Messianic Jews in New York Times, Christianity Today

Messianic Jews were mentioned in several major media outlets in the past week.

New York Times

From the New York Times article One App, More Than 400 Languages, on the runaway success of YouVersion's Bible app:

Today, the app contains everything from the New International Version to “The Message,” an ultramodern interpretation that reads like a juicy novel. It also includes the so-called Orthodox Jewish Bible, which was actually developed for a religious sect known as Messianic Jews, who believe that Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews await.

Photo credit: New York Times.

From the caption for the above image: "the Orthodox Jewish Bible...created by the Artists for Israel International Messianic Bible Society...incorporates Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions into an English translation of both the Old and New Testaments."

The Orthodox Jewish Bible is certainly among the Messianic movement's more idiosyncratic translations (which is saying a lot). This fit right into the article's emphasis on the wide range of different Bible translations available through YouVersion. That said, the two other major Messianic Jewish translations, the Complete Jewish Bible and the Tree of Life version, are also available through YouVersion.

Christianity Today

Christianity Today's recent issue on Leviticus mentions Messianic Jews in two of its cover stories. In Learning to Love Leviticus, Christopher J. H. Wright explains how Christians can treat biblical "as a paradigm or model for our personal and social ethics in all kinds of areas: economic, familial, political, judicial, sexual, and so on"...without "upholding all the jots and tittles." In a paragraph on the food laws, he writes:

The distinction between clean and unclean animals and foods was symbolic of the distinction between Israel as God's holy people and the Gentile nations (Lev. 20:25–26). In the New Testament, that separation is abolished in Christ, as Paul says in Ephesians 2. Through the Cross, God has made the two cultures one new humanity. And as Peter discovered through his vision in Acts 10, before going to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, what God has called clean should no longer be called unclean. Today some Messianic Jewish believers choose freely to observe the kashrut regulations as a mark of their Jewish community and cultural identity. But in their unity, believers are free from food laws.

Kudos to Wright for not ignoring the existence of Messianic Jews in the body of Messiah who observe the kashrut regulations of Leviticus. That being said, I found his claim confusing. Are the kashrut restrictions truly disruptive to unity? (In most Messianic Jewish synagogues I've visited, Jews and Gentiles experience free fellowship over kosher meals.) Furthermore, in conflicts over food between "stronger" and "weaker" brethren, didn't Paul instruct the strong to compromise for the sake of the weak? (This particular line of argumentation assumes that Messianic Jews observing kashrut would be identified with the weak. I myself don't necessarily read the passage that way, but perhaps Wright or those who agree with him do.)

The argument against the food laws from unity strikes me as rather weak on its own. In fact, I suspect that other theological convictions (such as the abrogation of the law in Christ or the supposed dangers of law observance) are really behind this argument, lending it support in the minds of those who accept it. Perhaps as post-supersessionist interpretation of the New Testament gains traction among contemporary scholars, Wright will find this reading of Acts 10 (and other related passages) challenged.

~

Readers who found Wright's comments on Messianic Jews rather uninformed may find much more to appreciate in Philip Cary's Gentiles in the Hands of a Genocidal God. Cary's thesis is that reawakening an awareness of the theological and historical significance of Gentile identity can significantly transform Christian perspectives on the Old Testament's troubling genocide passages. Christians tend to identify too much with Israel, Cary contends, to the point where they forget their place in the narrative. "We have been reading Israel's Scriptures so long that we forget that these words were not originally addressed to us.":

In fact, with respect to the command to exterminate the Canaanites, our position is less like Israel's and more like that of Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute in Jericho who befriends the Israelite spies. She has not taken part in Israel's exodus, but she has heard of it and believes it. She knows the name of the Lord, the God who has given the land to Israel, and she confesses that he is God of heaven and earth (Josh. 2:9–11). She is a believer, and eventually will be included in Hebrews 11's great litany of heroes who lived by faith. But she is not an Israelite. She is a Canaanite who hopes to live, not die. 

As a believer, Rahab can have hope, because the threat she faces is not so much moral as religious. It is not as if the Israelites were so much more righteous than every other nation (Deut. 9:4–6). Israel is holy not because of their own righteousness but because the Lord loves them and chose them as his people. And the holiness of the Lord is a kind of jealousy that claims Israel as his own, not allowing other nations to lead them into worshiping false gods (7:5–8). That is the holiness that leads to herem, the extermination of Rahab's people for their idolatry. 

My proposal is that to read this story properly, as Gentiles, is to put ourselves in Rahab's place. Our origin lies not with the people who hear the command to kill, but with those who are to be killed. We belong with those who should be devoted to destruction because we offend against the holiness of God. And yet what has actually happened is that, like Rahab, we have received mercy through faith in the God of Israel. 

To read the Canaanite genocide this way is to have our hearts formed the way the New Testament intends for Gentiles. 

I'm sure I wasn't the only one shocked to find this in Christianity Today. (For anyone troubled by the "fire and brimstone" tone of the above passage, make sure to read the whole article; Cary also discusses the beautiful consequences of identifying with Rahab, i.e. "You could say that what frees Rahab from herem is hesed, the lovingkindness of her relationship with Israel.")

Before concluding the article, Cary discusses to the historical relationship between Gentile Christians and Israel:

"In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 12:3, esv)...Christ himself fulfills these words, making the blessing of Abraham into a blessing for all who believe. 

Because of this gospel blessing, we can hear "I am the Lord your God" as words addressed to us, since we too share the faith of Abraham. But notice what this commits us to. It means we Gentile believers in Christ are to be a blessing to the people of Israel, "that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy," as Paul says (Rom. 11:31, esv). 

Alas, what sort of blessing have Gentile Christians been to Israel? So much persecution of the Jews fills our history. Even our evangelism has often meant attempting to put an end to them. As Messianic Jews have recently pointed out, that is what Christians did by demanding that Jews who accept Christ must cease to practice Judaism—in effect ceasing to be Jews. It meant turning them away from their covenant with the God of Abraham and Moses, as if we had forgotten that this was none other than the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here Cary demonstrates familiarity with the central claims in Messianic Jewish thought--the unity of Jewish identity and Jewish practice, the validity of "Judaism," the deep flaws in the historic Christiant "gospel" of "Jesus, not Judaism." (Readers who find merit in Cary's insights here may want to check out his Jonah commentary before Yom Kippur.)

~

One other article in CT which may be of interest to Messianic readers is Daniel Harrell's account of The 30-day Leviticus Challenge his church did. I was half-expecting a conclusion like this: "After a whole month of these tedious and difficult laws, we were all more grateful for God's grace which sets us free from the law." Sure enough, Harrell set up a conclusion remarkably similar to this...and then elegantly debunked it:

But if reading Leviticus only succeeds in making you feel bad for being a lousy Christian, you've missed its point. Leviticus isn't in the Bible merely to show you your need for grace. It's in the Bible to show you what grace is for. The ancient Israelites were already chosen people before God gave them the Law. The Law's purpose was never to save anybody. Rather, its purpose was to show saved people how to live a saved life.

Reading on, I was also impressed by the transformations Harrell described in the lives of the Challenge participants: continued Sabbath practice, the conclusion that confession of sin is the "modern, post-Jesus equivalent" of sacrifices, and a congregational "Day of Atonement" (during Lent), of which he wrote:

Many left with similar feelings of walking on air—as well as intentions to be more grounded in God—which is precisely what grace (and the Law) are supposed to do. I couldn't help but wonder why we tend to view obedience as so burdensome. Could it be that we've never really obeyed?

Sounds like a pretty decent Day of Atonement to me.

HT Glenn for the tip about the Cary article.

A new book on Paul and the Torah

No, I'm not talking about Introduction to Messianic Judaism (though if you haven't gotten your copy, you should get one!). I'm talking about James Thompson's Moral Formation according to Paul. Another point to Dr. Scot McKnight (who's gotten a lot of play on this blog recently) for bringing this to our attention at A Question for the Apostle Paul:

 “How should we live?” That’s the question so many today want to ask Paul — and about as many answers as the numbers of those who ask him the question! There are tensions when one asks this question of Paul — he was after a Jew and a Jew would say “Obey the commands.” But many think that’s not what Paul would say. This question has been posed in a remarkably sensitive manner by James Thompson, at Abilene Christian University, in a book called Moral Formation according to Paul.

...

Thompson knows that many today — Christian theologians in particular — don’t want Paul to be offering a Torah-shaped set of ethics. So there are a number of approaches to Paul’s sources:1. Some see his sources in typical Greek and Roman (and Jewish) moral traditions. That is, folks like Dio Chrysostom or Plutarch or Musonius.
2. Some think Paul’s ethic is absolutely reduced and emerged from the command to love. Bultmann. Or Freedom. Strecker. Even in a situational framework. Robin Scroggs.
3. Yet others think it is all about guidance and discernment of life in the Spirit. Here he appeals to Udo Schnelle and Jimmy Dunn.
4. Some think what Paul wanted was for people to do what he did: imitate Christ.
5. Last he looks at Richard Hays’ proposal of three focal images: cross, community and new creation.
Thompson thinks each falls short and that there is no going forward until one understands the central place the Torah played in Hellenistic Judaism — Paul’s concerns, after all, are with Gentile converts to the gospel in the Diaspora. And in that location the Torah was very, very important, even if it wasn’t halakic and even if it didn’t often sound like the rabbis were to sound.

Scot McKnight interviews Mark Nanos on the apostle Paul

Gathering Sparks readers might appreciate "Where Christians Got It Wrong With Paul," in which popular evangelical blogger/author/academic Scot McKnight interviews Mark Nanos about his contribution to the recent Zondervan "multiple views" series release The Apostle Paul.  Here's the introduction:

Mark Nanos is on a mission to expound for readers of Paul a Paul who never broke from Judaism. His project, and here we are sketching some of what he says in the book edited by Mike Bird called The Apostle Paul, is both about rhetoric and theology. Nanos, who plays golf well and is a Jewish scholar of Paul, has been stumping for his themes for more than a decade. 

The rhetoric is clear: Christians have explained their faith, in particular the theology of Paul, at the expense of Judaism. They have made Paul a champion of freedom by arguing Judaism was slavery, Paul a champion of universalism by arguing Judaism was exclusive and ethnic, and Paul a champion of a religion of grace, faith and love while Judaism comes off looking like a religion of merit, works and legalism. In a strange irony, Nanos then says “those values that Christians champion… are instead inferior to the values Jews actually uphold” (163). I get his point, but he’s done the same thing he’s accused Christian scholars of doing: comparative descriptions come off as comparative denunciations. But Nanos has the larger end of the stick on this one; he’s right; Christians have failed to comprehend Judaism because they’ve settled for caricatures that they can use to champion their own faith.

Check out the full interview, in which they discuss "works of the law," Paul's "conversion" vs. Paul's "calling," and the difference between Paul's Judaism and others.  (Hint: it involves words like "chronometrical.")

Update: James pointed out that there is some great discussion in the comments section including comments from Nanos himself.

New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado expresses 'puzzlement and disappointment' with his friend Tom Wright's reading of Romans 9-11

When I first discovered N. T. Wright in college, I was thrilled by his papers and lectures on Jesus and Paul.  Wright has a special knack for reading Biblical texts as both a historian while simultaneously bringing out their relevance for today's church and today's world.  (I still recommend learning from Wright's reading of the New Testament: just head on over to ntwrightpage.com and select the first thing that looks interesting!

It was only after reading and listening to Wright for several years did it suddenly dawn on me that, although Wright's new perspective on Paul had hugely impacted my own thinking, I actually had progressed beyond his position towards a reading now referred to as "the radical perspective on Paul."  While I continued to appreciate his erudition, I was no longer convinced by his reading of Paul, which to me was supersessionist.

It turns out that I'm not the only one confused by Wright on this point.  In Paul and Israel's Salvation: In Dialogue with Tom Wright, respected New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado writes:

I’ve re-read his essay on Romans 9–11 several times now, and my copy is heavily marked with indications of my puzzlement and disappointment at numerous points. I will simply say that I remain of the view that in Romans 9–11 Paul’s protracted and repeated concern is the fate of his people, fellow Jews, in light of his firm conviction that Jesus has been made now the one source of salvation, and the large-scale rejection of the Gospel by his people. For Paul, it seems to me, the issue boils down to this: If his ancestral people have simply gone into a ditch permanently, then “the word of God has failed” (Rom 9:6), and/or God has abandoned his people (11:1) to whom he made promises. And if God can be so defeated by Jewish unbelief in the Gospel, or can turn from his promises to Jewish ancestors, then God’s character and redemptive power are under suspicion.

I don’t see how one can read 11:25-32 as envisioning anything other than Paul’s surprising declaration that God will ultimately triumph over the present Jewish unbelief in Jesus and secure the redemption of all. Just as Paul asserts that in God’s secret plan (“mystery”) the large-scale Jewish unbelief actually is serving (in Paul’s time) to promote the “fullness” of Gentile salvation (11:25), so Paul seems to me to say that God will double back and bring also the corresponding “fullness” of Israel (11:12) into salvation. Just as all people (including Israel) have been disobedient, so God will scoop all nations (including also Israel) into eschatological salvation (11:32). And for Paul that means salvation through the Gospel of God’s Son.

 If you want to read a brilliant analytical mind at work, don't miss Hurtado's responses to his commenters.

HT: Derek Leman, who beat me to the punch in publishing a post on this very same article.

(Belated) Happy Birthday to E. P. Sanders

That's Covenantal Nomism (Not Covenantal Gnomism)!

With everything going on in the calendar last week, I almost missed the opportunity to point out the birthday (April 18) of New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders.   "Who's that?" you might be asking.

E. P. Sanders is known for achieving a paradigm shift in how New Testament scholars understand first-century Judaism.  Stuart Dauermann explains:

Sanders is one of the grandfathers of the New Perspectives on Paul.  In his blockbuster first book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and in subsequent texts, he set out to consider methodologically how to compare two (or more) related but different religions; to destroy the view of Rabbinic Judaism which is still prevalent in much, perhaps most, New Testament scholarship; to establish a different view of Rabbinic Judaism; to argue a case concerning Palestinian Judaism (that is, Judaism as reflected in material of Palestinian provenance) as a whole; to argue for a certain understanding of Paul; and to carry out a comparison of Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

He is best remembered for his exploration of what he terms “covenantal nomism.”  This term names his conviction that for  Judaism, “obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420) In other words: “obedience is universally held to be the behavior appropriate to being in the covenant, not the means of earning God’s grace.” (p. 421). For Sanders, “Israel’s situation in the covenant required the law to be obeyed as fully and completely as possible … as the only proper response to the God who chose Israel and gave them commandments” (p. 81).

In the conclusion to his Messianic Jewish response to Sanders' "new" perspective on Paul, Dauermann writes:

This is certainly not the Paul I was introduced to fifty years ago. But also, this is not the version of Judaism that most Christians I know of entertain . . . We can and should still commend the gospel. But we absolutely do not have to nor should we denigrate Judaism to do so!

Yom HaBikkurim, urban legend

The title of this blog post is meant to catch your attention.  "Yom HaBikkurim, urban legend"!  Can it be true?

Well, not exactly.  Let me explain.

In Messianic Jewish circles, I regularly encounter references to the first day of the omer count as "Yom HaBikkurim."  I grew up with this being taught to me and continue to encounter it both on blogs and in books.  (Not to mention the omer count debate.  Seriously...don't mention it.  Not going there on this post.)  [Update: The reason for this teaching is to justify using the name Yom HaBikkurim as a "kosher substitute" for the term "Easter," the latter being something a non-sequitur of a name for those who didn't grow up within a tradition that uses it.  The underlying assumption is that Yom HaBikkurim is the Biblical holiday on which the resurrection of Yeshua took place.  For examples, simply Google "Yom HaBikkurim."]

However (unless one of you can persuade me otherwise), I'm strongly leaning towards the conclusion that "Yom HaBikkurim" refers not to the first day of the omer count at all--but rather, to the day AFTER the LAST day of the omer count.  In other words, Yom HaBikkurim is not a complete urban legend...it's another name for Shavuot.

Let's start by considering Numbers 28:26:

On the day of the firstfruits, when you offer a grain offering of new grain to the Lord at your Feast of Weeks, you shall have a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work.

This verse equates "the day of firstfruits" (yom habikkurim) with "your Feast of Weeks."  A.k.a. Shavuot.

Case closed, right?

No--there's more!  Let's check out Leviticus 23--the chapter that holds all the answers, right?

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it." (Lev 23:9-10)

Let's see: waving firstfruits, day after the Sabbath ...maybe (ignoring Num 28:26 for a second) this is Yom HaBikkurim?

I see two problems with this reading.  The first problem is that "firstfruits" are also mentioned later on in the chapter:

...count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord. You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour, and they shall be baked with leaven, as firstfruits to the Lord. (vv. 16-17)

and again in verse 20:

And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest.

The second problem is that the word בִּכּוּרִים, bikkurim, does not appear in Lev: 23:9-10.  (Say what?)  That's right, the reference to "a sheaf of the firstfruits" in 23:10 is actually a translation of the phrase (עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית, omer reisheet).  When the word bikkurim does appear in verses 17 and 20, it is referring to Shavuot.

I am aware of the section of mishna Zeraim called Bikkurim, but in my (limited) searching so far, I've seen no reference to the first day of the omer count as Yom HaBikkurim.  Strong's concordance 1061 also seems to concur with me here: "day of the first-fruits (Pentecost) Numbers 28:26."

In support of the first day of omer count as Yom HaBikkurim idea, I have only two observations (neither of which I find convincing):

First, many Bibles have a header above Leviticus 23:9-14 such as "The Feast of Firstfruits."  While that certainly predisposes readers of those Bibles to see that passage as describing such a festival (even leading some Biblical conspiracy theorists to speculate about why the feast of firstfruits "disappeared" from the Rabbinic calendar), it hardly constitutes an authoritative interpretation of the passage itself.

Second, there is the statement by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:20:

But in fact Messiah has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 

Paul is certainly using the language of harvest to describe Messiah's resurrection.  But I'm not convinced we can infer that the first day is "Yom HaBikkurim" in any official sense solely on this basis...only perhaps in a symbolic sense.

We might also ask whether Leviticus 23:9-14 is meant to be read as a distinct section from 15-22, but [see below] rather than going on, I think I'll simply close by restating my thesis as a question:

Is there any basis for referring to the first day of the omer count as Yom HaBikkurim?  Show me what I'm missing, friends!

Oh yeah, and happy Omer/Bikkurim to you all.

Update: I'm sure I'm not the first one to point this out.  So, wrong or right, if you want to point me towards articles addressing what I bring up here, I'd appreciate that too!

Second update: I had briefly suggested that perhaps Lev. 23:9-14 and 23:15-22 were not two distinct units, but verse 15 brought me back to reality: "From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks."

Thoughts on Messiah Journal #109

Below are some thoughts on the most recent issue of Messiah Journal.

(Full disclosure:my own book review of the Jewish Annotated New Testament is published at the end of this issue.  I did receive a free copy of the journal.)

• Tzvi Sadan's article ("Halachic Authority in the Life of the Messianic Community"): I was glad to get to read this and glad that it's been put into print, since it articulates a number of important arguments in a succinct and eloquent way.  That said, in his treatment of Matthew 16, I was a little surprised that he failed to directly address verse 12 (unless I missed it)--in which it says that Yeshua "was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."  I take it that Sadan reads this verse through the lens of Matt 23:1-2 and Luke 12:1, but I think it only weakens his argument for him not to state this explicitly.  (And even stated clearly, I think this is the one of the weak points in his argument...and this is coming from someone who shares Sadan's convictions in this area.)
• James Pyle's article ("Origins of Supercessionism in the Church") provides a helpful overview of supersessionism in Christian history.  I'm looking forward to his followup article on supersessionism today.
• Update (forgot to include this in my initial post): I enjoyed Rabbi Russ Resnik's initial article in a series he will be doing on "Living the Greatest Commandment" (the Shema) and very much look forward to further entries.  I'm particularly interested in seeing what Rabbi Russ brings out get integrated into our communal understanding, practice, and articulation of the Shema, including in public worship.
• Toby Janicki's article ("A Gentile Believer's Obligation to the Torah") has been a long time coming.  I've thought a number of times that the current discussion about Acts 15 is too reductionistic on the Gentile side of the equation--the "four prohibitions" of the Apostles aren't just four singular practices.  Rarely does anyone actually map the prohibitions onto the teachings of Paul or the other apostles, and I've longed for an ordered exploration of this topic.  Not only is Toby's article a great contribution towards that effort, but he also includes helpful forways into later Jewish and Christian interpretation on the issues.  A couple observations:
• I had never heard anyone propose the interpretation Toby proposes for Paul's perplexing reference to "baptisms for the dead" in 1 Cor 15:29.
• I also appreciated his take on Paul's reference to "the cup of blessing" in 1 Cor 10:16.   
• Another great scholarly take on the ritual demands of Paul's gospel to the Gentiles with respect to the Temple is Paula Frederksen's article Paula Frederiksen "Judaizing the Nations: the Ritual Demands of Paul's Gospel". 
• I also am intrigued by his proposal that Gentiles are enjoined to keep the "remember" portion of the Shabbat commandment (with respect to creation) but not the "guard" portion which relates to the exodus from Egypt.
• I do wonder about some of Toby's "these would only make sense if..." arguments, where he suggests that early Messianics must have been familiar with certain practices (such as benching), otherwise Paul's statement would make no sense.   Clearly, the Lord's Supper (even at it is practiced today) has its roots in mealtime blessings, but does the fact that few Christians today bench after meals prevent them from understanding Paul's reference to "the cup of blessing that we bless"?  So even though I wonder about the degree of adaptation that had already happened, I'm not at all threatened by the idea or by Gentiles recontextualizing the "cup of blessing" to reclaim .
• Aaron Eby's article ("The Writing on the Wall") is the second in a series on the destruction of the Temple; this time he surveys rabbinic responses to the Temple's descruction.  This series has been helpful for me in relation to discussions I've been having about the NT's theological evaluation of the Temple.
• The Levertoff excerpts are really great.  Keep 'em coming, FFOZ!
• The book reviews section includes two great book reviews from Jacob Fronczak (Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel and David Rudolph's A Jew to the Jews).  The latter is rather expensive ($88.15 on Amazon.com), so Fronczak's review gives readers with a more limited budget an idea of what Rudolph covers in exquisite detail.  Also, Jacob's voice is relatively new to me (I discovered his blog, Hope Abbey, last summer), but I immediately welcomed his insightful contributions to the Messianic conversation.
• Last and least, my first contribution to Messiah Journal, a review of the Jewish Annotated New Testament.  I'll leave it to others to comment.  :-)

What about Gentile identity?

Adapted from a recent comment I made on Derek Leman's blog:

For a long time, Messianic Jews have been affirming that Jewish identity is not nullified in Messiah.  Many Gentile believers have heartily affirmed this truth as well.  However, when it comes to "Gentile identity," some are left with questions.  After all, Jewish identity seems (at least to some) to be easily identified as a rich heritage that is documented in the Scriptures and interwoven and extended through history and tradition.  "But what does 'Gentile identity' even refer to?" some ask.

I think that this is a very good question and would like to see more efforts to explore possible, Biblical answers. I do think that Paul explicitly affirms “paternity” (in a very Roman fashion, btw), when he writes in Ephesians 3.14-15:

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family (Greek patria literally “ancestry” or “family,” from the word pater, father) in heaven and on earth is named…”

Roman societies organized themselves around family structures which had the father at the head. Here Paul seems to be building on that understanding with his claim that every “ancestry”is derived  from the Father by virtue of the fact that it is literally named after Him.*

There is a group of scholars within what is known as the Radical Perspective on Paul (i.e. Paul as a Torah-observant Jewish apostle to the Gentiles) who are asking similar questions specifically in the context of the Pauline corpus. William S. Campbell, Kathy Ehrensberger, and J. Brian Tucker are all exploring ways in which Gentile identity is both continued, transformed, and reinvented in Paul’s ministry as evidenced in his letters.

Campbell’s book Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (pictured above) is a significant contribution to this effort and worth reading.**  Also, J. Brian Tucker has a book on the continuation of social identities in 1 Corinthians called "Remain in Your Calling" (pictured at right).

There are also a number of papers by J. Brian Tucker available for free on mjstudies.com:

• (On the Radical Perspective on Paul) ‘Beyond the New Perspective on Paul’ and the Evangelical New Testament Scholar: Is Paul Torah-Observant in 1 Corinthians 9.20–21?
• The Continuation of Gentile Identity in Christ
• “Paul, Gentiles, and Identity Negotiation: A Response to Kathy Ehrensperger”
• “The Continuation of Gentile Identity in Ephesians”
• “‘Gentile Christianity’ and the Study of Christian Origins: A Response to Terence L. Donaldson Focusing on Gentile Self-Identification”

While both Campbell and Tucker perhaps raise as many questions as they answer, they show that there may be much more to learn about Gentile identity in Messiah from the first-century apostle to the Gentiles.

* Paul goes on to address the Ephesians using a form known as a household code (see Eph. 5.21-6.9), a Roman religio-cultural value system which is structured around the father.  Some interpreters think Paul transforms the household code away from its normal patriarchalism in the way he gives specific instructions not only to wives, children, and slaves, but also to husbands, fathers, and masters.  To the degree that household codes are a particularly Greco-Roman way of addressing issues of order in families and households, this is relevant to the discussion at hand. 
** Don't trip up over Campbell's use of the term "Christian."  He is part of a cadre of Pauline scholars who are well aware of the anachronism.  Of course, you can if you want.  I'm just saying I think it would be counter-productive.

Messianic Jewish scholar launches new online resource

Messianic Jewish New Testament scholar David Rudolph has launched a new online resource: MJStudies.com.  The site is described as "a gateway to post-supersessionist New Testament scholarship."

What is post-supersessionist interpretation? A page on the site explains:

Messianic Jewish (MJ) post-supersessionist interpretation maintains that the New Testament writers affirmed (1) God’s covenant fidelity to the Jewish people, (2) that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and participated in the unique identity of the God of Israel, (3) that Jesus-believing Gentiles were full members of God’s people without becoming Jews, and (4) that Jesus-believing Jews should continue to live as Jews in keeping with Israel’s calling to be a distinct and enduring nation.

Already the site is burgeoning with references to post-supersessionist books, essays, journal articles, conference papers, lectures and videos.  I intend to use it as a go-to reference to scholarly works on various scriptural and theological issues.

The next time you find yourself looking for a commentary on a book or passage in the Apostolic Writings / Brit Hadasha, you can go to mjstudies.com and see what's been published from a post-supersessionist vantage point.  And if you come across a resource which isn't on the site, you can suggest it via the site's contact form.

So check the site out by clicking below!  Or better yet--follow the MJStudies blog to stay up-to-date on the latest resources!

On a related note, last month Tikvat Israel Messianic Synagogue of Richmond, Virginia welcomed Dr. Rudolph as their new rabbi.  I, for one, am very glad to have Dr. Rudolph back on the east coast (and not too far from the D.C. area!).  Given his history of providing helpful resources for the Messianic Jewish movement and beyond, I am excited to see what Dr. Rudolph will bring to Tikvat Israel, which is already a dynamic Messianic Jewish community.  Mazel tov!

Update: Robin Parry of Theological Scribbles now has a blog post up highlighting the new site.

Devoted to Destruction?

Deuteronomy 7:17, 26 ESV:

"And you shall not bring an abominable thing into your house and become devoted to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest and abhor it, for it is devoted to destruction."

Romans 9:22-23 ESV

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...?"

Anyone think there's a connection between these two verses?

Lancaster on Galatians 2:15-18?

I've always struggled to make sense of Paul's statements in Galatians 2:15-18, particularly the last statement: "For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor."  What was being torn down and then rebuilt?  The following quote from D. Thomas Lancaster's recent book The Holy Epistle to the Galatians (which I discovered via a post from James at Morning Meditations) immediately brought clarity to this long-time question for me:

“We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that [whether Jewish nor Gentile] a person is not justified by the works of the law [i.e., conversion, circumcision, etc.] but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we [the Jewish believers] also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavour to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners [by eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles], is Christ then a servant of sin? [In other words, does becoming a believer mean we forsake Torah? Is eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles really a sin against Torah?] Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. -Galatians 2:15-18

That is to say to Peter, “If you of all people, Peter, rebuild a sharp division between Jew and Gentile by removing yourself from table fellowship with Gentiles, you are rebuilding the barrier that you originally tore down. If you refuse to eat and worship with them, you rebuild the barrier that you originally tore down. You yourself were the first of the apostles to tear that separation down. If now you are putting it back up, then you are admitting that you were wrong in the first place, and you are proving yourself to have been living in sin and transgression.”

Anybody else find this interpretation convincing?  Has anyone else read it somewhere else before, or come to similar conclusions from reading the letter?  If so, please comment--I'm curious.

Dual Covenant theology?

Recently a friend asked me about dual covenant theology.  As I see it, dual covenant theology starts with two Scriptural premises:

1) That God's covenants with the Jewish people are enduring/eternal.
2) That God has acted to benefit the world through Yeshua of Nazareth and the new covenant he instituted.

The first premise is generally understood as the revelation preserved in the Jewish tradition, while the second premise has been preserved within the Christian tradition.

Dual covenant theology is an attempt to simultaneously affirm both of the above premises.  Specifically, it does so by asserting that the "new covenant" established by Yeshua was and is specifically for the Gentile nations (who, until then, had been without a covenant relationship with God), while, for the Jews, the way of salvation is by remaining faithful to God's revelation in Judaism (i.e. the Torah, Moses, etc).  In other words, Dual Covenant theology says that Jewish people have no need for the gospel of Yeshua since they already have a relationship with God.

While it seems to me that Dual Covenant theology has received most of its attention due to the Jewish-Christian dialogues of the past 50 years, many see its antecedent in the views of the medieval Jewish sage Maimonides, who affirmed the possibility that both Christianity and Islam were being used by God to bring the Gentile nations to monotheism.

However, dual covenant theology is hardly a unanimously affirmed position among participants in Jewish/Christian ecumenical relations.  Other Jewish and Christian scholars recognize that the original message of Yeshua and his apostles was directed to both Jews and Gentiles and that to frame it as "God's message only to the Gentile nations" is to distort the original message of the New Testament authors.

That last sentence sums up my position--at least according to how I've defined Dual Covenant theology.  However, this is one of those topics that can be confusing to talk about and requires a lot of defining of terms.  (This is usually the case with discussions about "covenants".)  I see Dual Covenant theology as a flawed attempt to harmonize the two Scriptural ideas above.  Messianic Judaism encompasses an alternative approach.

Unfortunately, many Christians mistakenly see any affirmation of the Torah's enduring covenantal significance for the Jewish people as necessarily a form of Dual Covenant theology.  This is, in my opinion, a miscategorization (probably stemming from the mistaken conviction that the only proper Christian perspective towards the Law is one of supercession/abrogation.)

However, if Yeshua of Nazareth lived as a Jew faithful to the Torah of God and taught his apostles to do the same (Matt 5:17-20), then it seems today's followers of Yeshua ought to also affirm the continued place of the Torah as "the inheritance of the assembly of Jacob." (Deut. 33:4) And if the apostle Paul was able to say, about unbelieving Israel, "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever" (Rom 9:4-5), then today's adherents to Paul's gospel ought to also strive to affirm the enduring nature of God's covenants with the Jewish people.

David Rudolph on "Paul's Rule"

A paper by Messianic Jewish scholar David J. Rudolph, "Paul's 'Rule in All the Churches' (1 Cor. 7:17-24) and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation," was featured in the online journal Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations. The article is available for free download at http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/ (along with a number of other articles of interest). Here's a teaser:

In preparation for this conference, I asked a number of church leaders if they were familiar with Paul’s “rule in all the churches.” Notably, not a single leader who responded to my ad hoc survey was aware of such a rule. Based on this response and my general familiarity with ecclesial theology, I think it is likely that Paul’s “rule in all the churches” has become a “rule in few of the churches” today. While many would probably be content to see this state of affairs continue, especially those who do not like church rules, there remains the nagging question, “Should a teaching that Paul considered important enough to be a universal rule be almost universally neglected by contemporary Christians?”

The aim of this paper is to introduce Paul’s rule to those who are unfamiliar with it, and to make the case that Paul’s rule is a lynchpin that sustains the church as a body of Jews and Gentiles . . .

Read the rest here...

J-BOM: the Empire in fresh perspective

In recent years, a number of New Testament scholars have highlighted the anti-imperial themes contained in the New Testament. Consider the following from a paper by N. T. Wright's entitled "Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire" (*Disclaimer: Though Wright places significant theological significance on the Jewish meanings inherent in the gospel message, nevertheless his supercessionist viewpoint comes through clearly in this paper. Be challenged by it, but don't take it as the only word on the matter.):

"Paul's declaration that the gospel of King Jesus reveals God's dikaiosyne [righteousness] must also be read, I suggest, as a deliberate laying down of a challenge to the imperial pretension. If it's justice you want, you will find it, not in the euangelion that announces Caesar as Lord, but in the euangelion of Jesus."

After being exposed to a little of this line of thing, it became relatively easy for me to picture Rome as the evil Empire!

Thus, I was particularly struck by the following passage from Milton Steinberg's As A Driven Leaf, in which the central character, Elisha ben Abuya, reflects on how the Roman Empire had changed his world...for the better!?!

Month after month for over a year he pored over records of the nations, Berossus on the Babylonians, Manetho on the Egyptians, Herodotus, Thucydides and numberless chroniclers of Greece and Rome. And the more he read, the more he was confirmed in that judgment of the role of the Empire at which he had first arrived in the chambers of Clarus. For until Rome had conquered the world the entire career of civilized man had been apparently nothing but a harrowing succession of wars. Armies had marched incessantly across all lands, murdering, burning, looting. Thousands of lives had been extinguished in each generation, millions had been subjected to bereavement, pain and misery, treasures on which hosts might have lived in luxury had been consumed--all to no point or purpose.
The motives of the Romans in subduing the peoples were by no means altruistic, and their treatment of the lands under their dominion had not always been beyond reproach, but the effects of the spread of their power could not be denied. Wherever they had gone they had brought back the Pax Romana. It was a precious boon which Italy had forced civilization, that of peace. And with it had come security for the individual and the opportunity to live out his life without hindrance in pursuit of the dreams of his heart. Of what account compared to this was the coerced surrender of their political independence by the nations, whether Gauls, Spaniards, Egyptians or Jews?
Reliving the unhappy past of humanity, Elisha reflected often that a rabbi-priest had once put it well, saying:
"Pray ye for the welfare of the Empire, for, had it not been for the awe of it, men would long since have swallowed one another alive."

Elisha is captivated by the human achievements seemingly made possible by the pax Romana.
But later on in the story, other characters remind Elisha of the signs of Rome's "justice"--people buying and selling other human beings as if they were stone carvings, and roads lined with the crosses of those who had been considered disloyal to Caesar. The Roman justice which so impressed Elisha with its impartiality later proves to be impotent to counteract the will and whim of Caesar himself, and ultimately it cruelly betrays Elisha and dashes his faith in "Roman justice."

In my opinion, it's easy to pick up this anti-Empire theme and run with it. In recent times, more than a few people have cast the Western World (or even the U.S.A.) as the Empire. (Scot McKnight explains here: "So what does 'empire mean'?")

Reflection and honest self-criticism are important. But I think the analogies of the U.S. to "Empire" are often made too lightly, emphasizing the injustices we're still struggling with yet ignoring the breakthroughs we've experienced. I think we ought to be suspicious of allowing our nation to be cast as the "evil empire" in our own thinking.

Back to Elisha: his wonderment at the contribution of Rome to human history deepens my understanding of what it meant to speak out against the Roman Empire in the time of Yeshua and his apostles. They weren't just daring to speak out against a clearly oppressive, evil power. They were also looking at what many saw as the most successful political venture yet and pointing out the ways that it still fell short of true peace and true justice, and that it required a level of allegiance that at times bordered on idolatry. Most importantly, they were preaching and living for the day when the God of Israel caused his kingdom to come fully on the earth, under the authority of his chosen regent, the Messiah, the Son of David.

Why give tzedaka?

"God loves a cheerful giver!"

If you grew up in the church or in the Messianic world, you've most likely heard those words from Paul as part of an exhortation to make a financial contribution to some cause.

A recent article from Cross Currents discussed the motivations behind giving tzedaka within the Orthodox Jewish community:

“Judaism isn’t so concerned with personal reaction; altruism is not about one’s ego. Even if people believe that they will be rewarded in the Next World for good deeds, the emphasis is on action in this world, and on doing what’s right.”
As [Stephen Linenberger] conducted interviews with children, he found that Jewish children didn’t quite know how to answer the question, “How do you feel about the person you’re helping?” It’s not that they don’t feel empathy; it’s that doing “what’s right” (aka a Mitzvah) is independent of their personal feelings. As he put it:

They are action oriented. They take themselves out of the picture. It’s not about some primitive response to the person in need, and ego centered evaluation about whether I feel like helping. It’s about responding to a need. It’s almost as if, contrary to what the research has always supported, the disregard for empathy heightens altruism rather than suppresses it.

Since graduating college and starting work full-time, my giving has become more planned, more deliberate. I still try to follow Yeshua's injunction to "give to him who asks of you," but I also have a number of regular causes that I support. I try to give in such a way that when I look back over the last twelve months, tzedaka and charity will be a regular part of my expenditures--not a tag-on which only happened randomly or if someone asked me.

What about you? Do you generally give because you feel it's the right thing? Because you empathize with the person in need? Do you think one is more important than the other, or are both important? What about planning? Do you think it's important to plan to give?