Wyschogrod vs. Acquinas: The Battle Royale for the Unity of Mosaic Torah and Jewish Distinctiveness

Wyschogrod first lays out his proposal:

"...Wyschogrod proposes that from both a Jewish and Christian perspective, Jewish Christians [Messianic Jews] should continue to observe the Mosaic Law.  Wychogrod first makes the claim from the side of Judaism:  'Because you are a Jew, you are obligated, like all Jews, to obey the mitzvoth (e.g. tefilin [phylacteries] in the morning, kashrut, sabbath, etc.).'"  

"[Wyschogrod] then seeks to explore the status of a Jewish convert from the side of Christian theology.  He begins by pointing out that the Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council, has affirmed that God's covenant with Israel 'has never been revoked.'  Jewish converts, however, are not allowed to continue practicing the mitzvoth, so they are generally assimilated within a generation.  How then can the Church claim to recognize God's continuing covenant with Israel, which would quickly disappear as a visible reality if all Jews heeded the Church's evangelical call?  The covenant remains a reality today, in Wyschogrod's view, only because there are still Jews who obey the Mosaic Law," pg. 16

Wyschogrod then attacks Acquinas' view that "obeying the 'ceremonial' precepts of the Mosaic Law after Christ would be a mortal sin":

"First, [Wyschogrod] argues that Aquinas' distinction between 'ceremonial' and 'moral' precepts ignores the unity of the Mosaic Law, which God gave to Israel as a single entity to be obeyed.  Second, [Wyschogrod] points out that the original Jewish Christians, as depicted in the book of Acts, either continued to follow the entire MOsaic Law or at least did not consider doing so to be a mortal sin.  Along the same lines, he notes that many of the original Jewish Christians held that the Gentiles, too, were obligated to follow the entire law," pg. 16.

Wyschogrod then dissects Acquinas three-fold division of the Mosaic Law:

"In Wyschogrod's view, Aquinas gets around the difficulties in Paul's thought by dividing the one Mosaic Law into three aspects--moral, ceremonial, and judicial.  This division enables Aquinas to separate the law into permanent and nonpermanent parts," pg. 17

"Wyschogrod identifies two flaws in this position.  First, even accepting (for the sake of argument) the threefold division, Wyschogrod cannot agree that the ceremonial precepts are not permanent, since to some of them the Old Testament attaches the phrase 'it shall be a statute forever unto their generations.'  Second, Wyschogrod argues that the ceremonial law should be accepted as valuable on its own terms.  For Aquinas, the ceremonial law has significance in two ways:  in relation to the moral or 'natural' law, which it expresses (by divine decree) in a particular time and place; and as prefiguring Christ.  Aquinas holds, therefore, that after Christ it would be a 'mortal' sin for a person, professing that Christ has come, nonetheless to continue to observe the ceremonial law that God gave in preparation for Christ," pg. 18.

Wyschogrod then offers a defense of the "ceremonial" law:

"Wyschogrod, in contrast, argues that the ceremonial law should be understood as the permanent way that God intended for Jews to worship God.  Jewish Christians...should then continue to obey the ceremonial law even after Christ, simply as a sign that the covenant of God with the Jewish nation remains in force and will remain in force (along with the new covenant in Christ) until the time of the 'final fulfillment that both Jews and Christians await,'" pg. 18.

Wyschogrod then went on to cite evidence for the book of Acts which showed that the "[Messianic Jews] did indeed continue to observe the Mosaic Law in the early Church."