Mike, Morrie, and the Fence

Update, January 2nd: I created an "official" Mike and Morrie blogspot for their soon-to-be launched comic strip.

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

I had a "vision" yesterday of how I wanted to depict the whole Bilateral Ecclesiology interaction between a Gentile and a Jew. I tried to find this image on Google,but it doesn't exist. So I decided to create it. This is just a rough draft, but I wanted to get something out there before the Shabbat. This is just something I threw together in a few minutes with only one cup of coffee under my belt.

Oh, the guy in the left is Mike, a Christian. The guy on the right is Morrie, a Jew. The fence...we'll, I suppose I could carve the initials "BE" into the wood, but you get the idea.

This is an experiment. Maybe a series of dialogues between Mike and Morrie, sharing a cup of coffee across the fence that separates their two backyards will give us a friendlier stage on which to hold our own conversation. It's a thought.

Jews are from Mars, Christians are from Venus

My Christian interlocutors are therefore justified in their concerns. We must affirm and guard the unity of the ekklesia at the same time as we preserve its essential two-fold nature. How is this to be accomplished? I did not intend in PMJ to propose a particular governmental or structural arrangement for the bilateral ekklesia. Instead, I attempted to define the communal and relational reality that any such arrangement must foster. The discussion about ecclesial structure is yet to take place. It should be set in a dialogue between Christian and Messianic Jewish leaders who accept and embrace the need for both unity and bilateral differentiation.

Dr. Mark S Kinzer from his paper
Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later (2008)

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

Ovadia posted this in the comments section of the blog post Why Bilateral Ecclesiology Will Matter and I finally gave it a read. It's all part of what I now am calling my Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series. You can read What Do We Call a Wandering Christian and the two most recent blog articles I posted before this one to get the context. Reading the other blogs I link off to, including their comments will help immensely, if you haven't been part of the conversation up to this point. Yes, it is a lot of reading.

I'm sure you recognized the title of this blog post as a nod to John Gray's famous and much parodied book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (which I've never read) about improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. The idea is that you have two human beings who are fundamentally different from one another who just happen to be sharing a home, a bed, sex, children, money, and everything else...yet they think and feel about all these things in extremely different ways. They practically speak different languages. What do to?

I've come to see Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles, Christians, whatever) in the Messianic movement in more or less the same way. My rather brief encounter with the wife of our local Chabad Rabbi showed me just how different an Orthodox Jewish woman could view and react to me and how "alien" I felt in response. No, she meant no harm and I understand that her behavior was completely driven by cultural and religious norms, but it did highlight the differences Messianic Judaism and Bilateral Ecclesiology (BI) have been trying to beat into my head with a blunt instrument for the past six months or so.

Oh, so that's what you meant (light dawns on "Marblehead").

OK. I get it. I am a critter from Venus and you (Jews in general as well as in the Messianic movement specifically) are from Mars. It's amazing we can co-exist in the same community (or solar system) at all. It's the reason that the Jews in One Law congregations are people who were never raised ethnically or religiously Jewish and had only one Jewish parent (of course, that doesn't explain how religiously and ethnically Jewish people such as Dan Benzvi can consider me a "Fellow Heir" without batting an eye, but I digress).

I wrote my previous blog post out of frustration and a certain amount of despair, but I've had a chance to "sleep on it" and am feeling much better now, thank you very much.

Having read Dr. Kinzer's 2008 paper, which I reference above, the specific quote I used presents the core of our current discussion and the puzzle we are (or at least I am) trying to solve.

What is the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in the Messianic movement supposed to look like? As of 2008, Dr. Kinzer didn't know. He says he never wrote his original book with the idea that he was going to describe "the practical structure of a bilateral ekklesia", so perhaps my bridge building attempts have been in vain.

I previously likened the "bridge building project" as being designed to span a two-mile wide chasm but in practicality, requiring a bridge linking San Francisco and Hawaii. Now I'm considering the gulf to be more "interplanetary" so any "fellowship" will have to be conducted (metaphorically speaking) via radio or rocketship. If our two planets exist in separate solar systems in different parts of the galaxy, then we'll require fictional assistance in the form of "sub-space radio", "warp drive", or a transpacial wormhole.

Point being, this bridge building job just got a whole lot harder.

While structure remains a problem, Dr. Kinzer says the following is of vital importance:

It seems clear from the Apostolic Writings that one of the crucial functions of this ritual is to be an expression and instrument of unity (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:17-32). It is also clear that the Apostles viewed the partaking of food at the same table (in contexts which likely included a eucharistic dimension) as a primary sign of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in one community (Galatians 2:11-14). Thus, any adequate structural and communal embodiment of bilateral ecclesiology will need to provide contexts where members of the Jewish and Gentile wings of the one ekklesia can gather together to celebrate HaZikkaron as one two-fold body.

Ovadia suggested a practical application based on my Boychiks in the Hood metaphor:

Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians can be "ekklesia" together without necessarily being part of the same congregations. We should worship jointly, feast for Yeshua's sake jointly, participate in tikkun olam jointly, study jointly. But jointly. Not as an blob of amorphous Jew-Gentile, but as Jews and Gentiles, each confident in their own God-given identity, together. In your metaphor, the two neighborhoods should come together regularly to throw block parties, and keep those friendships.

That requires some working out of community standards for food at the very least and perhaps a mutually agreed upon worship structure (siddurim, hymnals, or both?) as well.

Of course, Dr. Kinzer is talking about establishing and maintaining relationships primarily with people who are affiliated with a traditional Christian church, not those of us who are part of what Derek Leman calls Judaically-informed Christian congregations (AKA One Law groups). To be fair, Derek is suggesting a third alternative for Gentiles in "the movement" who would not be entirely welcome in a traditional Messianic Jewish venue (that is, a traditional synagogue service for Messianic Jews) nor be comfortable returning to a traditional church setting. His viewpoint is controversial as he readily acknowledges, but he is trying to see to the needs of people like me, who are not accounted for in Kinzer's model.

If we accept as a given that Jews in the Messianic movement require a traditional Jewish worship setting that allows them to maintain an observant lifestyle, has a strong affiliation to the covenant and Israel, and provides potential linkage to a larger Judaism, then assuming that the linkage also travels in the direction of the Christian world by virtue of a common worship of the Jewish Messiah, we need to start working on the currently non-existent "practical structure of a bilateral ekklesia".

I used to be a pretty big science fiction fan and as a kid in the 1960s, I watched a lot of hokey TV shows. One of them was the Irwin Allen "classic" (I say that tongue-in-cheek) The Time Tunnel. This was a secret Government project designed to create a point-to-point link between the present and any other moment in time. Of course, it got broken, sending two American scientists across the time-line and stranding them in one cornball version of a historical event after another on a weekly basis. Nostalgia makes the show for me a fond memory and in the current context, it becomes a persistent image.

Like my former reference to a wormhole (which is at least theoretically possible), maybe given the distance between us, we don't need a bridge so much as a conduit that creates a virtual "tunnel" between our two worlds. Like many inventions suggested by science fiction and then realized in the world of technology (1966 Star Trek communicators and 2010 cell phones, for instance), maybe what seems impossible now is just waiting for the right moment to become possible.

Or are we waiting for the finger of God to start writing on our world...or in our hearts?

Boychiks in the Hood

I never said that the Jewish people didn’t have the right to live in Jewish communities, Gene. Also the John 10 statement isn’t that clear as to the “implementation” of “two pens, one flock, one shepherd”, so there’s a bit of a wobble in the picture. If we acknowledge that there’s a Jewish pen and a Gentile pen, where does the “one flock” come in?

It’s sort of like saying that Chicago has a Jewish neighborhood and a Gentile neighborhood (although by definition, every neighborhood that isn’t Jewish is goy) but Chicago has one mayor who has “authority” over both neighborhoods within the city limits. Yeah, we all live in the same city, but if you’ve ever lived in a city with distinct “hoods” separated by nationality, ethnicity, and language, they might was well be on different planets. Even if you go to visit another neighborhood, you don’t belong and the “mayor” is an irrevelency in the equation (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor). In this sense, both neighborhoods (pens) being in one city (flock) really doesn’t matter, except they still both have to pay the same taxes, obey the same traffic laws, and so forth. There’s no “connection” between the two neighborhoods based solely on having the same mayor (shepherd).

My response to Gene in Ovadia's blog post
Why Bilateral Ecclesiology Will Matter

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

This builds on conversations on Gene Shlomovich's blog as well as the blog I just quoted from and is an extension to my article from earlier today Bridging the Vastness. Before I continue though, I have to apologize to author Robert Eisenberg for "borrowing" the title of his book Boychiks in the Hood. I've never read his book (though I know where I can get my hands on a copy), but the title fit the metaphor I used above so well.

It's been just over 24 hours since this happened (forgive the length):

I had an interesting and somewhat related experience last night. The local Chabad Rabbi and his family had a “financial reversal” and were forced to move out of their home and relocate in a smaller space. My wife and I have been storing some of their belongings in our garage until their situation improves. After I came home from work last night, my daughter told me that the Rabbi’s wife was coming by to pick up some clothes for the kids.

When the Rebbetzin arrived, she seemed to have a hard time talking to me directly, answering to my daughter, even when I asked a question. I offered to help her take her things out to her car, but she said she’d be able to manage herself. I got the distinct impression she wasn’t comfortable with me at all, though we’d never met before.

After the Rebbetzin left, I asked my daughter if I had done anything that could have made the Rabbetzin uncomfortable. My daughter thought that she was just uncomfortable around Gentiles. She said that the Rabbi’s family have only Jewish friends and don’t associate with non-Jews socially. Later, I posed the same question to my wife, and she thought it was just because I was a guy and her husband hadn’t been present.

I say all this to emphasize that, while we talk a great deal about unity and brotherhood between Gentile and Jew, we tend to forget that we live in different worlds. While I’ve generally had no difficulty in casual relationships and even friendships with secular and liberal Jewish people over the years, I have tried to steer clear of the local Chabad because I realize that they’d be upset with my “Messianic” affiliation, if it became known.

I’ve continued to ponder the matter this morning and am coming to realize that the gulf between Gentiles and Jews, even in the Messianic movement, is a great deal wider than I’d previously considered. If indeed Jews in the Messianic movement, like religious Jews in general, need to have synagogues and communities to serve their unique needs, then Gentiles may very well not be able to “join in” without provoking a great deal of anxiety.

While, as Gene says, the Rebbetzin's response to me may simply be an Orthodox Jewish woman's being uncomfortable in a man's presence, particularly with her husband not being around, it did serve as a catalyst for a rather rapid trip down an uncomfortable path. Please bear with me.

I'm not going to go through a series of lengthy quotes from the Aposotlic scriptures describing the struggle of trying to integrate formerly pagan Gentiles into discipleship and worship of the Jewish Messiah. We all know or should be aware of how Paul describes these events. None of the Jewish disciples could really figure out what to do with the Gentiles but, after all, in Matthew 28, Yeshua was clear that he wanted Gentiles to be made disciples as well. In Acts 10, Peter had a close encounter with a blanket full of treif and as a result, got to witness the fact that Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit in the same manner as believing Jews. Perhaps the Acts 15 letter was a response to the "Gentile crisis" and designed to at least temporarily put the Gentiles "on hold" with a limited set of requirements closely mirroring the Noahide Laws, while giving the Jerusalem Council some breathing room to develop a long-term plan (admittedly, I'm taking liberties with the text, but be patient with me on this).

Of course, the long-term plan, if it was ever considered, never was enacted and a long series of events resulted in a separation between the Gentile and Jewish believers and ultimately, thrust the now Goy Jesus into the hands of the Christians while most Jews came to "realize" that the Messiah was yet to come.

Question. Did the Goyim kick the Jews out of the "Messiah club" because Gentiles couldn't or didn't want to enter into a Jewish religion where their options for expression were limited due to their lack of being Jewish or did the Jews walk out because the Gentiles were overrunning the place? I know this sounds cynical, but in many ways, this is the same struggle we find ourselves in today between Gentiles and Jews in the Messianic movement.

Derek Leman has suggested that Gentile Christians can form Judaically-informed congregations and refrain from referring to themselves as "Messianic" to clear up the identity confusion, but this hasn't met with complete acceptance by other involved parties. There really isn't a "quick fix" to this problem, nor do I suspect there will be. Gene has said and I'm agreeing with him at this point, that the struggle won't end until the Messiah comes and straightens us all out.

But what do we do in the meantime?

Do we continue to attempt to build a bridge between our two separate and isolated "neighborhoods" or do we just agree to be separate and distinct and apart and wait. Well, we wouldn't be waiting exactly, we'd be doing what Christians and Jews have done for two-thousand years. We'd be trying to be polite neighbors (I'm not anticipating any pogroms in the United States at this point) but we wouldn't have much to do with each other, except in rare cases. We would live on the world but not in each other's worlds.

Oh, there'd be friendships and sometimes (heaven forbid) intermarriages and other wrinkles in the fabric. Some liberal Jews would associate with Christians and some Christians would want to hang out and learn from the Jews, but like I said...it would be rare...and no one would be threatened.

Based on the "neighborhood" metaphor, there isn't wholesale mixing of people and "practices" between "hoods". If you live in a predominantly white suburb, for example, chances are, you wouldn't be completely at ease in an inner city ghetto, a barrio, or even a predominantly Jewish neighborhood like Crown Heights in Brooklyn. Sure, you could visit. Maybe you have a favorite deli you like to visit and their pastrami on rye is out of this world, but it's just a visit. You don't live there. You don't fit in. It's not your "hood". People are different there.

Frankly, I'm amazed that Gentile participation in "Messianic Judaism" got this far. Of course, we can attribute it to the One Law movement which, up until fairly recently, was the predominant voice of "Messianic Judaism", but as Gene outlines in his blog, as Messianic Judaism progresses more toward a "Judaism" in practice, purpose, and lifestyle, it won't be a "Christian" neighborhood anymore...it will be Jewish.

That leaves something of a vacuum for the Gentiles who have previously felt welcome in a "One Law" style "Messianic Judaism". Sure, we can form our own "Hebraic" or "Judaically-informed" congregations, but they'll suffer from terminal isolation from both the Christian and Jewish worlds. Either people in One Law congregations will circle their wagons and create their forts or the people in them will return to the church where at least they'll be in a "Christian" neighborhood.

Some like me will discover that we no longer belong in the Christian neighborhood either. The concepts are too different and, after all, I have a Jewish wife who, when the last kid moves out, wants to kasher our kitchen, so my home will become continually more Jewish. No, I wouldn't fit in the Christian hood.

I already know many Gentile "Messianics" who choose to not affiliate with any congregation, usually due to the dangers in One Law of poor leadership bordering on cultism or some other unpleasant experience. They maintain quiet home fellowships or simply worship as individual families.

I've quoted from Matthew 8:11 more than once today but given my continual progression down this path that I've been walking for a little over a day now, I don't see how I'll ever be able to sit down at that table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob without feeling like a damn fool or at least like a fish in a bicycle factory.

Bilateral Ecclesiology proponents say that for the good of the Jewish people in the Jewish Messianic "neighborhoods", we Christians (my wife calls me a Christian) should stay in our neighborhoods, shop at our stores, eat at our restaurants, play in our parks, and worship in our congregations. We can be polite and even friendly neighbors. Nothing wrong with borrowing a cup of sugar on occasion. But the wall stays up. I'm again reminded of Robert Frost's very famous poem Mending Wall:

But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go...

Good fences make good neighbors.

Afterword: I just told Gene on a blog comment that I don't so much write essays as process thoughts. That means my blog posts aren't final conclusions so much as periodic journal or diary entries. This is my entry for tonight. Tomorrow when I wake up, the world may look different. I'll let you know.

Bridging the Vastness

..one of the paradoxes of history that the very power of Hillel's moral teaching, having likely affected Jesus, his disciples, and the religion founded in his name, might have been responsible for provoking an anxiety about those very teachings in Jews who felt threatened by the rise and growing popularity of Christianity..
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin
Hillel: If Not Now, When?

I’ve continued to ponder the matter this morning and am coming to realize that the gulf between Gentiles and Jews, even in the Messianic movement, is a great deal wider than I’d previously considered. If indeed Jews in the Messianic movement, like religious Jews in general, need to have synagogues and communities to serve their unique needs, then Gentiles may very well not be able to “join in” without provoking a great deal of anxiety.
My comment at Daily Minyan

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

If you follow the link to the Daily Minyan blog and read the entire contents of my comment (comment #10), you'll understand the event that prompts my thoughts and the thoughts that inspired this blog post (and I should give up trying to restrict myself and admit that I'll be writing an entry a day). Please read my words on Gene's blog before continuing here. Much of what I say won't make sense unless you do.

I feel like a significant part of my rationale for creating this blogspot was flawed. I wanted to use this blog as a platform for questioning my assumptions about my personal faith, my assumptions about the expression of my faith within a "Messianic" or "Hebraic" context, and to attempt to add my voice to the effort of building a bridge between Jews and non-Jews in the "Messianic" community (I put the term "Messianic" in quotes based on recent comments on Derek Lemans's blog).

But there's something wrong with the bridge.

It's not a complete collapse of the bridge I'm experiencing. After all, I have a regular dialogue with Gene, Yahatan, Justin, and even recently with Derek. However, based on last night's and this morning's ponderings, I am coming to understand that the gulf I've been trying to bridge is much wider than I previously realized. The commonalities are far fewer than I imagined, and the differences are far more abundant than I had ever calculated.

A few days ago, I looked up the term "Judeo-Christian" at Wikipedia and found this:

Judeo-Christian is used by some to refer to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity. Others-usually Jews-consider it a "contradiction in terms" that "appeals to a nonexistent historical unity and calls for a banal, modernist theology."

You might say that my emphasis on the phrase nonexistent historical unity is a bit too harsh because there was a brief period when Gentiles and Jews in the First Century Messianic movement overlapped relative to their faith in the Jewish Messiah, but maybe I've been overestimating the degree of overlap. I said the following in a previous blog:

As Christianity and Judaism continued to diverge and finally completely separate, that particular threat died down (though throughout history, Gentiles have been threatening Jews in many other ways), but here we are, 20 centuries later, and we've re-entered the same conflict again.

I doubt that anything was "settled" with any finality in "the early church" relative to Jewish vs. non-Jewish participation and discipleship. In earlier times, I looked to that part of our history in an attempt to locate a model of mutual fellowship and brotherhood between Messianic Jews and Gentiles and have since concluded that such a model did not exist, hence the resulting schism between synagogue and church that exists to this day.


For all my high riding principles and ideals, an encounter with one Orthodox Jewish woman caused me to come back down out of the clouds and land firmly on the reality that the space we are attempting to traverse (or rather, that I was attempting to traverse) isn't what I imagined. I saw a small, gentle river in place of the storm tossed ocean that is now before me.

Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon in 1865 and H.G. Wells published The First Men in the Moon in 1901. However, Neil Armstrong didn't actually step foot on the moon and utter the now famous phrase "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" until July 21, 1969.

I'm not saying the bridge can't be built. I'm not even saying we shouldn't attempt to build that bridge right now. But I am reminded that there were Rabbis who opposed the founding of the modern state of Israel because the Messiah had not yet come. I believe that modern Israel is one "giant leap" in bringing the coming of the Messiah, but it's not the final step...not by a long shot. While we continue to make our efforts to build a bridge and truly unite humanity under the banner of the King, our journey is in its infancy and the frontier lies before us as a boundless vista. Gene recently said he believes the bridge won't be complete until the Messiah returns. Right now, I believe him.

Stepping off of the end of a bridge not yet completed leads to nowhere. We must keep building, one painful inch at a time.

The ocean is vast.

Orthodox Rabbi's View of Torah and the Gentiles

"Anyone who accepts the 7 commandments and is careful to do them, behold he is from the pious of the nations. And he has a place in the world to come. And this is one who accepts them and does them because the Holy One blessed be He commanded them in the Torah and made them known by Moses our master that the sons of Noah were before commanded in them."

Rabbi Mayer Twersky
On the matter of the sons of Noah fulfilling the 613 commandments

I pulled the above quote from an interesting blog called Christian for Moses and should credit Toby Janicki of First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) for posting it on his Facebook page. Otherwise, I might not have found it.

The blog article Rationale for Observing Commandments Other than the 7 (for Gentiles) is short but compelling. You might want to sail over there and read the original source before continuing here. The blog author (who declines to state his or her name) provides appropriate links to the source material written by Rabbi Twersky, but you'll have to know Hebrew to be able to read it. Either the blog author reads Hebrew or had help with the translation. Either way, it should be interesting.

Rabbi Mayer Twersky, the author's source, is an Orthodox Jew who makes some rather startling comments about Gentiles and their observance of Torah beyond the 7 Noahide laws! That has rather profound implications for non-Jews in the Messianic movement relative to our ongoing discussions of what commandments to which we can or should respond.

The blog author's conclusion tells the tale:

So he says that a one who is not obligated in a certain commandment, but wants to perform it can still fulfill it, in this case there is no object of the commandment, but rather the deed is in itself the acceptance of the God of Israel. He notes further that this is the main difference with one who is obligated and fulfills the commandment, in which case there is an object of the commandment, and the fulfillment is the doing of that object.

There's no detail given on which commandments should be addressed by Gentiles, so I don't think non-Jewish Messianics can automatically jump on this and say "Ah ha!" as if it's an open door to Torah obedience for Gentiles. In fact, the statement specifically presents one who is not obligated...but wants to perform it, and says he can still fulfill the commandment, though apparently the act itself is a response to God and not directly to the commandment as such.

Still, I think this opens the door back up for discussion of Gentiles and the commandments outside of the Noahide laws and probably outside of Acts 15, particularly in light of Part 5 and Part 6 of Derek Leman's Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah series and my response to his commentary. While there's nothing in Rabbi Twersky's statements that says anything about Gentile obligation, he certainly is saying that voluntary action can fulfill the commandment's intent.

I should note that the Heaven is Near blog beat me to the punch by posting their own missive on the same topic. Figured I'd toss my two cents into the hat anyway.

Comments?

What Do We Call a Wandering Christian?

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself. -Juliet

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

Thanks to Judah Himango's Weekly Bracha 48, I had the opportunity to read Derek Leman's blog post Not Jewish Yet Drawn to Torah, Part 5 (and I had to do a Google search to find parts 1 through 4, which I wanted to read for context). I did post a brief comment in response on Derek's blog, but my initial thought when reading the article was, "Haven't we gone over this before?"

If you haven't read Derek's article (and I highly recommend that you do, especially the comments section), he proposes that Gentile individuals and groups who are "drawn to the Torah" but have no Jewish identity, redefine their religious identity, specifically abstaining from using the term "Messianic" to refer to themselves (ourselves...myself) and instead, to use some other label. He suggests Judeo-Christian, which has problems if, for no other reason, than it's already been taken:

Judeo-Christian is used by some to refer to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity. Others--usually Jews--consider it a "contradiction in terms" that "appeals to a nonexistent historical unity and calls for a banal, modernist theology." It is nevertheless a common term in American cultural and political rhetoric.
Wikipedia

What particularly struck me, besides what I've mentioned so far, was published by Derek in his prior article Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 3:

(1) Reconsider Christianity. What were your reasons for leaving? Let me anticipate and try to defuse a criticism: “Derek, I can’t believe you started with this one; you just want non-Jews to go back to churches.”

No, I want people to make informed choices. And a bedrock notion for me is that Christianity, in all its imperfections (it’s hilarious if anyone thinks that Judaism or “Messianic” groups do better overall than Christianity) is God’s redemptive community for the nations.

The assumption Derek makes, and it's a good one, is that many Gentiles "leave the church" for a variety of reasons, usually ranging from general dissatisfaction to an intense feeling of being "betrayed" by the church. Further, they (we) tend to believe that Messianic Judaism (for lack of a better term) is a more viable option for worship and "truth".

I have to say at this juncture, that many of us "leave traditional Christianity" for other reasons not associated with any "conflict" with the church, per se. In my case, my wife became attracted to the Messianic movement which turned out to be her first step in re-capturing her Jewish identity. I came along for the ride initially and then discovered the wonder of looking at the Bible through a "Torah-lens" for myself.

Jews in the Messianic movement generally reject the designation of  "Christian" because that term denies their very nature as Jews. Gentiles in the "Messianic movement" (and I know Derek will object to me using this term in relation to non-Jews) tend to reject the designation of "Christian" because they (we) believe that it is attached to a collection of beliefs and behaviors that deny significant parts of the Biblical record, deny the current "choseness" of the Jewish people, and maintains many traditions with pagan origins (and I've tried to address some of these errors in Gentile Messianic thinking in my Christmas blog post and in reviewing FFOZ's What About Paganism?).

In reading over parts 1 through 4 of Derek's series (you should really give them a whirl...I'll put the links toward the bottom of this blog post), I've learned that Derek isn't absolutely against Gentiles forming what he calls Judaically informed congregations, as opposed to simply shooing all of them (us) back into "the church" proper. He further says in part 4 of his series:

That non-Jews who are currently involved in Messianic Judaism can and should (if they choose) remain and understand the nature of Messianic Judaism more clearly. I am aware of (but can’t say too much about) leaders who are working on standards for keeping identities clear in Jewish practice. Messianic Judaism can be seen as pioneering the bringing together of non-Jews and Jews in communities practicing Judaism. The very idea of this disturbs purists and makes our movement vulnerable to criticism from the outside. So be it. There is Jewish precedent, in history and in the thought of some modern Jewish thinkers, for making a place for non-Jews to come into the sphere of Judaism.

Well...dang! That's pretty amazing.

The overarching question is how to include both Jews and Gentiles in "the Messianic movement" while maintaining the uniqueness of identity and roles of the Jewish people within said movement? This question has a "part 2". Here it is. How do you include both Jews and Gentiles in "the Messianic movement" and avoid making the Gentiles in the movement feel like they are second-class citizens sitting at the "back of the bus?"

I asked Boaz Michael that question once over coffee and he told me he thought that a certain amount of "back of the bus" feelings among Gentile Messianics was probably unavoidable. I don't know if I agree that it's inevitable, but I guess we'll see.

I don't think it's Derek's intention to deliberately marginalize Gentiles in "the movement" (although I used to). Why should he? After all, as a Gentile "convert" to Messianic Judaism (and I still have issues with this process, including whether or not it is even possible), he should have a unique affinity for being "not Jewish yet drawn to the Torah". He should have an intimate understanding of what it's like to be a Christian and yet to see beyond the traditional Christian interpretation of the "Old Testament". He should understand what it's like to be a Gentile Christian and to welcome the beauty of the Torah into his heart.

In short, he should deeply understand the rest of us.

The question introduced by Derek (on the most recent occasion) is, do Jewish and Gentile groups in "the movement" require significantly different labels in order to maintain distinctiveness? Here's another question.

Who "owns" the term "Messianic"?

In other words, can one group claim "Messianic" for their own and require that other groups refrain from using it?

I don't know. Maybe not. Frankly, "Messianic" is just about the perfect term to define both Jews and Gentiles in "the movement" because (and here's an important point), it's not just the differences between Jews and Gentiles in "the movement" that need to be clearly defined, it's the commonalities that need clarification as well.

I can see why this is a 5-part series on Derek's blog (and I don't doubt number 6 is on the way) since the topic goes to the very core of our struggles in defining and re-defining "the movement". We have hashed and re-hashed this conversation again and again and I'm convinced we'll still be making hash out of it when the Messiah returns.

Here's the kicker, though.

My wife is Jewish. She wasn't raised in a Jewish home, but her mother was (she passed away many years ago) Jewish (raised in an observant Jewish home on the East Coast). In recent years, God set off a switch deep inside of my wife and she embarked on a pursuit of her Judaism. She is currently affiliated with the local Chabad synagogue in our little corner of the world and I can tell you definitively, she is Jewish and not "Messianic".

I attend and teach at what you might call a One Law congregation, although I'm trying to make some changes in our thinking.

However, regardless of what we may call ourselves ("Messianic", "One Law", "One Torah", and so on), my wife (and the rest of traditional Judaism...Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and so on) calls me a "Christian".

In that sense, it doesn't matter what I call myself because the Jewish world outside of my own little bubble doesn't see me that way. They see me as a Christian. In fact, they see the entire population of the "Messianic movement" as Christian.

Here are the links to Derek's Not Jewish Yet Drawn to Torah series:

Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 1
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 2
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 3
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 4
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 5

NOTE: Since I published this blog post, Derek Leman wrote Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 6. He doesn't directly address any of my points, but I went ahead and posted a lengthy comment anyway. Hop on over and see what it's all about. Oh, and he's going to write a Part 7 in the near future.

Original post continues below:

While Derek and I have had our differences in the past (and I'm sure we will again), I must admit to appreciating many of the points he makes in his series. I don't agree with everything he says, but I can see him making a real effort to build and maintain a bridge between Jews and Gentiles in "the movement" and after all, building bridges is the reason I started writing my own personal blog.

I've been walking on this bridge for awhile now. I don't know where the end of the bridge will take me. I started this blog last July to explore, not only my own assumptions, but the validity of my place in "the Messianic movement", in "Christianity" or anywhere else in the community of faith. Can I be part of building a bridge that matters? Does the bridge lead anywhere? Is there anyone who wants to build the bridge, too?

I've come to realize that I've given my little quest a time limit and about half that time has elapsed.

Derek brings up a question he didn't intend, but one that has been resting upon my shoulders like the weight of the world on the mythical Atlas. If a Gentile believer doesn't find a place in the Christian world nor in the "Messianic" world, is there a place for him at all?

I still believe that God wants me in His Kingdom somewhere. I'm just not convinced that we human beings have caught up with God's plan to build one flock out of two sheep pens (John 10:14-16).

Zionist

Zionism (ציונות, Tsiyonut) is the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained.

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy. -Psalm 137:5-6

I'm not Jewish. While there is disagreement in Christian and Messianic circles regarding Gentiles in the Messianic age, I don't automatically believe I have a physical inheritance over even one square inch of the Land of Israel. I've never visited Israel, though I wish I could, and I may not be able to in this lifetime.

Yet, for the sake of God's will and His promises to the Children of Israel, starting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I fervently desire and support an Israel exclusively for the Jewish people.

The Lord said to Abram, Go forth from your native land and from your father's house to the land that I will show you.
I will make of you a great nation,
And I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you
And curse him that curses you;
And all the families of the earth
Shall bless themselves by you."
-Genesis 12:1-3 (JPS Tanakh)

This ancient promise of God has never been revoked or abandoned, regardless of what some churches, occasionally some synagogues, and especially what the Palestinians say about it. Why am I up in arms this morning?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday night that in the future Palestinian state "there will be no Israeli presence."

While touring Ramallah, Abbas rejected the possibility that Israeli soldiers would remain stationed along the borders of the future Palestinian state or will be a part of an international force that will deploy there.

"We are prepared to move toward peace based on international resolutions, the Road Map and 1967 borders, but when a Palestinian state is established it will be empty of any Israeli presence," said the Palestinian leader.

"If a Palestinian state is established with Jerusalem as its capital, we will object to the presence of even one Israeli in its territory. This is our position," he said.

Ynetnews.com article: Abbas: No Israeli presence in future state

Even while thousands celebrate Christmas in Bethlehem in a Palestinian controlled area of Israel, Abbas continues to hack away his own slices of Israel, including Jerusalem, the City of David, for an Arab people who have no right to override the promises of God.

You may think that it's poor manners on my part to "get political", particularly on December 25th and especially on Shabbat, but as we all know, or should know, there's a lot more at stake.

With the current American administration throwing Israel under a bus and supporting the demands of the Palestinians to carve up the borders of Israel like a Christmas goose, it looks like the safety and security of Jewish Israel and the unity of Jerusalem is experiencing its greatest danger since the modern state of Israel was founded.

But then, I remind myself of this:

In the last days
the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
and peoples will stream to it.

Many nations will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
Everyone will sit under their own vine
and under their own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the LORD Almighty has spoken.
All the nations may walk
in the name of their gods,
but we will walk in the name of the LORD
our God for ever and ever.
-Micah 4:1-5

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do.
Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted,
you who are now far from my righteousness.
I am bringing my righteousness near,
it is not far away;
and my salvation will not be delayed.
I will grant salvation to Zion,
my splendor to Israel.
-Isaiah 46:9-13

The Bible is replete with such promises of God to the Children of Israel and, as grim as many of the stories in the news may be, we must remember (yes, I must remember too) that events will become much worse before they get better and that God ultimately will fulfill His promises to the Jewish people and to the Land of Israel...and to the rest of us.

The Master said it this way:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” -Luke 13:34-35

I read a news story a few days ago which quoted Rabbanit Tzivya Eliyahu, widow of former Sephardic Chief Rabbi (Rishon LeTziyon) Mordechai Eliyahu regarding Christmas and the Shabbat falling on the same day this year:

Jewish observance of the Sabbath day is a known way to bring the Messiah, she said. It is written in the Talmud that if the Jews were to observe two Sabbath days in a row, “they would be redeemed immediately,” she noted.

Each individual can make a difference, she said, “When I asked the rabbi, he always said that even just one extra person keeping the Sabbath day could tip the scales in favor of everyone.”

At times like this, I find faith in unexpected sources:

Spock: "History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith."
Valeris: "Faith?"
Spock: "That the universe will unfold as it should."
Valeris: "But is that logical? Surely we must....."
Spock: "Logic, logic, and logic..... Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."

The scene I just quoted was acted out between Leonard Nimoy and Kim Cattrall in the film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). It seems to say that, while each of us should fulfill our role in the affairs of humanity and God and act in accordance to those roles, it's God, in the end, who brings about His will and who fulfills His promises as He has stated.

Abbas can make whatever proclamations about the "future state of Palestine" he wants, but it is God who will have the final word in everything. It's our job not to lose faith and, in keeping our faith, we gain everything.

Afterword, December 26th: Read this haaretz.com story this morning called Deputy FM: 'The state of Facebook' is more real than Palestine. Seems to be relevant to the theme of this blog post.

Dining on Ashes

You have to get up in the morning and write something you love, something to live for. -Ray Bradbury

Incorrect assumptions lie at the root of every failure. Have the courage to test your assumption. -Brian Tracy

Let's try this again.

The quotes from Bradbury and Tracy pretty much sum up why I write this blog. I've talked a lot about how I'm here to question my own assumptions (and sometimes the assumptions of others) in relation to faith and religion. Recently, I also told someone that I write this blog because I need to write. This isn't just me imparting information, this is me. Period.

I was also recently told (more or less) the following about my writing:

I don't know the key to success but the key to failure is to try to please everyone. -William Henry "Bill" Cosby Jr.

Assuming this quote is true and assuming it applies to me, that means I've been unsuccessful in my mission here. Believe me, there are days I'd just as soon come to the same conclusion and toss it in the trash can, but the following won't let me:

Show me a thoroughly satisfied man, and I will show you a failure. -Thomas Alva Edison

I can't surrender the Messianic blogosphere or the community of faith because I'm not even close to "satisfied" with how things are going in a lot of the arenas encompassed by Messianism. I suppose I won't be this side of the Messiah. That means, even if I don't always want to, I'll keep writing and teaching until he returns, if God is willing to have me do so.

There's another reason I'm there, though:

Talking about "peoplehood" at the dawn of the twenty-first century may seem like an anachronism. After all, this is the age of the global village, knit together by instant communications, international travel, and mass culture. The alternative to a totally homogenized life on a shrinking planet is usually thought of in terms of radical individualism and personal freedom. But that philosophy tends to produce loneliness, isolation, and a hunger to belong to something larger and more durable than oneself.
-Anita Diamant
Choosing a Jewish Life

While Diamant is talking about the motivation for a Gentile to choose to convert to Judaism, she is also describing the need of all people of faith to have community with others who share their perspectives and their attachment to God. By definition, the Messianic movement is isolated, both from mainstream Judaism and from mainstream Christianity. On a human level, we only have each other...for better or sometimes, for worse.

Oh. About the title of this blog post:

Idiom: Dine on ashes: If someone is dining on ashes he or she is excessively focusing attention on failures or regrets for past actions.

To employ a quote from fiction, Remembrance and regrets; they too are a part of friendship and understanding that has brought you a step closer to understanding humanity.

While I'm dining on ashes tonight, I'm also nursing a small spark inside of me, and remembering this commandment from the master:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” -John 13:34-35

Afterword: The phrase "Dining on ashes" is a quote from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) and was delivered by Kirk to Spock (hence the photo of Nimoy at the top). The "Remembrance and regrets" phrase was uttered by Captain Picard to Data in the Star Trek the Next Generation episode "Pen Pals" (1989).

Knowing the Path and Walking It

For Hillel, study was the essential prerequisite for knowing and fulfilling one's obligations, because virtue is not achieved through good intentions alone. Good intentions need be coupled with ongoing and vigorous intellectual effort...But central as Torah study is to Hillel, what one does not find in his aphorisms are teachings about God and about prayer.

In contrast to Hillel, one looks in vain in the New Testament for statements from Jesus advocating rigorous Bible study. It is not intellectural sophistication that Jesus seems to value most, but simple faith...
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin
Hillel: If Not Now, When?

Yes, I'm still reading Rabbi Telushkin's book and I will undoubtedly continue to blog on portions of this text long after I've finished reading it. Here, in the above quotes, we see Telushkin continuing to compare the lives and acts of Hillel and Jesus (Yeshua), this time pointing out a major difference.

In a nutshell, Telushkin characterizes Hillel as a man devoted to the deeply human and compassionate expressions of Judaism but who discovered and deepened those expressions, not through intense prayer, but through intense study.

This isn't to say that Hillel didn't value prayer, but from Telushkin's point of view, Hillel found faith and God primarily through Torah study while Yeshua advocated for a holy life devoted to prayer and good deeds.

Or did he?

What we know of both men is limited to the written record we have of both their lives. In terms of the life of Yeshua, we have a record that is inspired by God, so we have no reason to doubt anything about the Bible, but does it contain everything about Yeshua?

Probably not.

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. -John 21:25

While John is speaking specifically of the post-resurrection activities of the Master, I think it's fair to say that we could apply this to Yeshua's life in general. We only know a certain amount, just like the knowledge of the life of Hillel is limited.

I offer the following as evidence that Yeshua did expect his followers to have a deep understanding of the scriptures, which would, of course, require a great deal of study:

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. -Luke 24:25-27

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. -Luke 24:44-47

The evidence, even during the earthly lifetime of Yeshua, that the Messiah had to die, be buried, and be resurrected was always in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. While we don't find his teachings pointing directly to the requirement to vigorously study Torah, these quotes from Yeshua indicate that Torah study was a necessity. He chided his disciples for failing to study sufficiently to be able to understand the events that were happening all around them concerning the Messiah.

Now lets's turn back to Hillel. The most famous quote attributed to Hillel, from which Rabbi Teluskin takes the title of his book is:

Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time. -Avot 2:4

When comparing this to Jesus though, Telushkin says:

There are no such statements (from Hillel) such as "Do not say, 'When I have free time, I will pray,' lest you never have free time," or even "One who does not believe in God cannot be fully a righteous person."

This is just a guess on my part, but perhaps both teachers were operating under certain assumptions, or at least assessed the needs of their students in different ways. Hillel may have drawn students for whom prayer and devotion to God was a given and therefore, his students didn't require a strong urging in this area. From Yeshua's point of view however, given the fact that most of his disciples were very poor, the opportunity to study at a Yeshiva would have been rare to non-existent. Peter and his companions were fishermen by trade. They had to earn a living. Torah study is very time consuming and usually such students came from wealthy families who would support them. In the case of Yeshua's students, perhaps the nature of their lives combined with limited access to a Yeshiva resulted in his emphasizing prayer over study.

However, this should be a condition that Hillel would have understood because he himself was a poor person, a day laborer who had emigrated from Babylonia to Jerusalem. It was only the kindness of his own teachers that enabled him to begin dedicated Torah study and ultimately go from being a poor common laborer to the foremost scholar and teacher of his day.

I don't come with the answers to these questions and seeming contradictions, but I do want to introduce a "wobble" in this apparent differences between the approach of Hillel and that of Yeshua. While each teacher seemed to emphasize a different path to righteousness, I don't believe that they neglected the values of the other.

The life of Hillel is a testament to compassion, mercy, and graciousness, especially to the poor and the disaffected. How like the teachings of Yeshua his actions were. At the same time, Yeshua had an expectation that his disciples would know the Law and the Prophets sufficently to be able to understand that, when Yeshua died, it was because the Messiah was supposed to die. Even today, you have to study and look for the specific portions of the scriptures that point this out. They aren't always obvious (they seem that way, because in the church, they are highlighted quite a bit...to an Orthodox Jew who studies the same scriptures though, not so much).

Both Hillel and Yeshua came from poor and working class families. Prior to his early 30s, Yeshua no doubt worked quietly in carpentry while, as we've said, prior to entering into formal studies, Hillel was a day laborer. They knew what it was like to do without and they also both had a vision that extended far beyond their stations in life.

We know that Yeshua's purpose and goal was sent from Heaven and from the Throne of God but in more humble ways, that can be said of all of us. Certainly this is also true of Hillel. We know that both of these men were (and are...God is not a God of the dead but of the living, and Yeshua is our High Priest in the Heavenly Court) different in many ways but perhaps, where it truly counted, they were also very much alike.

They both knew what their students needed and they knew how to guide them down the path of righteousness.

Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
Morpheus
The Matrix (1999)

Study after all, is no good unless you put it into action. Prayer, as the brother of the Master points out, is more effective when you act in order to be the answer to prayer (James 2:14-26).

When Shabbat Meets Christmas

This sense of missing something kept gnawing at me, until one day I realized what it was: I missed the Christmas season. I missed that time of year in America. At first I denied it. Growing up in an Orthodox Jewish home and in yeshivas, I had obviously never celebrated Christmas. How could I miss something that I never had? And being so Jewish, how could I miss the quintessential Christian holiday? It seemed religiously wrong, maybe even sinful.
Dennis Prager
A Yeshiva boy and Christmas

I discovered this article early this morning on twitter and found it fascinating. Particularly in the Messianic movement, we make a specific effort to separate our worship of the Messiah from Christmas or Easter in order to establish and maintain the "Jewishness" of Messianism. Prager's article indicates that in the larger Jewish world, that separation doesn't have to be absolute.

I decided to take time out from what I should be doing (I have one more paid authoring assignment due before the end of the year) and to briefly blog about this matter. I specifically wanted to address the events of this particular year. You probably know why.

The upcoming Shabbat starts on Christmas Eve and ends on Christmas Day. Just one week later, Shabbat worship competes with New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

In traditional Judaism, this isn't much of a point. In fact, my wife is helping out at the Chabad on Christmas Eve (well, the Erev Shabbat of December 24th, anyway) to cook a traditional Chinese meal (on the east coast in areas with a large Jewish population, Chinese restaurants serve Kosher meals on Christmas since Jews, who have the time off from work but who don't celebrate Christmas, have time on their hands). I don't imagine that there's a Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox synagogue in America that would even consider closing their doors because Shabbat falls on December 25th or January 1st and for the church, it is a complete "non-issue".

But closing our doors for two consecutive Shabbats exactly what my congregation is doing this year. I posted the notice on our website and sent out a broadcast email this morning.

I feel sad and even a little guilty for doing this, but that board decided that we would likely have few, if any, members or guests attending on either of those two dates.

But is it the right thing to do? I don't know. We presented it to the people who attended services yesterday (It snowed early, so we didn't have a stellar crowd) and no one objected. We already have members who'll be out of town over "the holidays" so attendence is dwindling as December advances. If we were a larger congregation, we likely wouldn't have made this decision, but we are a rather modest group.

What about you? All Messianic congregations are facing this "scheduling conflict" this year. How is your congregation managing this?

I'll wrap up my missive with another quote from Prager's article:

It is that season now, and I never fail to get goose bumps when I hear Burl Ives sing “Have a Holly Jolly Christmas,” let alone when I attend a live performance of Handel’s “Messiah,” surely the most glorious religious music ever composed. I love hearing people wish each other “Merry Christmas.” When my yarmulke-wearing children were younger, I used to take them to see beautiful Christmas lights on homes.

Those who wish to remove Christmas trees from banks and colleges and other places where Americans gather are not only attempting to rob the 90 percent of Americans who celebrate Christmas of their holiday, they are robbing this committed Jew, too.

Comments?

Near Collision

Is there a Jewish consensus on how Jews are to regard Jesus? Perhaps not, but no Jewish scholars with whom I am familiar believe that Jesus intended to start a new religion.
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin
Hillel: If Not Now, When?

Comparisons between Hillel and Jesus (Yeshua) are pretty common. After all, noted Jewish author Rabbi Joseph Telushkin even devoted a chapter to this "couple" in his aforementioned book (and it's not the first time). In fact, one of the reasons I find this book so fascinating is I can see some parallels between my own faith and Telushkin's characterization of Hillel.

However, let's not get too excited. The similarities may not be all that great, especially as you extend the teachings of Yeshua into the mission of Paul. Telushkin writes:

It was perhaps in response to Jesus' emphasis on faith and love, and Paul's decision several decades later to drop the requirement to observe Torah laws, that many Jews came to focus Jewish religiosity on laws, especially ritual laws that most differentiated Jews from Gentiles.

While Messianic Jews and Gentiles in the Hebrew Roots movement may not consider this to be a valid statement in relation to their (our) understanding of Paul and the early Messianic faith community, it is certainly the predominant (non-Messianic) Jewish perspective. In fact, all of the comments I've read in this book so far (I haven't finished reading it yet) tend to be at least slightly critical and uncomplimentary of Christianity, and Telushkin says that Yeshua and Hillel were more unalike than they were alike.

However, Telushkin did bring this comparison up for a reason and not solely to discredit Christianity's belief in Yeshua as the Messiah:

But comparisons between Hillel's and Jesus' teachings on a number of issues can be fruitful. For one thing, it is valuable for Christian scholars to bring Hillel into a consideration of Jesus because of his likely influence on that figure at the center of their religion. Jesus was raised as a Jew and grew up among Jews, and Hillel was the most significant religious figure in the Jewish community during Jesus' youth. That Jesus would have been familiar with Hillel - and with some of his more famous teachings - can be assumed.

The primary value of a Christian's study of Hillel from Telushkin's viewpoint then, would be to gain a better understanding of the Jewish context and Jewishness of Jesus. Rabbi Telushkin makes another point that speaks (though of course, without intending to) to the current "tension" between Jews and Gentiles in the modern Messianic community. In comparing the disputes between Hillel and Shammai, another classic teacher in Judaism and a contemporary of Hillel, Telushkin says:

Indeed, most of the disputes between Shammai and him (Hillel) and among their disciples were on matters of ritual law. He simply deemed Judaism's ethical demands to be foremost in significance, and it is one of the paradoxes of history that the very power of Hillel's moral teaching, having likely affected Jesus, his disciples, and the religion founded in his name, might have been responsible for provoking an anxiety about those very teachings in Jews who felt threatened by the rise and growing popularity of Christianity - a feeling that intensified after Christianity had done away with the legal structure of the Torah and started to hold Jews accountable for their savior's death.

There's much more in this short chapter I could draw from but I want to focus here on what Rabbi Telushkin is saying. Let's isolate part of the quote from above:

..one of the paradoxes of history that the very power of Hillel's moral teaching, having likely affected Jesus, his disciples, and the religion founded in his name, might have been responsible for provoking an anxiety about those very teachings in Jews who felt threatened by the rise and growing popularity of Christianity..

This isn't really what's happening between Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic movement today, but it's something similar. There's dynamic tension involved in Gentile Messianics taking on Jewish practices, including praying the Shema, wearing tzitzit, keeping "kosher style" (though in most cases, not Rabbinically kosher), and saying that they are as much "Israel" as the Jewish people. One of the criticisms I hear repeatedly from Messianic Jews is that these Gentiles are threatening the identity of Jews in the movement by taking on board Jewish behaviors and claiming them as their (our) own.

It seems this sort of collision has happened before, at least in part. Hillel, the predominant teacher in the Judaism of his day, was considered "Gentile friendly", at least quite a bit more than his main opponent Shammai. The story of the three converts illustrates how some pretty rude sounding would-be Gentile converts to Judaism approached Shammai with what most of us would consider unreasonable demands to be converted. Shammai predictably, turned them away, running two of the Gentiles off with a measuring rod and insulting the third. By contrast, Hillel shows amazing patience in accepting and actually converting all three Gentiles, seemingly on the Gentiles' terms, but in fact, ultimately on Hillel's.

Rabbi Telushkin points out that in Roman occupied Israel and especially after the destruction of the Second Temple, the apparent parallels between the teachings of Hillel and Jesus, as illustrated in the actions of a growing number of Gentile Christians, may have pointed Judaism towards expressing a religious life by emphasizing ritual acts of Torah. This was done in order to preserve the Jews as a people and as a distinct faith apart from Christianity. Anything Gentile Christians said or did that was similar to what Jews said or did would be considered a threat to Jewish identity and distinctiveness.

As Christianity and Judaism continued to diverge and finally completely separate, that particular threat died down (though throughout history, Gentiles have been threatening Jews in many other ways), but here we are, 20 centuries later, and we've re-entered the same conflict again. To some degree, a very small degree, Telushkin comments on this, too:

But just as many New Testament scholars have been restoring the Jewish context of Jesus, so it seems appropriate for Jews to acknowledge not only that aspects of Jewish culture made their way powerfully into the teachings of Jesus, but that the openness Christianity displays to Gentiles was already comfortably embraced by Hillel long before Jesus had preached his first sermon.

Rabbi Telushkin isn't really talking about the Messianic movement nor is he likely to, but he does state that, at this time in history, Christianity (and from a traditional Jewish point of view, everyone in the Messianic movement is a Christian) is acknowledging "the Jewishness of Jesus". He also possibly suggests that Judaism can see the Jewish teachings of Hillel reflected in the words of Jesus.

To the Jews and Gentiles who have faith in Yeshua as our common Messiah and who share devotion to the One God of Israel, can we find a meeting place between our two viewpoints and traditions? I believe so. But we have to learn to understand each other.