I'm a big fan of the scholar Daniel Elazar (z''l). Yet I was always puzzled by his protestations that covenant is about kinship and consent (in fact, of the hundred or so books he wrote, one was entitled "Kinship and Consent"). "What consent?" I wondered. There's no consent to being born a Jew.
And the proof that all Jews are now bound to the Torah of the Covenant regardless of consent is found here:
It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the LORD our God, and with whoever is not here with us today. (Deut. 29:13-14)
So it seems like this is saying that Jewish lineage is non-negotiable. You can voice your "objection!" but it won't matter. It's NOT by consent...
...or is it more complicated than that?
One thing that I don't understand is why the non-consent clause would be included in the New Covenant:
"For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Acts 2:39)
NB: Both of these statements were made on Shavuot.
How can Yeshua be a birthright which belongs to "your children"? Initiation into the New Covenant is not automatic but rather a personal choice...right? If the children reject Yeshua then they're out of the club, right? So why did Peter make this statement? Was he confusing the New Covenant with the Old Covenant? Hmm...
So these questions just occurred to me. Hopefully you won't think me a heretic for asking. I don't claim to know the answers (just a lot of the questions).
Shalom,
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment