Did Jesus Teach One Law?

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

I don't normally create a blog post just to draw attention to another blog post, but this one is different. I just finished teaching a 15-week course at my congregation called Discipleship and the Torah. The course is based on a series of blogs I posted here called What Did Jesus Teach the Gentiles to Obey. I thought that running the blog material through a live class with interactive students (including people accessing the class via mp3 recordings) would come to at least some different conclusions or perhaps present some different insights.

The class didn't disappoint and I think it was a rewarding experience for those who participated.

I shared the class conclusions on my congregation's blog and wanted to make sure that the people who follow my personal blog didn't miss out. Click the link to read Did Jesus Teach One Law for the Jew and Gentile.

Feel free to comment, but be polite.

The One Who Is Two

Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:2-6

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

I have to admit, in examining my understanding of non-Jews vs. Jewish distinction in the Messianic community, I hit speed bumps. The Apostolic Scriptures can seem pretty ambiguous as to whether or not Gentiles and Jews who have come to faith in the Jewish Messiah remain two separate things or, based on Ephesians 3:2-6 among other verses, we have become "one new man". The latter would be the argument, both of the traditional church and of the One Law movement within the Messianic realm, but it strikes a rather sour chord with those Jews who believe that, to be Jews in Messianism, they must retain a specific cultural and ceremonial distinction from their Gentile Christian brothers and sisters.

Ephesians 2:12-13 says:

...remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

This seems to say that both Gentile Christians and Messianic Jews are citizens, as well as co-heirs in Israel. Usually, if you are made a naturalized citizen of a nation in which you were not born, once citizenship is conferred, you have the same rights and responsibilities as any citizen born in that country. That again, is the rationalization both for the Christian church and One Law movements in saying that they are "Israel". The church says they're "Israel" and have taken the place of the Jews, and One Law says they are "Israel" and are identical to Jews in form, function, and identity. The former says that the Jews have been "unchosen" and that God subsequently "chose" the church. The latter says that God created a new, really big bucket called "chosen" and dumped all Jews and Messianic Gentiles into the bucket so that they're all the same anyway.

But is that what really happened?

I have to admit, when I reviewed an article written by Nazarene Pastor Jirair Tashjian called Did Christ Abolish the Law?, he used scripture to represent his position reasonably well (not that I agree and you can see my review for the details).

Then, in my review, I said the following, which momentarily surprised me as I realized the implications of my statement:

Yes, Paul said neither Jew nor Greek, but he also said neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28) and the last time I looked at my wife, I noticed that we were different in form, function, and role…yet we are “one flesh” (Matthew 19:5-6).

In Ephesians 2:15, it says Yeshua's (Jesus's) purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, which really bothers me. It seems to very much support the supersessionist position of the church and the position of One Law in joining Jews and Gentile Messianics as one unified and amorphous object, rather than two distinct objects encased in a single container (black and white sheep in a flock). How can this be reconciled? Is the Bilateral Ecclesiology faction of Messianic Judaism in error? What can they say to get past what Paul has recorded?

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. -Genesis 2:24

“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” -Mark 10:5-9

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -Galatians 3:26-28

Follow the logic here.

An individual man and an individual woman are made into "one flesh". This is what happened "in the beginning" and it is confirmed by Yeshua in his teaching on divorce and marriage. Paul writes that there is no Jew or Greek and no male or female. But does a man and a woman really become one, homogeneous, androgynous being?

No, of course not. Anyone who is married knows that a husband and wife remain very much individual, distinct human beings from one another. They take on a singularity of purpose in a family, especially as parents, and they surrender some of their individual freedoms for the sake of the relationship and both must work to nurture and grow the relationship, but they don't surrender everything about themselves.

In other words "one flesh" isn't literal in an absolute sense. It describes a special sense of intimacy (in a marital relationship, this includes physical intimacy), but they don't morph into one, new flesh, leaving everything about who they once were behind. In fact, it's everything that they are as individuals that each marital partner "brings to the table", so to speak, that makes the marriage strong and thriving. And as most married people know, we don't marry our opposite sex clones.

Now let's take all that and apply it to "one new man". I'm going to assume (yes, this is my interpretation) that we can compare the "one flesh" and "one man" analogies. I'm going to pretend that we can look at them as functioning in pretty much the same way. If two different human beings can be "one flesh" (in purpose) in a family and yet retain their individual forms, functions, and roles, why can't Jews and Gentiles as "one man" also retain their individual forms, functions, and roles?

See where I'm going?

I'm not about to attempt to expand this metaphor into every practice and procedure used in Christian vs. Messianic worship at the moment (so this blog post doesn't become 20 pages long). I just want to show how it's possible, based on scripture, for Christians and (Messianic) Jews to be "one new man" and still be two separate and distinct entities. The "container" (whether marriage or the Messianic "flock") does change something about the individuals within the container, but it doesn't alter them or change them into something completely different on a fundamental, behavioral, and structural level. Married men are still men and married woman are still women. Messianic Gentile disciples are still Gentile and Messianic Jewish disciples are still Jewish.

Thoughts?

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.

"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Adopted Heirs

Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:2-6

It's hard to see how the church believes it has replaced the Jewish people in God's covenant promises when you read these verses. It seems abundantly plain the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. That's "together with", not "instead of". These few words alone shoot down the church's argument for Christian supersessionism, but what about the One Law viewpoint? Actually, Paul makes an interesting point:

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:6

Notice that Paul says in the promise in Christ Jesus, not in the promise in the Torah of Moses. The next logical question to ask is "What is the promise in Christ Jesus that makes Gentiles and Jews fellow heirs?"

I don't have a hard and fast answer, but tomorrow night, I'm going to ask a similar question: What did Jesus teach the Gentiles to obey? You can click the link to get the full summary of the class, but it's based on a series of articles I wrote on this blog some months ago. I'm trying to find out if it was the Messiah's intent to have the Gentile disciples learn and obey every commandment and covenant recorded in the Bible or if Jesus taught something that was more specific that was to be passed on to the Goyim?

The starting point for Gentile discipleship and "fellow heir-ship" isn't the Torah but the Gospels. Up until the Messiah came in human form, Gentiles could only fully access God and the covenants by converting to Judaism. Short of that, a Gentile who came to faith in the One God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, could become a God-fearer, which acknowledges God but doesn't give the non-Jewish person a standing before Him. I don't think (but I'm not a scholar) that the concept of a Gentile as a noahide existed in the First Century C.E., so that was the best a non-Jew could do if he or she came to faith in Israel's God.

Yeshua (Jesus) changed all that, but what did he do? That's the $64,000 question we all wrestle with.

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands) — remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. -Ephesians 2:11-13

"Formerly Gentiles"? What? I'm not a "Gentile" anymore? Does Paul mean that I'm a Jew by the blood of Christ? Oh wow!

This is where it would be helpful if I could read ancient Greek and determine what the original word was for what we read as "Gentile" in English. Does Paul mean that when a Gentile becomes a disciple of the Jewish Messiah, he or she automatically becomes a "spiritual Jew"? Or does he mean something else...like using "Gentiles" to mean "pagans"?

Paul seems to be using the former status of the Gentile disciples to illustrate that, in their (our) natural state, before coming to faith, we "were separate from Christ" and "foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world." Coming to faith then, joins us with Christ and makes us joined to the covenants of promise, giving us hope and giving us access to God.

But does it make Gentiles functionally identical to Jews in every respect and thereby removing the status of "Jew" or "Israelite" from existence? If that were true, God would have to break every promise He ever made to the Children of Israel in the Torah and the Prophets that they would always be a people before Him.

Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” -Exodus 19:5-6

I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. -Leviticus 26:11-13

These are just two examples of God stating His intention and devotion to the Children of Israel as His "treasured, splendorous people". Of course, you could say that there were just a ton of non-Jews at the Sinai event, but as I previously mentioned, the "mixed multitude" lived identical lives to their Israelite counterparts and ultimately their offspring assimilated into Israel, becoming indistinguishable from the descendants of the Children of Jacob. If the "Ger" question were to apply to Gentile Messianic disciples, then the obvious answer is that we are to convert and assimilate into modern (Messianic) Judaism.

But that's not what Paul is saying. In fact, Paul was very much against Gentiles converting to Judaism in order to gain access to the promises.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. -Galatians 5:2-6

As far as I can see, that pretty much takes care of the "Ger" justification for identical Gentile and Jewish response to God and to the Torah. Now what about this?

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:26-29

The "neither Jew nor Gentile" part seems to confirm that Jews and Gentiles cease to exist under the Messianic covenant as distinct beings or people groups, which is not only the fear that every Jew has in relation to converting to Christianity, but is part of what the more conservative elements of Messianic Judaism have issues with in relation to One Law theology. However, Paul also says "nor is there male and female".

What a minute. The last time I looked at my wife, we had "distinctions" both in form and in function (and probably in role as well). Since God didn't blend males and females into one homogeneous, androgynous mass, what makes anyone think he took Jews and Gentiles and blended us all into one smooth, pureed mixture with no identifiable means of locating the original "ingredients"?

If, on the other hand, Paul meant that our standing in holiness and our access to God were the same, regardless of our gender, ethnic, or legal (slave vs. freeman) status, then we can be part of one body before the Messiah, and yet retain our individual forms and functions (kind of like a heart remaining a heart, the lungs remaining lungs, and a hippocampus remaining a hippocampus).

Does that solve the problem? Oh, heck no. I could write for hours (or days, or years) and not be able to "solve" anything. The neat thing about the Bible is that it can be interpreted in more than one way and therefore, different groups can use the Bible to establish different theologies, viewpoints, and worship patterns. While I believe there is one "right answer" to understand the Word, God is the only one who really knows it. The rest of us are dancing madly on the head of a pin trying to figure things out and guess what? We'll probably be doing that for the rest of our lives or until the Messiah returns, whichever comes first (that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, but I wanted you to know what we are all facing together).

I can't get over the idea that the Messiah and his intentions are the key to everything. When Paul wrote the "grafted in" metaphor in Romans 11 he continued to make distinctions between the "natural branches" (Jews) and the "grafted in branches" (Gentiles) and the only thing they had in common is "the root" (Messiah) to which they were all attached. The two different types of branches remained two different types of branches. They didn't "morph" into a single type of branch. The commonality is the "nourishment" that fed them both.

That allows us to be "one body" and "one people" ("one tree"..."one vine with lots of branches") based on the source of our strength and our faith. We can "consume" the same God because the "alien" (former) Gentiles are now changed in status so that they (we) are capable of "eating" the "food of the Spirit" from which they (we) were previously unable to take in.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers. But I'd like to think that the questions are good ones. The journey along the path continues.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.

"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Pending Divorce

When I counsel an interfaith couple contemplating marriage, I always ask them to imagine what their life together will look like in five, ten, and twenty years. These pictures vary greatly. While no one can predict the future, and many things - positive and negative - give direction to our personal journeys, it is important for partners to hear each other's dreams. This is particularly important because the future that couples imagine as adults is often different from what they pictured as their adult lives when they were children, or even a few years earlier. It is also helpful for me to hear what each partner has to say aloud, so that I can identify for them what issues are yet to be resolved before they make a long-term commitment to each other.

From Making a Successful Jewish Interfaith Marriage
by Rabbi Kerry M. Olitzky and Joan Peterson Littman

I finished reading this book yesterday and while interesting and instructive, it didn't really apply to my particular intermarried situation. My wife and I were married when neither one of us were religious and my wife's Jewish mother (her father wasn't Jewish) died many years before we met. My wife's mother had estranged herself from her family on the East Coast decades before, so I had no Jewish in-laws with whom to relate, and so at that time, 100 percent of what this book talks about didn't exist for me.

That has changed considerably...but my marriage isn't what I want to talk about.

At different points in the book, as the authors were describing the various challenges facing intermarried couples, I couldn't help but draw comparisons to the "relationship" of the Jewish and Gentile disciples of the Jewish Messiah who have chosen a "Messianic" (for lack of a better term) expression of their faith (as opposed to a traditional Christian model). In many ways, our relationship with each other is like a mixed Jewish-Gentile partnership in terms of the difficulties we face and the hurdles we must overcome.

But sometimes it feels like a "shotgun wedding"; something arranged by someone outside of the couple and perhaps something either the "groom" or "bride" never really wanted.

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

Meet the guy holding the "shotgun".

If Yeshua hadn't given this directive, I suppose things would have been a lot easier on everyone. Judaism in all it's variations would be wholly owned and operated by Jews and any non-Jews who entered the doors of a synagogue would be God-fearers and Noahides...a minor subset of the overall population. Assuming Paul wasn't chosen (and if there was no Matthew 28:19-20, why would he have been chosen) to be an emissary to the Gentiles, Gentiles would have continued to be idol worshipers and pagans, probably to this very day. Maybe Messianic Judaism would have been maintained as a Judaism recognized by all the other variations instead of seen as a form of Christianity.

Olitzky's and Littman's book tells a story (it's not written in a way that's easy to quote, so I'll just tell it outright) of a married couple who attended a Reform synagogue for many decades. The Jewish husband died and was buried in a Jewish cemetary. His wife continued to go to shul, be an integral part of the Jewish community, and live like a Jew well into her 90s, when she also died.

People had forgotten that she had never formally converted to Judaism (a decision made originally to avoid hurting her Christian parents when she was first married) but her will stated that she wanted to be buried next to her husband. She had purchased the plot and all was in order...except she wasn't Jewish. Apparently there was a huge debate on the matter since the woman lived a lifestyle just as Jewish as anyone else in the synagogue for almost 70 years. The responsible authorities finally agreed that the woman should be buried next to her husband, but several Jewish families left the synagogue permanently over the decision.

Isn't life swell?

I know someone's going to come along and quote culture, tradition, and law and say that this elderly woman's wishes should have been denied because she never formally converted, but like Ruth (who is an ancestor both of David and the Messiah), she lived an absolutely Jewish lifestyle for the vast majority of her days, perhaps more Jewish than many born but secular Jews.

At what point does tradition and halachah give way to compassion?

One of the book's authors, Joan Peterson Littman, converted to Judaism quite some time ago and leads classes for intermarried couples in her Jewish community. She tells the following story:

The more we learn, the more we discover how much we don't know - even after living a Jewish family life (convert to Judaism or not) for many years. But the feelings of "otherness" don't always go away. Joan reminds us, "I still get scared, after living a Jewish life all these years. I recently walked into a Jewish day school in the community in a swarm of teenage boys wearing yarmulkes. They all gave me the look, which I interpreted as 'What is she doing here?' - what I have come to call my 'goyim alert'. Later I came to understand that they were simply curious, wondering what I, an unfamiliar face, was doing at the school." It's easy to be defeated and feel afraid, to feel that you may never "get it", and disengage as a result. But it is far better to be motivated now and prepare for the life ahead of you. Rather than seeing the "long road" as a "long haul", join us as we see it, as a road filled with opportunity and joy.

One of the reasons I'm leaving the "Messianic world" this summer after many years is because I don't see road filled with opportunity and joy. While I can read an intent in the Apostolic Scriptures for a role for Gentiles in the Messianic community, I don't really see one. The recent "battles" over the acceptability (or lack thereof) of One Law and Two-House "participants" points out that, despite the fact that the majority of people in "formal" Messianic Judaism are Gentiles, we still struggle, like in the stories I just related, to fit in and be accepted. We are never sure we are "part of the family". I've heard stories of people who were adopted, grew up, got married, lived to middle age, and yet still were never sure that anyone truly loved them, all because they were given up they their birth parents.

Sure, Yeshua can say "make disciples of all nations, yada, yada, yada", but it took 15 years for that directive to even start to be enacted. It also required God to give Peter a special "nudge" (see Acts 10) before he got off the dime and visited the house of a righteous God-fearer. To this day, the Jews who worship the Messiah don't really want us there, particularly if we are tainted with having a "One Law" background or history.

My wife is (non-Messianic) Jewish so we are intermarried, and she has a more willing acceptance of my faith and religious orientation than most Jews who believe Yeshua is the Messiah. My daughter, who is also not Messianic, was surprised when I told her I was planning on leaving my congregation. No, she'd never step foot in the door, but she knows that I (at least at one time) felt that it was the right place for me to be.

While I'd like to think I have friends among Messianic Judaism, at least in a "virtual" manner (since we've never met), I don't know what to do to make this "marriage" work. We were "forced" together by the Messiah and by the Apostles, but the Messiah's latter day Jewish disciples are having a hard time with us and all our "Gentile goofiness".

While a lot of people have become particularly angry lately over all these matters, I'm not angry at anyone. I feel disappointed and a little depressed at watching "the dream" die. I commented on Gene's blog that I had my doubts I'd be invited to the Matthew 8:11 feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. I know that Gene, Yahnatan, Derek, and a number of other blogosphere denizens have said I'd be welcome in their communities and that we could "break bread" together, but what about the rest of us? There are a lot of good people out there who frankly, just don't know any better. Yes, I've also met a lot of people who have "alternative" theological ideas that border on "cultish" and some people of questionable mental stability, but there are also many, many sane, responsible, compassionate, and loving people who are dedicated to the Jewish Messiah and who honor the living God. What about them?

If the "partnering" of Jews and Gentiles in the "Messianic" movement is like an intermarriage, then the relationship is in trouble. I get the feeling that my "partner" wants a divorce and never actually wanted to get "married" in the first place. Olitzky and Littman expose the challenges of a Jewish-Christian intermarriage, but they ultimately paint a picture of hope and welcome. For those of us who have a common devotion to the Jewish Messiah, do we dare hope at all? What will our life together look like in five, ten, or twenty years? Or will there be a "together" at all?

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.

"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Each Other's Wounds

Many non-Jews were drawn to a message that through faith in Yeshua (Jesus) they were called to live the way Jews live without any distinction: Sabbath, dietary law, tzit-tzit, circumcision, etc. When First Fruits of Zion realized that what they had been teaching was an error, they changed. Many people felt spiritually homeless. They liked the One Law or One Torah teaching. It gave them a pseudo-Jewish identity, made them feel more important than “regular Christians.” So, Hegg is the father-figure who will pick up the leaderless minions.

What is my complaint? Well, it is that with all that is wrong in the world, with all that God wants us to do, be, and know, when I speak to groups of people I don’t waste any of that precious time deconstructing others in order to build myself up.

Derek Leman
Is Tim Hegg Serious?

By “Supersessionism”, he means replacement theology, and thus, gentiles who keep Torah are practicing replacement theology.

I interpret this statement as, “One Law and Two House Messianics are replacement theologians.”

Fine blog reader, am I misinterpreting this statement?

I feel like I’m the last of the hold-outs. Friends and family have been telling me to get out of Dodge and distance myself from FFOZ over Torah and the divinity of Yeshua, but I’ve held out. I’ve have been a staunch ally of FFOZ for 6+ years. I’ve stood up for them on the web, rebuked One Law folks for wishing their financial ruin, attended their conferences, promoted their materials, heck, even stumped for them at my local congregation.

Hearing Boaz call me a replacement theologian and an enemy of Israel freaking hurts.

Judah Gabriel Himango
Boaz Michael on Messianics

Introduction

Both Derek and Judah apparently became "birds of a feather" last week in using their personal feelings to respond to the ideas, philosophies, and statements of Tim Hegg and Boaz Michael. Unfortunately, we've seen the "fruit" of these two blog posts and let's just say I wouldn't want to put such fruit on my breakfast cereal this morning. I'd put a spoonful into my mouth and get my head blown off.

In my previous blog post I said I'd try to present my take on this whole "supersessionism" matter, even if it caused another round of "he said" and "she said" in our one small corner of the small "Messianic movement" (I imagine the majority of disciples in Yeshua [Jesus] are getting on with the business of feeding the poor and visiting the sick). Anyway.

Definitions

First, a basic definition:

Supersessionism (also called fulfillment theology or replacement theology) is a Christian interpretation of New Testament claims, viewing God's relationship with Christians as being either the "replacement" or "fulfillment" or "completion" of the promise made to the Jews (or Israelites) and Jewish Proselytes. Biblical expressions of God's relationships with people are known as covenants, so the contentious element of supersessionism is the idea that the New Covenant with the Christians and the Christian Church replaces, fulfills or completes the Mosaic Covenant (or Torah) with the Israelites and B'nei Noah. A major question in supersessionism is how or to what degree are the ethics of the Mosaic Covenant displaced or even completely abrogated by the New Covenant.

You may be asking what the above definition taken from Wikipedia (yes, I know..not really reliable, but all I'm looking for is very basic information) has to do with the One Law and Two-House branches of the "Messianic movement". After all, it specifically names the "Christian church". Be patient. I'm getting there.

Next, we need to understand the reaction of Judaism, any Judaism, to supersessionism as taken from the same source:

From a Jewish perspective, however, the Torah was given to the Jewish people as an eternal covenant (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-15) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1), and hence Judaism rejects supersessionism as contrary to the Hebrew Bible at best (see also Antinomianism) and antisemitic at worst. For Judaism and other critics, supersessionism is a theology of replacement, which substitutes the Christian church, consisting of Christians, for the Jewish and B'nei Noah people. Modern Jews are offended by the traditional Christian belief in supersessionism, and some historians see supersessionism as one source of anti-semitism in western culture.

So now we see why there is so much emotion, not only from many Jews who view supersessionism as offensive and even a threat, but from any group who has allied with Messianic Judaism and yet has been accused by some Messianic Jewish groups of being guilty of supersessionism. Hence the "blood bath" in the Messianic blogosphere over the past week.

Who's Who

To recap, One Law groups (this is an abridged definition and I'm sure people will chime in and correct any errors I may make) is the belief that both Jews and "grafted in Gentiles" (Romans 11) are specifically "obligated" (as opposed to allowed or permitted) to obey all of the 613 commandments (of which, Judaism believes only about 200 can be obeyed outside of Israel in the 21st Century). In this sense, both Gentiles in the "Messianic movement" and Jews everywhere (but particularly in the Messianic movement) are identical in obligations, responsibilities, and behaviors as a result of the Gentiles being grafted in and being fellow heirs (Ephesians 3:6). Why would Jews in Messianic Judaism see this as a form of supersessionism since One Law proponents don't seek to kick the Jews out of the club, but to become their spiritual and behavioral brothers and sisters, doing all that Jews do and believing all that Jews believe? Ponder that question and we'll come back to it.

Two-House (and again, this is a very abbreviated definition) theorists believe that any Gentile Christian who is attracted to Judaism and to Torah obedience must actually be a descendent of Jews from one of the ten "lost tribes" of Israel. In effect, these people are not Gentiles at all, but rather Jewish. Since they are Jewish, by definition, they are obligated to the full and complete 613 commandments (or roughly the 200 I mentioned before) as well as (I assume the following, but I could be wrong) to all of the Oral Law and halacka that applies to more "obvious" Jewish people. How can Two-House be seen as supersessionist since, from their point of view, they are Jewish (albeit Messianic and having lived all their lives as non-Jews up to a certain point) and only seek to rejoin their Jewish brothers and sisters in worship of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus)?

I must admit that trying to understand the traditional Messianic Jewish point of view on these groups was a challenge for me for quite some time. After all, I come from a One Law tradition and I certainly didn't see how I was trying to replace the Jews. Several months ago, Derek accused me of being supersessionist and I took offense to his comments (though I didn't call him out personally on the Messianic blogosphere and after calling him a "racist" publicly, I emailed him to apologize...I still think he could have handled the situation better, though but after all, he's only human). I didn't see myself as trying to injure or replace anyone, but since the perception that I was guilty of such behavior had been presented, I tried to find out where that perception was coming from. After all, I know I'm not perfect. I've been wrong before (Gosh, does anyone in the blogosphere actually admit to that? I must be out of my mind). What was I missing?

It wasn't until this week that I began to comprehend how Messianic Judaism could arrive at such a conclusion. After all, no one ever just explains why they have their beliefs on the Internet, they just express upset or offense, sometimes to the point of the "wheels falling off the cart", so to speak. Oh well.

By strict definition (using Wikipedia), One Law groups and Two-House groups aren't supersessionalist in that they are not seeking to remove Jews from the covenant promises and replace the Jews with their own groups. That definition is more often found in the traditional Christian church as well as some other religions such as Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). So by what process can One Law and Two-House possibly be considered supersessionist by Messianic Judaism (or at least some quarters of MJ)?

It has to do largely with roles as opposed to behaviors as I understand it. This requires more than a little theological slight of hand or legerdemain to comprehend.

The Perceived Problem

If One Law groups aren't trying to replace Jews, what are they doing? They are joining them at an absolutely equal level to Jews in every aspect of religious and personal life, based on their understanding and their theology. What's wrong with that? It adds to the number of Jews worldwide, doesn't it? Well, no...since these are still Gentile (for the most part) "Christians" who are obeying or attempting to obey all of the Torah commandments as an obligation identical to their Jewish counterparts. The issue is rather subtle if you're not sensitive to it, but if you are sensitive to it, the light of realization must glare like a spotlight in your eyes. If you're Jewish by birth, ethnicity, faith, and tradition, what must it be like to see a large group of non-Jews attempting to emulate your every action and lifestyle and saying "I am exactly like you in every respect as a spiritual Jew and obligated to the Torah in exactly the same way as you are"?

I don't have a lived Jewish experience, so I'm having a hard time connecting to the emotionalism of the event, but (again, from the MJ viewpoint) it must be like watching Judaism being "diluted" in some sense. It must be like watching two different wines, a white wine and a red wine, being mixed together, which at least confuses if not obliterates the meaning and uniqueness of both wines.

I apologize if that's a bad analogy, but as I said before, I'm not really equipped to feel the emotionalism of this situation. That's just what it looks like when I read the various blogs on the topic.

Is that supersessionism? Not by strict definition, no. However, it appears to be perceived as a rather odd type of supersessionism in that it is seen as having a detrimental effect on "Jewish identity" within (and probably outside) of the Messianic movement. Nobody is replaced but an "exterior group" is seen as trying to plunge into the Jewish end of the swimming pool and say, "we're just as Jewish as you are, so we have the right to be in your water, too."

Now, the sixty-four thousand dollar question. Is their intent?

That is, do One Law groups, in part or on a whole deliberately intend, by their actions and theology, to set out and damage the Jews in the Messianic movement or Jews in general?

I don't have access to each mind in the One Law movement so I don't have an absolute answer, but based on my own experiences, I'd have to say "no". I think this is the source of the outrage and pain we've been experiencing from fellows like Judah and Dan when they are told that they are supersessionist. They don't feel supersessionist and they don't intend to be supersessionist (and since Dan is Jewish and Judah has a Jewish father, can they really "replace" what they already are?). It's hard to see how someone who says "I want to be just like you" actually hates you. I think part of the problem though, is that some One Law folks want to redefine what "Jewish" is and disregard (or disrespect) how Jewish people define themselves.

How about Two-House. If Two-House people are already Jewish, how can they replace what they already are? Aren't they just adding to the much depleted global Jewish population?

Well, wait a minute.

How do we know that any of the people in the Two-House movement have Jewish ancestors? We don't. To the best of my understanding, the only way we "know" Two-House people are Jewish is because they have an "inborn" attraction to Judaism and the Torah.

In my previous blog post, I quoted Aaron ("Jewzilla") as saying it's typical in Judaism to attribute the motivations of a Gentile who wants to convert to being a Jew as having a "Jewish soul". There's no objective way to prove such a thing, but to the degree that the person is sincere about converting, it's a convenient explanation, though unprovable by any means. So is the understanding of the Two-House movement that their members are "Jews" from the lost tribes.

From the Messianic Jewish (and other Jewish) point of view then, while Two-House people aren't seeking to replace "born Jews" but rather add to them, it's somewhat similar to the One Law situation. A group of (apparently) Gentiles are not just saying "I'm just like you because I was grafted in" but rather "I'm your long lost cousin from Schenectady come to rejoin the family."

Is there intent among Two-House people to replace people who were born Jewish and who have an ethnic and religious Jewish identity with their own populations? Probably not. However, as we saw in the One Law example, and from a Jewish point of view, it must be like having someone pour Merlot into your Chardonnay. The result isn't going to be what you originally expected.
At the very least, from a Jewish point of view, it must seem strange and, if in the Jewish mindset, such philosophies and behaviors are labeled as "supersessionist", then automatic emotional responses are triggered along with insult, offense and outrage.

So here you have three groups who, by expressing their points of view about each other are offended, insulted, and outraged...and yet who all claim to be brothers and sisters in the Messiah. Could that be considered ironic?

The Result

What a mess.

No, I don't expect anyone in the Messianic blogosphere to understand what I'm saying, but I think it needs to be said. We've created this mess and in some way, we've all contributed to it. It's not even so much what we say or our particular opinions and differing theologies, but it's "how" we deal with our emotions and act out in response.

Both Derek and Judah (representing each end of the continuum of "I feel insulted") could have handled their emotions and their responses better. On the surface, Derek "seems" the more dispassionate of the two, but I suspect this is an illusion produced by good editing of his blog post before mashing on the "publish" button.

Both men (and the rest of us, including me) could have handled this better. Both men could have prayed, read the Bible, and consulted with wise and dispassionate counsel (consulting someone experiencing just as much outrage as you doesn't count) before deciding to craft a response (or deciding not to). However, both men, and the rest of us, are just like all other men. Or as an instructor of mine was fond of saying, "Everyone is unique, but no one is special." We may all seem reasonable until someone pushes our hot topic button, and then off we go.

But what's done is done. You can't unring a bell.

I'm not saying we all are supposed to agree with each other and I guess we don't even have to like each other, but we are all (as much as we hate to admit it) in the same lifeboat together, adrift in a stormy sea that only the Messiah can calm (Mark 4:35-40). If the Messiah were to read all of our blogs, including this one, I imagine his response would be like this:

He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” -Mark 4:39-41

Do we really think that when the Messiah returns, he's going to put up with our foolishness for even two seconds? Have you tried to imagine his response? Do you think he'll take your side (whatever side that may be) and "nail" the other guy?

Or do we'll all get a rebuke and a chiding for our lack of faith?

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.

"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Who Has a Jewish Soul?

The Zohar opens with the image of the Jewish soul likened to a beloved rose among the thorns of materialism. The thorns wither the soul's sensitivity to G-dliness. Prune away the thorns, and the soul flourishes in G-d's shining light.

From Pictures with a Purpose
Chabad.org

In Judaism, "Jewish souls" awakening from among the gentiles is something that happens. All converts are such people. Perhaps, now that we're nearing toward the geula, HaShem is harvesting some lost souls throughout the world. I don't agree that their current state is where they are going to stay, if they're actually going to become truly part of Israel. But I'm sure that anyone who seeks out the urge and desire that they have for Israel and Tora, they will eventually end up in the right place. And may HaShem help them.

Aaron ("Jewzilla") in a comment on
Kineti L' Tziyon

I suppose I'll have to publish a little more of the transaction between Aaron and me for this to make sense:

James: Funny, that's more or less what my wife said to me once. Of all the Jews I can discuss matters of faith with, she's the only one who doesn't seem to be offended by who I am and what I believe. Of course, she loves me, which probably makes a difference.

Aaron ("Jewzilla"): James,

Follow up the passion with the fullest extent of action. ^_^

I'm not sure if Aaron was encouraging me to convert to Judaism (and if he was, I'll take that as a compliment) but what he said and the way he said it made me stop and think.

The various different manifestations of "Messianic Judaism" have been struggling especially hard recently to try and make sense of the non-Jewish presence in a "Jewish movement". Of course, Christianity is not thought of as a "Jewish movement" but the related worship of the same Messiah and the same God must be seen as some sort of connection between the Church and Messianic Jews. In the demilitarized zone between the two groups, you have populations of people characterized by the labels "One Law" and "Two House" who seem to be, at the same time, related and unrelated to both religious entities.

But who are we?

That's the Sixty-four thousand dollar question since "identity" is at the very core of the conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Messianic and Christian communities (I use the plural since any real connection between Messianic Jews and the Christian church is largely theoretical at this point).

We are all here in the same "virtual" room, though we are using pieces of chalk to mark our various territories in that room and putting up signs at these chalk-drawn borders saying "No such-and-thus is allowed beyond this point".

I hope I'm exaggerating, but I fear I'm not...at least not by much.

I've got so much I could say about the conversations that have taken place in the "Messianic blogosphere" during the past week, I hardly know where to begin. I've tried to inject a little reason into what I see as an unreasonable set of situations in my blog posts What I Won't Miss and Imagining Ourselves, but reason seems to be the last thing that most people want at the moment.

I recently read a blog article called Torah and Non-Jews at Christian for Moses, which appears to be an extension of the previous blog post Orthodox Rabbi's View of Torah and the Gentiles (and I highly recommend reading both, along with related article Prayer and Non-Jews).

I'm beginning to see a building amount of evidence for allowing non-Jews to access areas of Jewish life that heretofore were considered "forbidden" or "exclusively owned by Jews". Lines of distinction have become blurred and we are all stumbling about, bumping into each other, saying "beg your pardon", and trying to regain our balance.

But who are we?

According to Aaron's comments, it is possible for a non-Jewish person to have a "Jewish soul" (and I'm very uneducated about how this would work) and it is believed that all Gentiles who convert to Judaism are such Jewish souls.

But isn't that a form of supersessionism (the hot topic of last week)? Isn't that a form of diluting the body of "real" Jews?

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I've read Lydia Kukoff's Choosing Judaism, Anita Diamant's Choosing a Jewish Life and am in the process of reading Rabbi Kerry M Olitzky's and Joan Peterson Littman's book Making a Successful Jewish Interfaith Marriage. They all address this issue in one way or the other and confirm the general belief in Judaism that Gentile converts to Judaism are seen as having "Jewish Souls".

The authors of these books are rather liberal and take a stance that accepting converts and intermarried couples (more after the fact than before) actually strengthens Judaism rather than watering it down.

Interestingly enough, I see a sort of parallel between Gentiles being attributed to having "Jewish Souls" and the Two-House movement, which says that any non-Jew who is attracted to the Torah and Judaism must be a member of the lost ten tribes (as if no non-Jew in his or her own right could possibly be attracted to the beauty of the Torah for its own sake or for God's).

Of course it is Judaism's view that it is possible for some Gentiles to have "Jewish Souls" but it's a Gentile viewpoint that some non-Jews can really be "lost Jews" (and thereby hangs the difference). In both cases, the "belief" is the explanation for why a non-Jew could be attracted to Judaism enough to want to enter into some sort of "joining process". The former joining process (conversion or intermarriage) has always been seen with suspicion in Judaism and only accepted with difficulty (hence the necessity for books to educate potential converts, intermarrieds, their families, their Rabbis, and Jews and Christians in general). On the other hand, Messianic Judaism views Two-House as a rather odd form of "supersessionism" which is the act or attempt to replace or dilute Jews with non-Jews, and thus reducing or destroying Jewish identity.

What a mess.

This coming week, we will be reading and studying the Torah Portion Yitro, which features the remarkable act of millions of Jews and non-Jews standing at the foot of Mount Sinai and "as one man" accepting the Torah of God. The leader of this vast body of humanity is himself, an "intermarried" Jewish man who takes advice from his Gentile father-in-law.

Even at the level of the Mount Sinai event, there was a "mixing" of different people groups in relation to God and the Torah. Thousands of years later, Yeshua (Jesus) commits the ultimately confusing act of requiring his Jewish disciples to also make disciples of the peoples of the nations (Matthew 28:18-20) and Peter, the Messiah's "right hand man", actually witnesses Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit of God before his very eyes and says that the Gentiles should not be restricted from baptism (Acts 10:44-48).

Yet, in the modern era, non-Jews who are attracted, not only to the Jewish Messiah but to the Jewishness of the Jewish Messiah, are having the most difficult time being allowed to make the actual social and religious connection to Messianic Judaism.

Are One Law and Two House members an abberation which damages Messianic Judaism and are their beliefs inexorably supersessionist? I'll try to address that in my next blog. The answer might not be what you think.

No matter how I answer the question, I'm sure to invoke yet another blood bath among the body parts of the Messiah who are all commanded to love each other (John 13:34).

We were so close, there was no room
We bled inside each other's wounds
We all had caught the same disease
And we all sang the songs of peace
Some came to sing, some came to pray
Some came to keep, the dark away

So raise the candles high, 'cause if you don't
We could stay black against the night
Oh raise them higher again and if you do
We could stay dry against the rain

From Lay Down (Candles in the Rain)
Melanie Safka (1970)

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.

"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh

A Far, Far Better Thing

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Charles Dickens
A Tale of Two Cities

No, I'm not anticipating an unfortunate appointment with the guillotine and I'm hardly feeling fatalistic about matters (though I must admit to some "moodiness" lately), but this very famous and oft quoted phrase from one of the most popular novels written by Dickens seemed appropriate this morning.

If you've been reading my latest blogs and conversations including The Beautiful Girl and Her Very Long List and especially Overlap, Part 3: Speed Bumps, you'll understand my struggles in the "Messianic movement" and my personal resolution to those struggles. While I've been anticipating such a move for the past six months or more, I woke up this morning with a feeling that a weight had been lifted.

Don't worry. I'm not automatically assuming that my emotional state is a "sign from the Holy Spirit" that God approves of my decision. Too often I've found that people rely on their feelings to tell them what God does and doesn't approve of. In my experience though, we tend to feel "better" when we do what we want to do (which may or may not be within the will of God) and worse when we are doing the will of God, at least when it takes us outside our comfort zones.

So my "feeling better" isn't necessarily any sort of communication from God that He wants me to stop serving at my congregation. That matter remains firmly rooted in prayer, and I trust that God will make His intentions clear without having to tinker with the part of my brain chemistry that generates emotional states.

Something interesting happened this morning, though. My wife and I were talking before I left for work, and she asked me if I was going to resume teaching a weekday evening class at my congregation. I mentioned briefly that I'd be teaching a 16-week course, mapping the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) in the Book of Matthew back to the collection of Torah commandments Jews can obey today listed in The Concise Book of Mitzvoth as compiled by The Chafetz Chayim (and when the book arrived in the mail late last week, my wife's little eyes got all big and round with interest...I think she wants to borrow my book).

I also took the opportunity to say that after the 16 weeks were done, I'd be resigning from leadership in my congregation and leaving "the movement". Her response took me off guard.

She asked me, "How will you be fed?"

That struck me as more of a Christian sort of question than Jewish, at least in her wording. Of course, she doesn't want me to quit just because of her or because I think she wants me to. I explained that it's a little more complicated than that (without going into my whole blogging experience) but naturally, she does play a role in my decision...just not the only role.

She seems concerned about what I'll be doing after I leave the congregation with no "feeding" coming my way. We agreed that, for the past several years, I've been doing most of the feeding at the congregation, but I really don't have a resource besides self-study, to expand and challenge my own faith and education. I still don't know how that's going to work post-congregation, although both Dan and Gene have made pretty much the same suggestion about a solution.

My wife didn't spontaneously offer up the option of the Chabad, and I didn't really expect her to. It may be too threatening for her to imagine me, with my "tainted" past, showing up in a world where she so strongly experiences her Judaism.

I don't have much more to say about my decision to leave the "Messianic movement" except that right now, it "feels" like the right thing to do.

But feelings are enormously deceptive, so I'm prepared to wait and see how things develop.

While I know that a life of faith is no promise of a life of ease (and usually quite the opposite), the debates and demands of "Messianic Judaism" expend a great deal of energy relative to what they return. Derek Leman (and I don't say this unkindly) brought up one of those major issues on his blog this morning. I'm sorry that these sorts of head-banging, faith draining, roads to desolation type of arguments have to occur among the body of believers, but it's in our nature as human beings to "screw up a free lunch".

This isn't to say that I regret the relationships I've developed with various people through the course of these blogosphere discussions. I hope to maintain a number of contacts with people "post-congregation" as I value their insights and their kindness. However, the overall dynamics of "the movement" and probably the world of faith in general, contains more than its fair share of "knock-down-drag-outs".

As of this morning, my decision to distance myself from these issues does seem to be "a far, far better thing." Maybe on the other side of my decision, when summer is here again, I can find a sort of "neutral zone" where Christians and (Messianic) Jews (and non-Messianic Jews) can sit down together over a cup of coffee or a beer and share our insights and differences without having to feel threatened. Maybe it'll be like this, at least someday:

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. -Micah 4:4

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. -Matthew 8:11

Addendum: I found the following quote and it seemed appropriate:

If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. Men will believe what they see. -Thoreau

Overlap, Part 3: Speed Bumps

Stop separating us already! We are family and should treat each other with love . I believe it says to love your neighbor as yourself a couple of times in scripture . We have all been called to obey Torah. No tap dancing around it.

A comment from the Congregation Shema Yisrael blog

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

Last Friday, I copied the content of one of my articles on this blog called Orthodox Rabbi’s View of Torah and the Gentiles and posted it on my congregation's blog. I've received two responses there so far, and both have been like the quote you read at the top if the page.

Today, I even went so far as to use this content as the basis for my teaching at Shabbat services. It turned out to be a very lively discussion and inspired a great deal of debate.

These are the sort of teachings that, at least in my little corner of the world, I consider "pushing the envelope". I make it a big deal on this blog to question assumptions and I'm extending that to my more "public" and "in person" world. The results are predictable and not entirely comfortable.

While you can expect questioning assumptions of the "One Law status quo" (or any status quo) to yield some push back, can you (or I) expect it to do any actual good? I hope so. But on the other hand, I'm only one guy. I'm not trying to lead a revolution, I'm just trying to get people to see alternatives. I guess this is what happens when you start threatening the sacred cows (and I've done that before).

As I've probably mentioned previously, I'm extending this type of class and presenting these questions in a 16 week course I'm teaching at my congregation starting the last Wednesday of January. While, from my point of view, it's an expansion of what I've been writing about on this blog all along and contains much of what I've learned from the experience, it's also either going to open some eyes or end up shutting some ears.

I hope it's the former, but no one likes to have their assumptions questioned. I know that in traditional Talmudic study, debates, questions, and struggling with the status quo is allowed and even encouraged, but with many non-Jews or Jews who didn't have the benefit of a classic Jewish education, they respond a lot like Christians in a Bible study. If you step outside the established canon, you won't be received well.

The struggle between unity and division isn't just on one side of the equation. Everybody owns a sacred cow. When you go out "cow tipping", the cows push back.

I'm going to stop blogging now and go to sleep. Honest.

Addendum, the next afternoon:

I've never encountered problems building relationships with Christians who have repudiated supersessionism or, at least, acknowledge there is something deficient in the way that Christianity traditionally approaches the Jews, their Scriptures, and their Torah.

I have had a problem building relationships with Christians (One Law Messianics included) who are committed to the proposition that they are Israel.

I think what you identify as the "BE" corrective has nothing to do with BE at all, it has do with good sense. You shouldn't just go messing around and playing fantasy dress-up with someone else's religion.
A comment by Ovadia in

Overlap, Part 2: The Therapeutic Horse

Is it time to play Stuck in the Middle by Steelers Wheel? If I try to educate people to be sensitive to the needs of Messianic Judaism as Ovadia suggests, I get accused of not treating people with love and rebuilding the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles in the "Messianic movement". If I devise a plan that I think will gain the best results in achieving what Ovadia suggests but moves slowly, it's not good enough and all I'm doing is playing "dress up" with someone else's religion.

If I were the character Q (played by John deLancie) from Star Trek: The Next Generation, I suppose I could just snap my fingers and give everyone what they want, but I'm not...and I can't.

Overlap, Part 2: The Therapeutic Horse

Let us use the famous story of Shammai, Hillel and the three converts (Shabbos 31) to demonstrate the fusion of Halacha and Aggadah,: A gentile once came to Shammai, and wanted to convert to Judaism. But he insisted on learning the whole Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai rejected him, so he went to Hillel, who taught him: "What you dislike, do not do to your friend. That is the basis of the Torah. The rest is commentary; go and learn!" Another gentile who accepted only the Written Torah, came to convert. Shammai refused, so he went to Hillel. The first day, Hillel taught him the correct order of the Hebrew Alphabet. The next day he reversed the letters. The convert was confused:"But yesterday you said the opposite!?" Said Hillel: "You now see that the Written Word alone is insufficient. We need the Oral Tradition to explain G-d's Word." A third gentile wanted to convert so he could become the High Priest, and wear the Priestly garments. Shammai said no, but Hillel accepted him. After studying, he realized that even David, the King of Israel, did not qualify as a cohen, not being a descendant of Aaron...

-Hillel, Shammai and the Three Converts
Saratogachabad.org

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

This is probably the story from Talmud that everyone, even many non-Jews, know about Hillel and Shammai and while it paints a rather rosy picture of Hillel in terms of his patience and compassion, it tends to cast Shammai as rather harsh and uncompromising. This commentary gives us more insight into the motives of both men, starting with Shammai:

But Shammai took people at face value. From his perspective, he rightfully rejected them. Shammai's original stern attitude helps us appreciate his statement (1:15): "Welcome everyone with a pleasant face." Shammai honestly conceded that Hillel's approach was proven right by the three converts. Yet, even while changing his personal attitude, Shammai refuses to relax his principles. He insists:"Set yourself a time for Torah study;" i.e. Torah cannot be learned in a rush, while on the run. Do not attempt to learn Torah while standing on one foot.

Shammai is not "bad" in comparison to Hillel's "goodness". Both men represent important aspects of how Jews are to approach God, Torah, and other men, including non-Jews. That said, the important lesson I get from this integral part of the Talmud is that, if you want a person who is sincere but misguided to change, instead of rejecting them out of hand, let them study (under your subtle guidance) until they learn their errors.

So, for proper ongoing dialog to take place and for healthy lasting relationship to be build, just as Christians in churches are expected to deal with their suppersessionism and anti-Judaism, so should Gentiles in congregations under the "Messianic" umbrella be expected to develop respect for the unique nature of Jewish identity and traditional Jewish norms, including appropriateness of appropriation of certain Jewish ritual, garb and life cycle events (like brit-milah and bar-mitzvah). A "Judaicaly informed" congregation should be expected to be informed regarding these things, to understand and respect the Jewish understanding of these Jewish matters.

Gene Shlomovich's comments from my
Overlap blog post.

I hope Gene won't mind me picking on him a little bit, but I'm trying to illustrate some of the difficulties that Messianic Judaism (MJ) is having developing relationships with other believing groups, including the church and particularly "Messianic" One Law congregations, especially as MJ attempts to apply the ideals of Bilateral Ecclesiology (BE). While it's understandable that Jews who were raised in ethnically and religiously observant Jewish homes would find it distressing or offensive to see non-Jews wearing tzitzit, laying tefillin, and speaking Hebrew prayers, is it reasonable to expect such groups to abandon practices they are quite used to in an instant and before establishing relationship with their Jewish "mentors"?

Consider Hillel vs. Shammai again and see the differing results. Each convert, through their own studies, realized their errors and humbled themselves. But what would have happened to these three men if, after Shammai rejected them, they gave up on their desire to convert and went in some other direction? Shabbos 31a records the answer:

One day the three met and said: "The sternness of Shammai sought to drive us from this world [and the world to come], Hillel's humility and gentleness brought us under the wings of the Divine Presence."

Many years ago, when I was in graduate school (I have an M.S. degree in Counseling), one of my classes was studying the therapeutic and hypnosis techniques of pioneer psychotherapist Milton H. Erickson. Erickson had a unique perspective on how to achieve therapeutic change in patients that defies reduction down to a "method" (although my graduate program did a very good job of trying). One story Erickson is said to have told stuck in my mind. I can't quote it verbatim, but I'll do my best to retell it from memory:

You are on the back of a runaway stallion. The horse has been panicked and is galloping out of control. You have the reins in your hands but any attempt to suddenly stop the horse will result in you being violently thrown from his back and with the horse escaping into the unknown distance.

Although you can't stop the horse, you find that if you gently pull the reins, the horse will turn direction slightly. You turn the horse, still at full gallop, first a bit to the left and then a bit to the right. You slowly but persistently continue to turn the speeding steed in one direction or the other, and it becomes a little easier to control your mount each time you gently tug the reins. After much time and patience, you find you can slow the horse down a bit. You allow him to speed up again, then slow him down a bit more. You repeat your actions, gaining an increasing amount of control with each slow, and steady move.

Finally, after many such maneuvers, the horse becomes calmer and responds in greater measure to your directives, finally slowing to a canter and then a slow walk. You can now turn him back to the stables and he acts in full cooperation with you.

I'm sure Erickson could have told the story better, but you get the idea.

Of course, my use of Erickson's metaphor assumes that the Jews in Messianic Judaism are in "the driver's seat" and in control of access to the community of the Messiah, even above the Christian church. While in the time of Paul, Peter, and James, the Jerusalem Council was in direct control of the admission of formerly pagan non-Jews into the community of God, nearly 2,000 years of relational division have broken that tie. While Gentiles who align themselves with the Messinaic movement are more "dependent" on their Jewish counterparts than the church, a direct mentor-disciple relationship between the two groups doesn't exist and thus, Messianic Judaism isn't positioned to "drive the horse" to any destination they desire, at least not in any abrupt or "parental" manner. Like Shammai, all they'll accomplish is to chase us away with a stick.

Like Hillel, the observant Jews in Messianic Judaism, in order to achieve their goals, must understand the different groups of people in which they are in relation, and allow those groups who are willing (and not all groups will be), to discover their own answers, while learning under the "Messianic umbrella". This is what Hillel understood and the rest of us need to learn to achieve. From the Saratogachabad.org commentary:

The convert was not just acting silly by standing on one foot; he was actually symbolizing his quest for true unity. This gentile had left behind a confusing plethora of pagan gods and multiple deities. He searched and finally found Monotheism, One Torah and One G-d, wanting to live by a single unifying principle, the 'one foot' on which all else stands. Hillel taught him that the underlying principle that unites all is Jewish Love. The second convert, had rejected the other man-made religions as human concoctions, was attracted to the Divine Torah, which consisted solely of G-d's word. He was shocked to find that we follow a Rabbinical tradition. He wasn't being rebellious, but sincerely asking a valid question; "I wish to observe G-d's word alone, not any human additions." Hillel creatively showed him that the two Torahs are not two separate systems, but are one and the same. The written word and the oral traditions complement each other. It is as basic as the Aleph Bais, where you can't have one without the other. Indeed, the Torah itself bids us to follow the enactments of the sages. The third convert, disillusioned with pagan shallowness, aimed for a higher meaning to life. He yearned to reach the highest level, assuming that being a High Priest is the ultimate spiritual fulfillment.

How can we deny anyone from coming into acceptance under the wings of the Divine Presence and drive them from unity with the larger body of the Messiah? The horse must be willing, but the guidance must be humble and gentle.