Rabbenu
A Discussion of Messianic Judaism, the Emerging Messianic Jewish Paradigm, and Related Leadership Issues from the Preoccupied Mind of Rabbi Stuart Dauermann, PhD.
All Contents ©2004-2007 Stuart Dauermann - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
On the Greater Responsibility and Offensiveness to Some of the Jewish Way of Life
Recently, one of my students asked this question:
Although I thoroughly agree with anyone who seeks Teshuvah(repentance) and a return to a holy life rooted in Halakhah,Talmud Torah,Shabbat observance, etc., I feel that the “greater riches” issue needs to be firmly tempered with the other side of the balance which would seem to me to be “greater judgement”. Isn’t it this issue of a superior destiny, superior rewards, that makes Gentile Yeshua believers very nervous? Haven’t we over-emphasized the rewards stemming from the overwhelming kindness of the Father in giving the Torah to His people Israel as a standard of behavior, at the expense of the “sternness” (Romans 14) of the Father to those of whom more was expected because more was given?
To which I answered . . .
We cannot escape nor tamper with either side of the equation. If the Laws of Torah are God’s laws to us as Jews, then we do face greater culpability by virtue of our Jewish status, whether we wish to embrace that culpability or not. This is why Paul can say in Galatians 5 that anyone who receives circumcision is obligated to keep the whole Law. It is a covenant obligation—not simply a choice of style. As for whether Gentile believers get nervous or not, is that really the point? I don’t mean that we should be crass and uncaring about the reactions of our Gentile brethren, but neither can we nor should we redraw the boundaries of Messianic Jewish obedience to placate anyone or to include everyone. The laws are God’s laws, the obedience is the responsibility of the family of Jacob. It is our obligation (Gal 5:3), not to be negotiated away.
This does not make us better than anyone else, nor should anyone act as if this is the case. Rather, God has established different households in creation (this discussion in Pauline texts borrows categories from Aristotle). In the Jewish household, these laws, statutes and ordinances are our responsibility—not so for non-Jews. This is why Paul will say that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, but keeping the commandments of God. This statement comes in the context of discussing his principle that each person should remain in the situation in which he/she was called, Jews to remain Jews and Gentiles to remain Gentiles. When he says that what matters is “keeping the commandments of God,” in context, he is advocating that each should keep those commandments appropriate to his/her station—male or famale, Jew or Gentile, child or adult—in each case the halachic standard varies.
You ask, “Isn’t it this issue of a superior destiny, superior rewards, that makes Gentile Yeshua believers very nervous? Haven’t we over-emphasized the rewards stemming from the overwhelming kindness of the Father, at the expense of the “sternness” Romans 14 of the Father to those of whom more was expected because more was given?” Well, I have never used, nor do I choose to use, nor should we ever use the terms “superior destiny, superior rewards.” This is horrendous language, because if one is superior, then there is no category left for the other but inferior! Horrendous! This is neither Scripture’s language nor mine. Rather, Scripture underscores that Israel and Church from among the nations have differentiated destinies and roles. And again, as for people getting “nervous” about this, what are we supposed to do? Jettison scripture? Soft-pedal obedience? Create a new tailor-made lowest common denominator Jew-Gentile Messianic Judaism which offends no one? If the commandments God gave at Sinai retain any mandatory force for the sons and daughters of Jacob, then all of the options just mentioned are a form of apostasy.
Yes, there is a sternness here as well, an unavoidable sternness which we cannot modify away, or trim back. Scripture is always clear on this matter: Amos 3:2 – “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for your iniquities.” Now some will object that with the coming of Christ, we need not fear that punishment. I am not convinced. Should we imagine that with the coming of Christ, since there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, that obedience has become purely a matter of personal preference, “If it’s your style?” Do we believe that Jesus obeyed the Father for us so that we would no longer have to?
Yes, there is a sternness, and there is also an added privilege in being Jews (see Ps. 147:19-20; Romans 3:1-2; 9:1-5). But it is not legitimate to tailor our religion so as to avoid the sternness, to modify the privilege, to relativize the importance of obedience, or to avoid offending those who resent the uniqueness of Israel’s calling.
posted by Stuart Dauermann @ 3:29 PM
4 comments
ZZZZzzzz What? I saw the keystrokes but it didn't look anything like the parable. Perhaps you should start over in some 101 classes were you get back to the basics. For example, who was the Sower, what did he sow, and explain the different soils. Your Messiah had a great deal to say to His Jewish listeners and most was not what you said. So where is the power in your words since Yeshua isn't in them?
If I was so abbysmally ignorant and irrelevant in my posting, what makes you think my answer will evidence anything but the same level of cretinous palaver?
I am afraid my brain and soul remains the pathetic caricature you have so blithely skewered.
I am sure all of my readers join me in awaiting news of your own blog, that the multitudes might benefit from your superior wisdom.
Dear Stuart,
I'm sure we have a lot in common but if we are to include Gentile believers in Yeshua, then it stands to reason that we have to either convert them to a type of Torah related practice or exclude them from membership. And of course you know this is not biblically possible, according to Acts 15. Gentiles were given 4 rules so as not to interfer with the Jews that were coming to Messiah at that time, Acts 15:19-20.....However, Gentiles who were coming to Messiah in this particular frame were basically Temple driven as proselytes until Paul undertook his ministry. After that point, you can understand the aggravation between Jews and Gentiles, Acts 21...So what is your hypothesis to clean the relation between Jew and Gentile toward being one new man in Messiah, Ephesians 2:15-18? Then, how should we act toward Messiah as the walking living Torah since the contract was broken by our forefathers, Jeremiah 31:32, thereby invalidating Torah as the prinicple, Hebrews 7:18? Do we have a better covenant or not? Remember, Law tells us that when a contract is broken, the principle is invalid until the contract is either renewed or a new priniciple under a new covenant is applied. If Yeshua didn't go to the cross, fulfilling Torah, Matthew 5:17, then what manner of sacrifice do you have in mind for those who practice Torah? Remember, Torah is one whole unit that cannot be divided, James 2:10, Either we practice the whole Torah or we don't. Wouldn't it be easier to just obey the laws of Messiah of which He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments? These are taken from the eternal moral laws of God that existed before Torah, although they were carried by Torah for a time; until the advent of Messiah. We are to learn the spirit walk in the new birth or we will be at a disadvantage. I know this to be true. My understanding is that Torah is not hard to do but the walk in the spirit is. But even though it is harder to do, there is a greater reward.
Sincerely,
Eli
Dear Eli,
Thank you for your comment, in which is imbedded a number of concerns, questions, and assumptions. Let me deal briefly with at least some of them now.
You said," If we are to include Gentile believers in Yeshua, then it stands to reason that we have to either convert them to a type of Torah related practice or exclude them from membership. And of course you know this is not biblically possible, according to Acts 15."
You don't mention membership in what--our local congregation? The People of God? Of course not only ought not, but, because it is not in our power to do so, cannot exclude Gentiles from the People of God! But if, in the formation of our local congregations, we set up standards for membership *in the congregation but not in the people of God* then it is of course possible and not improper to have congregations where Gentiles, although fully our brothers and sisters,, can only be members of the congregation under stipulated guidelines. Otherwise, every Messianic Congregation will be overwhelmed with a Gentile majority, which is not, in my view, conducive to our fulfilling our unique part in the purposes of God.
It is NOT our job to make Gentiles into Jews. That is clear from the writings of Paul, and also from Acts 15. If the New Testament means anything at all, it includes the premise that Gentiles become part of the people of God through faith in Jesus Christ period, and that requring them to become Torah observant, as Jews are so required, is to discredit the work of Christ, who makes them part of the people of God through His own death and resurrection.
You say, "Gentiles were given 4 rules so as not to interfer with the Jews that were coming to Messiah at that time, Acts 15:19-20.....However, Gentiles who were coming to Messiah in this particular frame were basically Temple driven as proselytes until Paul undertook his ministry. "
The Four Rules you mention were house rules whereby Gentiles who had become part of the people of God, forming their own churches in the Diaspora, could fellowship with the Jewish Yeshua believers, and, in the Acts 15 and Acts 21 context, especially the Jerusalem congregation, without grossing the Jews out--these were house rules to facilitate harmony between these two expressions of the Body of Messiah.
As for the "Gentiles who were coming to Messiah in this particular frame." they were not "basically Temple driven as proselytes." they were more properly God-fearers who had attached themselves to synagogues in Israel and in the diaspora and were attracted especially to Jewish ethics and purity of life. For such persons, the synagogue experience, not the Temple, was central.
I don't understand your next statement: "After that point, you can understand the aggravation between Jews and Gentiles, Acts 21...So what is your hypothesis to clean the relation between Jew and Gentile toward being one new man in Messiah, Ephesians 2:15-18?", so I will not respond until and unless you clarify.
You next statement says, "Then, how should we act toward Messiah as the walking living Torah since the contract was broken by our forefathers, Jeremiah 31:32, thereby invalidating Torah as the prinicple, Hebrews 7:18?"
This is not true either. The Hebrews reference and entire Hebrews context refers not to the abrogation of the whole Torah, God forbid, but only of the levitical system of sacrifices, due to the coming of Christ and ascendancy of the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. The idea that the whole Torah Covenant is abrogated is common, but not correct.
For example, Hebrews 7:11-12 refers only to a change in legislation as it regards the cult, sacrifice and priesthood. Charles P. Anderson states “7.11 refers to specific commandments concerning the Levitical priesthood and their sacrificial service to the people, nothing more. . . . The meaning is not that the Torah was given on the basis of or under the Levitical priesthood, but rather that the people received commandments regarding the priesthood. Those commandments were of course part of the Torah, but not its totality. The author is simply stating an obvious fact as a basis for the next stage in his argument legitimating the priesthood of Jesus. Having demonstrated the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham and therefore to Levi and his desendants (7.1-10), the author now deals with the questions of priestly laws. The Torah as such never enters the picture. . . . The law appointing Levitical priests (the 'former commandment'. . .), having proved itself useless, is now withdrawn (7.18). That 'the law'…of 7.19 does not refer to Torah as such but only to those aspects of it regarding the appointment of the Levitical priests, is verified in 7.28, which summarizes the basic argument of this portion of Hebrews: 'Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests but the word of the oath (i.e., Ps, 110.4), which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever'. In this context, 'law' is used in a way similar to commandment…but in a generalized sense to cover all specirfic commandments dealing with or assuming the legitimacy of the Levitical priesthood. It does not refer to the Torah as such the totality of Jewish law and teaching governing all aspects of life, but to those laws specifically concerned with the prevailing Jewish priestly order."
Eli, I realize I may not convince you or anyone else. That is O.K. with me. But I hope I have caused you to at least question some of your assumptions.
Shalom for now. More later.
Stuart
Post a Comment
<< Home