This is a beautiful picture of all the diversity of roles and types among the Children of Israel and the Mixed Multitude (or rather, their children) who had originally left Egypt with the Israelites, standing together in relation to each other and the covenant of God. The words following words from this part (Deuteronomy 29:13-14) of Torah Portion Nitzavim are particularly intriguing:
I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here this day.This is traditionally interpreted as referring to the unborn generations of Jews and in fact, all Jews who have ever been born and who will ever be born anywhere, since every Jew is to consider himself or herself as having personally stood at Mt Sinai to accept the Torah from God through Moses. But how does this figure in relation to unborn generations of Gentiles who would one day accept Yeshua as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and Master? Does this have anything to do with them, or, like a laser, are these words only pointed at a very small and specific target and, in this case, a Jewish target?
A strict Messianic Jewish/Bilateral Ecclesiology (MJ/BE) viewpoint would say the latter and further, they would say that, regardless of all the different roles described in the passage from Deuteronomy 29, all those people were either born Jews or Gentiles who had converted to Judaism (or rather, their children). Yet the picture of a diverse group standing together, listening to one Prophet of God, living a single life under the One God is compelling. Were Jewish and Gentile believers in God always meant to be segregated, particularly with the advent of Yeshua? Consider the following:
The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Thessalonica.
When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. -Acts 17:1-4The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Berea.
As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. -Acts 17:10-12The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Athens.
While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. -Acts 17:16-17The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Corinth.
After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. -Acts 18:1-4We see Paul journeying to a number of different areas in the diaspora and visiting synagogues where he found not only Jews but a number of Gentile God-fearers worshiping God. Logically, if Gentiles were worshiping in Jewish synagogues, they were being exposed to the same prayers and teachings as the Jews. There was no separation of groups where Gentiles were expected to attend a different set of services designed just for non-Jews. Nor did the Jewish congregants of these synagogues seem to believe that having Gentiles present somehow inhibited their ability to worship as Jews or somehow threatened their "Jewish identity".
When Paul taught at these synagogues and "Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men", we don't also see Paul telling the congregation to create two segregated groups in order to avoid "identity confusion" between the Jewish and Gentile believers. We can accept, as a matter of historical fact, that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, a schism occurred between the Jewish and Gentile believers in Yeshua for a number of different religious, social, and political reasons but not out of a purposeful design by Paul to preserve Jewish identity in synagogues containing Gentile Yeshua-believers.
Once Paul delivered the message of the good news among the Jews and the Gentile God-fearers, there is no reason to expect that the God-fearers were suddenly kicked out of the synagogue. Why wouldn't they continue to stay in the synagogue, Jew and Gentile Yeshua-believer alike, and keep on worshiping as they had been doing previously?
Of course, this doesn't address the pagan Gentiles who came to faith in Yeshua apart from a synagogue setting and apart from a previous experience as God-fearers, so we can believe they either joined a synagogue with a Messianic Jewish leadership or they developed fellowships that were primarily Gentile, but that would be the result of circumstance, not Heavenly planning. Under those circumstances, people of like types and like languages and customs would be expected to congregate together, just as you'll find many neighborhoods today in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco that were originally established by people coming from the same country who spoke the same language. Not divine planning but rather human national and cultural familiarity.
Considering the numerous "mixed" synagogues chronicled in Acts 17 and in the beginning of Acts 18, the final words of the Jerusalem letter contain new meaning and perhaps more than a little irony:
For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. -Acts 15:21Certainly, those Gentile God-fearers who became Gentile Messianic believers would have heard and would have kept on hearing Moses being read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. While this may not make it particularly clear how the differences between Gentile and Jewish worshipers of Messiah functioned in a united synagogue setting, it does illustrate that they did function together. Paul didn't mandate a separation and neither, apparently, did Yeshua. Differences between Gentile and Jewish "identity" were probably assumed, at least in that context (though Paul's letter to the Galatians does indicate some Jewish and/or Gentile Judaizers did cause problems that Paul had to manage).
I'm not making a big, theological or "ecclesiastical" pronouncement, but even learned study and analysis must give way to a plain reading of the text and a certain amount of common sense. Jews and Gentiles were worshiping together in synagogues in a number of different areas of the diaspora before Paul ever showed up to bring the good news of Yeshua. Why would they have split into Jewish vs. Gentile congregations upon hearing Paul's message?
12 comments:
James, with coming of Messiah we have a basic reality firmly established:
1. Jewish followers of Messiah were to remain Jews, remain part of heir people, and remain faithful to following both the Torah AND customs of their fathers.
2. Gentile followers of Messiah were miraculously and unexpectedly given Holy Spirit WITHOUT entering into Judaism. Some insisted that this was not the case, and tried to make Gentiles into Jewish converts. G-d intervened and would not permit such a thing as it would have been an affront to the great work Yeshua did for the Gentiles.
3. Apostle Paul himself, being an apostles to the Gentiles, established new congregations of the Gentiles, while loosely based on synagogues, nonetheless were entirely new entities "custom-built" for Gentile worshipers - these were called "Romans 16:4" and elsewhere: "churches of the Gentiles."
4. Many if not most of the Jewish followers of Messiah continued to worship both in mainstream synagogues and in the Temple - never was there a command given for them to establish their own separate synagogues. They also met at homes to break bread.
5. It's safe to assume that Gentile G-d-fearers who were already attending a synagogue remained there. This is what they knew and this is where they could find G-d. However, since G-d accepted Gentiles as Gentiles without requiring conversion to Judaism or participation in Jewish customs, G-d has steered human history to establish Gentile-only congregations throughout the world through what has become known as Christianity.
In this way, G-d brought the Good News all over the earth, to places where there were no Jews and no G-d-fearers attending any synagogues. G-d carried the message of his salvation without any intention of putting any far-flung Gentiles under Mosaic Law or putting them under Jewish lifestyle and tradition because to do such a thing would have greatly hindered the Good News from gaining a foothold it did.
I think the point here is that Jews and gentiles *did* worship together, and that the apostles saw no problem in them doing so.
Also, when Paul went places where both Jews and gentiles lived, did he really create a Jew-only congregation and a gentile-only congregation, e.g. a Messianic Jewish synagogue and a Christian church? There is no evidence of this in the New Testament.
Great post, James!
1. Nothing I said here contradicts this nor does anything in Acts 17 and 18.
2. I agree. God never intended 100% of the world's population to become Jewish in order to have a relationship with God. The Jewish people were intended to be a light to the world, guiding the Gentiles to God as Gentiles, not turning the Gentiles into Jews.
3. I believe I did say in this blog post that there were Gentile congregations and why they existed based on circumstances and like culture and language, and not as a direct mandate from God.
4. I never contradicted this. I only said that Jews and Gentiles worshiping together in a synagogue setting before hearing the good news would remain in the synagogue worshiping together after hearing the good news.
5. I just said the first part in the previous point, but the record is at least a little fuzzy as to what Gentiles and Jews did and did not do in synagogue worship. I'll accept the assumption that Gentiles assumed a "one down" role in the synagogue setting...but they were there and were not kicked out. That the "age of the Gentiles" resulted in a temporary rise in the non-Jewish nations also can be interpreted as establishing a temporary schism between Jewish and Gentile worshipers. There's no reason to believe that Bilateral Ecclesiology is either mandated by God nor that the schism is a permanent condition. Jews and Gentiles can worship together without a threat of assimilation or identity loss. I suspect the issue of identity wasn't as big a deal back then as it seems to be today. The return of the Messiah is supposed to heal the world and all the separations. We can be united and yet still be distinct.
I think the struggles we are having understanding the obvious pictures painted for us in Acts 17 & 18 are based on the fear of assimilation and absorption that has always threatened the Jewish people in the diaspora. That fear in the Messianic Jewish community makes it difficult to see past the schism and to accept that Jews and Gentiles can be of one flock with one shepherd and still have different roles and a preserved Jewish and Gentile distinctiveness.
Thanks, Judah. I really am only trying to make that one simple point. If Jews and Gentiles could worship together "back in the day" and even Paul thought nothing of it, why do we have to feel so threatened that we can't accomplish the same thing now?
"That fear in the Messianic Jewish community makes it difficult to see past the schism and to accept that Jews and Gentiles can be of one flock with one shepherd and still have different roles and a preserved Jewish and Gentile distinctiveness."
James, I wish it was only a "fear" - it's a reality of our present age (at least last 20 years). Messianic Jews are right to be concerned about the future. Identity confusion reigns supreme in the so called Messianic Movement and its offshoots, and Jewish/Gentile distinctive ARE NOT being preserved - Gentiles are calling themselves by Hebrew names, calling themselves "rabbis," wearing traditional Jewish garb, circumcising their children, giving them bar/bat-Mitzvahs, taking on all the roles in their "synagogues" that Jews normally do - not to mention many passing themselves off as Jews. It's everywhere, in all but a few "mainstream" MJ places. One does not even have to go look at the One-Law and Two-House movements, both of which routinely claim that their adherents are Israelites (spiritual in the former or actual flesh and blood "lost tribes of Israel" in the case of the latter.)
Is this what first Gentile Christians did "back in the day"?
I didn't say it was "unjustified fear". Yes, those things are taking place, but unfortunately the result is all Gentiles in "the movement" get painted by the same broad brush as those folks you mention and are criticized for attempting to find the connection points between their faith and the Jewish Messiah.
By the way, you might want to talk to the Catholic and Lutheran churches about the "identity thing", too. When I was about 13 and going to a Lutheran church, they put me through a "Confirmation" ceremony that functions more or less like a Bar Mitzvah.
Gentile Christianity has been borrowing customs and practices from Judaism for a long, long time. Why do you think the Pope wears a "kippah"? ;-)
James,
Thanks for acknowledging that the Messianic Jewish concern for the erosion of Jewish identity is a justified fear...I appreciate it. I also regret the broad-brushing of Gentiles that happens.
I appreciate your attempts to humbly and Biblically work through a lot of these issues. One thing that I think helps is when Gentiles who don't fit the hurtful "broad brush" stereotype take the lead in helping other Gentiles to avoid trampling on Jewish identity in their enthusiasm. It always feels better to be defended than to have to defend yourself. If all the faithful long-time Gentile members of Messianic Jewish communities (there are many) stood up in protest against things that erode Jewish identity, what would happen?
Thanks, Yahnatan. I actually wrote a blog post that's more specific to Messianic Jewish "identity" called It's Not Easy Being Green.
James,
I've been ruminating more on your post here. Your point is well-taken. I think that your assertion that however things played out with new former pagan believers was "circumstantial" and not the result of divine providence is a subjective judgment; for some reason I feel like the precedents set here were significant historically and spiritually. But that's neither here nor there, for now.
I'd like to comment on the question posed at the conclusion of your article:
"Why would they have split into Jewish vs. Gentile congregations upon hearing Paul's message?"
You won't find me suggesting that they would have. Incidentally, you'll find scholarly arguments for significant interfacing between Paul's communities and local synagogues in the work of Mark Nanos, who is cited by both Kinzer and Rudolph.
But Kinzer's bilateral ecclesiology doesn't rest on the assertion that Paul split mingled groups of synagogue-going Jews and Godfearers into separate communal entities. Rather, it sees bilateral ecclesiology as already existent and reflected by the apostolic agreement on two distinct missions of the church described in Galatians 2 (as discussed in Kinzer's PMM on p. 163), and the supporting picture of distinct networks of communities in Jerusalem and abroad which is found across the New Testament and in later archaeological and historical evidence. Such a bilateral structure need not be strictly segregated to exist. (Incidentally, it was curious to find such a situation described by a Jewish scholar and novelist from the early 20th century, Milton Steinberg, in the recent J-BOM pick, "As A Driven Leaf".)
To me the more telling question is this (I know, I know...answering a question with a question): who are the communities of the "twelve tribes in the Diaspora" addressed by James's letter, and in what sense do they exist as distinct from Paul's communities? (If you find any of the arguments for a Jewish audience for 1 Peter convincing, then the same question can be applied to that letter's recipients as well.)
Sorry for rambling...
Thanks for your thoughtful and measured responses, Yahnatan. I'm sure a lot of folks would just be turned off by my posts and my opinions and either just ignore them or respond by being upset.
I can hardly say I'm the last word on what did or didn't happen in the 1st Century CE world of Messianic faith, but sometimes I think it's possible to apply Occam's Razor, even to God's creation and say that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct explanation. Even today, we find congregations tending to gather based on national, ethnic, and language similiarities, so it's not much of a stretch to supposed human beings did the same thing 2000 years ago. That said, Acts 17 is an able description of the many synagogues that also admitted Gentile God-fearers.
I suppose it would be helpful if I had the time and funds to go back to school and take another degree so I could have a more scholarly approach to all this, but short of that, I'll just have to keep reading and studying on my own.
I'm glad you're not taking an absolutely rigid stance on Bilateral Ecclesiology, but there are others that act like even the thought admitting one Gentile visitor to a Messianic Jewish congregation one time would cause the universe to explode.
I'll have to re-read James's letter and put it in this context to how it illuminates me.
I'm enjoying your comments on my various posts. I hope you're keeping up on the "What Did Jesus Teach About" series.
Blessings.
Thanks for your thoughtful and measured responses
Likewise.
there are others that act like even the thought admitting one Gentile visitor to a Messianic Jewish congregation one time would cause the universe to explode.
The fact that you have this impression (or even a less-exaggerated version of it) suggests to me that people who see a bilateral ecclesiology inherent in the Body of Messiah and those who don't are spending a lot of time talking past each other. I don't think I've ever said anything like that, and I haven't heard anyone else say that either. Bilateral ecclesiology isn't about separating Gentiles and Jews; it's about both retaining the distinctions which allows there to be relationship between the two. If Jews become like Gentiles or Gentiles become like Jews, then the "unity" of the two through the gospel is cheap--a unity at the expense of one or the other.
Bilateral ecclesiology isn't about separating Gentiles and Jews; it's about both retaining the distinctions which allows there to be relationship between the two. If Jews become like Gentiles or Gentiles become like Jews, then the "unity" of the two through the gospel is cheap--a unity at the expense of one or the other.
I don't have a problem with recognizing different roles between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. I think the Bible record is very clear that the Children of Israel were meant to be a special "nation of priests" and a light to the rest of the world, giving them a specific responsibility that is not taken on board by the rest of humanity.
The only problem I have with Bilateral Ecclesiology, or at least how it's been used by some folks, is when it's perceived as a method of torpedoing fellowship between Jews and Gentiles or to deny the belief that, at the most fundamental level of our faith, the lifeblood of Yeshua is what nourishes all of us.
Post a Comment