It’s not a matter of forcible separation on our part—it’s a matter of not wanting to help with the assimilation of the Jewish people into a Gentile culture. It may be objected that Christians aren’t assimilating Jews, but “completing” them. Not true. According to Paul in Romans 2:25, a Jew who ceases to keep the Torah becomes a Gentile for all practical purposes: “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”

Fortunately, we are seeing a shift in the above situation: Many evangelical churches today are discovering a new respect for the Jewish culture which gave them the Bible, and are encouraging the Jews in their midst to keep to that culture. However, that shift is coming about precisely because there is such a thing as Messianic Judaism and the Hebrew Roots movement.

Kreloff writes,

By encouraging messianic synagogues, Messianic Judaism promotes division in the Body of Christ that is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.

Tell me, does having Baptists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc. promote division in the Body of Messiah, or should we all go back to being Roman Catholic in the name of unity? If one supports the right of different denominations to develop with their own (Biblically-defined, one would hope) cultures, liturgy, songs, order of service, etc., on what basis can one object to Messianic Judaism as one among many?

Are we seeing the pattern here? Isn’t Mr. Kreloff saying again (however unintentionally, as I’m sure it is), “Different church cultures are fine—just as long as they aren’t Jewish!” How did we, who are the inheritors of a Jewish Messiah whose Name and teachings were passed on by wholly Jewish Apostles ever come to such a theological (as opposed to personal) anti-Semitism?

Simple: By a misuse of Galatians compounded by centuries of human tradition. Galatians does not override Acts 21, or the book of Romans, or 1Co. 7, or any of the other innumerable places where Paul affirmed that there was still value to being Jewish and keeping the Torah—let alone our true Master’s own command that even the least of the Torah should be kept (Mat. 5:17-19)!

Tell me, Mr. Kreloff, since you have cited Gal. 3:28 as stating that Jewish believers should not continue to live as Jews, does this passage also annul Paul’s own teaching on separate responsibilities for men and women, per 1Co. 11:3-10, for example? Does this passage mean that homosexuality is now permitted, since there is no difference between male and female? Of course not! The point of the passage is that all have equal access to the Messiah and God’s grace regardless of their birth, not that all distinctions have been completely destroyed!

Paul himself states, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). Is Paul schizophrenic on the issue? Or have we perhaps misunderstood his writings, as happened even in his own day (cf. 1Pt. 3:16)? Perhaps it is time to stop building our theology wholly upon Paul (and that out-of-context), and build it instead on the whole of Scripture.

If Mr. Kreloff is really concerned about Jews going to Messianic synagogues and “robbing” the Sunday churches of their richness, perhaps he should abandon an anti-Jewish, anti-Torah theology which drives them there. He should also recognize that just as he goes to an American church as opposed to a Korean church because of his cultural preference, the Messianic Jew has the same freedom in the Messiah.

An Evangelistic Danger?

Kreloff starts his next section,

Adherents to Messianic Judaism believe that those identified with messianic synagogues make better witnesses to Jewish people than Gentiles from a Bible believing local church. However, the Apostle Paul told the Romans that his goal in ministering to so many Gentiles (he was the Apostle to the Gentiles) was to provoke Jewish people to jealousy (Romans 11:14). In other words, he felt that the best way to arouse Jewish interest in the gospel was through Gentile Christians. When Jewish people observe Gentile believers having a relationship with the Jewish Messiah and loving their Jewish Bibles, they often are provoked to a jealousy that eventually leads them to Christ.

Likewise, when Jewish people observe Jew and Gentile worshipping together in a Messianic synagogue, following the Messiah by keeping the Torah, their jealousy is aroused that much more.

Let me share a true story: I know a family in which the mother’s mother is Jewish. For years, she has resented her son-in-law because she saw him as tearing her daughter away from her Jewish heritage. From a very young age, she had adopted the philosophy, “I was born a Jew, and I’ll die a Jew,” which made her completely resistant to Gentile Christianity.

Since her family started attending our synagogue and her daughter has returned to her Jewish roots, her attitude towards her son-in-law and Yeshua have softened considerably. Her jealousy for her heritage has indeed been provoked, but it wasn’t by Gentile Christianity—it was by her daughter and granddaughter’s Messianic Judaism.

What Kreloff fails to appreciate is that when Paul penned those words, he was living in a time when Gentile believers were coming into the Jewish synagogues (Acts 13-14) and learning the Torah (Acts 15:21) to hear of the Messiah. They were a sub-culture within Judaism, a sect (Acts 24:5 & 14, 28:22), not a separate religion. In such a position, they could indeed provoke the Jews to jealousy by showing an enormous love to each other, displaying their Spiritual gifts, and speaking of a Messiah who encapsulated the whole Torah—but as a separate religion which rejected even her own Jewish members (as long as they remained distinctively Jewish) and who rejected the Torah, we don’t provoke this jealousy—the vigilant guardianship of something we own or have a special relationship with. Does a man feel jealousy over his wife when he sees his friend with a different woman?

While it’s true that most Jews who have come to faith in Messiah have done so by my Sunday-brethren’s efforts. That’s hardly surprising just as a matter of numbers and time—Messianic Judaism has only really begun to spread in the last 20 years, and there are perhaps a million in us in the world as opposed to billions of professing Christians.

I don’t know many Messianics who would lose that advantage of numbers and time in reaching our Jewish brothers and sisters with the Gospel. Our concern is wholly with which way our Gentile brethren will influence new Jewish believers after they come to faith in a Jewish Messiah: Will they encourage them to maintain their Jewish culture, or tell them to stop keeping the Torah and become as Gentiles? If the latter, then they are in violation of Paul’s own writings as well as the Tanakh and Yeshua’s teachings.

Jewish believers do indeed offer so much to the Body of Messiah. Unfortunately, for most of the last 2000 years, we have rejected their gifts in the name of conformity and a terrible misreading of Paul’s writings. Messianic Judaism represents a reversal of this tragedy, a movement where Jews and Gentiles together can learn the full Jewishness of the Messiah and the Bible, and in turn use what we have learned by living to edify our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 5

The purpose of this article is to defend Messianic Judaism against what I believe to be an unfair and unscriptural attack. While this of necessity requires a certain amount of “counter-attack,” I will try to keep the focus on the arguments rather than the person, though some comments about Vicki’s general tendencies in her writings are necessary.

Answering Vicki’s Specific Objections

Having established that many of Vicki’s arguments are misdirected due to her failure to discern the fringe from the core, let us deal with some of her arguments that actually do touch on the core of the Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements:

She quotes Larry Rowland of Messengers of Truth as saying, “In order to correctly understand the Newer Testament, it is beneficial to have a working knowledge of the world from which it was birthed.” She responds,

We have always understood that the Bible was a revelation of God himself. It encompasses His unending love, mercy, justice, patience and most of all, His plan for humanity and our salvation through Jesus Christ.

That does nothing to answer or disprove Rowland’s statement. Yes, the Bible was written for all mankind, but it was written through the lens of a particular culture, and that culture is Jewish! All Christian scholars acknowledge that our culture today is nothing like that of the Biblical world—take for example apologist J.P. Holding’s comparison of Biblical culture to Japanese culture in its honor-shame paradigm. While the major truths of the Bible, such as salvation by faith, are apparent in any decent translation, there are many passages that can only be fully understood by learning about the original culture and situation of the authors. Indeed, the very fact that we have to translate the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English proves Rowland’s point!

Vicki asks,

Do we indeed have to become Jewish in thought and custom in order to fully understand the Word of God and be pleasing before Him?

Okay, without accepting the “prophecy” as such (I don’t know Cozzen well enough to judge his “credentials” as a prophet, nor do I consider the question important at the moment), Cozzen’s essential point that we have accepted the Bible in general and the NT in particular as filtered through Western, Hellenistic culture rather than through its original Hebrew culture is essentially correct. Just as a Japanese person must become somewhat American in thought in order to fully understand an American book, we too must become Jewish in thought in order to fully understand a book written by Jews, the Bible. Why should that seem strange to anyone? (We do not, however, have to become Jewish in custom in order to please God, per Acts 15 and Gal. 2.)

Are we to accept that we have been lacking and even deliberately misled as some will say, by the New Testament and many orthodox teachings?

Few Messianics claim that the New Testament has misled us! What we are saying, just as Martin Luther said to the Church of his day, is that the NT has been misunderstood and some of its teachings ignored or distorted by preconceptions of what constitutes “orthodox” teachings.

What of the needed reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles they say will take place if we embrace our Hebrew Roots?

What of it? I’m not seeing a contradiction here.

Is there any truth to the charges of anti-Semitism towards Jews on the part of Christians in general, and from the New Testament?

From the former, there is no doubt. From the latter, no—but our misreading of the NT has certainly been used to justify anti-Semitism both great (blood-libel, pogroms) and small (forcing Jewish converts to Christianity to stop keeping the Torah).

She next objects to this “teaching of Jew and Gentile reconciliation” on the basis of Gal. 3:26-29. How exactly this passage is supposed to counter the Messianic movement is not stated; she simply assumes as a given that “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” negates the Bible’s distinctly Jewish—rather than Greek—origins. One wonders if she also sees this passage, which goes on to say, “there is neither male nor female,” negates the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, for example, or Paul’s own teaching about the distinctions between men and women (e.g., 1 Co. 11:4ff).

After a brief criticism of the Sacred Namers (which we would agree with in general, though Vicki simply doesn’t provide much in the way of an actual argument to be considered), she writes,

Besides removing or changing the Name of Jesus Christ, many would eliminate the term Christianity. Uri Marcus, of Nehemiah Trustees Covenant Fund, in an email regarding "A Vote For "Jesus"?, insists that converted Jews must retain their Jewish identity and refuse the Christian name so as not to offend their fellow Jews

Vicki fails to recognize that there is a good reason for this: For the better part of sixteen centuries, Christianity has been the persecutor of the Jewish people. Even today, every time a Jewish person comes to faith in the Jewish Messiah, we tell them to become like Gentiles rather than remaining in their own Jewish culture. Messianic Jews wish to be considered part of the larger Jewish community, just as the Apostles were, not part of a Gentile religion—and frankly, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Shalom!