Depths

Hundreds of linguistic and ideological differences between the commonly accepted Masoretic version of the Pentateuch and the Samaritan text indicate that editing may be one of the world's oldest professions.
Professor Yair Hoffman
Bible Studies / The things that you're liable to read in the Bible
Written for HAARETZ.com

In Israel, a new archaeological “discovery” of sorts is buzzing and making bold claims that they may be the next “Dead Sea Scrolls.” They include a collection of scrolls as well as 70 lead codices (ancient scripts bound in book form, rather than as scrolls). However, we have conflicting reports on the nature of these “newly found” artifacts. They are owned by “Hassan Saeda, a Bedouin farmer in Galilee who says they have been in his family’s possession since his great-grandfather found them in a cave in Jordan, a century ago.” Although there is still a lot of skepticism surrounding these artifacts, there are some strong voices that are willing to attest to their authenticity, wanting to avoid another possible Shapiro Affair.
from the Digging with Darren blog

How did the things we read now in the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John get written down in the form we now have them? There are many decisions to make if we try to reconstruct a possible or probably story of gospel transmission. I’ll try to make the story interested, not too bogged down with long lists of sources and proofs. I’ll keep that kind of writing short and refer the reader to various scholars such as Mark Goodacre, Richard Bauckham, Paul Anderson, and others that I know I will find along the way have added something significant to an understanding of gospel transmission.
Derek Leman
Chronicling the Formation of the Gospels #1
from the Yeshua in Context blog

All of the quotes you've just read have something in common. They are all the opening paragraphs of articles addressing the struggle we have in understanding, and in some cases locating, the Word of God. While many Christians in the world believe that the Bible, as it is translated into English (or as it is rendered in people's favorite English translation) is totally sufficient as the original, inerrant, Word of God; the source of truth and facts about God, Jesus, and everything, is this really so?

The quotes I posted and the articles they come from seem to indicate that the Bible, all by itself, as we have it today, isn't the end all and be all of the word of God.

I don't say this by way of complaint. I'm beginning to come to terms with the uncertainty that the Bible introduces as a "stand-alone" document and the requirement of interpretation and examination in "studying the Word". Yet, while we rely on the Bible for so many things, we can also be ignorant of what the Bible can't do for us.

He was born in Israel and lives in the north. He trains rabbinical court judges and writes essays on the weekly Torah portion, which he says are well-respected. Clearly possessed of a sharp, inquisitive mind, he could be described as a religious sage. During the flight, he was preparing a commentary on the Torah portion of Miketz, in Genesis, and he shared various questions and insights with me. I referred to variations of certain words in Genesis as they appear in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and to how the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible contains sentences that do not appear in the Masoretic version.

My fellow passenger did not know what I was talking about. Not only was he unaware of the existence of ancient versions of the Bible, but he also lacked knowledge of the essence of the Masoretic text - the canonical Hebrew text redacted by scholars in Palestine and Babylon toward the end of the first millennium. He did not know, for instance, that the diacritical marks date only from the 10th century, or that manuscripts and later printed versions of the Masoretic text are not identical.

Yair Hoffman, professor emeritus of Bible Studies at Tel Aviv University, was describing a man he met on a recent flight from New York, a man who was an ultra-Orthodox Jew and who "trains rabbinical court judges and writes essays on the weekly Torah portion, which he says are well-respected." Yet, as Hoffman relates, this intelligent "religious sage" did not grasp some of the most basic facts about the Bible, what it is, and where it comes from. How can this be?

How can this be for any of us?

In my own case, I just didn't know any better. Fortunately I found out (the hard way) and once I got over my shock, I started consuming every text I could lay my hands on, specifically on the New Testament, and with a focus on Jesus and the "deity issue".

Our own Messianic Bible scholar, Derek Leman, addresses similar matters regarding the Gospels in a recent blog post and I certainly hope he continues to write articles for his series "Chronicling the Formation of the Gospels". It's not enough to "have" the Bible as it exists today. "Having" isn't understanding. Like a pool of unknown depths, we must go beyond the surface, brave the shadowy waters, and search for what awaits us as we dive into a sea of many hidden truths.

I had rather high hopes for the recently discovered lead codices before I found out that they were fakes. I did entertain the interesting question "are they Christian or Kabbalistic" with the hopeful thought that they could, in their own way, be both. That may sound strange to some of you, but I've found that looking at the mystery of the Jewish Messiah through a mystic and Chasidic lens has revealed more to me than most traditional Christian commentaries and dogmatic interpretations.

Saying "the Bible isn't enough" probably sounds horrible and maybe even a bit heretical, but if a surface reading of the Bible were enough, we wouldn't have commentaries, interpretations, and scholarly theological theses. Certainly observant Jews don't think the Bible is enough. Otherwise, we (they) wouldn't have Talmud, Mishna, and Gemara. When I introduce this topic among some folks associated with my congregation, I get the argument that we must rely on the Word of God, not the word of man. Yet the Bible we have today is as much (if not more) the word of the human writers, interpreters, and translators as it is the Word of the One, True God of the Universe.

While the "facts" of the Bible may be contradictory, and the truth of the Bible remains elusive, somewhere in the middle of man, God, and the words on the page, I see an inviting but mysterious portal. Paul said that in the present age, we see the things of God as "through a dark glass" (1 Corinthians 13:12). I believe we're looking at the surface of a body of water. We can't tell what's under that surface, how deep the water goes, how hot or cold it is, and what sub-sea enigmas it contains. If we want to know what God has to tell us, we have to dive in, sometimes half-blind, and pray that once we've made our "leap of faith", we will find the illumination under the blue waves that we can't find in the light of day.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

Seeing Like a Ben Aliyah

We can explain in light of this statement that the bloods do not cancel each other out. A Jew who ascends in the ways of Hashem—a ben aliyah symbolized by the olah—does not nullify his friend. Instead he sees only the good in others and often praises them.

Stories off the Daf
You Are Called Adam
Menachos 22
Daf Yomi Digest

I read these "Stories off the Daf" every day (or almost every day) and sometimes they really get my attention. From yesterday's Daf, Rav Yehudah Freund, zt"l teaches us that we can learn something from the Olah offering in the combining of the blood of the bull and the goat on Yom Kippur (I know this may seem obscure, strange, or even bizarre to some of you, but the great Rebbes were able to see many moral lessons illustrated by God in the study of the Oral Law). In this case we learn that, even though more of the blood of the bull is used than the blood of the goat in the two separate Olah offerings, they do not nullify each other and particularly, the majority (bull) blood does not nullify the minority (goat) blood being offered.

The Rav continues:

My brother Yaakov taught a profound lesson from this halahcah, based on the famous words of the prayer of Rav Elimelech of Lizhensk, which many recite before the morning prayers: "May we only look upon the good qualities of our friends and not upon their weaknesses."

In the reality of our lives, even in the lives of disciples of the Jewish Messiah and worshipers of the one, true God of Israel, we find this practice, though ideal, somewhat elusive. A few days ago, Judah Himango posted a blog about the difficulties in forgiving others, and some of the comments made on one of the recent blogs I wrote for my congregation, show a less than gracious reply to some challenging remarks.

As human beings, our first response is to build ourselves up by tearing the other guy down. While the anonymous sage relates, "blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make yours burn any brighter", we nevertheless expend a great deal of our breath extinguishing the flames of those around us in the (vain) hope that our light will provide greater "illumination" (though often, we find ourselves sitting in the dark, instead).

The Rav concludes his lesson this way:

When a person acts as he should, he takes the blood of his body and binds it to Hashem, the "Aluf or Master of the world," But when one is on a low level he is merely dam, blood that is not connected to Hashem. People who are on this level of blood nullify each other. They tend to focus on the weaknesses of others, not on their good points.

We can almost imagine that Paul was making a commentary on Rav Yehudah's teaching with these words:

We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. -Romans 15:1-4 (quoting Psalm 69:9)

We bear the weaknesses of others, overlooking them and only seeing their strengths, because this has also been done by the Jewish Messiah for us:

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. -2 Corinthians 12:9-10

Good Shabbos.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

Teaching Women

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’ -Luke 10:38-42 (NRSV)

I used this text during last Shabbat's teaching at my congregation as part of a discussion of gifts, giving, and motivation, but something a little unusual happened. It wasn't that I learned something new during the lesson. I often learn something new from what the class says when I teach, but I heard an interpretation, well a "hint" anyway, of something I'd absolutely never considered before.

We were discussing the differences between Mary (Miriam) and Martha (Marta) during this sequence of events and, while Martha was correctly expressing middle eastern hospitality (which particularly in ancient times was a much bigger deal than in modern American homes), the Master was pointing out that learning the things of God contains a greater and more lasting value.

First let's address the issue of hospitality just to get it out of the way. I'll use a classic example:

The Lord appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre; he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot. Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them and, bowing to the ground, he said, "My lords, if it please you, do not go on past your servant. Let a little water be brought; bathe your feet and recline under the tree. And let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves; then go on—seeing that you have come your servant's way." They replied, "Do as you have said."

Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Quick, three seahs of choice flour! Knead and make cakes!" Then Abraham ran to the herd, took a calf, tender and choice, and gave it to a servant-boy, who hastened to prepare it. He took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared and set these before them; and he waited on them under the tree as they ate. -Genesis 18:1-8 (JPS Tanakh)

As you'll recall from Genesis 17:26, Abraham, and every male in his household, had just recently been circumcised, so running around to make sure that the needs of the three strangers (there's no reason to believe Abraham knew they were angelic beings at this point) was undoubtedly really "uncomfortable" for him. Nevertheless, he would have been severely remiss as a host if he had neglected his guests, no matter what the reason.

Also, there's this:

And he said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.” And he answers from within, “Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.” I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs. -Luke 11:5-8 (NRSV)

In this case, Jesus is using an example of hospitality that would have been very familiar to his audience and which not only mirrors Abraham's example, but explains why Martha was so distressed that Mary wasn't helping out in serving the guests. Jesus wasn't undoing the custom and duty of hospitality when he spoke to Martha, he was explaining that there are things even more important, and Mary was doing them.

But besides breaching social etiquette, what's so special about Mary sitting at the Master's feet and learning from him? She was a woman.

Think about it. Although Jesus had many disciples who were women, in almost all "important" transactions, he is speaking to and teaching men. All of his inner circle; the twelve disciples, were men. There is a long tradition in the Tanakh, the Apostolic Scriptures, and in historic Judaism and Christianity that tends to favor men over women.

Does that mean Judaism and Christianity is sexist?

Besides all of that, I don't think that Christianity would exist today if it were not for sexism. If Mary didn't face getting stoned to death for getting knocked up before marriage, there would have been no need for the cockamamie immaculate conception story anyhow. Odds are, Joseph pressured her to have sex before marriage and told her nothing bad was going to happen. But, I guess I'm biased.

From an article at Think Atheist

However, there are numerous areas of the Bible where we see that women are not treated poorly, as the above writer suggests:

The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, "Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father's kinsmen!"

Moses brought their case before the Lord.

And the Lord said to Moses, "The plea of Zelophehad's daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father's kinsmen; transfer their father's share to them. -Numbers 27:1-7 (JPS Tanakh)

On the one hand, Moses had to bring this case before God because it wasn't obvious that Zelophehad's daughters should inherit, but on the hand, Moses didn't dismiss their case out of hand because it wasn't obvious that they shouldn't have such rights.

There are numerous examples of how women are valued and esteemed in the ancient Jewish (Proverbs 31:10-31) and Christian worlds, but in Christianity, the most obvious example is this:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:27-29 (NRSV)

"No longer male and female" doesn't mean Paul is saying that the differences between sexes were eliminated, but that access to God and our value in the eyes of the Jewish Messiah isn't affected by our gender. For men and women (and Jews, Gentiles, masters, and slaves) the playing field is completely level in that regard.

While the message of wives submitting to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24) is often seen as sexist and oppressive, critics usually don't read far enough to see that husbands are commanded to care for their wives to the same standard that they care for themselves (Ephesians 5:25-33), and that the relationship of love and respect in marriage goes both ways.

But having said all that, did women in ancient (and not so ancient) times, have equal access to Religious and Spiritual learning?

If you've seen the 1983 Barbra Streisand film Yentl, then you might be tempted to say "no". After all, Streisand's character in the film must disguise herself as a young man to be allowed to attend a Yeshiva in Poland in 1903. This is a relatively accurate understanding of women and Jewish Yeshiva education at that time.

Traditionally in Judaism, women are "exempted" from a number of time related mitzvot as they would interfere with their duties as mothers and wives (which can certainly sound sexist). Christianity must admit to the same historical responsibility in favoring men over women in the areas of education and ministry.

While the majority of "key players" in the Bible are undeniably men, perhaps this is more of a reflection of cultural bias rather than God's intent. We see some exceptional women in the Bible (the Judge Deborah) and we notice in a number of Paul's letters that he commends a significant group of faithful women in the fledgling Messianic community. While Jesus didn't seem to assign leadership roles to any women among his inner circle, his treatment of Mary seems to show that he didn't object to (and perhaps instead respected) Mary sitting at his feet and learning the same lessons as the men. Holiness is after all, an equal opportunity affair if we can believe Paul's letter to the Galatians, and if both men and women are to have equal access to God, they certainly must be afforded an equal opportunity to learn.

While "equality" is considered more or less the norm in religious practice today (adjusted for practices in different Christian denominations and in the different branches of Judaism), we tend to think of the ancient record as showing that women were held to a lesser standard or denied equal opportunities for study and ministry. I don't believe this is true, or at least I don't believe this is true because of God's intent. If we can trust how Jesus interacted with Mary and Martha (and I admit, I'm piling on a tremendous amount of meaning onto a single part of the book of Luke), then the modern practice of admitting both men and women to Bible and Talmud study (again, adjusting for customs in different expressions of Christianity and Judaism), means we are finally catching up to a teaching of the Master that has been historically ignored.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

Near Empty

If there is light in the soul,
There will be beauty in the person.
If there is beauty in the person,
There will be harmony in the house.
If there is harmony in the house,
There will be order in the nation.
If there is order in the nation,
There will be peace in the world.

-Chinese Proverb

It came down to Chicken Soup for the Soul or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. My appetite could go in either direction and I wasn't sure which one was more appealing. I was at the public library during my lunch hour today, and even though I already had a book of my own to read, I found I really wasn't in the mood for 1930s vintage science fiction.

As I often do, I found myself wandering among the rather meager selection of Jewish religion books on the second floor and glanced at Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul. I almost picked it up, but given recent conversations on the web, I wondered if it would be "kosher". Actually, I just wondered if it would even fit.

I was pulled between two poles: the need to find something to rekindle my spirit and the desire to "give in" to a sense of personal "fear and loathing" relative to religion (as opposed to "faith"?). I found Thompson's "Fear and Loathing" book and pulled it off the shelf. I also selected the more generic version of "Chicken Soup" trading in my "pastrami and kosher dill on rye and Jewish chicken soup" for the safer "peanut butter and jelly on wheat" reading selection.

I carried both books to a seat by the window in the back and pondered for a minute which one I should start first. I'd never read either book before and thought I should check them out, but I had to start with one of them. Both books are well known and considered classics in their own right. Chicken soup or fear and loathing? I'd been meaning to read them for years. What was I in the mood for?

I decided that chicken soup was probably healthier for me.

As the minutes to my lunch hour ran out, I decided to only check out Chicken Soup and I put Fear and Loathing back on the shelf (for the time being, anyway).

Forty-six pages into Canfield and Hansen's book and I can say that I'm only marginally interested. The thought of reading a book written by two motivational speakers isn't really "inspiring" to me. They generally promise to sell you a new personality (at inflated rates) and what you actually get is a few hours or, if you're lucky, a few days of elevation, followed by a return to your regularly scheduled life. That's not permanent change, it's just a temporary loan.

But I checked out Chicken Soup, so I might as well see it through. So far, a few of the stories have been heartwarming, a few have been tearjerkers, a few seem a little too contrived, and particularly one story seemed just plain strange ("I taught the audience how to vigorously rub their hands together, separate them by two inches and feel the healing energy"...huh?). I certainly hope more of the tales are of the "heartwarming" variety.

If you haven't guessed, I'm trying to find a compass heading that points me in the direction of who I am and what God wants me to do. Over the past several months, I've received a number of conflicting, if not confusing messages from a variety of sources. It's like walking into the Men's department at a clothing store and shopping for a sports coat. The different sales people keep making suggestions and giving me jackets to try on, but either the color is bad on me, they're too big, they're too small, the fabric itches, or something else doesn't seem quite right.

I don't know. Maybe I'm picky. After all, each one of these coats seems to fit each of the sales people offering them just fine. They just don't fit me.

Paul says there's a "peace beyond all understanding" but I can't seem to find it. Yeshua (Jesus) said the following:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” -Matthew 11:28-30

I've been following the conversation on Derek Leman's blog post Not Jewish Yet Drawn to Torah, Part 8, but it seems rather cerebral at this point. I don't have a problem with good scholarship, but it's not my primary need right now.

All of these debates about "yes, you can pray with tefillin", "no you can't" "obligated vs. permitted", "you can only rest on Shabbat if you don't do it jewishly" just aren't taking me in the right direction.

I think I need something more basic. Where's that guy who said "I will give you rest"? I'll take some of that, please.

What Did Jesus Teach About Response and Acceptance?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. -Matthew 28:19-20

This is the eighth part of my series on what Yeshua (Jesus) directed his Jewish disciples to teach the newly minted Gentile Messianic disciples to obey. Today, we'll take a look at what Yeshua (Jesus) taught about what we do when we hear the Good News. In other words, we'll examine the different aspects of our response and acceptance of him. Before we go on though, let's review the previous lesson: What Did Jesus Teach About Following Him:

In a nutshell, we learn that when we choose to be disciples of Yeshua, we are not promised trouble-free lives and despite the difficulties, we must always make the purposes of the Kingdom our first and unconditional priority. If we are faithful to God, God will be faithful to us and take care of us. If our faith is strong and our eyes are on the Master, we are able to do anything he asks of us.

What we're looking at today, the concepts of hearing the message of the Good News and what we do with it, really should have come before lessons on following the Messiah, since we still must hear the Word first, and then make a decision for or against becoming a disciple of the Master. Let's cut to the chase.

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." -Matthew 7:24-27

That seems pretty simple and straightforward. If we hear the words of the Good News and puts them into practice, we will be able to endure great storms, most likely the "storms" of spiritual, emotional, and generally life challenges. These are the things we all worry about and the concerns we all have over our existence. It's not much of a stretch to see that Yeshua is saying he is the foundation upon which to build; the Rock, strong, solid, secure, enduring. Of course, we have a choice as to build on stone or sand.

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." -Matthew 13:18-23

This is Yeshua's plain language explanation of the Parable of the Sower to his disciples. He's describing the different possible responses people can have to the Good News. Some of it is very favorable but other responses, alas, are not. Again, it's a matter of making choices. Yeshua again brings up one of the major roadblocks in responding to him, even after accepting his offer of discipleship; the "worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth". Hearing and making an initial acceptance is one thing, but the real fruit is in our being able to understand, take root, and then respond, especially over time. Yielding a large return is the real goal in becoming disciples, not just some momentary power surge when we first come to faith. Verse 23 tells the tale: "But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

The Parable of the Weeds says something similar but not exactly the same:

He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear". -Matthew 13:37-43

This is why living in the world can be hard sometimes. The sprouts from the "good seed" have to grow in the same field as the weeds (and in this parable, "weeds" represent the seed of the "evil one", not merely the worries of the world). God won't prematurely weed the field so that only the good sprouts can grow. This seems rather contrary to those of us who maintain a yard and keep a garden. We work all season to keep the weeds at bay so the "good sprouts" can grow and flourish, but in the reality of our lives, the world is like a vacant lot, with sunflowers and pigweed growing side by side. Even once we accept the Good News and respond in discipleship, we are expected to endure in a challenging and sometimes troublesome world, rather than being provided an ideal and protected environment. That's how you'll know the plants which truly bear good fruit. They are the ones that survive and thrive, in spite of the weeds.

Don't worry, though. In due time, the weeds will be pulled and burned. Just make sure you're a plant producing good fruit and not a weed. I suspect some of the plants in the vacant lot may be experiencing identity confusion. Continual self-examination will help.

This next parable is interesting:

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. -Matthew 21:28-32

This is the difference between those who say they are righteous and those who behave righteously. Sometimes we don't start out on the right path, saying we will not obey, but we change our minds, repent, and end up working in the Master's vineyard. This was one of the times Yeshua delivered a "slap in the face" to the corrupt religious hierarchy of his day; those who made themselves look holy but did not act that way. The Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46) teaches the same lesson using a different analogy, and the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14) teaches that, when you are invited, you can either accept or reject the invitation to the banquet, but if you accept, come "dressed" for the occasion, that is, accept the invitation as it was given and take it seriously. Don't say you're a disciple but then behave frivolously. Don't treat what is holy as if it is common.

This last example may be difficult to understand within the current content, but I think it fits:

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure". -Matthew 11:25-26

Some people think that the invitation to discipleship is limited to only certain population groups. During the time of the Gospels, many believed that only the outwardly "righteous" had a place in the "world to come", but as we see in Matthew 21:28-32, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of those to elevate themselves based on outward signs of righteousness. In Acts 10, God had to tell Peter in a vision that it wasn't only the Jews who could accept discipleship, but the Gentiles as well, even though he had been given the original Messianic directive years before (see Matthew 28:19-20) to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (See Acts 10:44-48 for Peter's amazed response at witnessing Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit). Even today, there are many who believe that only those who attend specific denominations or sects are the "true believers", while everyone else is destined for destruction.

The quote of the Master from Matthew 11:25-26 is one of my favorites, because it says that the rich, the powerful, the academicians, and the theologians aren't the exclusive keepers of God's Word and that in fact, discipleship and access to God is available to everyone who believes and acts upon the Good News. So those of you out there who have been tempted to rely on your positions of leadership, on your titles, on your membership in the "true" churches, or on your university degrees, please remember that God is the God of everyone, not just the favored few. Remember the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14).

Conclusion: What does Yeshua teach us about hearing the Good News and our response to him?

1. When we hear the Good News, we must put it into practice by using the Rock as the foundation on which we build our lives.
2. When we put the Good News into practice, the crop it yields is not just our own lives but in the many seeds we plant which bring up large crops of disciples for the Kingdom.
3. When we hear the Good News and put it into practice, we shouldn't expect that we'll grow in a field only yielding good sprouts. We'll be surrounded by weeds. Don't be discouraged. It's how we grow among the weeds that tells much about our fruit.
4. Interestingly enough, it's not necessarily our initial "yes" or "no" to the Good News that matters, but how we actually responded in action, even if we said "no" but then repented, changed our minds, and now perform as if we had first said "yes". That's what really matters.
5. If we accept the Good News, we shouldn't be frivolous about it. We should show up dressed for the occasion and prepared for the banquet. Don't treat holiness cheaply.
6. The offer of the Good News is for everyone, not just for the elite, or for the educated, or for only one religious or ethnic group. It must be offered to everyone or the message means nothing.

In a nutshell, in today's lesson, we learn that when we hear the Good News of Messiah Yeshua that's being delivered to the entire world, we must respond by building the foundation of our lives on the Rock and then sharing the seed that was planted with as many as we can. Put the Word into practice so we can bear good fruit and yield large crops of disciples for the Master. It's not so much whether we say "yes" or "no" but whether we repent and then "do" that counts.

Remember that the message wasn't issued just for an elite few, for only the highly educated, for only the "Rabbis", for only the theologians. No. The message was sent out to the world, too; for the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the garbage collectors, the homeless, the hungry, the needy...for all the people of all the nations. For everyone. Not just for you.

Now go. Spread some seed. Yield good fruit. Harvest a great crop. Time is short.

What Did Jesus Change? The Gentiles

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. -Matthew 8:5-13

This is one of the few times the Bible records a transaction between Yeshua (Jesus) and a non-Jewish person. From Christianity's point of view, it may seem a little disappointing that Jesus would spend so much time among the Jews who ultimately would reject him and barely give a nod to the Gentiles who would come to adore him. Of course, that viewpoint is significantly skewed, both from the Biblical record and from the nature, character, and mission of the Jewish Messiah (as opposed to the Christian Jesus), but let's examine this matter a bit further.

From a strict Messianic Jewish point of view, Yeshua "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24) and thus his lack of interaction with Gentiles was to be expected. After all, he's the Messiah to the Jewish nation, not to all the nations. Yet his interactions with non-Jews, rare though they may have been, were extremely telling. The story of the interaction between the Roman Centurion and Yeshua, already quoted, paints a portrait of a Gentile who had great faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We don't imagine he could have known Yeshua was not only a teacher and prophet but the Messiah as well, but he knew enough to believe Yeshua was a holy man of God, able to heal through faith. It was the Centurion's faith as a matter of fact, that surprised even the Master:

"When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith." -Matthew 8:10

That had to have stung the Jewish people hearing Yeshua speak, particularly the disciples who were with the Master. What Yeshua said immediately afterward must have been even more shocking:

"I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." -Matthew 8:11-12

Taken in context, Yeshua seems to be saying that at least some of the Gentiles of the nations will come to great faith and will "take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" while some of the Jewish people (subjects of the kingdom) will be "thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

I imagine I'll get quite a bit of rebuttal on what I just said from the Messianic Jewish community, but when you consider the message of Paul to the mixed Jewish/Gentile congregation in Rome recorded in Romans 11, you see that the "glue" that keeps us attached to the holy root isn't being Jewish or Gentile, but rather, it's faith. Yeshua said it in Matthew 8 and he says it again here:

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. -Matthew 15:21-28

The Syro-phoenician, even in the face of the apparently harsh words of Yeshua, continued in her faith, humbly approaching the Master for the sake of her daughter and such great faith was rewarded. How many people, having once been rebuked, would have sadly gone away, condemning their child to unimaginable suffering because the Master said "no" once? This woman did what most mothers do for the sake of their children; suffer virtually any hardship and opposition to get help for her beloved offspring.

We can argue if Yeshua was testing this woman by calling her a "dog" or if he seriously wanted her to just go away, but if the latter, her persistance convinced the Messiah of her faith and faith, above all other considerations, is what heals and saves.

We also know of a Samaritan woman who talked to Yeshua at a well (John 4:4-42) and the Master was bluntly honest with her, too:

He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." -John 4:16-18

Nevertheless, he also tells her that he is the "living water" and that "..whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:14) which is somewhat confusing if he otherwise didn't want to give her the time of day. In fact, something amazing happens as a result of this "chance" encounter:

Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers. They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world." -John 4:39-42

Yeshua actually stayed with the Samaritans for two days (in those days, Jews and Samaritans didn't particularly get along, so this was at least unusual if not unheard of) and he spoke to them all directly, and not just to the one Samaritan woman. As a result, many of the Samaritans came to faith and believed "this man really is the Savior of the world" (emphasis mine).

One of the arguments in strict Messianic Judaism is that, because Yeshua came only for the lost sheep of Israel, we must take his words and teachings within that context rather than applying them liberally to all believers, Jewish and Gentile alike. I've been told that, while Gentiles can read and study the teachings of Yeshua from the Gospels, they must all be understood specifically as teachings to the Jews and not to the Gentile nations. I have a few problems with that understanding.

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. -John 10:14-16

"They too will listen to my voice.." (emphasis mine). This is a very important saying of the Master and indicates his direct intent to include the Gentile nations as his "flock" and his declaration that he is the "Good Shepherd" to the Gentile "sheep" as well as the Jewish "sheep". It is also a passage that I've never seen quoted in strict Messianic Jewish writings (though of course, I haven't read them all). I was a tad surprised that I didn't find an analysis of this passage in Mark Kinzer's Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People. When I was reading and reviewing Dr. Kinzer's book, I thought he would find it necessary to offer his understanding of this critical passage, particularly in light of his proposal of Bilateral Ecclesiology as a method of healing the schism between believing Jews and Gentiles. One cannot discuss the relationship between Jewish and Gentile disciples of the Master without considering the "Good Shepherd". Then, there are also these words:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." -Matthew 28:16-20

Let's read part of that again:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you... (emphasis mine)

Just so we're clear on this, let's find out what a disciple is:

one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a : one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ's followers according to the Gospel accounts b : a convinced adherent of a school or individual -Merriam-Webster Dictionary

That's the dictionary definition. Let's take a look at a couple of other viewpoints. Bible.org states that the Christian definition is:

In Ancient Greek, the verb manthano is used to denote the process by which one acquired theoretical knowledge. A disciple was a learner. A man was known as a mathetes or disciple when he bound himself to another in order to acquire his practical and theoretical knowledge. The word was sometimes nearly synonymous with the term apprentice. There was never a disciple without a master or teacher. In some Greek circles the teacher was paid by his disciples.

The commentary from Bible.org goes on to make this statement about Rabbinic Judaism's interpretation of a disciple:

As R. T. France has observed, “Every Jewish teacher worth his salt had his circle of ‘disciples’ who ‘followed’ him (literally walking behind him as he rode or walked ahead), looked after his daily needs, and soaked up his teaching. Their teacher was the most important person in their Lives.”

In Judaism one must learn not only the Old Testament Scriptures, but also the oral traditions, the traditions of the fathers. One would attach himself to a Rabbi, who would serve as a kind of mediator between the student and the Scriptures. One dared not to interpret the Scriptures independently, and could only speak with authority after years of study under a master. Since there were several masters, there sprang up several schools of rabbinical thought, each in competition with the others.

Although I can't find the specific sources, in Rabbinic Judaism in days gone by a disciple would attempt to imitate his Master in every aspect of life, including how he dressed, how he ate, how he spoke, as well as what he taught. Some stories (and I don't know how true these are) say that a few disciples even went to the extreme of hiding in the Master's home to secretly observe how the Master relieved himself and even how he made love to his wife.

I know, those last bits seem a bit bold, but I include them to illustrate that a disciple in Jewish tradition is not just a convert or a "classroom student", but someone who learns by imitating the actions and teachings of the Master teaching him.

How do we apply this to Matthew 28 and the Gentiles? So far, we can conclude that although Yeshua came for the lost sheep of Israel, he did not limit himself in absolute terms from Gentiles and in fact, it seems that the only Gentiles he had anything to do with were those who approached him specifically as a matter of faith. Beyond that, Yeshua stated his intent to be a Good Shepherd to both the Jewish and Gentile flocks and out of two pens to be one shepherd to one flock. He also said that he wanted his Jewish disciples to teach the Gentiles to become disciples and to teach the Gentile disciples everything he had taught the Jewish disciples.

When I've mentioned that last comment before, the response from the MJ/BE perspective was to say that Yeshua taught "mainly moral law", as a way of expressing that he did not teach Jewish distinctiveness and thus, such specific Jewish behavior was not intended to be passed on to the Gentiles. Maybe so and maybe not, but I suspect that the answer to that question lies in the writings of the Apostles, which I'll cover in my next blog.

NOTE: Judah Gabriel recently posted a paper written by J.K. McGee on his blog titled "One Law for All". The timing is very good and should add some perspective to what I've already learned in this area from my recent studies as well as providing additional dimension to the next part of this series.

One final point to consider. You may assume that the only reason Yeshua came "for the lost sheep of Israel" was that they were "the lost sheep of Israel". He was and is the Messiah, so what else should he be doing? I agree, but I think there was another reason that has a direct application to the rest of the world.

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth. -Isaiah 49:6

Israel was always intended to be an example; a light to the nations, leading the pagan Gentiles to the One God. If "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22), then the leaders and the examples who draw the Gentiles to the Messiah must be the believing Jewish people. Beyond what I've said before, perhaps another reason Yeshua went to the lost sheep of Israel was so that they could be found and then go to the lost sheep of the nations. Food for thought.

What Did Jesus Change? Sons of Abraham

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. -Matthew 3:7-9

I'll say upfront that some of you reading this won't like what I'm about to say and certainly will argue against my opinion, but I've been considering this for quite some time and today, I gave it a voice.

I've been trying to identify what specifically has been bothering me about the various comments in the Messianic blogsphere since I started involving myself in this environment. While there have been blogs seeking to establish unity within the Messianic realm posted lately, such as Dan Benzvi's Is a meaningful dialoge possible? You bet! and Judah Himango's Some things we agree on, the question is, have the discussions been agreeable? Not really.

One of the issues for me is that the representatives of the Bilateral Ecclesiology "branch" of Messianic Judiasm (though this isn't the only expression of MJ), seem to equate the idea of them needing to be treated with respect as needing to be agreed with all the time. Of course, we all want everyone to agree with us. That's human nature. Most of us realize that this is an unrealistic desire, though.

I recall Gene Shlomovich saying that there have been One Law and Two House representatives who have "repented" and have since agreed with his position. Does that mean if I disagree with Gene or more generally with MJ/BE I have sinned and need to repent? Is having a difference of opinion a sin?

It seems as if MJ/BE is saying that, because they are "Sons of Abraham", they should automatically be respected (and perhaps agreed with), regardless of anything else including what they say and how they behave towards others. While I agree that Jewish people (Messianic and non-Messianic alike) have a unique covenant relationship with God, that relationship doesn't entitle said-Jewish people automatic respect and deference in any debate, discussion, and encounter, simply because of their status as Jews.

Consider what John said in the above-referenced quote to the Pharisees and Sadducees when they presented that argument. Also, consider the words of Paul:

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. -Romans 11:17-23

No, I didn't miss the part that says the Jewish people are the natural branches and the Gentiles are the "wild olive branches", nor the part later on that says all of Israel will be saved, but look at the "glue" that keeps both the natural and wild branches attached to the root. It's faith. Any of the branches can be glued in or knocked off depending on their faith status, not their ethnic status and not even their covenant status. Righteousness isn't a matter of who you are but a matter of your faith and what you do with it. This goes all the way back to Abraham.

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. -Genesis 15:6

Paul confirms this in Romans 4:3

What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Respect isn't automatic, even in the sight of God. It's what we do, our "fruits" that make a difference, not just our covenant status. How you tie your tzitzit or if you do or don't wear tzitzit, while important within its context, isn't as important as the weighter matters of the Torah. It's these weighter matters, love, kindness, justice, charity, that are never mentioned in any of our blog conversations and comments. While One Law is most often accused of lacking these characteristics, I haven't seen them discussed significantly by MJ either.

Naturally, we must have a relationship with God in the first place, but once that's established, it's what we do with that relationship that counts. We can't simply wear our status like a t-shirt or some other garment and expect that's the length, depth, and breadth of our responsibility to God and to other people.

No, we don't earn salvation, it's free, but we still have to make the choice to accept an active relationship with God and then accept the lifestyle that goes along with it. For instance, how many religious leaders expect to be automatically obeyed and respected just because they're religious leaders, not because they're necessarily leading a holy and Godly lifestyle? I'm not comparing the individuals or the groups associated with MJ/BE with such leaders, but only offer them as examples of folks who thought their "status" earned them respect and entitlement, not their behavior.

Respect can't be demanded. You can't insist I respect you and seriously believe I'll roll over. Even children don't respect their parents beyond a certain point unless the parent behaves in the child's and family's best interest and not just in their own.

In Judaism, you have a position relative to God in the merit of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but that diminishes or even deletes any personal responsibility. It's why a Jewish man, even if he is a Buddist or an atheist (but not a Christian or Messianic) can go into any synagogue in the world and still get an aliyah and read from the Torah.

So what did Yeshua change in terms of the Sons of Abraham? How about this:

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:29

Paul was specifically addressing Gentiles in this letter and so was affirming that non-Jewish believers are also Sons of Abraham, and not merely Sons of Noah, as rabbinic Judaism would consider Gentiles.

While we can say that Yeshua came for the lost sheep of Israel and not for the Gentiles, most of these arguments specifically ignore (as I've mentioned before) John 10:14-16 when Yeshua says he is the Good Shepherd of both the Jewish and Gentile flocks, and Matthew 28:16-20 when he commands his Jewish disciples to also make disciples for him from among all non-Jewish people on Earth.

Also, while we may argue about which commands of Yeshua do and don't apply to Gentile believers, consider these examples that go to the very core of our faith:

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

Yes, Yeshua was speaking to his Jewish disciples, but are we to truly believe this doesn't apply to the later Gentile disciples? Does it mean that Jewish disciples are only supposed to love other Jewish disciples and Gentile disciples are only supposed to love other Gentile disciples, in some sort of "bilateral" way? If we only show love and kindness to those who are like us and disrespect those who are not, to quote Yeshua, "..even the tax collectors and pagans do that".

Of course, the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:34-40, for example) contain what I consider the two "big buckets" for all the commandments. We are to love our God with everything we've got and, out of that love for God, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. When Yeshua said All the Torah and the Prophets hang on these two commandments, it's as if he were saying that they were the containers for all of the Torah and the writings of the Prophets. While we can all take these directives at face value and run with them, we can also dig into the buckets and explore what they contain...a wealth of God's wisdom, justice, and mercy for every disciple of Yeshua. If the words of Yeshua are not obeyed by all his followers, Jewish and Gentile alike then the little minutiae we argue about doesn't amount to much.

Those commandments are at the heart of the "stuff" we argue about (food, tzitzit, etc...). The "stuff" is just the interface by which we operationalize our encounters with God, they are not a means unto themselves. Just like the sacrifices didn't save, though they had meaning and purpose.

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise. -Psalm 51:16-17

It's the inner man who matters. Yes, Judaism says that even a good deed committed with a bad motive "counts", but it doesn't mean that having bad attitudes and going through the motions is desirable. It's just a place to start.

In dealing with my walk and with the MJ/BE/OL communities, I have considered walking away for it, usually due to the lack of unity I experience, not within my local group, but with the larger body of Messianic believers. I don't mind disagreements and discussion, it's the name calling and the snide, (and sometimes) behind the back remarks I find unworthy of followers of the Messiah. You may all be Rabbis and have advanced religous degrees and places of leadership within your own congregations, but that doesn't make it right to violate the command of Yeshua or the dignity of others.

In Judaism, the concept of Lashon Hara (the evil tongue) has much thought and literature dedicated to it, yet few if any of us pay any attention to it and feel free to violate this tenet whenever we please.

In our zeal to find a movement or person to follow that gives us an "edge", we've forgotten these words of Paul.

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. -1 Corinthians 1:10-17

If we have one shepherd, how come we're not acting like one flock. It's not like we're even acting like two flocks (Jews and Gentiles) but half a dozen flocks or more, each with our own priorities and requirements that we adhere to, regardless of the impact on others. I don't care who you are, Jew or Gentile, Messianic or One Law, Rabbi, or Pastor or whatever other label you attach to yourself. Messiah is all or he is nothing.

It's not about having all the answers, it's about continuing to ask questions. Our study of the Word, along with our walk with the Messiah isn't just something that happens once and then we're done. It's a journey we take all our lives. Sometimes we find we've made a wrong turn and have to change direction, but that's part of the journey

The greatest single thing for which I admire FFOZ is their courage in admitting they believe they made a mistake and then taking steps to correct it, no matter what the cost. I may not always agree with everything they say, but they have the courage of their convictions and a sincere desire to serve the Messiah.

You may think you have all the answers and I know that I don't. I know I'll pursue God all the days of my life, looking for how he wants me to serve Him better.

Being holy is a process, not an event. Don't imagine you've arrived. Once you stop questioning your assumptions and believe you are right all the time, you've stopped growing in God. You may impress the people around you or you may hurt or damage others, even to the point of preventing people from coming to faith, but are you truly listening to God?

That's how you teach...not as an expert...but as a student. Someone who expects to continue learning throughout life. As I said, it's not so much having all the answers, but being able to ask the right questions.

What did Jesus change? He brought the Gentiles into the family of God. I'm not sure there was agreement in the original Messianic Jewish movement about what to do with us and I'm sure there isn't agreement with what to do with us now. But we're here because God wants us to be here and because Yeshua is our shepherd and we, just like the Jewish flock, are also his sheep...and sons of Abraham.

What Did Jesus Change: The Ger Question?

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. -John 1:10-14

NOTE: I wasn't really satisfied where I left off in my previous blog post and had to keep pushing on. This is the result. No, the question won't be answered in one article. It's complicated.

Probably every blog I've written in the past month or so has been dancing around this question without ever landing on it. I admit, I've been avoiding it. Why? Because I'm not sure anyone knows what Yeshua (Jesus) changed, at least for those of us who walk the Messianic/Hebraic rather than the traditional Christian path.

From the traditional One Law perspective, we, Jew and Gentile alike, have had the opportunity to be one people with God since the beginning. Consider the following, such as the command of God through Moses regarding Passover:

"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." All the Israelites did just what the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron. And on that very day the LORD brought the Israelites out of Egypt by their divisions. -Exodus 12:48-51

And this directive about the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father who blasphemed against the Name of Hashem with a curse:

" 'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution - life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' " Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the LORD commanded Moses. -Leviticus 24:17-23

Finally, this rather famous quote of the Prophet Isaiah:

And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant - these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." -Isaiah 56:6-7

Actually, let's back up in Isaiah, just a bit:

Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
And let not any eunuch complain,
"I am only a dry tree."
For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant -
to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off. -Isaiah 56:3-5

Given the reference to eunuchs, it seems appropriate to add the following:

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth."

The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. -Acts 8:32-38

I must admit, these verses are amazingly compelling. Of course the verses from Exodus and Leviticus are situational, the former having to do specifically with who may and may not eat of the Passover lamb sacrificed by the Priests in the Holy Temple, and the latter addressing a specific individual who, according to modern interpretation, would be considered Jewish because he had a Jewish mother (though in ancient times, this may not have been the case).

But the verses in Isaiah, which rabbinic Judaism considers addressing the convert to Judaism (the foreigner), seem to have a much larger scope. We know the Hebrew word "Ger" isn't always translated as "convert" since the Children of Israel themselves are referred to as "Ger" when they are in the Land of Egypt. In that case, translations such as "foreigner", sojourner", and "stranger" make a great deal of sense. They were in Egypt but not of Egypt, even though they resided there (first as guests and then as slaves) for hundreds of years. What about the "Ger" in Isaiah 56?

Consider the millions of people who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, some two to three million by modern estimates, who agreed as one man to accept God as their God and to do whatever He said for them to do, before God ever spoke a single word of Torah.

So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD. -Exodus 19:7-8

True, in response to God, Moses summoned the elders of the people but it also says that the people all responded together..., not just the elders.

We know that a group of other people, probably Egyptians and other races who had been enslaved in Egypt and saw all of God's miracles and believed, left with the exodus of the Children of Israel when Moses lead them out of captivity. We also read nowhere in Exodus that the "mixed multitude" was told to wait elsewhere while the Children of Israel stood before their God at Sinai to receive the Torah meant only for God's chosen people. A whole bunch of Gentiles must have been standing there too, scared right out of their sandals along with the twelve tribes. What the heck happened to them?

It's been suggested that in the moment they accepted the Torah, the Gentile mixed multitude converted to Judaism, but if that were the case, Exodus 12:48-51 and Leviticus 24:17-23 wouldn't make a great deal of sense. In both of those verses, all of the people present would have been considered the Children of Israel (though the coverted Gentiles wouldn't belong to a specific tribe and thus wouldn't have a specific land inheritance), so the Torah shouldn't have made a distinction. Also, midrash blames much of the sin of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) on the mixed multitude that left Egypt with the Children of Israel:

It would seem that Aaron also underestimated the strength of these emotions. Aaron recognized their clamor to create new gods as reflective of their primitive emotions. He recognized the futility in trying to demonstrate the error of their calculations. The nation was no longer operating under their intellectual faculty. The primitive behavioral patterns to which they were subject in Egypt, were exerting their influence over the nation. The mixed multitude whom departed Egypt with them, provoked much of their regression. Rashi advises us that the Mixed Multitude (not descendants of Abraham) used their 'magic' to create the calf. In fact, they initiated this entire service and the Israelites followed. The Mixed Multitude had a greater yearning for the security of the physical as a means to relate to God. They therefore utilized the magic they learned in Egypt. Magic is not some supernatural force. It too requires a discipline, where one learns to switch the apparent relationship between cause and effect to which we are accustomed. It therefore is fascinating because it distracts the observer who is amazed since it does not function in accordance with standard causal relationships.
Rabbi Israel Chait from
Mesora.org

If at this point, the "mixed multitude" had been converted to Judaism, would this distinction have been made? Actually, you could argue "yes", since the conversion was quite recent and the underlying personalities and identity factors of the "converts" would have remained largely unchanged, perhaps making them more likely to turn to Egyptian "gods" when under duress.

If you put it all together though, you can paint a fairly credible picture of the "mixed multitude" retaining their status of Gentiles after Exodus 19 and throughout their continued journey with the Children of Israel, only eventually assimilating into the Jewish people and finally losing any distinctiveness as a people of the nations.

This is my understanding of the One Law argument for why Gentile Yeshua-believers are on a covenantal par with Jewish Yeshua-believers and fully share in all of the Torah commandments and obligations. No other act on behalf of a Gentile need be taken to share in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants than to "attach" oneself to the Children of Israel. Sort of like saying Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16).

But if it's true that all a Gentile has to do is to declare their allegiance to the Jewish people and personally accept the total obligation to the "yoke of Torah" upon themselves and not have to convert to Judaism, then what did Yeshua change? Remember, all of these events occurred prior to Yeshua's existence on Earth.

Think about it. The classic Christian interpretation of Yeshua's (Jesus's) coming is that (among other things) he removed the barriers that stood between all of humanity and God, primarily the barriers of sin and the barriers of the Law. Now, all a person, any person, has to do is declare Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their life and they're in. Instant covenant relationship with God through the blood of Christ. No need to convert to Judaism and in fact, Christianity puts the cart before the horse and now requires that Jews convert to Christianity in order to worship the Jewish Messiah (go figure).

Christianity doesn't accept the One Law argument because it undoes the purpose of the life of Jesus. After all...

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." -Acts 4:12

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." -Romans 10:12-13

What about God-fearers? In Acts 10, Cornelius the Gentile fears God and possibly could be considered a "Ger" in the Tanakh sense, but he doesn't receive the Holy Spirit until he hears the Good News of the Messiah from Peter. Peter, and the other Jewish believers are amazed and stunned when they witness Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit, as if such a thing had never happened before. If that's true, then you could reasonably argue there must be some sort of difference between an Old Testament Gentile Ger who attaches himself to Israel and a New Testament Gentile who comes to faith in Messiah.

So what is that difference and what did Yeshua change? End of Part I.

Gentiles, Torah, and the Moshiach

And while it's true that the Moshiach's primary task will be to bring the Jewish Nation closer to God, the Moshiach will also convince the entire world of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah.

Rabbi Hershel Brand from his book
On Eagles' Wings: Moshiach, Redemption, and the World to Come

I reviewed this book on my congregation's blog last October and by way of introduction, I said:

The book’s intent is to take all of the widely scattered references of the Moshiach throughout the Bible and all of Jewish authoritative literature, and gather them in one place for easy access to Jews who want a definitive Messianic guide. Rabbi Brand settled on writing this book as a fictional conversation between “Rabbi Cohen” and a student named “Daniel”, focused on answering Daniel’s questions about the Messiah. For those of us who lack a classic Jewish religious education, we experience a particular “stretch” at the sources “Rabbi Cohen” uses in his responses to Daniel’s queries, yet from a Jewish point of view, these are the only answers that make any sort of sense. Commentaries by Rambam and Ramchal, and quotes from the Gemara, Mishnah, and Zohar, are all perfectly expected within the context of this book. Christianity tends to dismiss these authorities as “just commentaries”, but the insights of the ancient Sages are the clarifying lens by which the Jewish people have been viewing the Torah for untold centuries.

This blog post is an extension of Gentiles and Torah which I posted yesterday and continues the assumptions I made in that article relative to MJ/BE and Orthodox Judaism. If MJ/BE very closely identifies and agrees with rabbinic Orthodox Judaism, then, with very few exceptions, it should accept the same belief structure as the Orthodox. For instance, if Orthodox Judaism accepts that in Messianic days, Gentiles will be brought to an understanding of Torah (whatever that understanding may be), the MJ/BE congregations should likely accept this idea as well. Here's what else Rabbi Hershel has to say about Gentiles, Torah, and the Moshiach via "Rabbi Cohen" and "Daniel":

Daniel: Even the gentiles? I mean, will there even be gentiles after the Moshiach arrives?

Rabbi Cohen: Of course. We mentioned once...that the Moshiach will destroy the enemies of the Jewish people, but those nations who are friendly to the Jews will still exist during the time of the Moshiach as before. Obviously they will accord great honor and respect to God’s true, chosen nation. And, like the Jewish nation, their primary occupation will be to understand and become closer to God.

"Rabbi Cohen" then goes on to quote the sources that support his statements to "Daniel":

And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as a tribute to the Lord, with horses and with chariots, and with covered wagons and with mules and with joyous songs upon My holy mount, Jerusalem," says the Lord, "as the children of Israel bring the offering in a pure vessel to the house of the Lord. -Isaiah 66:20

So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." -Zechariah 8:23

From the traditional Jewish viewpoint, learning to understand and come closer to God always involves Torah study, both the written and oral Law, so it seems reasonable to believe that, from an Orthodox (and thus MJ/BE) perspective, Gentiles will at least be studying those portions of Torah that have a direct bearing on the nations.

As I intimated in my previous blog post, what portions of Torah Judaism considers relevant to Gentiles extends beyond the Acts 15 letter and perhaps even beyond the Seven Noahide Laws. While conducting my online research for this blog, I came across a site called Wikinoah and a page on that site which asks Can Righteous Gentiles Study the Torah? The page starts out asking these questions:

It is said that Noachides are not allowed to study Gemarah, but what about Rashi Commentary on Torah? Is it recommended? I also want to know if a noachide is free to study all the midrashim? If Maimonides "The Guide for the Perplexed" is not considered a religious work but a philosophical book, is a noachide permitted to read from it although it seem to contain references to Gemarah? I also wonder about "Everyman's Talmud" by Abraham Cohen...is it wrong to read it.

The wiki site is dedicated to a population I have long suspected existed but never saw any evidence for: Gentiles who believe the Jewish paradigm of the "righteous Gentile" and who seek to adhere to the Noahide Laws. As a believer in Yeshua, I can see the efforts of these Gentiles as well-meaning though in error, but if you are a Gentile who completely accepts the rabbinic Jewish viewpoint about the nations and you want to have a place in the world to come, closer fellowship with the Jewish people, and to walk humbly with God, this would be a logical response. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a number of Gentiles who originally were involved in the OL and MJ movements "shot out the other side", so to speak, and either converted to rabbinic Judaism or became a Noahide.

Returning to the question quoted above, the answer is an unabashed yes, but with some possible qualifications:

So... exactly what can TOGs (Torah Observant Goy) study?

A more realistic example of what I'm talking about is, in fact, the question on what a TOG is allowed to study. There is discussion in the Talmud about this, but it appears to be divisive. One sage votes for the death penalty to Gentiles who study the Torah. (Seriously.) Another states that a Gentile who studies the Torah ‘is as a High Priest’.

The current view seems to be that Torah study for TOGs (which presumably would include appropriate portions of the Talmud, and the Rabbahs, etc.) is a blessing, not a sin. Yet others insist that TOGs are only allowed to study the portions of the Torah which directly apply to them: in particular, the first twelve chapters of Genesis or only that which directly applies to the Seven Noahide Laws. Still others argue that Gentiles should never be permitted to read the Torah, but instead rely solely on materials written by rabbinical authorities which specifically address the Noahide Commandments.

The latter opinions are the moral equivalent of someone wearing a kippah and tallit coming up to you and saying “You can't drink...” By this view one would not even be allowed to read the part of the Talmud which states you can't study it!

Without such study we have no way to determine what is legitimate teaching. Yet we must not merely take someone's word for it, because doing the wrong thing would be a Very Bad Thing. Ultimately it's my destiny at stake.

The article goes on (and since I previously posted a link to the relevant page, you can read all of its content), but it's important to point out that, from the Noahide point of view, there is no restriction on what a righteous Gentile can study. The only question is what parts of the Torah specifically apply to Gentiles, including the oral laws. If the Gentile doesn't study the entire body of content, how are they to know? The conclusion is that Gentiles are permitted to study the entire body of everything called "Torah" to both gain an understanding of the commands of God that apply to them (us) and also to gain a greater, general spiritual wisdom.

The only reasons a Gentile would not be permitted to study Torah, from the Noahide perspective, are these:

The restriction on Torah study is not that we shouldn't study it in the sense of reading it. It's that we should study Torah with a given purpose in mind, be it better understanding of the Seven Commandments or just to gain a better spiritual understanding. Studying the Torah with the intent of converting Jews to, say, christianity, is what the sage who suggested the death penalty had in mind.

TOGs shouldn't study as Jews are required to, because that is a special mitzvah between the Jews and Hashem; just as TOGs shouldn't wear tefillin or tallitot. Study for a purpose; don't study because you think you have to.

According to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman on AskMoses.com, the Lubavitcher Rebbes have even suggested a course of study for Noahides as follows:

What to learn:

1. The Bible with classic Jewish commentaries (including the talks of the Rebbe, which are specific to our day and age), excluding those parts dealing with commands specific to the Jewish people;
2. The thirteen principles of the faith from Maimonides;
3. The Book of Knowledge of Maimonides;
4. Laws dealing with property and personal damages, including slander, gossip, verbal abuse, verbal pledges, cruelty to animals;
5. The second book of Tanya (this was explicitly mentioned by the Rebbe), as well as selections from the first; and
6. Stories of Tzadikim.

Morning prayer (all these in translation):

1. Modeh Ani—optional
2. Study and meditation
3. Adon Olam—optional
4. Psalms of Praise (as in the siddur) — optional
5. Shema Yisrael — first paragraph (this was an instruction of Rav Azulai, father of the Birchei Yosef, to a Ben Noach in his time)
6. Psalm 100 — optional
7. Recitation of the Noahide Creed — optional

Why am I including all this and what does it have to do with Gentile Yeshua-believers associated with the Messianic movement? For one thing, it does establish that rabbinic Judaism permits a wider range of Torah study for righteous Gentiles than one might understand from some of the MJ/BE commentaries on the Messianic blogosphere. I don't necessarily say this should be the extent of our study and in fact, from what was previously mentioned, a Gentile can study any part of the Torah that a Jew can. The only question is what does and doesn't directly apply to the Gentile.

I should also probably note that, from a rabbinic Jewish point of view, no one who believes in Yeshua could be considered righteous because of the issue of Yeshua's deity (believing that a man is God) and the trinity (believing in three Gods instead of One God). That, I think, is one point where ML/BE and Orthodox Judaism must part company at some level. In fact, to the best of my understanding, only a minority of Messianic Jewish congregations join rabbinic Judaism in denying the deity of Yeshua (or the deity of the Messiah). Fortunately, as Messianic believers, we understand our righteousness this way:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. -Romans 3:21-26

It's not our righteous we have to depend upon, because we have none of our own, but only through faith in the Messiah are we considered righteous before the Throne of God.

That said, let's "marry" the concept of a Gentile's righteousness through faith in Yeshua and what the Orthodox rabbis say about "righteous Gentiles" (and granted, it's a shotgun wedding, but it's just for illustration). As righteous Gentiles, we have full access to the study of Torah and even to a limited range of "Jewish practices" such as praying from the siddur and even saying a portion of the Shema. While MJ/BE may not have actively denied any of this, it is sometimes difficult to get an understanding that they'd be OK with this sort of behavior from a believing Gentile. Now, am I saying I believe that this is the limitation of behavior for a "Messianic Gentile"? That's the topic of the next blog post. In the meantime, feel free to make comments and suggestions.

Afterword: In reading this and considering the traditional Christian perspective, I can imagine all of my comments and arguments seem foolish. In Christianity all of my "issues" are moot. Christ nailed the Law to the cross with him and it died with him. There are no more barriers between humanity and God as long as a person receives Jesus Christ as Lord and personal Savior. It's just "me and Jesus" (I think there's a song by that title). I'm not blogging because I am doubting my relationship with the Messiah at this point, but for the sake of both gaining a greater understanding of my duties to God and to gain a better relationship with my brothers and sisters who maintain different viewpoints on these matters. As I said in the comment section of my previous blog post, the core of our service to God isn't complicated at all. If we believe, and we act out of that belief by loving God with all of our being and spirit and if we love our neighbors as ourselves (and these commandments should be familiar to everyone reading this blog) and produce good fruit and actions out of our faith, we are doing well.