How About a FFOZ Type of Ministry But for One Law?

Sometimes when I'm driving I'll ask my wife to write down an idea for me.  The other day we were driving to church and I had an idea for a teaching ministry that would be similar to FFOZ except that it would return to the original mission of FFOZ:  One Law.

This is just something I'm thinking about.  If it seems viable to me then I'll probably write up a business plan for it and go from there.  If anyone is interested then let me know.

Shalom,

Peter

The Covenant That Transformed a People into a Nation

I noticed that in a recent post people thought I was saying (1) that circumcision was an initiation into the covenant or (2) that the tribes ceased to function as tribes after the national covenant of Israel was ratified.  So it seems I haven't been communicating my thoughts very well.  Let's have a do-over.

Today, I wrote something to another commenter which I feel might clarify my position:

"Consider: Was the Abrahamic covenant a national covenant? Or did it foretell/promise a national covenant?

Consider: Israel was an “Am” (kinship group) in Egypt but the tribes did not operate as a collective (nation/goy) until the events of Passover and Sinai. Consider that a nation is what occurs when the constituent institutions (e.g. tribes) operate as a collective. So Israel did not function as an Edah (covenantal republic) until the events of Passover-Sinai (i.e. the national covenant of Israel).

What is the proof for my assertion that Passover-Sinai were part of a single, national covenant? First, the Torah of the national covenant transformed a people into a nation by establishing federal institutions (e.g. representatives from the tribes meeting at the federal level, governing institutions exercising federal authority, etc). Torat Moshe, like no other Torah previously, established the nation of Israel as a political body. Second, the covenantal formulary, the procedure of covenanting, involved not an individual (as in the case of Abraham) but it involved an entire nation, all the people consenting, all the representatives from the tribes consenting. The covenantal formulary shows that this was a covenant being made with an entire people, something that had never occurred previously in the covenantal tradition."

UPDATE:

Here's something I wrote to a commenter on a different blog that also describes this covenantal transformation from People to Nation using Jeremiah 31:


When does Jeremiah 31 say the national covenant with Israel was made? Here’s what it says:

“It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
WHEN I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,”

What was that event when G-d took the People of Israel by the hand to lead them out of Egypt? Was it not Passover? Was that not the betrothal? Was Sinai not the marriage? Jeremiah says:

“I was a husband to them”

And notice that the effect of this covenant was a perpetual Nationhood:

““Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”

Only if the Chukim vanish will Israel cease to be a nation. Notice that the Chukim which defined the national institutions was given on Sinai (not before).

Christianity is an "Unrecognized Judaism"

We were on the way to church this morning and I had the thought that Christianity is an"Unrecognized Judaism."  They use a New Testament that's written by Jews promoting what they believed to be the truest form of Judaism yet they don't recognize it as Judaism.  They love (and I believe they truly do love) Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.  But they don't recognize Him as being very Jewish.  In fact, they think of Him as doing away with the Torah (which is not a very Jewish thing to do).

So Christianity is an Unrecognized Judaism (but obviously not Judaism in its truest form).  And really they're not all that far off.  The heart is the most difficult thing to change.  And their loving ministries show that they have had an inner change of heart.  I believe the rest will happen in time.  As they slowly begin to recognize the Jewishness of the New Testament and the Messiah Yeshua, their identity will transform.  And as their identity transforms, their practices will begin to conform to their newfound identity.

I've used the term "Orthodox Messianic Judaism" as a way of referring to an idea.  An idea that there is a true form of Judaism.  But the term isn't really important.  What is important is the idea--- to realize that there is a true form of Judaism and it will be a community in which Jews and gentiles treat each other as if they had been born from the same household.  Let's face it, you don't really love someone if you don't think of them as family.  When everyone realizes that we are born from the same Household (Yeshua's Undivided House of Israel) through our Passover Lamb Yeshua then we can all sit down together without feeling any separation.  On that great day we'll all experience true Shalom.

A Three-Year-Old's Prayer to Yeshua

My daughter prayed this prayer today on her own:

"Thank you for this day heavenly father. We love this day. And we love you so much. And thank you for giving us all the rain. And you give us beds. And thank you for forgiving us. In Yeshua's name, amen."

I love this girl!

So You're an Israelite: But Do You Belong to the Am, the Edah, or a Kahal?

Friends, I'm in the process of learning here so take it easy on me.  I'm going to lay out all (most) of my thoughts on the political structure of Israel.  Think of it as a conversation, not as preaching, okay?

AM YISRAEL

What makes an "am"?  (As in "Am Yisrael").  My thoughts:  (1) descent from a common ancestor or (2) participation in a common religion.

ADAT YISRAEL

What makes an "am" into an "edah"?  (As in Adat Yisrael).  My thoughts:

The edah is a political structure (a republic in fact) because it says that there were "nesi-ai ha-edah" (representatives of the edah) [Joshua 9:15] and it also says that the nesi'im conducted their political business in the Ohel Mo'ed.

This "republic" is composed of "eday" (witnesses to the covenant) because it says "you are my witnesses [eday]" [Isaiah 43:10-12] and we know that they are witnesses to the covenant because it says "let it serve as a covenant between me and you" [Gen. 31:44].

Further, we know that the witnesses are witnesses of the Israeli Covenant (i.e. the one inaugurated in Egypt and ratified at Sinai) because the first mention of the Edah is in Exodus 12:3 and it's in regard to the Passover Feast.  So we see that the Edah is established by the Passover specifically.

We also know that the witnesses are witnesses to the Torah of Moshe because it says that the ark was an "aron ha-edut" [Joshua 4:16].  And we know that the ark contained the Decalogue.

Thus, it appears that one enters the Edah (the Israeli Republic) by participating in Passover.

KAHAL

HOw does Israel operate as a kahal?  My thoughts:  It seems that within the Edah there are constituent entities which are each formed by either covenant and/or by descent from a common ancestor:  family, batei av, tribes, tribal councils, tribal federation (as in "the day of the kahal" at Sinai).

MEMBERSHIP

How does one join an "am", "edah", and "kahal"?

Am:  descent from common ancestor or adoption into the family and by observance of the common faith.

Edah:  participation in Passover.

Kahal:  it depends on which type of kahal.  Each kahal is a subsidiary of the Edah, formed through covenant.  A marriage is a covenant that forms a familial kahal.  A communal covenant formed by a quorum of ten adult males forms a communal kahal (kehillah).  Yeshua has His own Kahal and He invites everyone to join who has faith in His ability to forgive sins and who genuinely desires His forgiveness.  Membership in a kahal seems to presuppose membership in the Am.

CONCLUSION

So could I be wrong?  Absolutely!  Let's have a conversation.  I want you to argue with me.

When Lashon Hara is Not Only Justified But Obligatory

"The Torah command us [Do not stand aside while your fellow's blood is being shed] (Vayikra 19:16). We are obligated to spare no effort in preventing our fellow Jew from suffering physical, emotional, or monetary damage.

In a situation where a potential victim is unaware that he is being threatened, one is required to warn him even though this will reflect negatively on the person or persons responsible.  Speech of this sort is not merely permissible, it is obligatory.  Nevertheless, one must be certain that conditions which render speech constructive have been appropriately met..."  pg. 188 of Chofetz Chaim:  A Lesson a Day.

Formula for Biblical Exegesis

So I was reading a book today that is unrelated to Biblical exegesis and a formula for Biblical exegesis popped into my head.  Here it is:

CONTENT + CONTEXT = INTENT

I don't know if I made this up or if perhaps I read it somewhere and forgot about it.  But allow me to explain it.

Step 1 in exegesis:  Establish the text.  Review the earliest manuscripts.  Make sure you've got a decent translation if you're using a translation.  Make sure you understand the ancient grammar.

Step 2 in exegesis:  Examine the context.  Now, I'm sure if you read academic books about exegesis that they'll explain this differently.  But here's my approach:  examine the context of the pericope, examine the intratextual context (e.g. if you're studying Acts 15 then study the context of the entire book of Acts), intertextual context (i.e. the entire Bible), and then study the historical context.

Step 3 in exegesis:  Using the data collected from steps 1 and 2, hypothesize as to the author's intent.

I hope this will help someone who was looking a simplified exegetical strategy.

Shalom,

Peter

Unrecognized Mediation

So does anyone know some sources for organizations or individuals who promote Unrecognized Mediation?  Schiffman and Kinzer spring to mind...  But I'm looking for actual quotes.

I did an update to the FAQs section, by the way.  I attempted to answer the question:  What is Messianic Judaism?

Let me know if there's any errors in it and I will update it accordingly.

Shalom,

Peter

J. S. Bach - Prelude and (double) fugue n.18 G sharp minor BWV 887 (WTC II)

Battle Royale Over at Gene's Blog

It's pretty funny.  It's gotta be one of the longest comment threads in the history of the Messianic blogosphere.  I've actually found it useful in clarifying a bunch of covenantal concepts.  Feel free to check out the epic battle here:  LINK.

What's the Harm? Two Different Messianic Approaches to Galatians 5

Everyone agrees that Paul is issuing a warning against something harmful in Galatians 5.  But the two camps of Messianic Judaism (the segregationists and the desegregationists--or Bilateralists and One Law proponents) each propose a different harm.  So what's the harm?  It depends on whether you're asking a One Law proponent or a bilateralist.

The Bilateralist says that, in Galatians 5:1-4, Paul thinks that uninformed decision-making is the real harm.  Paul doesn't want gentiles becoming circumcised lest they unwittingly burden themselves with the Mosaic Torah.  The founders and leaders of the UMJC hold to this view:

"Galatians 5 warns Gentiles not to receive circumcision or they will be required to keep the whole Torah. The clear implication here is that without circumcision, Gentiles are not required to keep the whole Torah."  (One Law Movements:  A Challenge to the Messianic Jewish Community by Daniel Juster and Russ Resnik)

The One Law proponents say that, in Galatians 5:1-4, Paul thinks that anti-grace circumcision is the real harm. The evidence that Paul is addressing an anti-grace doctrine is found in the following verse:

"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

This verse indicates that there were individuals in Galatia who believed that they could be justified by the law.  Such a belief that is opposed to grace can be called "anti-grace."  Specifically, since this belief relates to circumcision we may call it "anti-grace circumcision."  

It all comes down to how one reads the following verse:  

"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."  

If Paul thinks that the harm is uninformed decision-making then this verse reads as a warning for gentiles to consider well the obligation of Torah before becoming circumcised.  On the other hand, if Paul thinks that the harm is anti-grace circumcision then this reads as a warning that one who attempts to operate outside of grace will have to obey the law perfectly.

So those are the two different views.  That's the best breakdown I can offer.  I hope it helps someone out there.

Shalom,

Peter

Neusner Says that Christianity is a Judaism

You all should check out Neusner's "Judaism in the New Testament" because he lays out an extraordinary premise:  Christianity is a Judaism.  Note that he didn't say it was THE Judaism.  In fact, there are many Judaisms and many Christianities.  Neusner explains that they are more like systems.  And Christianity is part of the Judaic system (based on the fact that it was created by Jews who felt they were teaching the truest form of Judaism).

This is great because it answers a question I had in regard to Carl Kinbar's definition of Judaism.  I felt that there was something wrong with it but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.  Now I know what was bothering me.

You can't define Judaism per se since there are different and contradictory forms of Judaism--it's not uniform but rather pluriform.  You have to say that there are Judaisms, a system of Judaism.   You can't say that there's simply Judaism as if it's this big monolith understood universally the same way (same deal with Christianity).

So that got me thinking.  We shouldn't ask "What is Judaism?" or "What is Christianity?"  But rather we should ask "What SHOULD be the form of Judaism?"

When I named this blog "Orthodox Messianic Judaism" I had a simple idea:  there SHOULD be a true form of Judaism.  Does it exist yet?  Not in its final form.  But I believe it's in progress right now and that we're all contributing to its evolution.

UPDATE:  here's the link for the google preview of Neusner's book:  LINK.

Evidence From Mishnah that Immersion (Baptism) Was an Initiatory Rite of Judaism

Here's something interesting I read today:

"[Mishnah Pesachim] 8:8 has been cited as evidence that immersion of proselytes was already practiced in the late first century B.C.E., even before the destruction [of the Temple]:  'If a proselyte converted on the day before Passover, the House of Shammai says:  He immerses and eats his paschal offering in the evening.  But the House of Hillel says:  One who departs from (his) foreskin is (as impure) as one who departs from a grave." (Lawrence Schiffman)

The Three Foundational Principles of One Law Theology

One Law Theology (i.e. racially egalitarian ecclesiology in contradistinction to bilateral ecclesiology) is a type of Messianic Jewish Theology [MJT] that promotes unity between Jews and gentiles on the basis of three principles.  Here are, what I believe to be, the three foundational principles of this Theology:

Did Paul Care if You Went to Non-Messianic Shul?

Why did Paul spend so much time and energy in establishing elder-led Messianic synagogues in the first-century?  When we look at Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 we see Paul's strategy was extremely ambitious:  planting elder-led assemblies in EVERY town.

But why establish Messianic synagogues?  Couldn't the gentiles have just attended a non-Messianic shul?  But if a non-Messianic shul was sufficient then why even bother with the ambitious congregation-planting mission?