Rabbi vs. Elders: Question 17

Question: 17

What are the pros/cons about having, as the primary decision-making entity, a single leader (i.e. Rabbi) over an entire congregation vs. having a group of representative elders?  What Scriptural sources can you cite as evidence for your position?

Romans 3:3-2 and The Value of Jewishness: Question 16

Romans 3:3-2 says "3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

Question 16:

What sort of "advantage" is Paul talking about here when he says "unto them were committed the oracles of God"?

Sharing Our Struggles: Question 15

One of the things I'd like for this blog is that people feel welcome to come and share any struggles they're having so that we, as a Body, can encourage one another.

For example, my family is having a struggle finding a congregation where we feel we belong.  So without further ado:

QUESTION 15:

Do you have anything on your heart that you would like to talk about?

Rambam on the Events of Galatians 2: Question 14

In Galatians 2, Paul rebuked Peter "in front of everyone" because Peter was being racist:  he refused to sit with gentiles because of their race.

Was Paul violating halacha by rebuking a fellow Jew in public and embarrassing him?

Rambam, in Mishneh Torah Hilchot De'ot Chapter Six, says the following:

"Halacha 7

It is a mitzvah for a person who sees that his fellow Jew has sinned or is following an improper path [to attempt] to correct his behavior and to inform him that he is causing himself a loss by his evil deeds as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely admonish your colleague."

Halacha 8

From this, [we learn that] it is forbidden for a person to embarrass a [fellow] Jew. How much more so [is it forbidden to embarrass him] in public. Even though a person who embarrasses a colleague is not [liable for] lashes on account of him, it is a great sin. Our Sages said: "A person who embarrasses a colleague in public does not have a share in the world to come."…

When does the above apply? In regard to matters between one man and another. However, in regard to spiritual matters, if [a transgressor] does not repent [after being admonished] in private, he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel."

ON TO THE QUESTION...

QUESTION 14:

Do you agree with Rambam's articulation of the principles of confrontation?  When is it a good idea to confront a brother publicly?  When is it a bad idea?

Evidences of Gentile Obligation to Follow Torah

Here's some evidence for gentile obligation to follow Torah that I'm gonna be putting into a book on Acts 15.  Sorry that this is just an outline and that I haven't gone through and fully explained each point.  But it'll give you a taste of the magnitude of the rebuttal that exists for FFOZ's Divine Invitation position:

Evidences for Full Gentile Torah Obligation:


COVENANTAL:

The Abrahamic Covenant promised that Abraham's seed would become a great nation.  This was fulfilled by the Sinaitic Covenant.  Exodus 19:5-6 shows us that the Sinaitic Covenant established the People of Israel as a nation.  Jeremiah 31 shows us that the New Covenant is a reaffirmation of the national covenant (Sinaitic) because it makes explicit references to the nation and to the constituent Houses of the nation.  Yeshua tells us that His blood is the blood of the New Covenant.  Therefore, partners in the New Covenant are members of the nation of Israel.

LEXICOLOGICAL:  

Epistrepho:  Peter uses this term interchangeably with "immersion" (Acts 2:38 and 3:19) which shows that Peter saw Cornelius' immersion as a rite of initiation into the Israelite religion (Acts 10,11) and also that Luke and James saw the "conversion" of the gentiles (Acts 15:3, 19) in the same way.

Kahal, Ekklesia, and the Expression "Day of the Kahal" as Shavuot:  The latter expression refers to Israel (Dt 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 5:22).  The Day of the Kahal refers to Shavuot when Torah was given.  Gentiles are included in the New Covenant Shavuot (Acts 11).  Stephen applies ekklesia to Israel in Acts 7:38.  Ekklesia is the word for Church and it comes from the Hebrew word for the political gathering of Israel (Kahal).  

Covenanted (proselyte) and Non-Covenanted (paroikos) Dichotomy of Gerim (LXX).  Ephesians 2 tells gentiles that they are no longer paroikos (non-covenanted germ).

Politeia (Eph 2) as the perfect descriptor for the political connotations of the Hebrew word ezrach (citizen).  

LUKAN:  

Acts 15:  Shows that the uncircumcised gentiles were "epistrepho" [converts] and were expected to attend synagogue to learn Torat Moshe (Acts 15:21) on the basis that they had become part of the covenanted people for His name (Am Yisrael) via the conversion of the Holy Spirit (which Peter, in re Cornelius, had symbolized with immersion in a mikveh).

POLITICAL SCIENCE:

Passover:  Familial Symbolism; Federal Institution; Federal Citizenship; Passover Feast as Citizenship Par Excellence

Positive Law Rights:  Intimacy Only Found in Positive Commands of Divine Revelation (i.e. Torah);  The Correlative Nature of Rights/Duties; The Right to Intimacy; Ruach Immersion as Change of Legal Status

PAULINE:

Instruction to Abandon Gentile Identity (1 Cor 12:2; Eph 2; Eph 4, etc)

Spiritual Circumcision as Ritualized Circumcision Par Excellence (Col 2:11-13; Eph 2:11-22; Gal 6:15-16; 1 Cor 7:19; Rom 2:26; Rom 3:29-31

Rights Teachings (Eph 2)

Instruction for Gentiles to Imitate Models of Torah Observance (Phil. 4:9)

Instruction for Gentiles to Follow Mosaic Torah (1 Cor 7:19)

PETRINE:

Gentiles as the People Called by His Name (Acts 15)

Gentiles will Receive Persecution for Rejecting Idolatry

Gentiles (along with Jews) are Israel (1 Peter 9-10)

HISTORICAL:

The Gentile Corinthians Celebrated Passover:  1 Cor. 5:7-8

The Colossians Observed Moedim:   In Col 2, Paul is attacking the ascetic and gnostic "traditions of men" (2.8) and the "commandments and doctrines of men" (2.22).  This is what Paul was attacking:  non-Scriptural, man-made traditions.  Now observe that kashrut law, Shabbat, New Moon celebrations, these are not "traditions of men" but rather they ARE Scriptural.  Thus, Paul was not attacking Scriptural practices. Also, for the acetics to be judging the Torah-observant Colossians for their feasting, the Torah-observant Colossians must've been keeping those feasts.

Gentile Assimilation into Jewish Communities in First Century:  Fredriksen, Zetterholm, Nanos, Irshai, 

PROPHETICAL:

Isaiah 2:2-3; 56:6

Jeremiah 31:33

Micah 4:2

Zech 2; 8:22-23

Derek Leman Rejects Plain Meaning of "Epistrepho": Question #13

On a recent blog of Derek's (http://www.derekleman.com/musings/2012/08/02/whynottorah4christians/)

I tried to engage him by asking the question:

"To what religion were the uncircumcised gentiles converting in Acts 15:3 when it talks about their conversion?"

His response:

"Well, Peter, I don’t know much about the compound Greek word epistrophe (translated in most as “conversion”). But it is used only once in the NT.  I do, however, understand the basic sociology of Jew vs. Greco-Roman in the first century. The word does not mean “conversion from one religion to another” in a modern sense (like switching from Buddhism to Judaism)."

Derek then disabled comments and poor James was left holding his popcorn in the dark:

James wrote:  "(Takes a seat with drink and popcorn in hand…prepared to watch the Peter/Derek debate over the “epistrophe” issue). "

Ha!

So let's discuss:

Epistrepho means to "turn" and it's the same as the Hebrew "teshuvah" used of converts who are turning to follow Torah.  It literally denotes changing your orientation so that you have a completely different identity, an identity that, in Judaism, has always meant becoming part of Am Yisrael.

Oh, and, big surprise, it's used several times in Acts 15.  Verses 3 and 19 I believe.  

I'm gonna post a few scholarly quotes on epistrepho and teshuva and then ask my question:


" [tois apo ton ethnon epistrephousin epi ton theon] [those among the Gentiles who are turning to God] could be said by a Jew of Gentile converts to Judaism; to a Jewish Christian the Christian conversion of Gentiles must have had to a considerable extent the same appearance.  Gentiles were turning from whatever heathen gods they had previously worshipped to the God of the OT, the God of the Jews.  It was this fact that gave strength to the requirement that they should behave like converts to Judaism, that is, should be circumcised and thereafter keep the Law.  [epistrephousin--which is teshuvah or turning] could be used to describe what was required of Jews (3.19). [Acts 3:19 says "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"]" pg. 728 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles by C.K. Barrett

The term...(epistrophe) refers to a change of thinking, a 'turn' in orientation, and so a conversion; this is the noun form of the verb...(epistrepho, turn).  It is the only place the noun is used in the NT, although the verb is frequent in Acts (3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27)." pg. 495 of  Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament by Darrell L. Bock

"Teshuva, a different definition of one's identity, can change one's whole world..." pg. 415 of Change & Renewal by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

ON TO THE QUESTION...

QUESTION 13

Is Derek Leman correct that epistrepho does not mean to change your religion?  

Rabbinic Authority: Question 12

Recently, FFOZ said that the Rabbis of Rabbinic Judaism have authority over Messianic believers in Yeshua.  

QUESTION 12:

What authority, if any, do you feel the Rabbis have over Messianic believers in Yeshua?

First Fruits of Zion and the False Teaching Known as "Divine Invitation"

FIRST FRUITS OF ZION AND THE FALSE TEACHING KNOWN AS "DIVINE INVITATION" by Roland (that's my nom de guerre)


Are gentiles (along with Jews) Israel?  Are they obligated to follow Torah?  FFOZ answers with a resounding "No."  They explain their position in a paper called "Divine Invitation:  An Apostolic Call to Torah."

As we've seen recently, they've gone militant with their message, comparing gentiles who follow Torah (thus rebelling against Rabbinic Jewish "authority") to the followers of Korach who rebelled against Moses.

But what if FFOZ's position is wrong?  What if it amounts to calling unclean that which G-d has called clean?  What if excluding gentiles from the "people called by His name" is tantamount to "putting God to the test" (i.e. provoking G-d)?

So I propose a look at FFOZ's paper so that we can evaluate the merits for and against the Divine Invitation position and then, as always, we can discuss.  I look forward to discussing this topic with you all!

WHAT IS DIVINE INVITATION?

Divine Invitation teaches that gentiles are only obligated to follow the Noahide laws but are invited to follow a very limited set of Torah commands.

WHAT IS THE EXEGETICAL CASE FOR DIVINE INVITATION?

TEXT GROUP "A":  FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT GENTILES ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW TORAH

GALATIANS 5:3

As you'll read in their paper, FFOZ relies heavily upon a single verse:  Galatians 5:3.  They argue that the meaning of the verse is "obvious" and "irrefutably simple."  They interpret this verse as Paul discouraging gentiles from circumcision on the basis that circumcision obligates one to follow all of the Torah.  In other words, they argue that Paul teaches that it is ritual circumcision which initiates one into the covenant.

 RESPONSE:

 If this is Paul's argument then, reductio ad absurdem, Paul thinks that Torah is a dreadful burden.  But what if that "yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5:1) does not refer to proper circumcision but rather the idea of works-based justification contained in the false doctrine that only ritual circumcision can initiate one into the covenant (Acts 15:1)?  It seems to me that it is more likely that Paul is criticizing works-based justification rather than Torah because (1) Paul is pro-Torah, not anti-Torah and (2) the context of Galatians 5 indicates that Paul is combating works-based justification:  "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."  Indeed, if Paul thought that circumcision rendered Christ of no effect then Paul's circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16) would've rendered Christ of no effect to Timothy.

 ACTS 15:10

 This is the other key passage that FFOZ uses to prove Divine Invitation.  FFOZ argues that the "unbearable yoke" in Peter's speech is a reference to Torah:

 "The inescapable conclusion, then, is that the yoke which neither the apostles nor their forefathers had been able to bear is indeed “the law of Moses.”

FFOZ concludes from this that the Torah is an unbearable burden.

RESPONSE:

If Peter was arguing that the Torah was an unbearable yoke then his argument becomes as follows:

(1) the law is an unbearable burden;
(2) it's wrong to attempt an unbearable burden;
(3) it's wrong to follow the law;
(4) therefore, the gentiles are wrong to follow the law

Thus, reductio ad absurdum, FFOZ's view would have Peter arguing that is is wrong to follow G-d's Torah.  This view is untenable because (1) Peter was for the Law; (2) the Law says it is not an unbearable burden; (3) Peter's critique of the Law would also apply to Jewish Torah observance.

It's more likely that Peter was arguing against works-based justification just like Paul in Galatians 5.  This is implied by Peter having to argue FOR grace-based justification in 15:11, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."  Through basic issue analysis one can reasonably extrapolate that Peter was attacking the proposition of works-based justification.

But does this fit with the context?  If we examine the legal context of the issue, covenantal initiation, we see that there were definitely two antithetical views in Acts 15.  The Antiochian delegates position was that the Holy Spirit via a spiritual baptism initiates gentiles into the covenant making them a "people for his name."  The Pharisaic position was that these gentiles had not been saved by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that they had not been saved at all because they had not been initiated by ritual circumcision.  The Pharisaic position thus negates grace by advocating for the work of circumcision.  So the idea that Peter was attacking works-based justification fits very nicely with the context.

ACTS 15:20

FFOZ says that the fourfold apostolic decree was derived from the laws of Noah and from the purity code of Leviticus 17-18:

"Those four essentials may have been derived from the laws given to Noah and the laws found in Leviticus 17–18."

RESPONSE:

It is unlikely that the fourfold decree derives from the Noahide "laws" for several reasons:

"The Noahic precepts as the source....there are difficulties in this view.  The similarities between the prohibitions and the Noahic precepts are not as close as they may seem at first glance.  For example Genesis 9 has only one clear correspondence to the prohibitions (eating meat with blood in it).  The only other command relates to murder, and while [aima] can be used as a metonymy for murder, the earlier examination of this term has shown that this meaning is unlikely.  It is also problematic that [pniktos] does not occur in the Noahic precepts.  Furthermore why were between six and thirty precepts narrowed down by James to four.  Suggesting that the Noahic precepts provide the source of the prohibitions is also problematic historically.  As Wedderburn has noted, there is no evidence that the Noahic precepts were in use in the first century.  Witherington concurs when he writes, 'It would be anachronistic to bring the latter rabbinic concept of seven Noahic commandments, binding on all descendants of Noah, into our discussion.'  Contextually the Noahic view seems difficult to sustain.  For one thing, very little in the immediate context would bring Noah to the reader's mind.  The first mention of the prohibitions in Acts 15:20 makes reference to Moses, not Noah."  pg. 10 of "A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15" by Charles H. Savelle

Also, there is a political science reason why the fourfold decree would not represent the only commandments for gentiles.  To put it succinctly, there is no intimacy in negative commandments.  And rights and duties are correlative.  The fourfold decree in Acts 15 is negatively framed.  Thus, if it represents the only duties/rights that gentiles have then gentiles have no right to experience the intimacy of the positive commandments found in Torah.  Novak explains this dynamic in his book Natural Law in Judaism:

"As even our cursory presentation of the Noahide laws above indicates, six are negative and only one positive.  Moreover, the positive one, namely, the requirement to establish a judicial system, is actually for the sake of the the adjudication of cases involving the other six, negative precepts." pg 154 of Natural Law in Judaism by David Novak

"But only in revelation do humans learn the truth from the One who is the source of that worth, which is that these humans are loved by this God.  And through positive commandments that give the covenant concrete content, humans are enabled to respond to that love as their desired end." pg. 172 of Natural Law in Judaism by David Novak.

FFOZ's other alternative explanation for the source of the fourfold decree is that it comes from Leviticus 17-18.  However, this hurts their argument that gentiles are like G-d-fearers as opposed to proselytes because the verses they're referencing in Leviticus 17-18 translate the Hebrew word "ger" as "proselyte."

Thus, neither explanation offered by FFOZ makes any sense.

It makes more sense to think of the Decree as the starting point (i.e. renunciation of idolatry) on the basis that the rest would be learned in synagogue:  "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21).

1 CORINTHIANS 7:19

In this verse, Paul writes "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."  FFOZ says that this should not be read as attributing the same commandments to both Jews and gentiles.  Rather, they argue that the word here for "commandments" is typically used by Paul to refer to individual commandments.

RESPONSE:

In this verse, "commandments of God" refers to the entire Torah and thus Paul appears to be advocating that the gentiles follow the entire Torah.  Consider the following regarding this expression:

“The phrase ‘the commandments of God’ is frequently used in the Jewish and Jewish Christian literature of Paul’s time to refer to keeping the law of Moses. Late in the second century B.C., for example, the grandson of the jewish scholar Ben Sira translated his grandfather’s summary of the law this way: ‘Guard yourself in every act, for this also is the keeping of the commandments [teresis entolon]‘ (Sirach 32:23). Similarly, Matthew translates Jesus’ reply to the rich young man’s question about how to obtain eternal life as “keep the commandments” (tereson tas entolas), a clear reference to the law of Moses, as Jesus’ list of commandments and summary of the first table of the law from Leviticus 19:18 demonstrate (Mt. 1917-19). Moreover, the Septuagint’s translation of Ezra 9:4 uses the phrase ‘commands of God’ as a synonym for the law of Moses. The phrase Paul has chosen to refer to God’s commandments, therefore is one that in his cultural context clearly referred to the Mosaic law.” pg. 82 of David Rudolph's A Jew to the Jews.  Quoted from Frank Thielman.

Thus, FFOZ attempts to negate not only the plain reading of the verse but also the lexicological evidence that the phrase "the commandments of God" refers to the entire Torat Moshe.

FFOZ'S ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE:

The final point that FFOZ makes, which they seem to feel is a rather strong point, is that they say that the apostolic writings are silent on gentile Torah observance and that this therefore proves that gentiles are not supposed to follow Torah.

"If the apostles intended for the Gentiles to eventually learn the Jewish particulars of Torah (such as circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and Levitical dietary laws) and practice them, they never stated that expectation."

"The complete absence of instructions to Gentiles about the rudiments of Sabbaths, festivals, and dietary laws is a glaring omission which can best be explained by its obvious implication: The apostles did not regard those matters as legally obligatory to the Gentiles."

RESPONSE:

This argument is a type of logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (i.e. argument from ignorance).  This fallacy is best captured by the following example:  "Nobody has ever seen God; therefore God does not exist."  This is a classic non-sequitur.  The conclusion does not follow the premise.

However, the apostolic writings DO have a lot to say about gentiles and Torah observance.

But that will have to wait until later because I have to run.  I have to watch my daughter while my wife is attending a friend's wedding.

TO BE CONTINUED...

But please feel free to discuss FFOZ's position.  Does anyone have a different take?  Is there evidence for or against their position that needs to be discussed?

You Don't Get Away That Easily: Question 12

Many main line Messianics read Acts 15 and Galatians 5 to mean that gentiles are exempt from circumcision.  Therefore, they don't see it as sin when a gentile Believer opts to remain ritually uncircumcised.

Independent Messianics and Hebrew Roots people read Acts 15 and Galatians 5 in various ways (e.g. some see ritual circumcision as unnecessary for covenantal initiation yet optional for the purposes of growing in identification with Israel) but how do they evaluate the Torah command regarding circumcision?  Well, that leads me to my next question--I'm going to put some heat on the One Law folks for a change:

Question 12:

What do you Hebrew Roots and Independent Messianics believe?  Is a gentile Believer committing a sin when he opts to remain ritually uncircumcised?  

[P.S.  I'll try to post a rebuttal to FFOZ's white paper on Divine Invitation later today before Shabbat...UPDATE:  gotta go meet up with the parents.  So it looks like the Divine Invitation rebuttal may have to wait until after Shabbat]

Shout Out to the New Visitors

I can't believe that after actively posting for only a few days there has been over a thousand views.  And from people visiting all over the world!

So I must say Shalom and welcome to these visitors from far off lands.  I love that there are visitors from Israel.  I had no idea there were so many from Canada, Romania, and Germany.  And I am delighted at the numbers from Netherlands, South Africa, and Australia.  To you all I have this to say:

Israel:  I am praying for you.

Canada:  You are very polite.

Romania:  You are a strong ally and friend of the United States.

Germany:  Best musicians in the world (as far as compositional skill).

Netherlands:  Thank you for growing the first orange carrots.  Carrots are good for the eyes and they taste good with ranch dressing.

South Africa:  You have overcome much.

Australia:  You have given us Wolverine.  Thank you.

Gene vs. The Nations: Question 11

First, people should know that I like Gene.  May not always agree with him (especially the bilateralism).  But he's a brilliant man and presents a strong case for everything that he says.

The other day, Gene made the following comment:

"There's a not so little problem with Gentile identity being only there to act as a "remembrance" - we know from the prophets that there will be many nations in the World to Come, each with their own name, living in their own land... After all, Abraham is the father of many nations, both physically and spiritually. Being a person from one of the nations is not something to shun, forget or feel inferior about. It's something to celebrate - it is the work of G-d's hands."

What is Gene's underlying argument here?  It seems he is saying the following:

--(1) the prophets say that "nations" will come to Jerusalem to learn Torah (Micah 4:2; Zech 8:22-23; etc)

--(2) the words "am" and "goy" which are applied to these "nations" means that these nations possess their own names and live in their own lands

--(3) therefore, the prophets argue that these "nations" are to remain separate from Israel

It's not a bad argument.  If the prophets call them essentially other nations then how can they be construed as being Israel?

I will offer some evidence that they can indeed be brought into Israel and then I'll pose a question at the end.  But, first, some key terms:

--(1) Goy:  a kinship group with its own land and culture (Elazar; Vines)

--(2) Am:  a nation defined through its ties to a deity (Elazar; Vines)

Now, there's several ways to refute Gene: 

--(1) The context of Zechariah 8:22 shows that these amim and goyim were pagans who were turning from their pagan ways in order to join the covenanted Am Yisrael.  Is there any contextual corroboration for this reading?  Yes.  Zechariah 2:11 says "11 And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lordof hosts hath sent me unto thee."  In short, just because they originated as peoples attached to idols doesn't mean that they will remain attached to foreign idols--indeed, they cannot remain covenanted to idols.  When they join Israel then they become part of Israel.  It's a kind of en masse conversion.  

--(2)  The even stronger refutation is as follows.  Isaiah 63:19 tells us that Israel and not the gentiles are called by His name:  "We are yours.  You never bore rule over them.  They were not called by your name."  This is saying that Israel is the only covenanted people, the only people called by His name.  And then James in his speech in Acts 15:14-17 says "14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."  This tells us that the gentiles, through Yeshua, have been accepted into the Am Yisrael, the only people called by His name.  

ON TO THE QUESTION:

Are gentiles now part of Israel (i.e. joining but not replacing) or are they excluded from Israel?

Tim Hegg on the "Dividing Wall" of Ephesians 2:14 [Question #10]

Dan Benzvi was good enough to post a link to a wonderful lecture that Tim Hegg gave about Ephesians 2:14.  I just finished reading it and would like to post some of the highlights for everyone's consideration.  The question, for those brave enough to read all the way through, will be at the very end:


"Taken at face value, these translations [of Ephesians 2:14] present the text as a pointed assertion by the apostle Paul that Messiah abolished the Mosaic Torah by His sacrificial death, and that the Torah was the instrument of hostility that erected a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. The difficulty with such a reading is twofold: first, it contradicts the clear teaching of Yeshua Himself that He did not abolish the written Torah, and secondly, the written Torah never demanded a wall between Jew and Gentile." pg. 6

"What was the Dividing Wall?...From these brief notes we may summarize: First, the wall spoken of by Paul in Eph 2:14 was not the dividing wall in the 2nd Temple, because (a) it was still standing at the time Paul wrote Ephesians, and (b) the terminology Paul uses to describe the wall is different than the terms regularly used for the dividing wall in the Temple, terms Paul no doubt was familiar with.
Secondly, the Greek term...(fragmos) was used in the 1st Century to identify the oral Torah as a “wall” or “fence” around the written Torah, and the Pharisees as “builders of the wall.”
Thirdly, aspects of the oral Torah, not the written Torah, laid the foundation for a strict separation between Jew and non-Jew.
What I am suggesting is simply that the dividing wall that was abolished by Messiah was none other than those Rabbinic laws which had enforced a separation between Jew and Gentile in opposition to the written Torah. In fact, the Tanakh gives very clear instructions against erecting barriers to separate Israel from the nations. The foreigner who desired to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was to be welcomed into the community and treated with the same respect as was given the native born (Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:33, 34; 25:35; Deut. 26:12). They were to be given full participation in matters of Torah and Torah-life (Sabbath, Ex. 23:12, cp. Is. 56:3ff; Gleanings, Lev. 19:10; Justice, Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22; Festivals, Deut. 16:11, 14; Worship and Prayer in the Temple, 1 Ki. 8:41-43, cp. 2 Chron. 6:32, 33). And the prophets pronounce judgment upon any who would neglect their God-given responsibilities to the “stranger,” on the same grounds as neglect of orphans and widows (Ps. 94:6; Is. 56:3ff; Jer. 22:3; Zech. 7:10)." pg. 9

"According to oral Torah, mere contact with non-Jews could render a person unclean, as well as contact with the residence of a non-Jew or even with land outside the Land of Israel.47 Contact with any object used for idolatrous worship was added to the list of what might render a person unclean. Clearly, the oral Torah of the 1st Century functioned to separate Jew and Gentile in a dramatic way." pg. 9

"The phrase…ton patrion dogmaton) [Eph 2:14] literally “the dogma of the fathers”) is best understood not to refer to the Mosaic Torah but to the “traditions of the fathers,” the halakah of the community." pg. 10

"A study of the word dovgma (dogma) in the Lxx and Apostolic Writings confirms that the term was used of man-made laws, and not of the God-given Torah of Sinai. We may therefore conclude that Paul adds it to his description of...(nomos, “law”) in order to identify the abolished law as the legal fence of the Rabbis, particularly the parts of the oral Torah that separated Jew and Gentile and thus were at odds with the written Torah that prophesied the unity of Jew and Gentile all within the promise of blessing given to Abraham." pg. 11

ON TO THE QUESTION:

Question # 10

Do you find Hegg's analysis persuasive?

The Dividing Wall of Ephesians 2: Question #9

Judah asked a great question.  He said:  "What's your take on Paul's "dividing wall, the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances", which Messiah tore down in order to create one new man of Jew and gentile? Many Christians interpret this to mean the Torah was abolished by Messiah in order to create a single entity, One New Man, out of Jew and Gentile."

I didn't really have an opinion and then I remembered reading this recently:

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, pg. 603 says "3. allogenes...(allos, 'another,' genos, 'a race') occurs in Luke 17:18, of a Samaritan.  Moulton and Milligan illustrate the use of the word by the inscription on the Temple barrier, 'let no foreigner enter within the screen and enclosure surrounding the sanctuary,'..."

So I looked a little further.  Barnes Notes on the Bible Says:

"And hath broken down the middle wall - There is an allusion here undoubtedly to the wall of partition in the temple by which the court of the Gentiles was separated from that of the Jews; see the notes and the plan of the temple, in Matthew 21:12. The idea here is, that that was now broken down, and that the Gentiles had the same access to the temple as the Jews. The sense is, that in virtue of the sacrifice of the Redeemer they were admitted to the same privileges and hopes."

Clarke's Commentary offers another take:

"Some think there is an allusion here to the wall called chel, which separated the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles; but this was not broken down till the temple itself was destroyed: and to this transaction the apostle cannot be supposed to allude, as it did not take place till long after the writing of this epistle."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible says:

"...the allusion seems to be to the wall which divided the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles, in the temple, and which kept them at a distance in worship."

But a lingering question remains, and one to which I hope someone out there may provide an answer.

Question #9

Is the Anti-Torah, Christian interpretation of Ephesians 2:15, correct?  Is the abolishment of "the law of commandments contained in ordinances ["dogma" in Greek] to be read as "Yeshua abolished the Torah"?

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?

What's Your Identity? Question #7

Here's a question mostly targeted at the gentiles out there (but all comments welcome).  The following verses talk about how gentiles are gentiles no longer and that they shouldn't act like gentiles anymore.  I'll ask the question first and then post the verses:

QUESTION #7:

Are gentiles in the New Covenant supposed to retain their identities as gentiles?

Some verses for consideration:

Eph 4:17-24

17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.

 20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

 1 Cor 12:2

 2 Ye know that ye WERE Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led .

Here's some literal versions of Eph 2:11

Ephesians 2:11 "Wherefore remember that ye once the gentiles in [the] flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that called circumcision in [the] flesh made by hand" (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament published by Zondervan)

Ephesians 2:11 "Therefore remember that you then the gentiles in the flesh, those being called uncircumcision by those being called circumcision in (the) flesh made by hand" (The Interlinear Bible by Sovereign Grace Publishers)