What's it take to be a Messianic?

[Henaynei]

I think you will find that the majority on here would not hold to such a defined separation of the Covenant as you see it. But you are free to fly under whatever names you wish.

Correct
And yes

 

[etZion]

Why such an attachment by everyone to the term "Judaism"?
Not a historian, but was this term even used in the first century?

Well, it is used in Galatians 1.

 

[yedida]

I prefer New Covenant Judaism, as it is a different convenant then the Mosaic covenant. There are definite changes and a change in even one law means it can not be the Mosaic covenant.

Judaism is not necessarily about sacrifice, as it simply means, the religion of the Jewish people. If and when the Jewish people accept the Messiah, then the norm will be for the Jewish people to practice New Covenant Judaism. As of right now, most don't, although it was offered to the Jewish people and only a small number accepted the New Covenant.

Biblically, the Jewish people who have rejected Jesus are still obligated to the Mosaic covenant. Today, the Jewish people are in diaspora, and can not do many of the commands in the Mosaic covenant. Since the Mosaic covenant says that the Jewish people would be dispersed if they disobeyed, even the diaspora is 'biblical Judaism'.

What I practice is New Covenant Messianic Judaism. I do see the covenant we are under is the New Covenant, which is very different then the Mosaic covenant. Of course, I was raised in Mosaic covenant diaspora Judaism and coming to believe on the Jewish Messiah, made a world of differences in my life. With that belief, I am now under the New Covenant.

Then according to you, when all alive are following a smidgeon of what Hashem demanded, are those who follow all of what He commanded gonna have to stone the New Covenant followers for breaking shabbat? for the divorces they allow? etc. It's getting dicey again.

 

[Avodat]

Why such an attachment by everyone to the term "Judaism"?
Not a historian, but was this term even used in the first century?

Sorry - missed your post then


As I was saying earlier Messianic Judaism simply means Christian Judaism - truly a misnomer (or, for some, an oxymoron).

The name 'Judaism' is ubiquitous - all that relates to The Book other than most of the 'new testament' is known as Judaism. Whether or not it was in the language of the people in Yeshua's day will not change that. But it is a good question to ask.

 

[Qnts2]

Then according to you, when all alive are following a smidgeon of what Hashem demanded, are those who follow all of what He commanded gonna have to stone the New Covenant followers for breaking shabbat? for the divorces they allow? etc. It's getting dicey again.

Wow!!!!!

Your proposition make zero sense.

If we all lived in Israel, and the Temple and Sanhedrin was in existence, and Jesus was not yet reigning from Jerusalem, meaning that Israel was under the Mosaic covenant, in force, then, we are to obey the laws of the land.
But, if someone violates the Sabbath, it has to be witnessed by 2 or 3 witnesses and brought before the Sanhedrin. It was extremely rare that the Sanhedrin condemned anyone and the few courts which did were called bloody courts.

Under the New Covenant, there is no stoning. When the New Covenant is in force fully, in Israel, Jesus will be reigning from Jerusalem. He is the court. It doesn't say if Jesus will recommend stoning for failing to observe the Sabbath, but, for Shabbat, in Jerusalem, the rules are different then in other cities.

 

[yedida]

Wow!!!!!

Your proposition make zero sense.

If we all lived in Israel, and the Temple and Sanhedrin was in existence, and Jesus was not yet reigning from Jerusalem, meaning that Israel was under the Mosaic covenant, in force, then, we are to obey the laws of the land.
But, if someone violates the Sabbath, it has to be witnessed by 2 or 3 witnesses and brought before the Sanhedrin. It was extremely rare that the Sanhedrin condemned anyone and the few courts which did were called bloody courts.

Under the New Covenant, there is no stoning. When the New Covenant is in force fully, in Israel, Jesus will be reigning from Jerusalem. He is the court. It doesn't say if Jesus will recommend stoning for failing to observe the Sabbath, but, for Shabbat, in Jerusalem, the rules are different then in other cities.

So when Yeshua is reigning from Jerusalem you are advocating that He will only uphold His law for those in the land and not for those elsewhere? as all are supposed to be under His theocracy aren't they? How is this gonna work according to your understanding. I thought theocracy meant all under one, no?

 

[Qnts2]

I think you will find that the majority on here would not hold to such a defined separation of the Covenant as you see it. But you are free to fly under whatever names you wish.

A brief explanation of my view.

The Mosaic covenant is One covenant, with One law. If a person agrees and is obligated to the Mosaic covenant, then they can not pick and choose which of the laws they like to do and which they decide not to do. It is all a requirement, (assuming the particular law is for you like male, or female, Jewish or Gentile, Priest or not, etc).

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deut 4:2 says the Mosaic law can not be altered. You can't add to it, or take away from it.

Which brings us to the NT.

Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

Jesus is now the High Priest. Jesus could not have been a High Priest under the Mosaic covenant since Yeshua was not in the line of Aaron. That is a change of priesthood.

Yeshua is the High Priest under the New Covenant. If Jesus is your high priest, then you must be under the New Covenant. If a descendent of Aaron will be your High Priest, then you are under the Mosaic covenant.

Only one can be your High Priest. So you can only be obligated to one of the covenants, Mosaic or New.

 

[mishkan]

Another thread got derailed (big surprise!) and one of the underlying thoughts was what does it take to be a Messianic? What should one
do to differentiate it from Christianity?

In other words, what would most here consider the minimum one must
do to be considered Messianic?

As you have no doubt observed, we can each only answer for ourselves, based on our unique experiences. So, here is my two cents...

I see three broad groupings:

• Traditional Judaism
• Traditional Christianity
• Messianic (sitting in the middle)

Within the broad category of "Messianic", though, I see another three categories:

• Hebrew-Christian
  The Jew who adopts church theology and practice. Until the late 1970's, this was the only paradigm available. The further maturation of young Jewish believers eventually led to what some at the time called the "Messianic Synagogue Movement". Now, I consider this an old model, fading away, giving way to the "Messianic, Proper" category.

• Hebrew-Roots
  Gentiles who want nothing to do with either traditional Judaism or traditional Christianity, even while craving historical information regarding the Hebrew-based background to the Biblical writings. The standard teachers for this group include Michael Rood, Jim Staley, Monte Judah, and a few others.

• Messianic, proper
  This is where I sit. We learn from/with the traditional Jewish community, while holding to Messiah as the prophesied heir to the Davidic throne of Israel. We welcome both Jews and Gentiles. All study together, as part of the Jewish community, and willingly share the message of Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom with any who will listen.

I believe everyone sits at some place on this spectrum. Most move along from one place on the spectrum to another, at least once in their lives. Many do not realize they fit on this sort of spectrum, and would even deny its existence. But, as I said, this is my perspective, having spent decades in congregational leadership, working hard at understanding people and how to help them grow into a mature and normative Messianic Judaism.

 

[etZion]

A brief explanation of my view.

The Mosaic covenant is One covenant, with One law. If a person agrees and is obligated to the Mosaic covenant, then they can not pick and choose which of the laws they like to do and which they decide not to do. It is all a requirement, (assuming the particular law is for you like male, or female, Jewish or Gentile, Priest or not, etc).

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deut 4:2 says the Mosaic law can not be altered. You can't add to it, or take away from it.

Which brings us to the NT.

Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

Jesus is now the High Priest. Jesus could not have been a High Priest under the Mosaic covenant since Yeshua was not in the line of Aaron. That is a change of priesthood.

Yeshua is the High Priest under the New Covenant. If Jesus is your high priest, then you must be under the New Covenant. If a descendent of Aaron will be your High Priest, then you are under the Mosaic covenant.

Only one can be your High Priest. So you can only be obligated to one of the covenants, Mosaic or New.

How do you reconcile your understanding of Hebrews 7 with Hebrews 8, where the writer states that if Yeshua were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all, and that is because there has been no change in the Levitical law regarding the Priest.

I reconcile it by saying that Yeshua being High Priest is of a different order than that of the Levitical, thus there is no conflict, He could not be a levitical high priest... Also He is regarded as a High Priest in the Heavens...

Your interpretation at face value, creates quite a lot of contradictions, so I am interested if you have a way of reconciling this.

 

[etZion]

As you have no doubt observed, we can each only answer for ourselves, based on our unique experiences. So, here is my two cents...

I see three broad groupings:

• Traditional Judaism
• Traditional Christianity
• Messianic (sitting in the middle)

Within the broad category of "Messianic", though, I see another three categories:

• Hebrew-Christian
  The Jew who adopts church theology and practice. Until the late 1970's, this was the only paradigm available. The further maturation of young Jewish believers eventually led to what some at the time called the "Messianic Synagogue Movement". Now, I consider this an old model, fading away, giving way to the "Messianic, Proper" category.

• Hebrew-Roots
  Gentiles who want nothing to do with either traditional Judaism or traditional Christianity, even while craving historical information regarding the Hebrew-based background to the Biblical writings. The standard teachers for this group include Michael Rood, Jim Staley, Monte Judah, and a few others.

• Messianic, proper
  This is where I sit. We learn from/with the traditional Jewish community, while holding to Messiah as the prophesied heir to the Davidic throne of Israel. We welcome both Jews and Gentiles. All study together, as part of the Jewish community, and willingly share the message of Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom with any who will listen.

I believe everyone sits at some place on this spectrum. Most move along from one place on the spectrum to another, at least once in their lives. Many do not realize they fit on this sort of spectrum, and would even deny its existence. But, as I said, this is my perspective, having spent decades in congregational leadership, working hard at understanding people and how to help them grow into a mature and normative Messianic Judaism.

Great assessment.

Concerning your view of "Messianic, proper", how far traditional would you label it going, in comparison from Reform to Ultra-Orthodox?

 

[xDenax]

Hebrew-Roots
Gentiles who want nothing to do with either traditional Judaism or traditional Christianity, even while craving historical information regarding the Hebrew-based background to the Biblical writings. The standard teachers for this group include Michael Rood, Jim Staley, Monte Judah, and a few others.

Messianic, proper


This is where I sit. We learn from/with the traditional Jewish community, while holding to Messiah as the prophesied heir to the Davidic throne of Israel. We welcome both Jews and Gentiles. All study together, as part of the Jewish community, and willingly share the message of Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom with any who will listen.
I believe everyone sits at some place on this spectrum. Most move along from one place on the spectrum to another, at least once in their lives. Many do not realize they fit on this sort of spectrum, and would even deny its existence. But, as I said, this is my perspective, having spent decades in congregational leadership, working hard at understanding people and how to help them grow into a mature and normative Messianic Judaism.

Why are many non-Jews choosing option #2 there instead of #1?

 

[Qnts2]

How do you reconcile your understanding of Hebrews 7 with Hebrews 8, where the writer states that if Yeshua were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all, and that is because there has been no change in the Levitical law regarding the Priest.

I reconcile it by saying that Yeshua being High Priest is of a different order than that of the Levitical, thus there is no conflict, He could not be a levitical high priest... Also He is regarded as a High Priest in the Heavens...

Your interpretation at face value, creates quite a lot of contradictions, so I am interested if you have a way of reconciling this.

Romans 8:1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

I see no conflict with this and what I said. Jesus is the High Priest but not yet on earth. When Jesus reigns from Jerusalem, He will be High Priest on the earth.

The Cohanim in the Mosaic covenant were mediators. Yeshua is a High Priest and Mediator but of a different and in this passage a better covenant then the Mosaic covenant.

Over all, this passage agrees with what I said. Who is your High Priest? For the descendents of Aaron, that would be the Mosaic covenant. If Yeshua, that is the New Covenant with 'better promises'.

 

[Avodat]

How do you reconcile your understanding of Hebrews 7 with Hebrews 8, where the writer states that if Yeshua were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all, and that is because there has been no change in the Levitical law regarding the Priest.

I reconcile it by saying that Yeshua being High Priest is of a different order than that of the Levitical, thus there is no conflict, He could not be a levitical high priest... Also He is regarded as a High Priest in the Heavens...

Your interpretation at face value, creates quite a lot of contradictions, so I am interested if you have a way of reconciling this.

In Ezekiel's Temple the Levites could not be priests - they were banned from that task. Yeshua could not, therefore, be of the Levitical Order of the Priesthood. But we know he was in the Order of Melchizedek.

 

[anisavta]

but, for Shabbat, in Jerusalem, the rules are different then in other cities.

How so?

 

[mishkan]

Great assessment. On your view of "Messianic, proper", how far traditional would you label it going, in comparison from Reform to Ultra-Orthodox?

Part of me wants to break out another set of sub-categories.

However, I think I'll stop there, and just picture MJ as being within the Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli camp. Each congregation will end up deciding what level of observance (which is the usual method of delineating Jewish denominations) it wishes to follow.

For me, it is a matter of self-identification and community. Awhile back, there was a term that received a lot of notice and discussion: "community of reference".

The fundamental decision every Messianic must make is whether s/he is more comfortable identifying as part of:

• A Gentile group who eats pork, meets on Sunday, cannot help with life-cycle events like a bar mitzvah or Jewish wedding, and whose theology is focused entirely on non-verifiable assertions.

or

• A Jewish group who eats kosher, meets on Shabbat, has full support for all Jewish life-cycle events, from bris to funeral, and whose theology is focused fundamentally practical issues based on God's explicit instructions.

Which one of those groups one identifies with will determine whether one is Messianic, or a Christian of Hebrew descent (Hebrew-Christian).

Of course, some of those Jewish denominations you mentioned are fundamentally defined by positions that are completely incompatible with either Messianic or Traditional Jewish faith. Reconstructionist and Secular, for instance, officially hold the premise that there is no God. Reform generally believe there is some sort of God, but have little room for believing this God gave personal instructions for life. Thus, most Reform are really more like Deists, and Jewish culture is the important priority, rather than the divine commandments.

I guess it is important to note, for those who are not familiar, that Judaism generally does not bother to enforce "right beliefs", in the way Christians do with their creeds and statements of faith. To fit in at a particular synagogue, it is more important to follow proper practice--Orthopraxy versus Orthodoxy.

Thus, one's theological ideas may be all over the map, but if one is comfortable with a certain set of relgious practices (which may impact manner of dress and other aspects of life generally thought of as "cultural"), then one may fit in with a group that does not represent one's thinking at all.

Of course, belief in Yeshua as Messiah has become the singular unique "belief" that most Jews will consider a disqualifying factor in being part of their community. That's because the Christian rhetoric so strongly hits on "Jesus is God", making Yeshua come off as "the god of the Christians", rather than the Messianic Agent sent from Adonai Tz'va'ot. Thus, following Yeshua, in Jewish though, is defined as idolatry, the one inviolable rule that permeates Judaism (even the secular and deistic forms).

In my experience, most people who care to identify with the Jewish community in any way--true Messianic Judaism--will range between "Reformative/Conservaform" to Neo-Orthodox in the Jewish spectrum. In other words, the way I see it, a reasonable, mature, middle-of-the-road Messianic Judaism will generally run parallel to reasonable, mature, middle-of-the-road Traditional Judaism.

 

[Avodat]

Part of me wants to break out another set of sub-categories.

However, I think I'll stop there, and just picture MJ as being within the Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli camp. Each congregation will end up deciding what level of observance (which is the usual method of delineating Jewish denominations) it wishes to follow.

For me, it is a matter of self-identification and community. Awhile back, there was a term that received a lot of notice and discussion: "community of reference".

The fundamental decision every Messianic must make is whether s/he is more comfortable identifying as part of:

• A Gentile group who eats pork, meets on Sunday, cannot help with life-cycle events like a bar mitzvah or Jewish wedding, and whose theology is focused entirely on non-verifiable assertions.

or

• A Jewish group who eats kosher, meets on Shabbat, has full support for all Jewish life-cycle events, from bris to funeral, and whose theology is focused fundamentally practical issues based on God's explicit instructions.

Which one of those groups one identifies with will determine whether one is Messianic, or a Christian of Hebrew descent (Hebrew-Christian).

Of course, some of those Jewish denominations you mentioned are fundamentally defined by positions that are completely incompatible with either Messianic or Traditional Jewish faith. Reconstructionist and Secular, for instance, officially hold the premise that there is no God. Reform generally believe there is some sort of God, but have little room for believing this God gave personal instructions for life. Thus, most Reform are really more like Deists, and Jewish culture is the important priority, rather than the divine commandments.

I guess it is important to note, for those who are not familiar, that Judaism generally does not bother to enforce "right beliefs", in the way Christians do with their creeds and statements of faith. To fit in at a particular synagogue, it is more important to follow proper practice--Orthopraxy versus Orthodoxy.

Thus, one's theological ideas may be all over the map, but if one is comfortable with a certain set of relgious practices (which may impact manner of dress and other aspects of life generally thought of as "cultural"), then one may fit in with a group that does not represent one's thinking at all.

Of course, belief in Yeshua as Messiah has become the singular unique "belief" that most Jews will consider a disqualifying factor in being part of their community. That's because the Christian rhetoric so strongly hits on "Jesus is God", making Yeshua come off as "the god of the Christians", rather than the Messianic Agent sent from Adonai Tz'va'ot. Thus, following Yeshua, in Jewish though, is defined as idolatry, the one inviolable rule that permeates Judaism (even the secular and deistic forms).

In my experience, most people who care to identify with the Jewish community in any way--true Messianic Judaism--will range between "Reformative/Conservaform" to Neo-Orthodox in the Jewish spectrum. In other words, the way I see it, a reasonable, mature, middle-of-the-road Messianic Judaism will generally run parallel to reasonable, mature, middle-of-the-road Traditional Judaism.

Do tell just what you mean, here.

 

[mishkan]

Do tell just what you mean, here.

In short, MJ practice may be all over the map, while still living as part of the local Jewish community.

 

[Avodat]

In short, MJ practice may be all over the map, while still living as part of the local Jewish community.

I was asking, in particular, about the part I highlighted in bold type which is how we normally deal with these things when posting a response to part of a quote.

Your response (in the quote above) doesn't relate to Sunday meeting Gentiles who eat pork as far as I can see, certainly not if they are living in a Jewish community. Who are these people whose theology is focused entirely on non-verifiable assertions.

 

[xDenax]

Reconstructionist and Secular, for instance, officially hold the premise that there is no God.

I just wanted to point out this is inacurate. The Reconstructionist movement does not hold to the premise that there is no God. I have seen this written elsewhere too but it doesn't seem to correspond with actual Reconstructionnist belief. The confusion may be caused by the particular language Reconstructionist use to describe God. They do however plainly state they are not atheists.

 

[Qnts2]

How so?

To start with, Synagogues did not come into existence until the Babylonian exhile. That means in the typical town in Israel, there was no meeting place. Except for Jerusalem, which had the Temple.

Most towns in Israel were too far for the people to travel weekly to Jerusalem. So, on the Sabbath, the people stayed home and rested.

Exodus 16:29 See, the LORD has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”

Jerusalem is a walled city, and has certain rules concerning those traveling and the gate. A person was not to enter Jerusalem with anything on the Sabbath. The people were able to travel and the Temple was the gathering place.

(This is actually where Rabbinic Judaism got the idea for domains and eruv. The basis is the walled cities and the different laws for walled cities).

Jeremiah 17:21 thus saith the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your souls, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;
22 neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work; but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers;

Without the synagogue system, there was no gathering place for worship in the cities, unless you were in Jerusalem. While many in Messianic Judaism tie the Sabbath to Synagogue services, this was a later addition.