"Fulfilling" the Law: How Yeshua Equates the Perpetuity of the Jewish People with the Perpetuity of the Mosaic Torah

It occurred to me today that Yeshua might've equated the Jewish People with Mosaic Torah.  Observe the following passages and see if you come to the same conclusion:

Matthew 5:17-18

"17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Jeremiah 31:35-36

"35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:  36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever."

Christians like to say that the Mosaic Law has been abrogated.  But if the Mosaic Law defines the Jewish People then it cannot be abrogated--or else the Jewish People would be abrogated along with it. Yeshua seems here to illustrate the Judaic belief that Torah, Covenant, and People are correlative.  Thus, He not only defends the perpetuity of Mosaic Law but He defends the perpetuity of the Jewish People.

And if these concepts are correlative, then He also came to "fulfill" the Jewish People.  What does that mean?  Well, to make something full is to add something to it.  One wouldn't say that a glass of water that was full had been terminated or reduced in any way.  One would say that filling a glass added something to it, helped it to serve its purpose.  A glass is meant to hold liquid.  So when you fill it up you are helping it achieve the purpose for which it was designed.  In the same way, Yeshua came to help Israel achieve the purpose for which it was designed.  

Hannukah Handbook (Courtesy of Cajun)

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

Popularity of This Blog is Increasing!

I just wanted to thank you, dear readers for visiting this blog.  I just noticed that when you type in "Messianic Judaism blog" in google that my blog is top of page number 2.  So we almost made page 1! I'm guessing we'll have page 1 ranking within a month or so.

-Peter

The Greatest Threat to One Law (Hint: It's Not the UMJC or FFOZ)

This past Friday I went to Grove Ave Baptist Church's Hannukah party.  It was great.  The teaching was excellent.  One of the pastors explained why Christians should celebrate Hannukah.  Oh, and he was wearing a kippah!  

There was a small delegation there from a local UMJC synagogue.  And, yeah, they gave me the cold shoulder.  I even said "hi" to one fellow in the hall and he just glanced at me warily and kept walking.  Perhaps he didn't hear me?  

But I was thinking about something.  Where will all of this go?  I overheard the pastor tell someone that they wouldn't have been allowed to do this five years ago.  

These wonderful Christians have apparently been encountering a tough adversary:  their own denomination!  

It's funny:  the UMJC people there absolutely hate me (we have a history).  But the reality is that we're on the same team:  team Judaism.  We both only wish to show the beauty and goodness of G-d's Torah.  

The UMJC and others like them are their own worst enemy.  They make the gentiles feel excluded and so most of the gentiles (notice i said most) end up leaving dissatisfied after a while.  But the Christians are inclusionists with regard to their religion.  The Christian says triumphantly that all men should follow Christianity (even Jews).  So the Christian includes everyone and makes everyone feel welcome.

This is problematic.  Messianics shouldn't get too cozy at church---even the ones who are awakening to Jewish Roots.  Why?  Because that old threat is still there:  anti-Judaism.  

I don't even know if Grove Ave. will continue doing what it is doing.  I pray that they will continue on this trajectory!  But will they?  We don't have a lot of historical data here.  This pro-Judaism thing (e.g. pastors wearing kippot, teaching Christians to follow Hannukah because Christ followed it)...this is a new trend.  

Well, here's hoping that these Christians at Grove Ave. will continue on their journey and will not suffer reprisals from within their movement.

Be Sure to Check Out Judah Himango's Post About Jews for Jesus

CLICK HERE FOR LINK.

Coincidence? Or a Confirmation from G-d?

I was able to go to the Wednesday night small group session at Grove Ave. Baptist Church yesterday.  I'm glad I went!

When I arrived, I suddenly wanted to skip the first part of the men's group.  I suddenly dreaded the video part of the class in which I inevitably become impatient.  "I think I'll skip the first part of the class" I said to my wife in the lobby.  "I like the discussion part but I just can't stand sitting through the videos..."

I think my wife just nodded, knowing that I'd end up going.  And then she went to her class.  And I was left with the decision to hang out in the lobby or proceed to class.  So I reluctantly chose to go to class.

I got there and started talking with the leader.  He asked about my week.  I told him about how I was looking for a professional mentor, hopefully a G-dly lawyer who has had a practice for a while.

Then, within a few moments, it was time to start the video.  For someone like me who loves conversation, this is the difficult part!  I dislike sitting passively.  I want to engage!

But then the video started...

"Guys, it's so important to have a mentor in your life" the lecturer began, "someone who will be committed to your development.  And you can even have different mentors for different areas in your life:  mentors for your profession, mentors for your marriage relationship...."

Yes, dear reader, I'm always resisting the flow.  And G-d has to do things like this--all the time--to get my attention.  He will literally shut me up sometimes.  Sometimes he makes me cry in the spirit and I literally can't talk.  This has happened in meetings with certain high-ranking Christians before.  G-d just lets me know when the time is not right and He lets me feel a small amount of His own grief.

Anyway, I think G-d is happy with this particular Christian community.  Check this out:

My wife gets out of her class and tells me about the Hannukah Party that Grove is hosting this Friday.

"Oh?" I say.  "So it's probably the guy from Tikvat running it, right?"

"No, it's one of the pastors."

And she mentioned his name.

Earlier that day, Zion had urged me to work from within the church and so I sent this guy an email.  Got a reply from him just now.  He told me a little about the pro-Judaic journey that this church is on and invited me to come meet him.  He also said something that gives me a clue where he believes all of this is headed.

Dear readers, this particular church isn't just some small, country church with a few hundred congregants.  This church was the largest contributor to the Southern Baptist Convention in the state of Virginia.  They have their own television program.  This is one of the oldest Baptist churches in town!  And they are doing something that has never been done in the history of Christianity until now.

So is it just a coincidence that we happened to start visiting THIS CHURCH out of all the churches in our town?

Yes, it will be very interesting to see where this goes.  I'm very much looking forward to my meeting with the pastors and discussing the formation of a Jewish Roots fellowship group.  I'll keep you posted, dear reader!

Dr. Peters Offers the Christian Argument for the Abrogation of Mosaic Law

CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO ARTICLE

Excellent Article on Acquinas' Threefold Division of the Law

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

If You're Looking for a Kippah That Will Stay on Your Head Without Clip...

Check out this style:  CLICK HERE.

Does Anyone Have Advice for How to Start a Fellowship Group?

Perhaps someone has experience in starting fellowship groups which they could share with me.  I have no experience...but I was brainstorming about it earlier today.  I was thinking that since everyone has to eat, that one could put flyers up at Grocery stores.  And then there's the usual places like libraries, religious book stores, secular book stores...what else?  I'm not really sure.

I suppose I can check to see if there are books about "church planting" that offer suggestions which would work equally well for starting a fellowship group...

Derek Leman Refutes Tim Hegg's Assertion That the "Yoke" in Acts 15 is the Oral Tradition

You can check out Derek's post HERE.  Here's the summary:  Tim Hegg says that the unbearable "yoke" in Acts 15 is Oral Tradition.  Derek says that the unbearable "yoke" is covenantal nomism (i.e. the Torah of the Covenant).

I happen to vehemently disagree with both Hegg and Leman.  Here's the comment I posted on the discussion (which I fully expect will be deleted later this evening when Leman gets back from Shul):

The unbearable yoke in Acts 15 is not the Oral Tradition. It’s not Torah either: 

“Rabbinic literature uses the word yoke…but not as it is used here. See e.g. Aboth 3.5, ‘He that takes upon himself the yoke of the Law…, from him shall be taken away the yoke of the kingdom…(that is, oppression by worldly authority). Thus the yoke of the Law, the obligation to obey it, is a blessing and a privilege…Peter claims that to require circumcision and legal observance from Gentile converts would be to lay upon their necks a yoke…to demand of them something that Jews themselves could neither endure nor achieve. …This does not agree with the attitude to the yoke of Torah quoted above [from Rabbinic literature]–it was a privilege and joy…If Peter really felt like this about the Law–that it was an intolerable burden–why did not he and his fellow Jewish Christians themselves give it up? …Peter claimed that he had never touched unclean food (with the probability that one who was scrupulous in this respect would not be negligent in others).” pg. 718 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles by C.K. Barrett 

So what is the yoke? Paul explains this in Galatians 5:1,4. He defines “yoke” as trying to justify oneself by works of the law. 

Commencing countdown to comment deletion…5….4….3…..

Check Out This Michael Brown Debate (Audio Link)

Click here.  It's about Israel and election and how to interpret current events in light of prophecy.  Are there two Israels?  An Israel of the flesh and the Israel of G-d?

Intermarriage: Avoiding the Neurosis of Exclusionist Messianic Judaism

In Messianic Judaism, as I've mentioned, there are two camps, those who see the Jewish way of life as excluding Gentiles and those who see the Jewish way of life as including Gentiles.  Of these camps, the Exclusionist Camp (the ones who segregate Jews and Gentiles according to a supposed differentiation in life calling) experiences confusion on the issue of intermarriage.

Exclusionist Jews who marry Gentile women often feel guilty that they've sabotaged their children with a difficult choice:  should the children follow the Jewish way of life of their father or should they follow the Gentile way of life of their mother?  (or vice versa)  And there's also the guilty feeling of having married outside the covenant.  Have I betrayed my People?  etc, etc...

Inclusionist Messianic Judaism, on the other hand, sees the New Covenant as more inclusive version of the Old Covenant (i.e. Sinaitic Covenant), thus obligating all Believers to follow a Jewish way of life--even the uncircumcised and non-proselyte Gentiles must follow a Jewish way of life.  In the Inclusionist view, since Jews and Gentiles belong to the same covenants and live the same Jewish lifestyle, all of the pitfalls of Exclusionist Messianic Judaism are avoided.  There's no confusion:  everyone must follow Judaism.  There's no guilt:  G-d loves it when a Jew marries a Gentile when both are dedicated to following the demands of the covenant of Israel.  Thus, under the Inclusionist framework, intermarriage is not an issue at all.  On the contrary!  It is seen as a beautiful thing!  Just like the marriage of Ruth and Boaz, intermarriage is something that glorifies HaShem by demonstrating the trans-ethnic goodness of His commands.

Seinfeld and Eschatology

I used to watch the show Seinfeld.  One of the recurring jokes I got a kick out of was when a character would say things like "Barring some unforeseen incident" or "Barring any unforeseen developments" and then, right on cue, something unforeseen would occur and hilarious chaos would ensue.

My point?

It's hard to predict things accurately.  Even when it comes to End Times prophecies in the Bible where we're given a general picture of how things unfold, we're still really sketchy on the details.

However, I would like to make a prediction...  : )

Based on the social trajectory of Gentiles in first-century Messianic communities, the fact that they were enjoying an unprecedented level of inclusion into Jewish life (for an understanding of just how "unprecedented"see the Cornelius story where Peter is shocked that G-d wants him to visit an uncircumcised man because it contradicted Jewish "law"), it seems to me that assimilation would've been inevitable.

So...

...one wonders what might happen in the future Messianic Kingdom, a time when Gentiles are given unprecedented covenantal rights...  Would a similar pro-Judaic social trajectory lead to Gentile assimilation into Israel (just like in the old days of ancient Israel)?

I think I can say that, barring any unforeseen developments, that this assimilation will most certainly occur.

Was Paul a Maximal Judaizer? Or Was He Anti-Judaization? I Want To Hear Your Thoughts!

So if you haven't seen Rudolph's article on Paul's "rule" in 1 Cor. 7:18, check it out here.  Rudolph contends that Paul was anti-Judaization.  Here's the main verse in question:


"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised." (1 Cor. 7:18)

It occurred to me the other night that you can either view Paul as maximally, minimally, or moderately in terms of Judaizing (or you could see him as being anti-Judaization).  I think of Paul as being pro-Judaization of Gentiles.  And I think of him of encouraging a maximal level of Judaization (i.e. I think he encourages Gentiles to follow Jewish practices).  The only caveat is that he seems to take into account certain first-century exigencies such as the anti-grace circumcision doctrines of certain Yeshua-believing Pharisees (see Acts 15:1; Gal. 5) when he says thinks like he does in 1 Cor. 7:18.

But let's get back to Rudolph.  By the way, I love Rudolph even if I disagree with him on some things. Okay, let's begin.

Rudolph starts off by saying that Paul in 1 Cor. 7:20 links "klesis" (situation) and "kaleo" (called).  In linking these concepts, Rudolph argues that Paul believes that circumcision (Jewishness) and foreskin (Gentileness) are callings.

What does this mean practically?  Well, Rudolph says that Gentiles should identify as being excluded from Torah:

"Paul describes circumcision as integrally related to Torah observance (Jewish identity), and lack of Torah observance is indicative of foreskin (Gentile identity).  Circumcision is incomplete without the circumcised life."

Furthermore, Rudolph makes the claim that Paul differentiated between Jewish commandments and Gentile commandments:

"If the [calling to a particular way of life] differed between Jew and Gentile (1 Cor. 7:18-20), it is plausible that Paul, a first century Jew from a Pharisaic background, held that [G-d's] commandments for Jews and Gentiles differed as well."

The problem with Rudolph's assertion that Paul differentiates between Jewish commandments and Gentiles commandments is not in the text.  On the contrary, Paul seems to eradicate such a distinction:

"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing:  Keeping God's commands is what counts."

There is no place in Paul's writings where he says "Gentiles must live a non-Jewish lifestyle."  Quite the opposite.  Paul commands Gentiles to reject Gentilism (paganism) and adopt the beliefs and practices of Judaism (e.g. the belief in the Jewish Messiah as Savior, the keeping of Jewish customs like ritual immersion and the keeping moedim and kashrut).

Here's the other thing:  in the same chapter (1 Cor. 7), Paul says to virgins "Do not look for a wife."

So does Paul really think that men shouldn't look for a spouse?  If Paul was remotely Torah-observant then, knowing that the mitzva to procreate is mentioned first in the Tanak, it's impossible that Paul could be discouraging virgins from getting married.  Paul wouldn't preach against the Torah.  It's more likely that Paul understood that marriage is inevitable and natural for most people.

What's my point?

My point is that if Paul says that virgins shouldn't seek to get married (but actually believes that they should get married and that marriage is good) then it follows that when Paul says in the same chapter that Gentiles shouldn't seek to become circumcised that he might actually believe that Gentiles should get circumcised and that circumcision is a good.

So why did he say the opposite of what he really felt?  Well, enough of my opinions!  I want to hear from you, dear readers.  What do you think Paul meant?  Do you agree with Rudolph's interpretation of Paul's "rule"?  Or is the "rule" against circumcision like the "rule" against marriage?  (i.e. not really a rule at all).