Logos: Judaism and Christianity Collection

I think understanding Jewish perspectives on law would give considerable insight into Jesus' teaching and also on his comments and debates with the Scribes, Lawyers and other religious authorities of the day.  It would also put to rest the misunderstanding that has arisen over time that Jewish law, both written and oral, are somehow mutually exclusive from Grace as we understand it as Christians.

Without understanding this perspective, passages such as Mat 5.17 and his teaching that we should obey the Rabbis because they "sit in the seat of Moses," are problematic.

For me, exploring these Jewish perspectives has really broadened my understanding and given depth to my investigation into such questions as to who is Israel, who is a Jew, what is legalism, and what is the New Covenant.  The answers to which I have found to be quite influential on one's hermeneutical thought.

I'm glad to see that Logos has gradually built up its resources from Jewish writers who can bring this rich perspective to us believers with a Gentile background.  Prominent amongst these authors is David Flusser. 

He was a professor of Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 

Flusser was a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and received the Israel Prize in 1980, for his contributions to the study of Jewish history.  Lawrence Schiffman, chairman of the Skirball department of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, credited him with pioneering "the modern study of Christianity in the state of Israel in a scholarly context".

Flusser was a devout Orthodox Jew who applied his skills in Torah and Talmud to the study of ancient Greek, Roman and Arabic texts, as well as the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He scrutinized the ancient Jewish and Christian texts for evidence of the Jewish roots of Christianity. While critically distinguishing the historical Jesus from the visionary portrayal in the Gospels and other Christian writings, Flusser saw Jesus as an authentic Jew, misunderstood by his followers.

David Satran, a professor of comparative religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said, "Dr. Flusser was rather remarkable in his strong insistence that not only was Jesus a Jew from birth to death, but that Jesus did nothing that could be interpreted as a revolt or questioning of the basic principles of the Judaism at the time."  Personally, Flusser viewed Jesus as a tsadik with keen spiritual insight and a "high self-awareness" that near-contemporaries similarly expressed, such as Hillel in the Talmud and the "Teacher of Righteousness" in certain Dead Sea Scrolls.

Flusser pursued his research at a time when many Jews blamed Christianity for Nazism. During the trial, the Gestapo officer Adolf Eichmann refused to take an oath on the New Testament, insisting he would only swear "in the name of God." Flusser commented in an editorial in the Jerusalem Post: "I do not know who is the God in whose name Eichmann swore, but I am certain that it is neither the God of Israel nor the God of the Christian church. It should now become clear to the strongest Jewish opponents of Christianity that Christianity per se imposes limitations, and that the greatest crime against our people was not committed in the name of the Christian faith".

Flusser published over 1,000 articles in Hebrew, German, English, and other languages. The results of his many academic writings can be found in his book, Jesus (1965), whose augmented second edition The Sage from Galilee (1998) was updated to incorporate his later research and views on Jesus.[1]
 
When Logos released the Judaism and Christianity Collection on pre-pub pricing, and I noticed that Flusser's works were a significant proportion of the collection, then I could hardly refuse to put in an order. I've already read Jesus (1965) as a hard copy but look forward to reading the other two titles, "Judaism and the Origins of Christianity" and "Judaism of the Second Temple Period."

I'm unfamiliar with the other authors so it will be interesting to see what they have to say.

[1] Source:  Wikipedia.

The Gospel of Moses

The Gospel of Moses is Athol Dickson's journey of discovery after he attends an interfaith bible study. In the study he discovers a new world of biblical inquiry where every question however irreverent is considered seriously. Nothing seems out of bounds, no subject too sacred for doubt and challenge:  Over time he learns of a biblical basis for questioning God. That far from being prideful or arrogant, a sincere question acknowledges the enquirer's lack of knowledge, God's power. "It honours Him."


As I follow Dickson's journey of enquiry, I find myself intrigued by the questions he seeks to unearth answers for:

• Why does Judaism hold the Shema in such high regard when the bible is replete with passages which on the face of it seem more profound?
• Why do bad things happen to good people? Is God limited in some way, unable to restrain evil or protect His chosen people?
• Israel is told to be holy because God is holy. The holiness they must maintain is compared to God's absolute standard of perfection. But is that really fair?

The Gospel of Moses exposes us to an investigation of God's paradoxes. Dickson shows that far from black holes full of risk and danger, they are portals to light and truth; opportunities to wrestle with God, engaging with Him as one friend to another. It is deep calling unto deep. This is a book that naturally leads to meditation and I highly recommend it.

-------
Sent from an Apple Newton MP2100

Torah for the Gentiles

Here's an interesting quote:

"The Torah was given in the desert, given with all publicity in a place to which no one had any claim, lest, if it were given in the land of Israel, the Jews might deny to the Gentiles any part of it."

Mekilta on Exodus 19.2

Newman, E I and Spitz, S (eds., 1945).  The Talmudic Anthology.  Berhman House.

New wine and old wineskins

Who hasn't heard of the parable of the cloth and wineskins in Luke 5:36-39?  Usually this parable is distilled like so:  The old wine is the old religious order or Old Covenant and the new wine is the new religious order ushered in by Christ or the New Covenant.

However, most writers ignore the context of the parable set by the question, which elicited the parable in the first place.  In Luke 5:33 Jesus is asked, John the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees have instituted a new set of fasts over and above the one's required by the Torah, why don't your disciples do the same?

Jesus puts forward two arguments:

1. While the Messiah (Bridegroom) is here, this is a time of celebration, there will be time enough to fast in the days to come when the Messiah is taken away.
2. These new fasts are like new wine.  The old wineskin is the established religious order.  These new fasts will damage the religious framework in place, so it shouldn't be done.  If new fasts are to be instituted then they need a new framework.  Having said that, one wouldn't carry out the new fasts when the established fasts are better.

This is quite a different story then the one traditionally taught.  Usually this parable is used to support the idea of leaving behind the old wineskin, Judaism and the Old Covenant, to embrace the new wineskin, Christianity and the New Covenant.  

Jesus isn't advocating a new religious order, in fact He appears to be endorsing the current one in place.  Thanks to Brad Young for pointing me in the right direction [1].

[1] Young B (1995).  Jesus the Jewish Theologian.  Hendrickson Publishers, MA, USA.  pp 155-160.

Biblical Governance

The Council of Nicea [Fresco in Sistine Salon, Vatican]

A few months ago, I was asked to draft a constitution for a new church for a group of people who had left a Baptist church. The constitution had the following provisions as checks and balances:

1. The Elders were to be elected by the Congregation.


2. One third of the Elders were to retire each year but they could put their names forward for re-election. This gave opportunity for fresh blood to be introduced but also gave Elders a reason to pause and reflect if they still had God's mandate for them to continue.


3. The Elders were responsible for annually reviewing the performance of the Minister.


4. The Minister was responsible for submitting an annual plan and budget for approval before the Elders.


5. Major Transactions: Any financial commitment valued at greater than half of the church's total assets or $100,000 (which ever was the lesser) would require an ordinary resolution at a Members' meeting.


6. The Elders were required to report back to the Congregation and to hold a forum to discuss the church's business every six months. Once at the Annual General Meeting and six months later at a Business Meeting.

Since they had recently worshipped at a Baptist church I assumed that voting would be an accepted practice amongst them. After reading the first draft, I was surprised that the new minister was strongly opposed to voting for Elders. I pointed out that the Greek word for "appoint" used in Acts, in the context of selecting Elders, was "Cheirotoneo" (G5500) could be translated as "a show of hands". Interestingly, I notice that in the ESV, Cheirotoneo is the only word translated as "appointed" in connection to Elders. He looked it up and said he felt it could be construed as a "laying on of hands."  Plato had used the word in the context of selecting Senators for the Athenian Parliament, and it would be difficult to imagine that they would tolerate anything but a vote. He replied that "God has gathered these people around me, and I will not allow anything that will put my ministry at risk. I'm not happy." 

Being a new church, I said the new members might be unfamiliar with each other, so interim Elders could be selected and then elections could be held, say, six months later. I spoke with another church member, who would later become one of the Elders about the matter and his reply was "we have been together for some weeks now, before you came along. If you do not like the way it is, then you don't have to come."

At the next church meeting, he proceeded to announce his selection of Elders based on "what God had told him."

Afterwards I approached one of the elders and advised him now that an eldership had been selected, it was appropriate for me to end my involvement in the development of the constitution.

Later I had the opportunity to review the final constitution and I see that they retained about half the text of the original document. However when it came to the checks and balances they replaced the before mentioned provisions with:

1. The Elders will be appointed by the Minister.


2. Their position as Elders will be for life and their tenure may only cease if they bring the church into disrepute, resign or die.


3. The Minister's relationship with the church is not one of employment but does not go on to define it further.


4. The requirement for an annual plan or budget was removed.


5. The requirement for member approval for major transactions was removed.


6. Business meetings could be requested by the congregation but must have the Elders' unanimous approval.


7. Special General Meetings could also be requested but must also have the Elders' unanimous approval.

Its interesting to note that Berakhot 55a, based on Exodus 35.30, also teaches that the consent of the governed is required in selecting communal leadership.


There is, however, another aspect which modernity assigns to legitimate leadership, particularly in Western democracies -- that is, leaders can only govern with the consent of the governed. This very principle is found in the Talmud:

"Rabbi Issac said: 'We do not appoint a communal leader unless the community is consulted,' as it is said, 'See the Lord has called by name, Betzalel.' (Exo 35.30) The Holy One said to Moses: 'Moses is Betzalel acceptable to you?' Moses said: 'Master of the Universe, if he is acceptable to You, he is certainly acceptable to me.' God said to Moses: 'Even so, go and ask them (i.e. Bnei Yisrael,... to get their consent)' Moses went and asked them: 'Is Betzalel acceptable to you?' They said to him, 'If he is acceptable to the Holy One and to you, he is acceptable to us.' (Berakhot 55a).

Obviously, the people's consent, if it is to be meaningful, must be both voluntary and knowing. Both Moses and Betzalel had to make full disclosure of their activities to obtain and maintain the people's consent -- even the approval of God is not sufficient. [Source: Goldrich, K S (2004). Parashat
Vayakhel-Pekudei Ha Hodesh.]




In the Mishnah, Peah 8.7, more than one person must handle public funds and distribution must be handled by a minimum of three. Yuma 38a suggests that transparency is a key factor in handling public funds and teaches that any appearance of impropriety should be avoided.

It is naive in the extreme to establish Christian churches and organisations without adequate provisions against the Evil Inclination.

Why is church governance relevant at all to the congregation, one may ask? Isn't it enough for the congregation to feel that they are being well shepherded and taught?

Divine Invitation v One Law

FFOZ has published a paper on their latest position on Torah Observance and Gentiles [1]. They have stepped back from their "One Law" stance and adopted a new theory which they have named "Divine Invitation". In their view Divine Invitation is more scripturally defensible than the One Law Doctrine.

Their arguments against the One-Law are built around Paul's opposition to circumcision, Jewish identity theft and disunity.

The question of the status of Gentile believers in the kingdom of God is a common thread to all the arguments. Addressing this question may present a way around the difficulty.

Paul seemed reluctant for Gentile Believers to undergo physical circumcision (see Galatians 5.3) , but did that mean they were not to be circumcised at all? In Colossians 2.11-12 Paul declares that Gentile believers have indeed been circumcised and baptised thus fulfilling the two requisite Rituals required for becoming a proselyte.

If all Gentile Believers are Proselytes then Numbers 15.15-16 applies and One Law is thereby established.

If then a Gentile Believer becomes Torah Observant, wouldn't they outwardly begin to bear some resemblance to Jewish culture which traditionally has had the same goal?

FFOZ have been repelled by One Law because of the disunity it creates between believers. There is no doubt that the Torah itself has a sanctifying effect. It is a sword that divides. Rather than discarding One Law perhaps the problem is an inappropriate application of Galatians 6.1.

[1] Michael, B and Lancaster D T (2009). Messiah Journal. Issue 101. pp 46-70

Were Gentile believers meant to observe the Torah?

Bereans Online has a really good discussion about the relationship between ethnically Jewish believers and Gentile believers within the kingdom of God. The discussion is within the context of an examination of a new theory called "Divine Invitation Theology."

This new teaching reasons that because the Apostles would have seen the issue through the lens of the LXX, they would have not considered the believing Gentile in the same category as the ger as mentioned in the Torah. Hence, this new teaching claims that none of the Torah passages that refer to gerim apply to today’s believing Gentiles.

Key texts used by this new teaching:

As for the assembly of, there shall be one statute for Jews and for the proselyte, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as a Jew is, so shall the proselyte be before HaShem. There is to be one Torah and one ordinance for Jews and for the proselyte who sojourns with you. Numbers 15:15-16 (paraphrased)

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1 NKJV

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:5

Bereans Online responds:

This new teaching introduces several anachronisms into the discussion. It also pretends to know the way that the Apostles “read” the Scriptures – denying the power of the Holy Spirit to clearly communicate through His eternal word in their native language: Hebrew. If the Apostles were biased to accept what this new teaching contends was the First Century practice of proselytism by the LXX, then that very position undermines their subsequent rulings as extra-biblical, and having no authority for the believer then or now.

While the Septuagint (LXX) is invaluable to our understanding of ancient Hebrew as well as First Century Greek, using it the way that this new teaching does is anachronistic. It takes the usage of the word “proselutos” as it was used in a time after the First Century and projects it back into the days of the Apostles – and then even further back to the time of the translating of the LXX (270 BCE). This ignores the history and etymology of the Greek word “proselutos.”

During the reign of the King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (of Selucid Egypt), around 270 BCE, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. Traditionally, this translation was made by seventy [LXX] Jewish scholars.

The translators of the Septuagint considered the context of each usage of the word ger [stranger, sojourner] to consider if it was referring to a covenant member or a pagan. When the context dictated that the reference was to a Gentile covenant member, they translated ger into the Greek word proselutos. It is from this word that we get the English word “proselyte.” Much
confusion has arisen because of the character that this word acquired after the translating of the Septuagint. When the Septuagint was written, this Greek word was found nowhere else. The word seems to have come into existence solely for the purposes of the Septuagint translators – and its usage is not divinely inspired. It was the translators’ paraphrase.

The Greek adjective proselutos comes from pros [toward] and erxomai [to come or go]. In other words, “to come over toward.” This usage started as a way to describe those covenant members who were not members of the covenant community of Israel by birth. This usage eventually redefined the word. It started off as a way to identify those Gentiles who “crossed over” to side with the God of Israel and to live with Israel in the covenant community (to “come near” is Temple language).

It was only later that the word came to mean “those who formally converted” to another religion. The important distinction is that the word was not used in the Septuagint because it implied formal conversion, but rather because it described the actual way that such people could be distinguished: namely, that they had drawn near to Israel to participate in the worship of the One True God. It is anachronistic to read the Septuagint usage of the word proselutos and the present meaning of “proselyte” back into the usage at the time of the translating of the Septuagint. To assume that the Apostles did not correctly read and use the Hebrew text is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in helping them rule correctly regarding Gentiles.

Normative Judaism has this same usage of the word “ger.” Many English translations that are used in normative Judaism translate the word “ger” as “proselyte.” For instance, the Stone Chumash translates Leviticus 19:34 in this way:

The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a – Stone Chumash

If the word ger was translated consistently, it would read:

The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were a proselyte in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a

This is obviously a case of writing a theology into the text as opposed to allowing the text to frame our teaching. This is a fundamental principle in Bible study: the text informs us, we do not inform the text. The Bereans of Acts 17 practiced exegesis (meaning from the text), not eisegesis (meaning into the text). Eisegesis is something used by experimental theologies.

There is no Scriptural basis for “ritual conversion” or to become a proselyte. The Scriptures speak against those who would seek to gain some sort of “Jewish identity” by undergoing this man-made ritual. Beloved, it is a man-made tradition that says that a man or woman can become a Jew by undergoing a ceremony – it is not the Torah.

When this new teaching promotes the idea that the Apostles fell into the trap of allowing the practice of ritual conversion to twist their understanding of Scripture, it is a great concern. If, as this new teaching asserts, the Apostles read the passages pertaining to gerim and their covenant obligations and were influenced by a much later understanding of the Greek word “proselutos” then it is proof that their teaching of Acts 15 and 21 is in error, and is only included in the Apostolic Scriptures to give us an account of how they made that error. While we do not consider this to be the case, we are steadfast in our understanding that G-d’s Word is immutable. It does not change meaning as the culture or language around it changes. It means precisely today, what it meant in the ancient past – and it will mean the same for all of eternity.

This idea of ritual conversion through circumcision to become a Jew has created considerable confusion for Christians. To become an ethnic Jew is unnecessary for Salvation, for Salvation is by faith alone. As part of that faith, one should become faithful to God's commandments, and if one is moved by the Spirit to do so, the Gentile believer may undergo circumcision.

Sometimes circumcision is mentioned in the bible as part of the commandments, at other times, the writer intends the ritual conversion to become a Jew. How can the reader tell the difference?