Toby Janicki
Article: One Law for All
Messiah Journal 105/ Fall 2010 Edition
Recently, Boaz Michael of First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) asked me to review some of the material in the latest edition of Messiah Journal. I wrote the first review on my congregation's blog addressing Boaz's letter about the FFOZ sister organization Vine of David, but the topic of Toby Janicki's One Law for All article seemed better suited for my personal blog. It's here where I am more at liberty to express my personal opinions on the issues that unite and separate Gentiles and Jews in the Messianic movement.
One Law for All is, as you might imagine, FFOZ's commentary on the traditional assumption among many Gentile Messianic groups that all of the Torah commandments which apply to the Jews apply also to Gentile believers by virtue of our being "grafted in" (Romans 11). Actually, the more common argument from the Gentile Messianic point of view has to do with the "ger" issue; the set of apparent statements in the Torah that say "one law" shall apply to the native born Israeli and the ger ("stranger", "alien", "sojourner") among you. The following is just one example:
For the generations to come, whenever a foreigner or anyone else living among you presents a food offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, they must do exactly as you do. The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you -Numbers 15:14-16Early in the article, I thought Janicki was going to step into the classic argument presented in traditional (that is, non-Messianic) Judaism stating that only the seven Noahide Laws apply to Gentile believers in Yeshua, as if Yeshua never existed, never taught, and never considered Gentiles in his teachings (let alone the teachings in the letters of Paul). Fortunately, he only starts out there.
Janicki expands his investigation into the use of the term "ger" using many examples (too many for me to cite in this review) showing the distinctions between how some of the various Torah commandments apply to the Jews and the Gentiles who lived among them in ancient times. He also very neatly integrates what FFOZ has called "divine invitation" (though he never mentions the term) into his narrative by illustrating how some of the Torah commandments are required by the Children of Israel but allowed by any Gentile who desires to comply. To illustrate this, let's look at a slightly different translation of the above quoted passage from Numbers:
And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute [chukkah achat] for you and for the stranger [ger] who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner [ger] shall be alike before the LORD. One law [torah achat] and one rule [mishpat echad] shall be for you and for the stranger [ger] who sojourns with you. -Numbers 15:14-16The quote used in Janicki's article brings out a bit more clearly the distinction in this particular command between the obligation of the Jews to make such an offering and the acceptance (but not requirement) of the same offering from a Gentile temporary visitor or permanent "alien" resident. What Janicki doesn't state but I believe to be true, is that the distinction between "ger" and native Israeli persisted until either the ger left the community of Israel or completely assimilated (see Rahab, Ruth, and the mixed multitude who followed Moses out of Egypt) and finally became indistinguishable from the the Children of Jacob (See Who Belongs to the Covenant? below).
As a whole, I found Janicki's article to be well researched, easy to read, and straightforward in its approach. To go further, I agree that you can't base the Gentile Messianic "One Law assumption" on the set of "ger" quotes in the Torah. I previously wrote an analysis of this issue on my congregation's blog called Who Belongs to the Covenant? If you read my commentary and then review Janicki's article in Messiah Journal, you see that there is significant overlap in our viewpoints. That said, where I state in my article how the coming of Yeshua changed the landscape for the Gentiles, Janicki concludes with the following:
With this understanding we can approach Apostolic passages such as, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3), and “Neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). These passages were written to communities that contained both Jews and Gentiles. Each person hearing these words would have understood “commandments” as referring to the specific parts of Torah that applied to them as a Jew or Gentile and man or woman.Janicki's, and thus FFOZ's conclusion is that what was established as the relationship between Jew and Gentile relative to God and the commandments in the Torah remains completely unchanged post-Messianic times and that only a tiny subset of Biblical commandments have any sort of application to Gentile believers. This would be the identical subset of Torah commandments established in the time of Moses and, from Janicki's perspective, be completely unmodified by the coming of Yeshua.
While I can agree with the vast majority of what Janicki says, he fails to acknowledge that the coming of the Messiah had any sort of impact on the change in status for Gentiles who have come to faith in the Jewish Messiah. It's as if we continue to remain "strangers" and "aliens" in the kingdom of God, like rogue asteroids or comets temporarily captured by the sun's gravity and always in danger of being cast away again into the darkness, as opposed to the more stable planetary (Children of Israel) bodies in permanent residence within the solar system. But what about this?
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. -John 10:14-16
Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:2-6The passages from John 10 and Ephesians 3 are repeatedly cited by Gentile Messianics when we try to establish that we do have a place in the Kingdom of God where we can stand alongside our Jewish brothers and sisters, however, they are never addressed in articles such as Janicki's, which primarily seek to establish areas of distinctions between Gentiles and Jews rather than create links or build bridges between our two groups.
I don't mean to say that Janicki's intent was hostile or divisive in any sense. There is nothing in the wording or tone of his article to suggest that he is attempting to marginalize Gentile believers in the Messiah in any way. His intent seems completely focused on clearing up how the "one law" passages in the Torah don't automatically mean Gentiles are obligated to Torah commandments in a manner identical (or even vaguely resembling) to the Jewish people. It's important to understand though, that the "ger" issue doesn't encompass the entire scope of Gentile status as the adopted offspring of God, and does not at all cover the things that Yeshua's coming changed as far how Gentiles can enter the kingdom.
I spent some time going over what Yeshua taught in the book of Matthew and collected a summary of my conclusions in the article What Did Jesus Teach the Gentiles to Obey? While there is additional exploration required in this area, but I do believe that there's more to the Gentile relationship to God and the commandments than can be accounted for by a hard look at the "ger" scriptures in the Torah.
I really like Janicki's article and recommend it as a very clear picture of how the "ger" and "one law" passages in the Torah can not be relied upon to establish Gentile "obligation" to Torah commandments, but please keep in mind that the scope of Janicki's analysis begins and ends within the "ger" topic. Relative to Yeshua, there is much more to discover about Gentile identity within the Messianic realm.
Do I believe that Gentile and Jewish obligation and observance of the Torah is different? Absolutely. Is the matter completely defined and settled within the confines of Janicki's article? Not at all. Janicki only settles (assuming you agree with all his conclusions) one aspect of the puzzle. There are many more jigsaw pieces to examine and construct before the entire picture becomes apparent. I hope this is a journey both Jewish and Gentile believers can undertake together.
Black sheep author signing off for now.
19 comments:
James,
Can you list some specific mitzvot exclusion from which would make you feel marginalized? Feel free to say that this is an unfair question...
Incidentally (and unfortunately I don't have time to go looking up links to back up what I'm about to say), the small amount of Noachide material I've read takes the seven commandments and shortly expands it out into several hundred commandments similar to many of the mitzvot in the Torah. In other words, the seven commandments are broad categories under whose specific application unfold many more general obligations. I only point this out to suggest that the ratio of 7 vs 613 is a bit misleading--it might be more like 200 vs 613...which leads me to wonder, if we account for the Temple- and land-based mitzvot, are there really that many differences?
I have thought a little bit about reading Paul as if he's doing the same way--creating Gentile halakha based on the Torah. I wonder what the results would be from extending your "What Did Jesus Teach (with particular focus on the Gentiles)?" to Paul's letters, with specific points back to Torah?
I hope these musings aren't making you feel marginalized...if so, please tell me, and I apologize in advance for any insensitivity. (Chalk it up to feeling rushed while jotting this down.) I will say that if you were a part of my community, I can guarantee that you wouldn't feel marginalized--though of course you shouldn't take my word for it.
Greetings, Yahnatan.
I think I only used the word "marginialize" once in my review, and that was to say that I didn't believe Janicki's article was attempting to marginalize Gentile believers.
I actually do believe that there is a distinction between Jewish and Gentile relationship and identity relative to God, the Torah, and the Messiah, but I don't believe that distinction and those limits are completely settled by the content of Janicki's article. That's probably the short version of my review of his article.
I'm not actually "smarting" from this distinction but I still think it's less defined than we might like to believe. I believe Jews and Gentiles continue to try and work through what our relationship to each other and to God means but that rushing to absolute conclusions is likely premature. You can best understand my review by looking through the lens of my recent blog post Alongside where I credit Dr. Schiffman for his concise and considerate explanation of how he understands Gentiles and Jews existing together within the Messianic sheep pen.
I have thought a little bit about reading Paul as if he's doing the same way--creating Gentile halakha based on the Torah. I wonder what the results would be from extending your "What Did Jesus Teach (with particular focus on the Gentiles)?" to Paul's letters, with specific points back to Torah?
You must be a mind reader. That's almost exactly the plan behind my next class at my congregation: looking at Gentile responsibilities through the gospels and epistles and then connecting the dots back to the Torah where they exist.
I also like your analysis of the 7 Noahide laws being expandable out to a larger class of moral commandments. You might be interested to know that, according to Rabbi Yonah Bookstein, of the 613 commandments, in Judaism, only 77 positive and 194 negative commandments (for a grand total of 261) can be obeyed today, so perhaps the moral obligations of Jewish and Gentile believers aren't that far apart.
Always a pleasure to hear from you. Thanks for your even-handed and fair viewpoint and response.
Look at the Hebrew source text of Numbers 15:14 and no one will find "wishes" there. Does Janicki's reliance upon an English translation that provides the interpretation of "wishes" at all include any explanation from the Hebrew? (The Septuagint lacks "wishes" as well.)
Good point, Anonymous (whoever you are), though to be fair, you'd have to read Janicki's original article to get the full context of his message.
My Hebrew, not being what it should be, won't allow me to examine the text in the original language, but I did look at a number of different translations for the verse in question and none of them includes the word "wishes". Here's the translation from the JPS Tanakh, for instance:
And when, throughout the ages, a stranger who has taken up residence with you, or one who lives among you, would present an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord — as you do, so shall it be done by the rest of the congregation. There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the Lord; the same ritual and the same rule shall apply to you and to the stranger who resides among you.
Perhaps Janicki will drop by at some point and help us with a bit of clarification.
Janicki does not rely on the 15:14 passage use of “wishes” to sustain is argument. The version he sites is the ESV which is the universal translation of all FFOZ publications with the exception of Torah Club which sites the NSAB and the DHE. He could have used any translation to make his point. I am sure Toby will add to this discussion later today—but while we wait I would like to see “Anonymous” translate this passage for us an perhaps we can work from his/her translation.
NUM. 15:14;
"And if a Ger will dwell with you, or in your midst throughout you generations, he will make offering by fire, aroma to יהוה as you do, so shall he do."
Verses 15-16 only put a stamp on it. No "wish" here.
James, thank you so much for your kind review. I really appreciate it!
As for the subject of the use of "wishes" in Numbers 15, I would like to point out that in my article I do not have wishes underlined. The point of me bringing up that passage was to discuss how the language of "one law" in that context was specific to the set of instructions about sacrifices the passage and did not refer to the Torah as a whole.
"Wishes" is not explicit in the verse. The point of the ESV's inclusion of the word "wishes" is not to indicate whether or not it is optional, but to express a subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is necessary because if we interpret it as simple past it would say "If...he offered a food offering...he shall do," which would make the commandment apply after the fact. The word "wishes" serves to express the semantic connection between the conditional כי ("if") and the ger's offering. So the ESV's use of the word "wishes" is justifiable but unclear. To be fair, their translators may not have anticipated our particular question.
The point of the verse has nothing to do with either obligation or freedom of choice. It is simply stating that IF a ger were to bring an offering, it would need to be performed according to the same rules as the native. It offers no instruction as to whether the offering is mandatory or optional.
Here is an example to demonstrate how the word "wish" can be used regardless of obligation or choice:
"If you wish to dial a phone number, remember to press 9 first to access an outside line."
As you can see, the word "wish" above does not make any judgment as to whether your call is necessary or optional. It just communicates that it is one's intention to do so.
"Wishes" is not explicit in the verse. The point of the ESV's inclusion of the word "wishes" is not to indicate whether or not it is optional, but to express a subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is necessary because if we interpret it as simple past it would say "If...he offered a food offering...he shall do," which would make the commandment apply after the fact. The word "wishes" serves to express the semantic connection between the conditional כי ("if") and the ger's offering. So the ESV's use of the word "wishes" is justifiable but unclear. To be fair, their translators may not have anticipated our particular question.
The point of the verse has nothing to do with either obligation or freedom of choice. It is simply stating that IF a ger were to bring an offering, it would need to be performed according to the same rules as the native. It offers no instruction as to whether the offering is mandatory or optional.
Here is an example to demonstrate how the word "wish" can be used regardless of obligation or choice:
"If you wish to dial a phone number, remember to press 9 first to access an outside line."
As you can see, the word "wish" above does not make any judgment as to whether your call is necessary or optional. It just communicates that it is one's intention to do so.
James:
I hope I won't scare anyone or get you in trouble by affirming your post.
You make some good observations and I wonder if some of what people who think as I do (that some Torah commands are covenantal signs of Israel's special relationship with God and do not apply to gentiles) have been saying is getting through.
Our case, in the big picture, looks like this:
(1) Torah indicates some distinctions in commandments between Israelites and non-Israelites.
(2) The same distinctions are evident in Acts 15.
(3) Paul's law-free statements (see esp Rom 14 and Col 2) make the most sense understood as addressed to gentiles and agreeing with Torah and Acts 15 about the Jew-Gentile distinction.
It's a pretty tight case. And some New Perspective on Paul theologians are saying these things too.
Derek Leman
Toby, thanks for the clarification. Working just with the English is a limitation of mine, but having your comment here helps quite a bit.
Yes, Derek, I'm stunned. (just kidding).
Dan! Long time, no see. Good to have you here, again.
Toby,
וכי יגור אתכם גר...(And if a ger will dwell with you...)
The "if" is pertaining to the dwelling of the Ger, not to the Ger bringing offering.
Translating it your way is to read your agenda into Scriptures.dendial
The "if" is pertaining to the dwelling of the Ger, not to the Ger bringing offering.
Yeah, this is definitely what I see as well.
The option is whether one wants to dwell with Israel, and if one chooses to do so, then they are responsible in carrying out the same Law as the native... meaning it is not optional, but mandatory.
Dan, I think the "if" applies to both (i.e "If a ger dwells among you and offers ...") but once again if you read my article that is not what I am discussing. I use the context of the passage to show that the "one law" statement here applies just to the laws in the context and not the entire Torah.
Toby,
" תורה אחת ןמשפט אחד יהיה לכם ולגר הגר אתכם" ( One TORAH and one law, or judgment,for you and the Ger who dwells among you).
Note the word אחת which is in the faminine. It does refer to the whole Torah, not just a specific law.
I guess then the Apostles were wrong then about their ruling regarding circumcision….I guess every Bible commentator Jewish and Christian alike have missed the thrust of this passage…I guess all of our Bible’s are wrong since they, non-of them, carry the proper meaning of the text through to English.
Dan I would suggest you read the article…I’m sure you’ll have more thoughts then. We do not have time to spat back in forth in the blogosphere about and article that no one, with the exception James has read.
OK. Time out. Everyone go to your corners. The purpose of a review is to offer the reviewer's opinion on a particular work (film, book, music album, essay) and to stimulate interest in said work. This helps the audience decide if they want to view, buy, listen to, or read the work in question and acts as advertising for the folks who produced the work.
At this point, it's tough to criticize the entire work unless you've read it, but I guess I've at least stimulated interest based on responses thus far.
I can't post the full article without violating FFOZ's copyright. I can only quote brief portions of the article within the context of the review, so without reading Janicki's full article, you won't be able to completely evaluate its content.
All I can say is that, whenever the Fall issue of Messiah Journal becomes available, I hope everyone who has expressed an opinion will be inspired to pick up a copy and have a read. Then maybe we can revisit some of this, either here or at the FFOZ blogs.
Boaz,
If you do not have time, then why are you responding?
you also guess too much, usually on the wrong side...I did not argue theolgy here, I had only address the Hebrew translation which like in other places in the FFOZ's articles left much to be desired.
My dear brothers,
I fondly remember going out to breakfast after shul many times with a Cohan and a Levi as they ordered bacon, eggs and toast (double portions of bacon btw) and I sipped on a cup of coffee; this was incidentally, after praying in a minyon, chanting the Torah portion and singing a joyous Adon Olam at the conclusion of the service.
Just a quick story to break the tension!
As I have followed this discussion and many others like it over the past several weeks, it has been a joy to see the zeal for the Word on both sides of this question. However, I would implore the brethren to remain within the bonds of brotherly love. I am sure that each of us could produce tremendous position papers, well referenced and properly footnoted with many Talmudic and historic Church references. Yet, I am currently unclear as to the fruitfulness of this stream of debate.
Allow me to be completely honest; I have enjoyed my previous ignorance regarding this question as it is currently being discussed. I am the leader of a small messianic Jewish community with a significant population of people from the nations. These wonderful saints take part in every area of communal life. Through honest teaching regarding what is rabbinic tradition and His Word, they have learned that, yes, some elements of our community practice is an expression of our Jewish history and Messianic Jewish identity. Do they feel excluded from certain practices? I have never personally received such a comment. Do non-Jewish men wear kippah? If they desire to; if you recall, all men are asked to wear kippah in traditional Jewish communities outside of the Reform congregations.
I frequently receive reports from our membership of discussions regarding the Torah or moedim or Hebrew that they have had with non-believing Jews in our area. They as believing saints in Messiah from the nations are provoking many Jews to jealousy; and they are beginning to ask questions about who Messiah Yeshua really is! This, to me, should be regarded as positive and Biblical. Do they believe they are now Jews? Certainly not, but they do openly and proudly walk as disciples of the Jewish Messiah.
I have been a supporter of FFOZ for many years and have used and recommended their resources to Christians and Jews alike. As I reviewed the white paper produced by FFOZ I honestly did not see a change in their position as much as a clarification of that position. I pray that we all continue to support their work.
As I witness the changes in the Messianic Jewish movement and in some of the organizations within it; what I believe I am seeing is a community which is willing to identify itself as unapologetically Jewish and believing in Messiah, outside of the 'traditional' Christian Church framework. In other words, we are beginning to be able to stand on our own. However, we must not exclude our Church brethren, or those saints from the nations who strongly identify with the messianic movement and support Israel as a nation.
I am sorry for the length of this post but I strongly believe that if we get too distracted by questions which none of us will be able to answer for everyone conclusively, we shamefully lose sight of our purpose here: to spread His Good News...to our Jewish brethren and to the nations. Please understand that this post was not written as a rebuke of either position; just a reminder that we must mirror the peace which we have received from Him to those in so much pain.
May His joy and peace be with each of you. Shalom.
Justin
Greetings, Justin. Thank you for your comments. I noticed on your blog that you have indeed been looking at how these issues are being expressed in the Messianic blogosphere lately.
In some sense, I think we argue over identity and theology issues as a way to try to work through the "mess" in "Messianic" and get to the other side, at least that's my motivation. I do agree though, that we must arrive at a place where we have common ground on which to stand and where we can worship one God and follow one Messiah.
As a slightly irreverent aside, I enjoyed the photo you posted on your blog of the fellow at the Kotel talking on his cell while praying. A funny and sad commentary on how the digital age has collided with faith.
Please feel free to follow this and other conversations and inject a stream of calm into our turbulent sea of communication.
Thank you James. I do enjoy a good debate or spirited discussion, as long as we remember that we are to be brethren and act in that manner.
In the 'spirit' of Reb Nachman of Breslov I try to find the good in the opposing argument, and if commonality cannot be acheived, perhaps agree to disagree until His Spirit reveals the our error in understanding.
Blessings to you my friend; and yes, this can be a messy movement...at times.
Shalom shalom, Justin
Post a Comment