Wednesday, August 1, 2012

FFOZ Says You are No Better Than Korach if You Reject Rabbinic Authority: Question #8

Gene posted some more of Boaz Michael's recent lecture (http://dailyminyan.com/2012/08/01/part-ii-excerpts-from-umjc-2012-conference-lecture-by-boaz-michael-ffoz/).

In the excerpt, Boaz Michael appears to say that gentiles who reject the authority of the Rabbinic halachic authorities are no better than the follower of Korach.  Umm...what???  So a gentile who wants to set Yeshua's Kahal up as a primary authority (as opposed to non-Messianic, Rabbinic authority) is guilty of rebellion like Korach???  Here's the quote:


"One way is the unique role that the Jews have [and one] that is completely removed within the One Law theology is an across the board rejection of the authority of the Jewish people to define the halachic parameters of how the Torah is to be applied. One Law theologians have no desire to defer to the halachic standard normative of the Jewish people because in doing so would remove any basis for the idea that Gentiles should be obligated to the Torah the exact same way as Jews. Judaism has always rejected this idea and rightfully so.
In rejecting the right and the responsibility of the Jewish people to define what it means to be Jewish and practice Judaism, One Law theology strikes directly at the core of authentic Judaism. One Law replaced the Jewish rabbis and sages with self-appointed Gentiles who believe that they are divinely sanctioned to interpret Torah outside of the Jewish context. Whatever conclusion they come to are given a greater weight than those of the Jewish halachic authorities. That can be compared to the rebellion of Korah in the wilderness."

Question #8

What do you make of this quote?  Am I reading it wrong?

41 comments:

  1. Peter, you reading it wrong and missing the point. It’s not about “Rabbinics”. The Korah example is about resenting G-d-given roles of others and wanting to be something you are not, not being satisfied with who G-d created you do be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene, you're a very smart man. Your IQ is probably a lot higher than mine. And so I don't understand how you can confuse this statement "One Law replaced the Jewish rabbis and sages" to be anything other than a reference to traditional Rabbinic Judaism.

      To quote a police officer that once pulled a friend of mine over for speeding: "I may have been born in the dark but it wasn't yesterday."

      Delete
    2. "Gene, you're a very smart man. Your IQ is probably a lot higher than mine."

      Scientists say that one's IQ can be improved with practice. Peter, there's always hope!

      "And so I don't understand how you can confuse this statement "One Law replaced the Jewish rabbis and sages" to be anything other than a reference to traditional Rabbinic Judaism."

      But the Korah example is not about that - anti-rabbinics is but a symptom - it's about Christians/Gentiles wishing to have the authority the interpret the Torah outside of the Jewish context, when it was given to the Jewish people and Jewish authorities to decide how one actually does Torah (since "to them belongs the giving of the Torah").

      However, since you also hold to a Two-House belief (i.e. you already think that Gentiles are "lost Israelites" even before we started this conversation), of course you don't think that there's an "usurping" or Supersessionism problem here! We are "all Israelites! (Korah: "All people are holy!") This is why one must often peel many deeper layers of foundational beliefs to get to the "WHY?" a person insists on holding this interpretation of scriptures or that.

      Delete
    3. Gene,

      By your logic, you are anti-Rabbinic because you yourself don't use them as a primary authority (e.g. you believe Messianic Judaism over Traditional Rabbinic Judaism when it comes to Yeshua, etc). It's illogical to say that anyone is anti-Rabbinic just because they don't exalt the Rabbis and Sages. I love them but I don't exalt them.

      Delete
    4. Peter/Roland - why do you keep going back to "anti-Rabbinic" when I told you again and again that the Korah's example is not about that but about One Law Gentiles wanting to interpret Torah apart from the Jewish people? Being anti-rabbinic is a symptom, not the cause of the disease, as I already noted. Supersessionism is the illness. Lets not lose sight of the underlying issue here.

      Delete
  2. And you already indicated that you see no reason why Gentiles should be satisfied with being Gentiles. So, this example very much applies to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Holy major misunderstanding, Batman!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, welcome. Thanks for commenting. Is it that I misunderstood him or that he misspoke?

      Delete
    2. I was pretty much echoing Gene's opinion that you misunderstood the Boaz quote.

      Delete
    3. James,

      And my point was that I did not misunderstand the language that he used. Whether his language matched his own thoughts is up to speculation (and Boaz Michael's language often forces one to speculate). But his language is not up for speculation because, there it is, plain as day [see Dan Benzvi's comment below which indicates I'm not the only one to understand Boaz Michael's language in this way].

      Delete
  4. So, I guess according to our learned Boaz, 90% of Jews who reject rabbinical authorities are also sons of Korach...Good logic Boaz....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan! I was thinking about you and hoping you would join in the discussion. Thank you for visiting and commenting!

      Delete
  5. "You say pot-A-to and I say po-TA-to..."

    And my point is that you did misunderstand (or choose to misunderstand) Boaz's statement based on your current theological viewpoint and biases against Boaz and FFOZ. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I've spent a fair amount of time talking with Boaz, both in person and via the Internet, so I think I have a somewhat better idea of how he communicates than you do.

    I posted a link to my blog on the whole "Korach" incident in relation to One Law in the comments section of Gene's relevant blog if you want a more detailed expression of how I see that matter.

    I'm glad you have your own blog. Now you have a primary venue for expressing your thoughts on various matters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am a little confused, because this is an issue of Authority, he is stating that the Rabbis are the authority which give the instruction of the Law of Moses... He said One Law has self picked leaders, so Rabbis are God picked leaders?

    Can someone show me in the Bible where the Rabbis have been given the place of Priest and Judges? Did I pick up the wrong Torah?

    So when Boaz makes the Korach equation, he is basically saying Rabbis = Moses.

    What happen to sound doctrine and literacy?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zion,

    Re: "Can someone show me in the Bible where the Rabbis have been given the place of Priest and Judges? Did I pick up the wrong Torah?"

    I certainly cannot. : )

    Excellent point by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "So when Boaz makes the Korach equation, he is basically saying Rabbis = Moses."

    Zion, you are confusing Boaz with Yeshua who said that scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat and that his Jewish audience were to listen and do everything they say. The priests were the Sadducees (the ones who rejected the resurrection) - he didn't have much in common with them theologically, didn't interact with or talk about them much. They were not his "click".

    Also, Rabbis are the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people, who, besides G-d, were instrumental at keeping Judaism alive and Jewish people united. Whether One Law folks accept this fact or not, it makes no difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, there's no confusion here. Boaz clearly compared gentile rebellion against Rabbinic Judaism to the Korach rebellion against Moses. Stop accusing everyone of misreading Boaz. Boaz says some really terrible things. This is one of them.

      Hmm...I'm thinking it's about time for another post about FFOZ...

      Delete
    2. You did not answer my question Gene, although it was nice to hear your splash of philosophical beliefs... do you have anything solid?

      If you believe Yeshua wanted his disciples to do everything they said, why did He and the disciples on multiple occasions go against their teaching? Looking forward to this response. :D

      Delete
  9. Last year, I highlighted Boaz's radical, harsh views of gentile Messianics.

    In response, I was a called every name in the book. I remember one fine commenter told me I was criticizing Boaz because I had an animalistic soul. :-) Oh well. I forgive those people for that.

    But it is interesting that Boaz, my old friend, is again saying the same thing: fine folks who love God, cling to Messiah, and live Torah are anti-Semitic, Jew-hating rebels.

    What's ironic is, Boaz, like Derek Leman, is not actually ethnically Jewish himself. But, both underwent a conversion, so now they feel free to criticize their former companions -- gentiles who love Israel, Messiah, and Torah.

    This is something I've observed in my 20+ years in the Messianic movement: The Proselyte. It's a psychological complex where, upon abandoning a previously-held set of beliefs, you're compelled to harshly criticize your former companions:

    -Hebrew Roots folks who "converted" from Christianity tend to harshly criticize Christians.

    -Jewish converts to Christianity tend to harshly criticize Judaism.

    -Christian converts to Judaism tend to harshly criticize Christianity.

    -Bilateral Ecclesiologists "converts" from Christianity or Hebrew Roots tend to harshly criticize Hebrew Roots and independent Messianics.

    Boaz Michael and Derek Leman fall into the latter. (I'd suggest 2 other guys, Ovadia and Daniel, but both of those guys have made a 2nd conversion and actually abandoned Messiah. James Pyles here applauded Daniel's conversion.) What's interesting is, I think Derek has actually developed some grace in the matter, when I would have expected it from Michael, rather than Leman.

    Isn't it interesting that Boaz Michael has so loudly criticized Hebrew Roots folks as Jew-wannabes who just can't accept their gentile status in God's Kingdom, when in fact he was born a gentile himself and underwent conversion. Ditto for my friend Derek Leman.

    Oh well.

    Folks, I have a suggestion. My personal focus in the last year has been to just keep doing good work for the Lord -- volunteering at food kitchens, helping out at Feed My Starving Children, serving my Hebrew Roots community via music service, supplying books and materials to grow my Hebrew Roots group, building out Chavah Messianic Radio, Messianic Chords, and more.

    My suggestion is this: let the out-of-touch leadership continue their lengthy, divisive criticisms from their ivory towers. The rest of us regular people will continue doing service for the Lord, doing so with the longsuffering of Messiah, despite the slanderous rhetoric from the proselyte pulpit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judah, I admire your willingness to serve those in need, but you can't hide behind good works and projects, and ignore the massive spiritual damage, discord, Supersessionism, pride and confusion One Law and Two House ideologies has wrought on thousands of believers and hundreds of communities. You CAN'T ignore this - it's real. You too have to do something about this to undo these "bad works".

      Delete
    2. I have seen, in my decades in this movement, folks who have been transformed by Messiah, who love Torah and live for God, turning their lives over to Him.

      These are the people whom you consider worse than trash, disciples of Jesus you and your cohorts find no end demonizing and slandering and treating as worse than heathens.

      Delete
    3. Judah, some day I hope that you will open your eyes.

      Delete
    4. Your last comment reminded me of the blog post I made titled "If the Apostle Paul was a Messianic Jewish blogger..."

      http://dailyminyan.com/2011/01/14/if-the-apostle-paul-was-a-messianic-jewish-blogger/

      Delete
    5. It's interesting to read this old thread in light of Gene's apostasy a year later. I would feel vindicated, if it weren't for the sadness of the loss of faith of our brother Gene.

      This is an opportunity to learn. I feel more confident now, looking back and seeing how Gene indeed was in error, despite so many Bilateral Ecclesiologists, including Boaz Michael and Derek Leman, taking his side in these matters, when those same views and that very direction he was taking ended up in apostasy.

      Delete
    6. I think and I have said this many times already, but Bilateral Ecclesiologist, put ethnic identity before the Messiah, and when Messiah is not first, (Phil 3), things fall apart.

      Delete
  10. Judah, you make a lot of sense. I have been watching the discussions from a number of these blogs and it seems the same people with the same arguments and positions and back and forth. For a longgggggg time.

    I've watched any "new blood" chased off and called every name in the book so we see the same comments day after day from the same people. I suppose any "value" will come from some meeting of the minds, so to speak, but that never happens. At least not yet.

    Concerning authority and who has it: At one point ALL Authority was given to Yeshua. Once that had happened he commanded his followers to "teach the gentiles to observe all things I have commanded YOU".

    So, whatever he commanded his followers (which I believe was to keep the spirit of the Torah, even to the ninth degree.... and beyond what they had previously imagined was required)is what the gentiles are to be taught to observe.

    So...this is my thought...whoever does not recognize the authority of Yeshua in his commandment to teach the gentiles...they are like Korach.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Judging by the amount of Mea Culpas Boaz already has in his career, just give it some time, there will come an apology on this one too...

    Nothing new under the sun.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, I have noticed that you have added nothing to a debate or any type of apologetic, you simply attack Boaz. It is apparent from your musings that you must be a bitter and angry man at him. I ask you, what good are YOU doing for the Kingdom of G-d?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      Judaism allows Jews to critique other Jews when they are blatantly promoting something dangerous to the community. Therefore, in Judaism we don't attack someone just because they speak out. There are channels of conflict resolution. However, FFOZ, has not shown a willingness to engage in conflict resolution. They famously "closed the gates" on further discussion about Divine Invitation. They have barricaded themselves from the Kahal of Yeshua so that they are accountable to no one. Dan has indeed contributed to the discussion by boldly speaking his mind. I would suggest that you find out why he feels this way rather than criticize him for feeling this way.

      Delete
    3. Peter,
      Thank you for your response. Yes, I agree Judaism allows for disagreement, I read that when I study Talmud. Midrash is full of disagreement. Yet, I was responding to Dan's quote, and I quote, "Judging by the amount of Mea Culpas Boaz already has in his career, just give it some time, there will come an apology on this one too... Nothing new under the sun....."
      I am concerned because I do read and follow FFOZ. I would like facts from Dan, something that his posts have not provided so that I can make a logical and spiritual decision.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      Here's how FFOZ's core doctrine called Divine Invitation is refuted:

      http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/08/first-fruits-of-zion-and-false-teaching.html

      Delete
  12. Wow.
    Boaz and FFOZ in general, has disappointed me greatly. And as for all these back and forth comments, I couldn't agree with Judah more.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gene,
    The authority was taken away from the Pharisees of Hillel and Shamai and was given to the followers of Yeshua! How could the rebellion of Korach possibly be related to not following the Rabbis? If it is it's the fact that the Rabbis arent following the authority of the followers of Yeshua, the authority that the Messiah gave them and took from the Pharisees!
    Mat 23:13 "But woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P'rushim! For you are shutting the Kingdom of Heaven in people's faces, neither entering yourselves nor allowing those who wish to enter to do so.

    A parallel passage appears in Luke 11:52…
    Luke 11:52-54 "Woe to you Torah experts! For you have taken away the key of knowledge! Not only did you yourselves not go in, you also have stopped those who were trying to enter!" As Yeshua left that place, the Torah-teachers and the P'rushim began to oppose him bitterly and to provoke him to express his views on all sorts of subjects, laying traps to catch him in something he might say.

    Now when we look at these two passages together it becomes clear that the "key" in Luke 11:52 had the potential to open up or shut up the Kingdom of Heaven. This "key" is clearly then "the key of the house of David" in Isa 22:22…

    This also lines up with prophecy Gen 49:9-10

    Rev 3:6-7 Those who have ears, let them hear what the Spirit is saying to the Assemblies." ' "To the angel of the Assembly in Philadelphia, write: 'Here is the message of HaKadosh, the True One, the one who has the key of David, who, if he opens something, no one else can shut it, and if he closes something, no one else can open it.
    Why would we submit to any rulings the unbelieving pharisaic rabbis made? Especially since Yeshua took their authority away? Did the believers in Acts 15 submit themselves to the pharisaic lead Sanhedrin for a ruling? NO! They formed their own Jerusalem Council and made their own rulings just as the Messiah had instructed them to do!

    Shalom - Jesse

    ReplyDelete
  14. Judah et. al,

    Being Jewish means covenanted to Torah. It has always included a public covenant and for men circumcision. From when in the desert as in Exodus 12 for desendants of Jacob/Isreel and non-Israelites to eat of the Passover - for both Jews and non-Jews, then at Mount Sinae where there were Israelites and non-Isrealites covenanting that day. And so on. The Torah has always taught that a person covenanted to Torah has special responsibilites and priveleges.

    ReplyDelete
  15. addition to above: The authenticity of what is being covenanted to and whether someone is in a position to be a religious leader and judge to people (Jews or not) is a separate and important issue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One last thought. A covenant is not a one sided decision in that person's head. It involves multiple parties with criteria layed out, and has physical evidence and witnesses to the occasion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just a reminder to any one.....The reason I stopped commenting on this thread is that I am not in the habit of conducting a dialog with anonymous people...Let the coward identify himself first...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Though I am late to the party, I thought I would add a few thoughts: First, I do not follow the rabbis. I follow THE Rabbi. So, is my Rabbi Y'shua in rebellion like Korah? The implications to Messianic Judaism would be profound. The implications to their premise, even more so. Second, those that deny Gentiles are covenanted and characterize their observance as 'Supersessionism' obviously don't get that Gentiles are joined to Israel, not attempting to replace it. Finally, this whole 'One if by Jew and two if by Gentile' approach to Torah defies the entire premise that Israel was called to be a nation of Kings and Priest to the nations. So now we have to hear a little voice inside our heads before we can be considered 'Invited'? Where is that written? I read all my Rabbi's notes and couldn't find it anywhere!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen, brother. And thank you for your comment!

      Delete
  19. I would ask both Houses, what Spirit is it, and where does it come from, that Spirit seeking to keep the House divided?

    ReplyDelete