The MJAA as a standard of Messianic Judaism

[Avodat]

Is this a competition for the longest post? Can we all join in? Looks like fun!

 

[mishkan]

A lot of talk, most misrepresentations about me and my beliefs (strawman arguments and insults concerning my beliefs) and very little scripture.

In other words, you have no response.

I think I'll just let others decide whether my detailed treatment of Ephesians 2 consistitutes, "A lot of talk" or "very little scripture".

Thank you for your participation.

 

[etZion]

As long as anything contradicts the early Christian-based assumptions of missionary-based Jewish evangelism, with the goal of making Jews into Christians, you will regard it as a misinterpretation. You've made that fairly clear.

I believe the script needs to be flipped--we need to once again realize that the mission described in the Bible is that of Israel bringing Gentiles to know YHWH by assimilating the Gentile nations. Specifically, the nations would join themselves to the Jewish sect that followed Yeshua, and identified him as Mashiach.


More to the point, what you like to label as "One Law Theology" teaches that Gentiles who claim to follow the Jewish Mashiach ought to act like they follow the Jewish Mashiach. He taught his disciples to do all things that he had commanded, and he instructed them to go and make disciples of the nation, teaching THEM to likewise do all things that he had instructed them. The foundational documents of the Messianic Movement demonstrate that the expectation existed that Messianics would increase the numbers of Israel by integrating Gentiles into their sectarian group.


Well... "... eye of the beholder," and all that.


Basically, yes. Would you prefer Gentiles who join themselves to Israel to insist that the Jews must follow sharia law?

Let's be real about this. Paul says, in strongly worded language, that Gentiles are joined to Israel, using both agricultural and political metaphors. Would you think these Gentiles were supposed to be engrafted to Israel, and replace the Torah of God with their own national ethos? Or does it make more sense to expect these Gentiles to learn the Torah, as they exclaim, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!"


I find it odd that you quote Moshe (Bamidbar/Numbers 15:14,15). You quote Sha'ul (Ephesians 2:12-15). Then you say... "There are many errors to this."

I hope I've misunderstood you, but you seem to have a problem with the Scriptures, not with those who follow them.


Indeed. Aligning one's self with Israel is likened to "sojourning" with Israel in this world. As opposed to being an enemy. Would you prefer we went back to the traditional Church postures? For that is precisely the position of those who have recently repudiated Gentile inclusion. I'll treat that more fully in another thread.


I think that is just foolishness. Plainly, Gentiles who were excluded were excluded. Those few who joined themselves to Israel are not in view. If they were bringing sacrifices, then they were "clean" and "included".
You need to recognize a little thing called "a generalization". The exclusion came from community standards and prejudices that were designed to keep Gentiles away from joining Israel--a "circle the wagons" approach to being "separate" from the nations. Basically, Ephesians 2 was written explicitly to counter the sort of divisiveness you are bring to the table.


What commandment? You mean the one about their being one law for both native-born and for sojourners traveling with Israel?


You'll have to show me an instance or two where that actually happens before I consider that claim.


This is something I don't miss about dispensationalism--getting caught up in private interpretations of single words while missing the context of the entire chapter and book. Let's read this carefully...

Once You Were...


Several observations to make here regarding the primary audience being addressed:

• They were once Gentiles. This certainly does suggest that they are now no longer Gentiles. Wouldn't you agree?

• At the time they were identified as "Uncircumcision", they were without Messiah.

• Why were they without Messiah? Because they were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" and "strangers from the covenants of Promise".

• As a result of being "not-Israel", they were without hope, and without God in the world. (Clearly, this condition would not exist for those converts who had already joined themselves to Israel and the worship of YHWH.

But Now You Are...


This is the contrast to the previously described situation...

• Being "in Messiah" has terminated the "aliens and strangers" status, and made the readers "brought near".

• "Brought near" to what? The contrast tells us that it is Israel. The Gentile readers have experienced a change of state in regards to Israel--what we might call "conversion".

• "For he is our peace". Most gloss over this, thinking that the peace has been effected between God and man. I would suggest that the peace needing to be addressed by Sha'ul is the reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, bringing them together into one body.

• The middle wall of partition was about the wall that delineated the "Court of the Gentiles" from the area in the Temple that was reserved for Jewish access.

What Needed to Be Abolished, and Why?

Traditional Christian interpretation tells us that what needed to be destroyed was the Torah. Why? So that humanity could be reconciled to God. But that isn't what this passage is saying, at all!

• What did Yeshua abolish? An enmity. Somebody had an animosity going that prevented somebody else from being reconciled to God.

• This animosity was reinforced by a "law of commandments in ordinances". Most people stop at the word "law", and assume that the Torah is in view here. But this phrase does not refer to the Torah. "Law" and "commandments" are both modifiers of "ordinances". But in this case, "ordinances" translates the Greek word "dogma", a word that is never used in reference to the Torah--not in the Messianic Writings, and not in the LXX.
  
  The dogma here is the traditional community prejudice against Gentiles--the sort of dogma that brought Kefa to tell Cornelius, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation (Acts 10:28, NKJV). There is no law anywhere in Torah that says a Jew cannot keep company with a Gentile--that is a rabbinic prohibition!

• Now, by removing the rabbinic prohibition, and thus the anti-Gentile prejudice, what happens? Gentiles are allowed to flow into Israel, where there is access to the God of Israel! This is in full accord with both Isaiah and Micah, who both state:
  
  
  This takes us right back to Yeshua's instruction to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you."
  
  The goal of Israel has always been to serve as the core, the critical mass, the nuclear fissionable material, that would serve as the catalyst to being all nations INTO itself, and join themselves to YHWH. The purpose of setting Israel apart was not simply to serve the selfish desire of being eternally "different". Israel was set apart in order that its light--the light of Hashem and His Torah--might shine the more brightly, and attract the nations to God. Exclusiveness has nothing to do with Israel's calling.

As a Result...

As a result of destroying the animosity that was once ensconced in rabbinic decrees and social prejudice, the Gentiles have been allowed free access to... to what? Most people want to gloss over that detail, and pretend the text says, "free access to God". But that isn't what it says.

Yeshua came for the purpose of bringing peace to both Jews (already near) and Gentiles (those who once were far off. Because of Yeshua, we can effect reconciliation, and become one community, one people. This is a Good Thing!


Because of Yeshua, Gentiles can now align themselves with Israel, and join Israel as B'nei Elohim, serving alongside their Israeli brethren, as children of the same father.

But this position presupposes a few things.

1. Israel is the focus of the plan.

2. The "church" does not exist outside of Israel.

3. Gentiles are admitted as co-heirs and brothers, on equal footing, as part of b'nei Yisrael. This is the meaning of the next few verses...


(continued in the next post...)

Fantastic addressing of the post.

 

[GuardianShua]

Enmity means "hostility."

Romans 8:7.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Ephesians 2:15.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Ephesians 2:16.
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

James 4:4.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Hostility towards the laws of God is what has been abolished.

Christians often refer to Ephesians 2:15 in the N.I.V. as proof that the commandments have been done away with.

Ephesians 2:15. N.I.V.: by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Ephesians 2:15. King James. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;.
Note: The word [enmity] in the K.J. means hostility.

Ephesians 2:15. (A modern translation.) by abolishing in his flesh the hostility of the law with its commandments and regulations.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets...

 

[Avodat]

Enmity means "hostility."

Romans 8:7.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Ephesians 2:15.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Ephesians 2:16.
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

James 4:4.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Hostility towards the laws of God is what has been abolished.

Christians often refer to Ephesians 2:15 in the N.I.V. as proof that the commandments have been done away with.

Ephesians 2:15. N.I.V.: by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Ephesians 2:15. King James. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;.
Note: The word [enmity] in the K.J. means hostility.

Ephesians 2:15. (A modern translation.) by abolishing in his flesh the hostility of the law with its commandments and regulations.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets...

Really? Not heard that in over 20 years of ministry (or is it another 'Americanism' to be foisted on the world?).

 

[mishkan]

Enmity means "hostility."

Romans 8:7.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Ephesians 2:15.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Ephesians 2:16.
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

James 4:4.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Hostility towards the laws of God is what has been abolished.

Christians often refer to Ephesians 2:15 in the N.I.V. as proof that the commandments have been done away with.

Ephesians 2:15. N.I.V.: by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Ephesians 2:15. King James. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;.
Note: The word [enmity] in the K.J. means hostility.

Ephesians 2:15. (A modern translation.) by abolishing in his flesh the hostility of the law with its commandments and regulations.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets...

Hostility is a fine rendering. I could have used that. But the context of Ephesians 2 dictates that the hostility that needed to be abolished is the hostility of the minority Jewish nation towards the "big, bad Gentile world".

Don't get me wrong. I think the hostility, animosity, whatever, was a natural reaction to the persecution Israel had suffered. But the suffering was fundamentally a punishment for departing from Hashem and his Torah. The reconciliation that needed to be worked had to come through a return to true spirituality and Torah observance, via Messiah.

 

[Qnts2]

Once You Were...


Several observations to make here regarding the primary audience being addressed:

• They were once Gentiles. This certainly does suggest that they are now no longer Gentiles. Wouldn't you agree?

Your entire premise seems to be that Gentiles are now Jews. Gentile = not Jewish. So if a person is no longer a Gentile, they are now Jewish.

So do you believe you are now Jewish?

 

[mishkan]

[/list]Your entire premise seems to be that Gentiles are now Jews. Gentile = not Jewish. So if a person is no longer a Gentile, they are now Jewish.

So do you believe you are now Jewish?

Rather, I think the question should be, what did Paul assume regarding the status of his audience?

Once we work out the implication of the text, then we will be on more solid ground for working out modern political realities. Don't you agree?

What did Paul say about Gentiles and their identity in Messiah?

 

[mishkan]

Is this a competition for the longest post? Can we all join in? Looks like fun!

LOL! In-depth analysis of Bible passages do tend to get a little long. I'm always chagrined when I hit that 15000 character barrier on post length. My apologies.

 

[Qnts2]

As long as anything contradicts the early Christian-based assumptions of missionary-based Jewish evangelism, with the goal of making Jews into Christians, you will regard it as a misinterpretation. You've made that fairly clear.

I believe the script needs to be flipped--we need to once again realize that the mission described in the Bible is that of Israel bringing Gentiles to know YHWH by assimilating the Gentile nations. Specifically, the nations would join themselves to the Jewish sect that followed Yeshua, and identified him as Mashiach.


More to the point, what you like to label as "One Law Theology" teaches that Gentiles who claim to follow the Jewish Mashiach ought to act like they follow the Jewish Mashiach. He taught his disciples to do all things that he had commanded, and he instructed them to go and make disciples of the nation, teaching THEM to likewise do all things that he had instructed them. The foundational documents of the Messianic Movement demonstrate that the expectation existed that Messianics would increase the numbers of Israel by integrating Gentiles into their sectarian group.


Well... "... eye of the beholder," and all that.


Basically, yes. Would you prefer Gentiles who join themselves to Israel to insist that the Jews must follow sharia law?

Ok, lets get real. There is not scripture in anything above. It is all strawmen argurments, misrepresentations of my believes

Let's be real about this. Paul says, in strongly worded language, that Gentiles are joined to Israel, using both agricultural and political metaphors. Would you think these Gentiles were supposed to be engrafted to Israel, and replace the Torah of God with their own national ethos? Or does it make more sense to expect these Gentiles to learn the Torah, as they exclaim, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!"

Vague references with no scripture. But you do alude to your own bad interpretation that the Church is now joined to an unbelieving Israel.

I find it odd that you quote Moshe (Bamidbar/Numbers 15:14,15). You quote Sha'ul (Ephesians 2:12-15). Then you say... "There are many errors to this."

More misrepresentation of what I actually said. Strawmen arguments.

I hope I've misunderstood you, but you seem to have a problem with the Scriptures, not with those who follow them.

More of the same old stuff. Nothing to even respond to.

Indeed. Aligning one's self with Israel is likened to "sojourning" with Israel in this world. As opposed to being an enemy. Would you prefer we went back to the traditional Church postures? For that is precisely the position of those who have recently repudiated Gentile inclusion. I'll treat that more fully in another thread.

Nothing to respond to.

I think that is just foolishness. Plainly, Gentiles who were excluded were excluded. Those few who joined themselves to Israel are not in view. If they were bringing sacrifices, then they were "clean" and "included".
You need to recognize a little thing called "a generalization". The exclusion came from community standards and prejudices that were designed to keep Gentiles away from joining Israel--a "circle the wagons" approach to being "separate" from the nations. Basically, Ephesians 2 was written explicitly to counter the sort of divisiveness you are bring to the table.

A lot of assumptions. Gentiles were called sojourners and were excluded.
Gentiles who lived outside of Israel were allowed to bring sacrifices and were excluded. You are trying to make some special class of Gentiles who were allowed to bring sacrifices yet the law is clear. Any Gentile who wishes to bring a sacrifice to the Temple for God was allowed. And none of these Gentiles were a part of Israel.

What commandment? You mean the one about their being one law for both native-born and for sojourners traveling with Israel?


You'll have to show me an instance or two where that actually happens before I consider that claim.


This is something I don't miss about dispensationalism--getting caught up in private interpretations of single words while missing the context of the entire chapter and book. Let's read this carefully...

Once You Were...


Several observations to make here regarding the primary audience being addressed:

• They were once Gentiles. This certainly does suggest that they are now no longer Gentiles. Wouldn't you agree?

• At the time they were identified as "Uncircumcision", they were without Messiah.

• Why were they without Messiah? Because they were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" and "strangers from the covenants of Promise".

• As a result of being "not-Israel", they were without hope, and without God in the world. (Clearly, this condition would not exist for those converts who had already joined themselves to Israel and the worship of YHWH.

But Now You Are...


This is the contrast to the previously described situation...

• Being "in Messiah" has terminated the "aliens and strangers" status, and made the readers "brought near".

• "Brought near" to what? The contrast tells us that it is Israel. The Gentile readers have experienced a change of state in regards to Israel--what we might call "conversion".

• "For he is our peace". Most gloss over this, thinking that the peace has been effected between God and man. I would suggest that the peace needing to be addressed by Sha'ul is the reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, bringing them together into one body.

• The middle wall of partition was about the wall that delineated the "Court of the Gentiles" from the area in the Temple that was reserved for Jewish access.

What Needed to Be Abolished, and Why?

Traditional Christian interpretation tells us that what needed to be destroyed was the Torah. Why? So that humanity could be reconciled to God. But that isn't what this passage is saying, at all!

• What did Yeshua abolish? An enmity. Somebody had an animosity going that prevented somebody else from being reconciled to God.

• This animosity was reinforced by a "law of commandments in ordinances". Most people stop at the word "law", and assume that the Torah is in view here. But this phrase does not refer to the Torah. "Law" and "commandments" are both modifiers of "ordinances". But in this case, "ordinances" translates the Greek word "dogma", a word that is never used in reference to the Torah--not in the Messianic Writings, and not in the LXX.
  
  The dogma here is the traditional community prejudice against Gentiles--the sort of dogma that brought Kefa to tell Cornelius, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation (Acts 10:28, NKJV). There is no law anywhere in Torah that says a Jew cannot keep company with a Gentile--that is a rabbinic prohibition!

• Now, by removing the rabbinic prohibition, and thus the anti-Gentile prejudice, what happens? Gentiles are allowed to flow into Israel, where there is access to the God of Israel! This is in full accord with both Isaiah and Micah, who both state:
  
  
  This takes us right back to Yeshua's instruction to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you."
  
  The goal of Israel has always been to serve as the core, the critical mass, the nuclear fissionable material, that would serve as the catalyst to being all nations INTO itself, and join themselves to YHWH. The purpose of setting Israel apart was not simply to serve the selfish desire of being eternally "different". Israel was set apart in order that its light--the light of Hashem and His Torah--might shine the more brightly, and attract the nations to God. Exclusiveness has nothing to do with Israel's calling.

As a Result...

As a result of destroying the animosity that was once ensconced in rabbinic decrees and social prejudice, the Gentiles have been allowed free access to... to what? Most people want to gloss over that detail, and pretend the text says, "free access to God". But that isn't what it says.

Yeshua came for the purpose of bringing peace to both Jews (already near) and Gentiles (those who once were far off. Because of Yeshua, we can effect reconciliation, and become one community, one people. This is a Good Thing!


Because of Yeshua, Gentiles can now align themselves with Israel, and join Israel as B'nei Elohim, serving alongside their Israeli brethren, as children of the same father.

But this position presupposes a few things.

1. Israel is the focus of the plan.

2. The "church" does not exist outside of Israel.

3. Gentiles are admitted as co-heirs and brothers, on equal footing, as part of b'nei Yisrael. This is the meaning of the next few verses...


(continued in the next post...)

A lot of stuff which sounds close to replacement theology.

Gentiles are co-heirs and brother on equal footing, but they are not part of the sons of Israel. Gentiles do not become Jews.

 

[ChavaK]

You need to keep in mind that Messianic or Christianity has its roots in Judaism. We drink from the same well the Patriarchs dug.

You need to keep in mind that Christianity is not Judaism; we do not
share the same culture, customs, traditions and rituals.

 

[anisavta]

this G-d is the G-d of the set apart Jews, now He is also G-d of the set apart Gentiles. This doesn't make Gentiles Jews, it makes them equal to Jews before the Throne.
All who submit to the Blood of Messiah will be citizens of the new Holy City. Both Jews and Gentiles.]

 

[anisavta]

Yeshua actually fulfilled all previous covenants. Which includes the Mosaic covenant.

Here we go again with the "Jesus did away with Torah". And He did away with the Abrahamic covenant? The one that takes a people to Himself and sets them apart from the other nations?

 

[Jerushabelle]

Obviously not. But we do get bogged down by trying to fit the people he loves into nice neat packages - in fact most of CF is just that: which package do you fit into?

It is not the package that Yeshua died for - it's the people that we try and squash into them that he loves and died for.

Or are you implying that 'G_d so love the world that he sent committees, congregations, Churches, Judaism and synagogues, that whosoever believes in them shall not perish but shall have eternal life"? I think not.

WOW, Brother Avodat!
I truly believe that CF is just trying to accommodate the different parts of the Body which includes MJ.

 

[Jerushabelle]

There is no need for disappointment.
Yes, we Gentiles can go boldly before the Throne. Because of the Blood of Messiah those who were once afar off have been cleansed and now have equal access to the G-d of the Universe.
True, this G-d is the G-d of the set apart Jews, now He is also G-d of the set apart Gentiles. This doesn't make Gentiles Jews, it makes them equal to Jews before the Throne.
All who submit to the Blood of Messiah will be citizens of the new Holy City. Both Jews and Gentiles.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

And isn't this what is called the "Good News of the Gospel" or is this what Brother Talmidim calls "out of the can Christianity"?

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

This thread will remain closed.
If you have any questions of issues relating to this, please open a thread in MSC.
Thanks
MOD HAT OFF