- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,428
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
If one's going to address a post by making it seem as if they're talking to another when they're actually attempting to disagree with someoen else, cool. But IMHO, one can be open about rather than attempting to talk indirectly
Additionally, when discussing/characterizing a camp, it'd be beneficial to get the definitions more accurate. For it is a caricature to claim those not for Gentiles practicing all of Torah are either just Jews wanting to be seperate or people on the outskirts of MJ who want to live however they wish....and both stereotypes have been debunked dozens of times here on the boards as well as in the major Messianic Jewish congregations/organizations over the years.If need be, we can go through all of them selectively/see what they've already said and how accurate your portrayal is...
On the schools of thought you mentioned, there are actually 3 to 4 schools of thought within the MJ Movement. One of them is within the school of thought that says that both Jews and Gentiles are not bound by ANY parts of the Law---and vehemently hates all things regarding the God of the OT. Techincally, it's labeled Marcionism.
On the first school of thought noted, that one is actually those who've ALWAYS been present within Judaism and later came to accept Yeshua, with those Jews adamately stating plainly that nowhere in the Torah were Gentiles required to keep Torah as they were since the Torah itself never advocated for them to do so and gave rules specifically for Gentiles who believed in the Lord that differed from the Hebrews. That school of thought was never about being seperate as if both could never unite since it occurred throughout history....and scripturally, it's the main school of thought that actually honors what the Lord said of for those who are both Jew and Gentile without doing intellectual dishonesty with the text.
The other school of thought is within MJ is the school that says that Jews are not bound to practice the ceremonial laws/food regulations since they required a PRIEST to actually do it correctly (Leviticus 14, etc) and not doing so fully was something the Lord warned against....and for those who feel that there were many beautiful/instructive things within the Torah with food regulations, this school of thought feels that the Torah is something to be learned fronm. They see it as part of their heritage which is not binding, but beneficial nonetheless. In many ways, you could say that this group is akin to what's known as Reform Judaism when it comes to seeing the Torah as fluid rather than static/stuck in only one form of existence.
There are other scholars with much valuable information which may be beneficial for anyone wishing to review further. For a good read on what Jesus may've held to and how what he did was very much in line with the Spirit of Paul in how he treated Gentiles, one book that may be a blessing to investigate is entitled "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus" by Harvey Falk. He did an excellent job on discussing the reality of what has often been said in Judaism when it came to the Noahide Laws. To see snippets of his work, one can go online/research an article that can be found under the name of "Khirbet Qumran, the Essene Community along the Wadi Succacah near the Dead Sea -- The Essenes, the Hasidim and the Righteous Gentile of the Nations"and here to Rabbi Harvey Falk defends Jesus the Nazarenes Mission to the Gentiles: Divine Mission to Bring the Good News to the Gentiles
For more review on the book, one can go here to Book Review: Jesus The Pharisee by Harvey Falk | Grasping Mashi'ach.
As that Messianic stated:
Although subtitled as a New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, Rabbi Falks work is a reintroduction of Jacob Emdens original thoughts expanded and applied to Jesus teachings based on various Talmudic and historic rabbinic texts. In the 1700s Emden wrote favorably of Christianity by expressing his view that Jesus and Paul had acted completely within halacha in creating a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide Commandments while yet considering Jewish law eternally binding upon the Jew.
From this thesis of Rabbi Emden long forgotten and disregarded by scholars in general (yet brought to attention again in Rudolphs Pauls Rule paper) Falk goes on to weave a fascinating and intriguing picture of Jesus as a Pharisee in the first century CE world in which he lived. Each chapter presents intricate details of various Talmudic and rabbinic writings that the author uses to present Jesus as an adherent of the school of Hillel and member of the sect of the Essenes. In Falks view the debate of the Eighteen Measures between the school of Hillel and school of Shammai, in which numerous prophets of Hillel were killed, followed shortly after by the death of Hillel in 10 CE, resulted in Hillels disciples going underground by joining the sect of the Essenes. This allowed the house of Shammai to gain dominance until the close of the first century.
Falk presents Jesus mission as the establishment of a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide commandments, a mission presented in both the Talmud and Maimonides as something Moses obligated Israel to accomplish once they had gained a position of prominence as a nation. Because Israel had not gained such a position by the time of the first century CE the obligation never went into effect. Jesus, in spreading the knowledge of HaShem and the Noahide commandments to the Gentiles did so as a means of creating Hasidim of the Nations, by going beyond the letter of the halacha as given to Moses.
.
The book by Harvey Faulk has truly been a blessing/good way to build dialouge between those who are Christians and Jews----as its often the case that both sides miss the Mark when trying to polarize. Of course, I don't agree with all of his conclusions. In example, I don't think he really grapples with those areas in which Jesus and the School of Hillel did most definitely part company---and for more, go here.
Though I agree that Christ came to create something entirely new that would be inclusive to the Gentiles, there's the reality that Jesus often emphasized making certain that the Jews would come first in those he reached out to. This is seen, in example, when he gave the command to his twelve disciples to not "go in the way of the Gentiles or Samaritans," but instead to bring the gospel "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5ff /Matthew 10:4-6 ) when ministry began.
What is being described here, if assuming God's Law means Gentiles/Jews must all follow the Mosaic code, is actually the school of thought which developed far later after the beginning of the Messianic Jewish movement..and has since been debunked on a myriad of occassions, although it would qualify as another school of thought. Really, as said before, it is the school of thought more akin to Neo-Ebionites...the school that was never accepted as Orthodox since they tried insisting that Gentiles had to live as Jews in order to be acceptable to God---and that was something neither Yeshua or the apostles taught at all within Acts 15. The viewpoint is born out of an incomplete view of Torah, although it is vehemently denied---even when others within Judaism itself have noted it from the outside. And for the benefit of 11882, one can go to #128 #129 #160 , #177 and here for more on where that subject was discussed in-depth. Sister Lulav is a professed Neo-Ebionite, who is adamately against all things in regards to Paul and vehemently opposed to what she considers "Christianity", although the Mods have made rules against any bashing of Christianity and Paul when it comes to his viewpoints.
There is a healthy variation of One-Law which is often avoided by others who may skew it in thinking all aspects of One-Law means Jews/Gentiles are to be the same in lifestyle if the Law is to be honored. And as offered earlier, for some good information on interactions between Gentiles/Jews and how both enter into relationship with the Messiah:
- [PDF] One Law for All
Not according to Torah, where he made clear that many things within the Torah were never meant to continue on forever....and one has to look past the TORAH to see otherwise.
Acts 15 never instructed Gentiles to be kosher in the same way as Jews with certain foods, even though some regulations given were in line with the Torah (i.e. meat with blood, food offered to idols, etc)---and most Messianic Jewish organizations have said the same/called out those who erroneously refuse to deal with the text plainly, it's a pity to see the attempt to claim otherwise here.
As said best by Tikkun Ministries (with Dan Juster) on Acts 15:
The halakhah James declares is that Gentiles are not obligated by other than the four points (abstinence from idolatry, blood, strangled things and sexual immorality) that form the common ground of the day for righteous gentiles (gerim, strangers or aliens) living within the Jewish community either in the Land itself or outside the Land, in the Diaspora. It has been argued by many that this position is simply a low starting point to allow table fellowship to take place, so that Gentile and Jewish believers could eat together and so share and learn more about their faith, the Torah and so gain in observance. But James doesn't say that his statement is just the beginning of the road to full observance, or express any expectation that Gentiles should be obligated to any further degree. Equally, he doesn't place any restriction upon the level to which Gentiles may choose to keep Torah on a voluntary basis as a part of their life within the mixed believing community.
Messianic Judaism is truly a Mosaic of differing views/thoughts
Last edited:
Upvote
0
