Monday, July 8, 2013

Dr. Michael Brown: An Anti-Judaic Messianic Jew?



"It is the same with the Law of God.  If Jesus promised to fulfill it but instead abolished it, then He would be a liar and not the Son of God [...] Do you know this is one of the greatest objections to the gospel that religious Jews have had?  If Jesus was truly the Messiah, why did He do away with the Law?" [Brown, Our Hands are Stained With Blood]
"I have come to the conclusion that rabbinic traditions have little or no place in our private lives or public services," [from:  http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/the-place-of-rabbinic-tradition-in-messianic-judaism/]

 At first, when I used to watch videotaped debates between Dr. Brown and Orthodox Jewish rabbis, I thought, "Wow, he's winning the debate!  He's more persuasive!"

I was wrong.

Dr. Brown has written extensively (more so than anyone in Messianic Judaism) about how to respond to Jewish objections to Yeshua.  And yet he missed the biggest objection of all!

Himself.

They can't accept what he has to say because he is anti-rabbinic and, therefore, anti-Judaic.

Given that Yeshua says that some Jewish traditions carry the same authority as Torah mi-Sinai (see Mathew 23), Dr. Brown's assertion that rabbinic traditions have little or no place in our private lives or public services goes against Yeshua's instructions and against Torah.

How great a witness Dr. Brown could be if he would stop attacking Judaism (which is an attack on Jews when you think about it)!  He is a brilliant man...this is very unfortunate.


24 comments:

  1. Forget rabbinic, Dr. Brown is opposed to Torah observance, the very first question that you quoted about Jews asking if Yeshua abolished the Law, is lived through people who do not observe the Law, they uphold that Yeshua came to abolish the Law. Dr. Brown, believes that fulfill means to do away with what came before, he has stated this in many of his radio shows you can find a number of them, where he basically states that the Law is has had changes done to them, the ceremonial aspects have been replaced by Yeshua, the moral laws, has been brought to a "higher moral standard", etc.

    I am friends with a Chabad Rabbi in my city, and the question in Matthew 5 was the first one he asked me. I told him Yeshua did not come to do away with the Law, and that fufill does not mean to do away, but to uphold. He was shocked, because he has only heard the opposite from all the Christians he came across, both Jewish and Gentile Christians... That was the first time he ever heard a correct understanding of Matthew 5.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re: Dr. Brown

    Then it's worse than I thought.

    Re: Chabad Rabbi

    It's very sad indeed that non-Believing Jewish rabbis understand more about Yeshua's teachings than actual Believers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brown is a Christian. His beliefs are Christian, and his teachings are Christian. So, when he presents himself as a Messianic Jew, he just lies.

    On the other hand, being anti-Torah, and anti-rabbinic does not mean he is anti-Judaism. He is Jewish, so what do you think Peter, he is anti himself? The majority of Jews in the world are anti-Torah and anti-rabbinic, does this mean that they are anti Judaism? Get a hold of yourself, Peter.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan,

      Check out this fairly standard definition of anti-Judaism and tell me at which points you disagree and why:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism

      Delete
  4. Dan, I believe they are anti-the religion judaism. Just as much the atheist son of Christians is anti-Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter, This is what you wrote:

    " (which is an attack on Jews when you think about it)!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, my last comment was aimed at Matheus.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, I agree that this conclusion of Peter is no right at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan and Matheus,

    If someone attacks the United States Federal Constitution, is this not an attack also upon American citizens?

    In the same way, an attack on Judaism is an attack on Jews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Peter, we would have to assume all Jews practice Judaism, which is not true, thus its not like Jews are automatically part of Judaism, when many are not, simply due to following of different faiths.

      Delete
    2. Zion,

      Not all Jews live in Israel; Yet, an attack on the modern state of Israel would still constitute an attack on global Jewry.

      Delete
    3. That is national/ethnic affiliation, we are talking religious affiliation though. There has to be some sort of divide here.

      Delete
  9. A nice, active discussion. Not sure it is being fair to Dr. Brown. You should ask him directly to respond. He often will do so. Ask him your questions directly. Call his show, invite him to this blog to converse. You may be surprised.

    -Tov
    http://www.TheMessianicBible.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So I took the initiative and contacted Dr. Brown for you guys. Here is his response:

      "Aside from the sorrow I have in my heart for these guys... As for them calling my show -- wonderful!

      They ought to start by reading this first: http://realmessiah.com/read/place-rabbinic-tradition-messianic-judiasm; then they need to read through vol. 5 of my series very carefully. God bless!

      The place of Rabbinic Tradition in Messianic Judiasm | RealMessiah.com
      realmessiah.com"

      Delete
    2. Tov,

      Thanks for the comments and forwarding this to Dr. Brown. And thanks to Dr. Brown for the link which I look forward to reading.

      Shalom,

      Peter

      Delete
  10. Is the covenant of Adam still good and is the law or Noah still good? Now it would be inconsistent with the covenants if both coexisted as law. Now there is nothing wrong with living under the old law and new law by choice Paul dealt with that in Acts 15. The tradition and culture is from G-d and G-d would not forsake that. However, the laws have contradictions and fulfilling them was freeing all of us from certain parts of the law and Sheol. For example temple or no temple after the Resurrection there is no reason for sacrifice. The reason we still have the commandments is in Mathew 5 Yeshua after promising to fulfill the law listed them and clarified them. It changed all the restrictions evil caused minus the obedience to G-d.

    We are not saved by anything other than obedience to G-d. This includes a repentant heart, baptism/mikveh, sharing the good news, having compassion and teaching and obeying all that yeshua commanded. Yes faith requires works in order to live a life of G-d.

    Someone made a comment saying Yeshua changing the law was the biggest argument against the messiah. I would have to say that the trinity and man form of G-d are bigger issues. G-d has changed the law before by giving us some of the creatures of the earth to eat. I look at it like this if Imanu'el is G-d with us wasn't God always with us? If Yeshua was mere man how did G-d raise from the grave? Did divine beings take human form in the past like in Sodom? If the serpent could take that form why can't G-d take human form? Is G-d limited? If the father is in heaven wasn't he always in heaven? Does heaven post sheol exist in our time and space? Now to the issue of the holy ghost how does G-d relate to the future? Now I would argue my view is distinct from oneness because I identify three existing entities of God that exist in the past, present and future but are still one G-d. Oneness teaches the same G-d revealing himself in many form rather than one G-d existing in three tenses of time and space. So my view of G-d is a G-d constantly existing in the beginning, middle and end. This is an omnipresent G-d.
    I am not anti Rabbi either Yeshua was a Rabbi; after all G-d is the master teacher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drew,

      Thanks for your comment. More importantly, thank you for your service to our country (I read your profile).

      Also, be sure to read Zion's comment below.

      G-d bless you, brother!

      Shabbat Shalom,

      Peter

      Delete
  11. Is the covenant of Adam still good and is the law or Noah still good? Now it would be inconsistent with the covenants if both coexisted as law.

    All the covenants build upon each other, and they are not inconsistent while coexisting, at least not when it is viewed as being built or better understood as revealed. In fact the promises and understandings from one covenant cannot exist without the other or the previous covenant already in place, none of the covenants are gone, and yet none of them contradict each other, any contradictions you see, are only in your mind.

    Now there is nothing wrong with living under the old law and new law by choice Paul dealt with that in Acts 15.

    There is no "new" Law, the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, and the New Covenant has not been fulfilled yet, not until the Messiah comes, and the House of Judah and the House of Israel, stand before Him in party agreement to the New Covenant. However we still do not even know what all the New Covenant will entail, what we do know, is that it will be if not entirely the same as the Mosaic Law, but in this case, written on the heart.

    For example temple or no temple after the Resurrection there is no reason for sacrifice.

    This is built on your own assumptions, saying there is no need for sacrifice after the Resurrection is simply not accurate according to scripture, the assumption is usually built around thinking that sacrifice was only for the purpose of sin, yet there were sacrifices not for the purpose of sin, and yet sin will be existent in the Messianic Kingdom according to scriptures, so sacrifice will still need to be offered both as gifts and for sin.

    The reason we still have the commandments is in Mathew 5 Yeshua after promising to fulfill the law listed them and clarified them.

    If Yeshua changed or manipulated the Law in any way, then He disqualified himself as the Messiah, Yeshua coming to fulfill the Law, cannot in any way mean the Law is diminished or no longer in effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before Noah could we eat any creature of the earth?

      Delete
    2. Drew,

      Re: "Before Noah could we eat any creature of the earth?"

      Adam was only permitted to eat vegetation. So presumably this held until G-d told Noah that meat was now available (Genesis 9).

      Why do you ask?

      Delete
    3. Peter,

      I think... and he can step in here, if I am assuming wrong, but it seems he is trying to say, that if Adam was only permitted to eat vegetation and Noah was permitted to eat meat, then you can't follow both covenants because which law should be applied?

      The covenant made with Adam is in context with unfallen man, but once sin entered the world things started to change, and God cuts another covenant with man (Noah), now in the context of fallen man, with regulations dealing with this current state, yet this does not mean the covenant made with Adam is toast, in fact the purpose of covenants being made after is to restore what became corrupted before. Start with Noah (a fallen state covenant) and then the covenants that come after Noah, all build from the fallen state, everything that was instructed to Noah is found in later revelation, such as the Law of Moses, but in even greater detail and more extent.

      Imagine it like this, there is a law concerning divorce, but if you are not married, can that law in any way be applied to you, obviously not, once you are married, you are now held to a Law that was never required of by you, in the same case, not until Adam fell and sin polluted the world, did laws that were never needed in the first place, had to be introduced to man.

      In this case, what was applied to Adam in the Garden of Eden, in a unfallen state, cannot be applied to those not living in the Garden of Eden and in a fallen state, so then, does this make that covenant and those laws extinct, no, because one day we will be restored and sin/death will be cast into the lake of fire.

      Christianity has a concept called "Progressive Revelation", I agree with that concept, minus the Dispensationlism that comes with it. In this case, we can understand God revealing himself to man in gradual intervals over long periods of time, nothing before contradicts what comes after, only fuller and more detailed responsibility. Adam was given exactly what was needed for his life, nothing more, Noah was given what was needed for his time period, etc, and more and more has been given in different time periods...

      Where does this leave us today, we are still in a fallen state, we have not yet put on the resurrection, and the highest revelation of God's Laws we have today, are found in the Law of Moses, the greatest revelation of the Messiah is found in the Gospels... As for the future we can only speculate, we see future text concerning sacrifices and feast days all found in the Law of Moses, but we do not live in the future, we live right now, and with what God has revealed to us, by His mercy.


      Delete
  12. Dan, I don't think that secular and less observant Jews would be considered anti-Judaism, and torah observant Jews don't consider this group not Jewish. It is just a different way of expressing your Jewishness. I believe the drive among Jews to involve themselves in liberal causes that ostensible help the downtrodden, although in reality they may not, is a manifestation of tikkun olam, albeit misdirected.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter, I came across this post of yours when I was doing research and trying to find out where Dr. Brown really stands. So, what you are saying is that he is not only anti-rabbinic, he is anti-torah, although it doesn't seem that he attacks messianic Jews who practice both torah and/or rabbinic customs, as it seems he would be supportive of any Jewish persons who believe in Yeshua.


    His wife is Jewish. I wonder if they raised their children with an understanding of what it means to be Jewish? His battle with JM over "Strange Fire," seems to have a new twist now that James Pyles' research has revealed JM's history of antisemitic statements, which I was not aware of, although I know about his unwarranted attack on Arnold Fructenbaum. Of course I wouldn't know this about JM, as I don't care to listen to his teachings or read his works.


    I wonder if his attitudes stem from negative experiences in his Jewish childhood, rather than doctrinal understanding? Persons with happy home lives don't usually become drug addicts, especially at an early age. Maybe this is something he needs to wrestle with. And if one shuns torah and rabbinic practices, how can they validate their adoption of, "Christian," practices that are pagan in origin? No, I am not going on a "pagan police," rant.


    I think Dr. Brown doesn't get it that when antisemitism explodes in the US, most of his "Christian," friends will turn on him.

    ReplyDelete