Way back in 2008 I coined a term for Christian insistence that Jewish followers of Jesus should give up their Jewish identity, declare the covenant God made with Jewish people at Sinai to be obsolete, and eat ham at the church supper. The term I coined was “reverse Galatianism.”
Recently, a friend and a New Testament scholar whose credentials far exceed my own, David Rudolph, emailed and said he was trying to remember what that term was that I coined. So, in answering his question, I went back and looked at my old “Reverse Galatianism” post. Here it is (with a few edits) and it is just as relevant now as it was way back in the dusty recesses of 2008:
Galatianism. That is the error which Paul fought against in Asia Minor. Some Jews, whether Messianic Jews or traditional Jews we cannot really say (see Mark Nanos, The Irony of Galatians, for a case that they were traditional Jews). Galatianism is the false belief that non-Jews must become Jews and take on the yoke of Torah in order to be in Messiah or to grow in Messiah.
I am sad to say that the book of Galatians has made little impact on many in the Hebrew Roots and broader Messianic movement. Many would say just what the opponents of Paul in Galatians were saying: that non-Jews must follow Torah to obey Messiah. How do these interpreters get around the message of Galatians? They say that Paul was only arguing against converting to Judaism and not against Gentiles taking on Torah observance. They say that circumcision is required for Christian children but that it must not be understood as a sign of conversion. They say either that Torah observance is required or that it is a matter of spiritual growth with the mature moving out of Gentile ways and into the Torah over time.
Galatianism bothers me. It is one of the reasons the church world looks at “Messianic Judaism,” speaking in the broader sense of the term, and thinks we are ridiculous. It seems we cannot understand the simplest of New Testament teachings.
But if Galatianism bothers me, reverse Galatianism grieves me (and I’d rather be bothered than grieved). Reverse Galatianism is the false belief that Jews must become as non-Jews in order to be in Messiah or in order to grow in Messiah.
That’s right, there is an opposite error to Galatianism. But you ask, “Why didn’t Paul address this issue?” My answer would be two-fold:
1. It wasn’t a problem in Paul’s time. No one was telling Jews to quit keeping Sabbath and to stop worshipping at the Temple daily.
2. The ongoing responsibility of Jewish people to God’s covenant with Israel was assumed. Paul would be appalled (pun?) to see the lack of respect for Jewish identity and covenantal responsibility in the church world today.
Let me explain a little more what Reverse Galatianism is and how it affects opinions in the modern church world:
- Why do those Messianic Jews need to be separate? Why don’t they simply join us?
- Why do I, a Jewish believer in Jesus, need to consider a Messianic Congregation when I’ve got this big, happy mega-church with so many more programs and people to meet?
- The New Testament mission called for unity of Jew and Gentile, one new man, and so we must be one new man (and that new man is Gentile, by the way).
- Jewish identity has no more meaning than any other ethnic identity. It is pre-Christian and should be given up for the cause of unity. (Meanwhile, I attend a church whose culture is closest to my own and would hate to see my rock concert style church start using country music or hip hop or old hymns or whatever — but still, really, I speak with authority about this shedding pre-Christian ethnic identity thing).
- The Torah is obsolete and I wish Messianic Jews would realize that none of that matters now. (What? Those verses about the Torah remaining until heaven and earth disappear? Well, those are unclear and I prefer to interpret them in light of the much clearer passages that say Torah is obsolete.)
- It’s not healthy for Messianic Jews to separate. It keeps the Congregation of Messiah divided. But the dividing wall of separation is abolished (Eph. 2). We should all come together. (Meanwhile, our churches are more segregated than the Old South).
Reverse Galatianism is the error of thinking that while Gentiles must not be forced to become Jews, still it is for the best if Jews in Messiah become Gentiles.
One reply to our call for strong Jewish identity and the need for Messianic Jewish congregations, is to say, “But Jews can remain Jews and worship with everyone else in a one-size-fits-all church.”
I understand that many well-meaning people who love Israel and the Jewish people feel this way. It is the best and kindest rebuttal to Messianic Judaism I have heard. The problem is, this is the response of people who do not know what it means to be Jewish or to live Torah. You often cannot understand another community if you have not lived in their shoes.
Take as an analogy the black community in America. Many black Christians choose to worship in churches targeted to their community. Those who believe Messianic Jews should assimilate into normal church life might be inclined to think the same way about black Christians. But I would ask them, “Have you experienced life as an African-American? Do you know what it is to walk in their shoes? Do you honestly believe that your Anglo church is going to address the needs of this community?” [Note: I fully respect people who worship in multi-cultural communities, but I do hope the leadership realizes, culture does matter and we are not all the same.]
With Messianic Jews the issues run on another plane. Not only do Jewish people have ethnic issues, history, and pressures to face, but there is also the matter of covenantal obligation to the Torah. And the Torah is not something meant to be kept in isolation. Torah is a community affair. That is precisely what many of our critics do not understand. Torah and Jewish life are meant to be lived together and mutually reinforced. How would that happen in a church setting where no one fasts on Yom Kippur and where Saturday is sometimes a work day for fixing up the church grounds and where ham is on the Wednesday night dinner menu?
So, please do weigh in on this issue. Can you see the need for Messianic Jews to band together? Can Messianic Judaism be in unity with churches without giving up its distinctiveness?
One more time Derek,
Our identity is in Messiah, not in Judaism. and for you to say to the Christian Churches that they don’t know the culture of Judaism because they did not experience, is a farce, don’t you think so?
Dan:
A person’s identity is in many things. My identity, for example, is that of an American, that of the father of eight children, that of a lover of science fiction and fantasy, that of a student of the Bible and theology, and of a child of God through Yeshua the Messiah. My identity is also in Jewish history and tradition and culture. Many things affect my identity.
When a Jewish believer in Jesus comes to a church, the people in that church think the Torah does not matter. They think the Jewish believer need not circumcise sons on the 8th day, etc. They think Jesus erases Torah. Some even pretend that Jesus erases culture (because they falsely equate their own culture with neutrality).
Derek,
1) Paul never mentioned America, nor Judaism, science fiction, fatherhood and all the rest. He kept saying again and again IN MESSIAH.
2) Jews who are treated badly in the Church they should separate, but Gentiles who experience the same at MJ UMJC style should stay to serve the Jews?
Oh please. Don’t tell me you don’t also identify as a Jew, a man, and an Israeli.
“Can Messianic Judaism be in unity with churches without giving up its distinctiveness?”
This is a question which is very close to my heart and I’m glad that you are encouraging people to “weigh in” on this issue.
There seems to be an exegetical problem with the bilateral ecclesiologist interpretation of “yoke” in Galatians 5 (and also Acts 15). I’ll briefly discuss this point. Next, there seems to be a problem with demanding that gentiles retain a gentile identity so that Jews can feel free to remain Jews.
Rudolph writes:
“Factoring in Luke’s account, we conclude that there are two universal rules in the New Testament that enjoin Jews to remain Jews, and Gentiles to remain Gentiles–one authorized by Paul (1 Cor 7:17-24) and the other by the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 15)” (Pg. 14 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”).
Now, one would naturally wonder what Rudolph means by gentiles remaining gentiles. He explains that they remain gentiles by not following the Torah:
“In Acts 21:17-26, the mirror text of Acts 15…James anticipates Paul’s concern that a public testimony of Torah faithfulness may be misinterpreted by Jesus- believing Gentiles to mean that they too should be Torah observant.” (Pg 13 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”).
Rudolph is arguing that the apostles had a great concern: that gentiles would get the wrong idea and start following Torah.
Rudolph believes that a universal rule commanding gentiles to not follow Torah is necessary because of two rationales:
(1) when a gentile Believer follows Torah he is committing the error of supersessionism (see pg. 16 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”). Derek, one of your definitions for supersessionism was that it involved “non-Jews assuming Israel’s place as the Torah-keeping people” (http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/beliefs/).
(2) allowing an uncircumcised Believer to practice Torah will destroy a Jewish Believer’s identity (“Without such commitment [to "Paul's rule"]…Jews in churches will naturally gravitate toward assimilation, as they have done throughout history” pg. 20 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”).
Where is Rudolph getting all of this?
He relies heavily on the following passage:
Galatians 5:1-4
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Rudolph’s exegesis is as follows:
“In Galatians 5:3… The apostle upholds the Second Temple Jewish understanding that ritual circumcision initiates one into the covenant. Covenant responsibilities (detailed in the law) are binding on the circumcised one” (pg. 8 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”)
Now we arrive at the one point I’d like to make. If Rudolph is wrong about this passage then his entire argument collapses. Here is the core upon which his argument hinges: he is saying that the “yoke” in Galatians refers to the Torah as symbolized by circumcision. But is this really how you interpret this word?
Vs 4 in Galatians 5 indicates that Paul is not talking about Torah being the problem but RATHER when folks use circumcision for works-based salvation. Read Paul’s words here closely:
“4 You who are trying to be justified by the law…”
My question for you Derek: Isn’t it possible that Paul believes the Galatian’s error to be the false doctrine of works-based justification? Isn’t it possible that this “yoke” is not an intimate loving expression of devotion to G-d (i.e. Torah) but is rather the unbearable yoke of works-based justification?
After all, following the positive commands of Torah which have been intimately revealed in Tenak (Divine Revelation) are the greatest form of intimacy one can express for G-d. Why wouldn’t G-d want the gentiles by birth to experience the level of intimacy in the positive commands of Torah such as the chukim and edot?
Love you brother Derek,
Peter
P.S. Your blog is awesome. This is so much fun to discuss these issues with you.
Peter,
I am commenting on this thread in response to your email.
You’ve mischaracterized Rudolph’s argument pretty severely, so much so that I am not sure you have really considered it seriously. First, he doesn’t argue that Gentiles remain Gentiles by not observing Torah. They remain Gentiles by not converting to Judaism as proselytes. Do you understand what proselyte conversion is and how it changes someone’s status and obligations?
Furthermore, the core of Rudolph’s argument is not Galatians 5:1-4. Rudolph develops a broad intertextual argument that Paul viewed Gentiles and Jews as having different sets of responsibilities in Christ. You don’t even come close to addressing this argument, let alone causing it to “collapse,” by your exegesis of Gal. 5:1-4.
By the way, did you ever have that conversation with Dr. Rudolph? Did he not give you a satisfactory answer to your concerns with BE?
See, I knew you’d want in on this discussion. : )
Seriously, thanks for presenting a substantive opposing view. I know that you’re a very busy man.
Blessings to you in Yeshua,
Peter
P.S. I’ll have to email you in regard to my discussion with Rudolph as it contained some private aspects.
Sent you the email.
BTW, I did characterize Rudolph’s arguments correctly and I quoted him in his own words. If anything was incorrect then he is free to come on this site and show how his words meant something other than their plain meaning.
Quoting someone and correctly analyzing their argument aren’t even in the same universe, friend. Please read his monograph again and pay attention to the structure and flow of his argument.
Just saying that I’m wrong doesn’t prove your point. In a productive dialogue, you don’t just to someone “You’re wrong–go check your facts.” If I’m wrong, then you are welcome to cite evidence as to why I’m wrong. But all you have done is state conclusions without backing them up. Notice that I thoroughly back up everything I say.
Blessings,
Peter
Peter:
I agree with you that the problem in Galatians is not Torah itself. In fact, I would say David Rudolph agrees with you. (I know David personally, by the way).
So, to be clear, the problem in Galatia is that these gentiles were told they were not acceptable to God without conversion (circumcision = conversion, which is what Rudolph is saying). The idea of being “saved by works” here means ” being “saved by conversion.”
Now, Paul did have Timothy undergo circumcision. People debate whether this was conversion or not. If matrilineal descent was not accepted in the first century, then Timothy was a non-Jew until Paul had him circumcised. If this is true, the rule against conversion for Paul was not absolute.
But Paul’s general policy, especially because of the false doctrine of that time, was to forbid conversions. Too many people were doing it for the wrong reason (to be saved).
I understand that you will now say, “So, requiring circumcision for salvation was wrong, but nothing in Galatians opposes the idea of requiring circumcision for obedience.” To clarify for others: many say Paul forbade those who believed in the first generation of gentiles to be circumcised, but he expected that they would circumcise their sons and start keeping Torah.
I don’t agree with that at all. Paul’s larger point is not only freedom-from-circumcision-to-be-saved but gentile-freedom-from-Jewish-identity-markers period.
Here is another way of saying what I believe is at the heart of Galatians:
(1) God made a general covenant to bless all nations in Abraham.
(2) God made a specific covenant at Sinai with Israel only.
(3) The false gospel is putting gentiles under the Sinai Covenant, which is for Israel only.
(4) Gentiles and Jews inherit the Abrahamic promise by faith.
(5) The Sinai Covenant includes much teaching that can be universally applied, but it is not binding on gentiles as a covenant.
Rabbi,
If I may chime in. First, I think that your article above (Reverse Galatianism) is outstanding. This is a great way of explaining the false interpretations and bad theology that exist (and have existed for centuries) within the body of Messiah.
A believer (whether Jew or Gentile) must understand the core meaning of Paul’s message and writings or they miss everything. They miss the mark and miss the true meaning of the New Covenant. Simply put, Paul’s message was to preserve the law but NOT impose it on the gentiles. That’s it. That is the heart of Paul’s message.
The main issue in the early church was whether gentiles need to first become “Jewish” to be a follower of Yeshua. Over the centuries, this issue has been completely turned upside down. It is truly sad that so many Christian theologians have misinterpreted Paul’s teachings for 2000 years. If you do not understand the heart of Paul’s message, if you do not grasp what Paul MEANT, than you will never be on solid theological footing.
Now modern day Messianic Jews are charged with the difficult task of “un-ringing” a false bell that has been emanating for centuries.
Understanding Paul’s message doesn’t take brain surgery. But when millions of believers have been weened on bad theology and embraced a falsehood as truth, it sure seems like brain surgery ain’t a bad idea.
One need not be genius to understand Paul’s message–just a truth seeker with an open mind and heart.
Derek,
Read Rudolph carefully here:
“In Galatians 5:3, Paul makes the same point in more explicit language ‘Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised…that he is obliged to obey the entire law’–Paul uses circumcision here as pars pro toto language for keeping all of God’s commandments” (pg. 8 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”)
Rudolph is not interpreting this passage as talking about the Pharisaic “circumcision for salvation” (see Acts 15:1); Rudolph is arguing that Paul is using pars pro toto language to discourage gentiles from following Torah, that they should think twice before getting circumcised because that would mean taking on a “yoke” of Torah. And Rudolph is inferring from this the following:
“The apostle upholds the Second Temple Jewish understanding that ritual circumcision initiates one into the covenant. Covenant responsibilities (detailed in the law) are binding on the circumcised one” (pg.
My point is simply that if you interpret Galatians 5 as Paul addressing the error of works-based salvation (“You who are trying to be justified by the law” vs 4) then verse 3 takes on a whole new light. Here’s verse 3:
“Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”
If the context here is that Paul is angry at those who become circumcised–thinking it will bring salvation–then it does not follow that Paul is upholding “the Second Temple Jewish understanding that ritual circumcision initiates one into the covenant” (Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule” pg 8).
Do you understand what I’m saying, Derek? Rudolph hinges his argument on an interpretation of Galatians 5 that does not fit with the context of the passage.
Yours respectfully,
Peter
I don’t know why my reference posted as a smiley emoticon. The reference was page 8 of Rudolph’s “Paul’s Rule”.
I apologize for this question since, in the current context, I’m sure it will seem a little naive, but if the non-Jewish disciples of the Master in the first century “church” were supposed to bear a yoke of Torah equal to the Jewish disciples, where did they go? That is, why don’t we have any sort of record of “Torah observant Messianic Gentiles” in the New Testament writings (we don’t as far as I can see)? For that matter, why don’t we have any record of Torah-keeping non-Jewish “Christians” in the extra-Biblical historic writings of that period?
Could it be because they never existed?
Well, James, check up on the history of Shabbat keeping in the Christian Church all the way to the end of the 4th Century.
Why wasn’t there any mention of Jewish believers keeping Torah until MJ was established?
James,
It’s not a naive question; it’s a fantastic question.
We do have a record in the New Testament that the gentiles followed Torah.
First, a brief explanation: under the Old Covenant, uncircumcised ethnic gentiles (UEGs) could not participate in the sacrifice of Passover–they couldn’t experience the lamb. Exodus 12:48 was an absolute bar. Under the New Covenant, on the other hand, Messiah Yeshua is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5). This means that UEGs can participate in the true Passover–in the most intimate way imaginable.
Passover was the covenant which created Israel (see Elazar’s “The Jewish Polity”) and all participants in it were considered “ezrach” (i.e. citizens). Ephesians 2 says that UEGs used to be excluded from the plural covenants but that they are now currently citizens along with the rest of Israel.
Since the Apostles considered UEGs to be ezrach then it would follow that they taught them to observe Torah as a requirement, yes? And, indeed, they did:
Romans 2:15 “They [UEGs] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.”
Rom 2:26 “So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?”
1 Cor 7:19 “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.”
1 Thess. 2:14 “14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews.”
Philippians 4:9 “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
Philippians 3:17 “Join together in following my example, brothers and sisters, and just as you have us as a model, keep your eyes on those who live as we do.”
Now, back to this “yoke” in Galatians 5. It wasn’t a yoke of Torah that was being discussed. Remember 1 John 5:3 says “This is love for God: to obey His Commandments. And His commands are not burdensome…” How could an expression of love, after all, ever be thought to be an “unbearable yoke”?
And now finally back to your question:
What happened to these Torah-observant UEGs? What happened to the entire Torah-observant Messianic community after the 1st century?
Apparently, Paul’s words came true. He indicated that there would be some sort of disaster:
“I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.”
We don’t really know how the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. affected the Torah-observant community. But we do know that this was a terrible, terrible event. It affected us all–circumcised or not. And then Rome persecuted all the Believers it could find. I don’t why it happened. I just know that it did happen.
We’re then left with the record of the early ethnic gentile Believers who were taught to follow models of Torah-observance (e.g. the Judean congregations, Timothy, Paul himself, etc) and who were evidenced throughout as practicing previously forbidden aspects of Torah (e.g. participating in the true sacrificial Passover Lamb). They had the identity of ezrach (Eph 2) and this led inexorably to a Torah praxeology.
Do you find any of this evidence persuasive?
BTW, James, I’ve really enjoyed reading your comments on this site. They have been a huge blessing.
Sincerely,
Peter
@Dan: That non-Jewish disciples kept, or at least worshipped with their Jewish mentors on Shabbat does not imply full Gentile observance of the Torah commandments. Based on Paul’s visits to mixed Jewish/non-Jewish synagogues in the diaspora, it is reasonable that the early Messianic disciples all worshiped on Shabbat. Gentiles probably kept some form of kosher as well if they were to have table fellowship with the Jewish Messianics. Acts 10 records the Roman god-fearer Corneilius saying afternoon prayers, probably modeled on the Jewish “schedule” of prayers. However none of this paints us a picture of Gentile disciples who wore tzitzit and tefillin in prayer, circumsized their male children on the eighth day of life, or otherwise mimicked the Jewish disciples in total Torah obedience.
@Peter: I’m off to an appointment soon, so I won’t have a chance to review your points in detail for awhile. However, Derek is very knowledgable in these matters, much more so than I, so maybe he’ll pop in and respond.
Thanks.
I read in Toby Janicki’s book on Tefillin that early Christians would bind the Gospel of John, I believe. Marks on doorways and stuff. He hastened to add that any gentile who wanted tefillin check with local authorities to ensure it causes no stir. But all in all, that in combination with the Didache’s admonition to “do what you can bear,” I think there is a good case to be made that they did some stuff of Torah observance.
I mean, to me, (and I’m an ant among you) Deut. 4:6-8 says so much about the Torah as something that enamors nations. Why that would change with the Messiah I have no idea.
As a kid I remember being drawn to aspects of Torah and having it slapped out of my hand, basically. Is it not reasonable to assume that there is not something intrinsically alluring about it?
I mean if so many people today as gentiles like it for its own sake, I can definitely imagine observance outside Antioch and other places.
And bigots like John Chrysostom even went so far as to purge Christians from observing Yom Teruah. It stands to reason that church edict was reacting to something they saw as “crossing a line.”
For most messianic Jews this is a non-issue. When I first became a believer 15 years ago I didn’t even know what a messianic congregation was. It took 5 or 6 years and a relocation to discover that there were other Jews like myself who had their own communities. Just think of the ratio of churches to messianic synagogues…then subtract the way-too-kooky communities and see that there are hardly any congregations to choose from. I suppose if all the Jews came out of the churches there might be more communities out there. I think the messianic movement needs to follow the example of Chabad (in a limited sense, obviously) and start planting congregations in college towns and communities with a Jewish presence. But at this point in the movement I would venture to guess that most messianic jews worship in churches simply because there aren’t other options.
A good batch of comments today. I wish I had more time to go into detail about everything various commenters have said.
Peter, I think if we discussed a good exegesis of Romans 2 I might possibly be able to persuade you that 2:15 and 2:26 are not talking about Torah as covenant (which would include identity markers like Sabbath and circumcision) but the teaching that can be found in Torah which applies to humanity (like love, loyalty, goodness, justice, etc.). Paul’s subject in that section, as I recall, is universal guilt and for gentiles this is guilt from our innate sense of good and evil. The commands of God for a gentile do not include all the commands of God for a Jew. But for me to do a good job of explaining Romans 2, I would want to spend a few hours on it — which I do not have right now. I do have a Romans chapter in my Paul book.
Derek,
You wrote: “Peter, I think if we discussed a good exegesis of Romans 2 I might possibly be able to persuade you that 2:15 and 2:26 are not talking about Torah as covenant (which would include identity markers like Sabbath and circumcision) but the teaching that can be found in Torah which applies to humanity (like love, loyalty, goodness, justice, etc.). ”
Derek, if you can make an argument that will dissuade me from associating those passages with an apparently mirror passage in Jeremiah 31:31-34 then you will only need to prove one further thing to collapse my argument. You will need to refute my previously cited evidence that uncircumcised ethnic gentile Believers are ezrach. If you can do both things then I will accept your proposition that uncircumcised ethnic Believers in the New Covenant do not have a covenantal responsibility to follow the kol hamitzvah (and that’s not bad hebrew grammar if you know parsha eikev).
Cheers,
Peter
Derek, good post. Your last question, “Can Messianic Judaism be in unity with churches without giving up its distinctiveness?” is such a relevant question. I am not by any means a big-word scholar. I am simple. I like visual pictures that help me relate to what the Holy Scriptures are trying to get me to enact in my daily walk. Duet 6:4. Hear oh Israel…God is one! I personally am being hounded by the Holy Spirit, the Word of G-d, specifically Jeremiah 34, and personal experiences with pastors outside our group that have been frighteningly divisive, to begin to speak with volume about Echad. Oneness. I think sometimes that the issue has become who has the better exegesis. If mine is better than yours, our fellowship is limited and certainly suspect if we do fellowship. I look at our once blessed country and find it failing and have asked at length in prayer why. I can only look at the thousands of denominations in Christianity and say that if we are given the most incredible honor of revealing that Echad of Elohim (Elohim! for goodness sake) and we live in the most divisive era perhaps in our history, what does that say about our witness? I believe that it is paramount that Jews that believe in Yeshua must stand with formerly Gentile but now Israelite, Believers in Yeshua. Our inter-community arguments that create pits and fractures in our unity have to cease. I hope you are given great grace to bring the two together. We surely need it.
Shalom, k.brooks
If I might address the original question:
My desire as a Gentile believer and congregational leader would be that Messianic Jews would feel welcome in my church and that they would be encouraged to contribute their viewpoint to the rest of the church through their words and actions, being a living witness to Messianic Jewish theology and practice.
I would also hope that they could find a permanent home in a local synagogue in which the Torah was lived out in community and the forms of worship were authentically Jewish. Given that there are not many such congregations I would encourage any local MJ’s (I’m not aware of any) to start one.
Furthermore, I would hope that interested believers from my congregation would be welcomed at said synagogue.
There are barriers, to be sure. I know a lot of people are convinced it’s an either/or proposition: church or synagogue. But this strict dichotomy is unnecessary. Scholars like Paula Fredricksen, among others, have written that such a state of affairs – a porous, flexible barrier between church and synagogue – existed well into the fourth century and perhaps beyond.
So would you differ from Kinzer’s strict segregationist approach? He said:
“Only one structural arrangement would allow for distinctive Jewish communal life within the context of a transnational community of Jews and Gentiles: the one ecclesia must consist of two corporate subcommunities, each with its own formal or informal governmental and communal structures. Thus…the ekklesia is bilateral.” pg. 152 of Postmissionary Messianic Judaism
Jacob, it’s good to hear that you are so welcoming and understanding of Messianic Jews. I also appreciate your nuanced understanding of the practical realities of Messianic life and your balanced approach to such issues.
Blessings to you,
Peter
No. As Kinzer suggested, the formal governing and communal structures under the paradigm I advocate would remain separate. My church for example is aligned with the American Baptist Churches USA and it will always be a plain old Sunday church with traditional Christian practices.
But the boundary between church and Messanic synagogue can be, as I wrote, flexible and porous. Some people, like myself, would attend both types of congregations regularly, though they would officially affiliate (as I do) with one or the other. This kind of informal crossover is necessary and very natural, but it’s also necessary and quite natural to have the two different types of congregation. Like any two social groups with commonalities, there is overlap and interaction, but the two social groups still maintain their unique identities and their members preserve their unique affiliations.
I don’t think Kinzer would advocate some kind of strict social segregation; I was warmly invited to his congregation, Zera Avraham, and enjoyed the service there very much. I think it’s necessary in this conversation to distinguish between formal social groups and their respective modes of self-governance on one hand, and on the other hand, the kind of informal crossover that happens all the time, including ad hoc social circles with no formal basis for governance or affiliation, entry or exit.
This informal crossover happens even in situations where it is conceivably more difficult – two Sunday churches. It is impossible to attend services for our church and for the Baptist church in the next town in the same week. Yet we have several members who are officially affiliated with our church yet hop back and forth from week to week because they have friends there – informal social relationships. It would be even easier for me to attend a local Messianic synagogue (if there were one) and not have to give up attendance at the church I am officially affiliated with.
Jacob,
You wrote that you believe that the communal structures should remain separate. This is segregation, yes?
The United States Supreme Court had something interesting to say about the psychological and social disadvantages of segregation in their Brown v. Board of Education decision. Here are some quotes which I will let speak for themselves:
“To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”
“The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”
“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Peter,
I see what you are doing. You are trying to cram BE into a box you can label as “segregation” and them slam it with the dogma of political correctness. It’s not going to work, because the separate governing structures I am talking about are voluntary and are erected by the social groups themselves because they want to preserve group identity, not because it’s being forced on them by legislation.
There are thousands of churches and denominational structures in Christianity that are separately governed. Many of them are voluntarily segregated, being predominantly White, African-American, Korean, Burmese, Chinese, etc. There is no reason a Jewish congregation should be cause for concern.
I doubt that you are concerned about MJ’s feeling inferior as this whole thing is an idea born out of Messianic Judaism, so I can only assume that you are worried about Gentiles feeling inferior for not being Jewish. But you don’t seem to feel the same way about the Korean, Burmese, Chinese churches. I’m sure you could drop in and they’d welcome you. I’ve visited a few myself and they’re all very friendly. But I don’t belong there. That culture is not my culture. There’s no reason to pretend that it is.
I seem to be getting a vibe from you that you think you have some kind of inalienable right to be part of a Messianic Jewish synagogue. Well in my experience most MJ synagogues are friendly places and I’m sure you could drop in and visit. But you’re never going to be Jewish unless you convert officially. If that’s what you want to do, you should talk to a Messianic rabbi.
Here’s the difference: Bilateral ecclesiologists would impose racial segregation as policy whereas those Christian denominations would never do that. Any segregation in a Korean church is by chance rather than specific planning. They do not purposefully institute segregation doctrine.
I’m not cramming BE into a segregation box. I’ve shown you that this is what Kinzer and Rudolph believe because I’ve shown you their own words.
Again, I challenge them to come on here and refute their own words if this plain meaning does not correlate to their intended meaning.
By chance? Really? All the Koreans in town went to church one Sunday and it happened to be the same one?
I think I’ve made my point sufficiently clear… I don’t know why you’re having so much trouble with this. If you want to be Jewish, go convert. If not, stop complaining that the Jews want to get together on Shabbos and be Jewish together.
This is in response to your comment below–I’m not sure how to keep these in sequence.
Yes, by chance. The Koreans band together because nobody else here speaks their language–it’s not like they don’t want to associate based on race. And they don’t have an express racial segregation policy like Kinzer/Rudolph.
In many Korean churches, most of the Koreans speak English. In some, services and songs are in English. This is the case even in Korea. And no, there is no official “Korean-only” policy but there are certainly informal (and often friendly) ways a community lets someone know that they aren’t in the right place. Even if you hang around long enough, make friends, and get accepted, it will always be obvious that you’re still not Korean.
The primary texts under discussion date from a time period in which ethnicity, nationality, language, and religion were largely coterminous. Even in a modern multicultural society, people from different ethnic, religious, and linguistic backgrounds voluntarily band together. Archaeological evidence confirms that this was the case with synagogues in the first century and it’s true with congregations today. The fact that we’re all believers doesn’t change that.
Your idyllic Utopia in which all nationalities forsake their language and ethnic identity to worship in heterogenous churches has never existed and will never exist.
The real question is, why do you feel the need to force churches to disband and integrate? Or more to the heart of the matter, why don’t you feel comfortable in a church with other Gentile believers who speak your language and are part of your culture?
Jacob,
Let me get this straight: you want segregation and think it’s okay because a multitude of people are doing this and have done it for centuries. Does this summarize your view?
(and enough with the Koreans already–I don’t believe they’re purposefully engaging in racial segregation but even if they are that’s not a reason why we should engage in racial segregation).
Peter,
I’ve done all I can for you. It seems you have a very specific agenda and have no desire to understand BE or listen to anyone who does.
If you ever change your mind and want to learn more about the Divine election of the Jewish race, read Wyschogrod and Soulen. Until then, peace out.
And when you’re ready to cite evidence for your views as I have (vaguely referring to Soulen doesn’t count) then I’ll be waiting. And I’ll continue to show you love and respect which you have never shown to me.
Blessings to you,
Peter
And of course it’s cause for concern: any form of racial segregation is cause for concern when Yeshua called us to be one body.
And maybe I am missing something: your argument appears to be that since everyone is committing racial segregation then it’s not bad. Is this right?
Keith:
I’d like to try to persuade you that unity does not mean uniformity. There are many differences in style, opinions about doctrine, and traditions that I think are wonderful and should not be erased to form one-size-fits-all congregations. For example, I have enjoyed the occasions when I have spoken in Baptist churches in the black community. There is a style there which I find to be powerful and heartening. Yet such a community would not be the best place for me and my family. Neither would my heavily Jewish congregation be the place for them. So instead we are brothers and sisters of unity within diversity. We have had visitors from among them and vice versa.
I would also like to try and get you to rethink something in this statement: “I believe that it is paramount that Jews that believe in Yeshua must stand with formerly Gentile but now Israelite, Believers in Yeshua. “ I think that your belief that you and other gentile followers of Yeshua are now Israelites is a distortion. Should I assume that you determined this from Paul’s writing? And yet what he says is that you are a wild branch grafted on the olive tree (Rom 11) and of the commonwealth, but not the nation itself (Eph 2).
Derek, sorry, had been meaning to get over and check if you had put up a response. You can more than get me to rethink…just this action of discussing it with you has caused me to rethink. I guess I am not as focused on the cultural. I understand that people are connected to the communities, and indeed, the lineage that they are raised in. I am not on a crusade to end social distinctions; in some ways we are better for them much like a man is better for the opposite perspective that is his wife.
Perhaps it can just be my terminology. I really hate the damage that discord does to people and to the body. I have witnessed it and been a victim of it. I am a so called “Gentile” but have suffered persecution at the hands of Bible-Believing Christians because I spend a large amount of my time with Jews. Some of the persecution has at times been physical. For me, your topic here is not conceptual. It is very personal. I wish more Jewish believers and even unbelieving Jews were more comfortable going into a church and could do so with the knowledge that they would be welcomed and even respected as I also wish Christians could do the same without suspicion. If that is going on, as some of your other commentators have stated, I say a hearty Baruch Hashem! I haven’t seen it myself, but then I guess I don’t get out much.
As to your statement about being an Israelite, I understand your point. It is valid and I will most likely start pondering it as I talk to the Lord. However, I have a neighbor that is from British Guiana and his family is actually from India way back. He has very little patience for Indians and considers himself to be of British descent, if you can believe that, and then is a staunch American. He has relieved himself of his obvious background (i.e. the outward look of his flesh man) and has completely defined himself as something entirely different. To be grafted in, as I see it, having background in farming and ranching, means that, yes the branch itself, does not change. It still looks like the one that you cut off from that wild fig tree, yet now it is attached to a cultivated fig tree and it begins to produce the rich full fruit as if it had always been attached. I see Israel as the tree. It’s roots are of G-d. The rock from which Abraham and the rest were hewn. As Paul states in Romans, it wasn’t an ethnic connection that made the covenant work it was faith and that means that, though there is ethnic division, G-d’s kingdom, as I see it, the grand vision of Israel (again, starting with the Jewish people and then moving outward to be inclusive of the Gentiles) supercedes the ethnic and should by all means be the greater attraction. I know I am an American Gentile, Derek, hear me speak, look at my ways. It’s obvious. But I met Jesus, an Israelite King who broke down the wall of partition, making one new man. He invited me to be a part of Israel. An invitation that has ministered to me as much as having his redemption. I have much to learn about his kingdom, but I do know this: I became a man through the efforts of a Jewish man of God. He taught me not to see culture, but to see the person’s soul and spirit and ask the Holy Spirit how I can wash their feet. If we do that, if we stay close to the anointing of the Spirit and allow ourselves to be led in simple community love for even our neighbors (i.e., the cultural or intellectual group that I struggle with) I think we would find that your question wouldn’t need to be asked. It would simply be the Spirit of G-d moving on people as He sees fit. The endeavor is captured in Ephesians 4 quite well, which follows your mention in Ephesians 2.
I hope that makes it a little more clear. Again, I love this question. The activity on it shows me that it needs a bigger audience. Shalom.
Keith Brooks
Derek,
You wrote: “And yet what he says is that you are a wild branch grafted on the olive tree (Rom 11) and of the commonwealth, but not the nation itself (Eph 2).”
I live and breathe political science and passages like Ephesians 2. Would you please explain your exegesis that allows you to extract from Ephesians 2 that gentile Believers are not part of the nation of Israel? The word you are referring to that has been translated as “commonwealth” is politeia, yes? This word refers to citizenship, yes? Commonwealth is not the literal translation of politeia–in fact, it is a very poor translation of politeia.
Would you care to revise your assertion based on this evidence?
Ephesians 2 in the Greek is saying that gentile Believers are citizens in the polity with all the rights and obligations thereunto pertaining, wouldn’t you say?
Derek asked: “Can you see the need for Messianic Jews to band together? Can Messianic Judaism be in unity with churches without giving up its distinctiveness?”
Yes! And yes!
And, Yahnatan, from what I have heard from those who have visited your community, you are a great example of how this can be done. Chazak v’ematz!
Yahn, Derek…
…It’s good to encounter you in THIS universe. Again.
very interesting…wow! I am one for “unity” within our community. I believe that Jews have always lived seperate lives and it must continue. Coming from a diverse background has made me see it this way. My cousin married a Chassid and lives amoung them in New York… many messianics do not understand this. (she is a believer in Yeshua) Yet out of her father in laws seven daughter in laws…he loves her most!
And then my niece, who’s mother is a Russian Jew who grew up with no religon, celebrates xmas…what do you do?
Communtiy is key to ensure our people’s way of life and survival….that is my opinion
One of my great friends used to believe in Yeshua and was a convert to Judaism. We used to study Torah together and had a great time. But he decided to move his family to New York to be a part of a non-Believing Chassidic community. I found him on facebook recently and he completely denies Yeshua and referred me to an anti-missionary website in the hopes that I would also reject Yeshua.
Let me tell you–I’ll never reject Yeshua or belong to a community that is devoted to brainwashing its adherents against Yeshua.
My wife can tell you about all those from her Messianic Synagogue over the years who, for one reason or another, left the Messianic community and went to non-Messianic synagogues. She showed me pictures of the ones who used to be Believers but have now rejected Yeshua.
My friend arrogantly thought he could win the Chassidim over to Yeshua all by himself. The exact opposite happened. You may be thinking of trying what he tried. And, hey, maybe you’ll succeed where many others have failed. If you want to take that chance with your soul then that’s your decision. For me, Yeshua is too important and the souls of my wife and child are too important for me to go off into a community, Chassidic or otherwise, that would completely isolate us from all contact with Believers in Yeshua. If you yoke yourself that intimately with non-Believers then all I can say is “watch out.”
Just curious Peter, are you Jewish?
James, Peter is a One-Law Gentile. Nothing wrong with being a Gentile, of course.
I’m not a litigious person Gene but I do have my limits when people say defamatory things about me involving my faith and my family. I didn’t get a legal education though just to go after jerks on message boards who think it’s cute to make ad hominem attacks.
–Peter
Peter, what are you taking about? I’ve read through comments on this page, didn’t see anyone attacking you or your family. Who do you want sue?
Gene, I represent my wife and child. When you try to defame me and my faith it affects my family. I said I’m not a litigious person. This is as polite a way as I can tell you to watch what you say. These message boards are public.
Oh, Peter, one more thing – I do not know who’s got your goat here or elsewhere, but if you really had a “legal education” as you claim, you would know that you can’t sue for someone for libel when you are anonymous yourself! It’s a safe bet to say that most people on this blog do not know you from Peter, Paul or Mary.
Another (another) thing, Peter. If you really had a legal background, you would be aware that in the court of law you would have to prove that the words you consider libelous were in fact defamatory, that they were not true, that they harmed you, and that they were said with malicious intent. Good luck with that.
Gene, that is my picture next to my name. And, yes, I have a legal education. Would you like to see a copy of my law degree? Or would you like to speak to the judges that served as my law professors? What will it take to convince you to be polite?
“Would you like to see a copy of my law degree? Or would you like to speak to the judges that served as my law professors?”
Yes, please, Peter. Please email all the information through the contact form on my blog.
I’m going to eat my breakfast and then email all that to you, okay? And when I’m done you can come back on here and apologize.
I just emailed it to your account at jewishthoughts@gmail.com
I trust this will end the matter. Or is there something else you require?
“I trust this will end the matter. Or is there something else you require?”
Peter, you appear to have taken offense that I said that you were a Gentile and One-Law (taken from my observation here from your conversation with Jacob Fronczak). Is neither actually true and would constitute a libel in the court of law (I would like your professional legal opinion)? And if these things are not true, is being a Gentile or being One-Law offensive to you? Or were you not really offended by being referred to as Gentile and One-Law, are you simply threatening legal action for any of the potential un-”polite” future statements from blog/forum participants?
Peter, the reason I asked if you’re Jewish (I hope you can find this comment among all the different layers or comments) is because you said this:
For me, Yeshua is too important and the souls of my wife and child are too important for me to go off into a community, Chassidic or otherwise, that would completely isolate us from all contact with Believers in Yeshua. If you yoke yourself that intimately with non-Believers then all I can say is “watch out.”
Assuming you have no compelling reason to be part of a “Chassidic or otherwise” community, I agree you’d have no business being there, especially if you believe they “brainwash” their community against Jesus. From their perspective, they’ve got fairly good reasons to teach their community that Jesus isn’t the Messiah. While of course I disagree with their position, I’m not going to get in their face and try to convince them otherwise. It would be a fruitless effort and only serve to desecrate the Name.
The primary reason I’d enter into Jewish synagogue life would be to study and worship with my wife, who as I’ve mentioned before, is Jewish (non-Messianic). Going into a Jewish synagogue and trying to overtly convert Jews to Christianity would get me kicked out really fast and simply confirm the worst fears of the Jewish members that Christians are out to destroy Jews by replacing Judaism with Christianity.
As an intermarried person, I want to share the different parts of my wife’s life, including her spiritual life. I realize that there are difficulties involved (and I probably realize them better than anyone else who isn’t intermarried, including you), but we are who God joined together. Neither of us was religious when we got married almost 30 years ago, so at the start, we didn’t anticipate our current situation. However, God has drawn both of us to Him, although along different paths. How it will all work out, I don’t know, but if God is God, it will work out.
I don’t know if this would cross your mind, but just in case it does, please try not to say anything that would be overtly offensive against my wife because she’s Jewish or against our marriage. Please don’t say that God demands I divorce her in other to end being “unequally yoked” and that she’s some sort of terrible person for not being a believer. Again, I have no idea if you even consider saying or thinking such things, but I thought I’d toss this comment in, just in case.
Thanks.
James,
I think you’re awesome and I’ve enjoyed all of your comments. I’d never say anything negative about you or your wife. Period. A man’s marriage is his own business as far as I’m concerned.
I actually can sympathize with your struggle. Our situations are different but I’ve had to deal with discrimination. I can email you about it sometime if you want.
Blessings to you in Yeshua,
Peter
Feel free to drop by my blog, read, and comment. If you want to email me, use jamesmpyles AT gmail dot com.
By the way, I can’t quite figure out the transaction between you and Gene. I consider Gene a friend and think he’s a pretty straight shooter, so to speak.
Peter:
You asked: “I live and breathe political science and passages like Ephesians 2. Would you please explain your exegesis that allows you to extract from Ephesians 2 that gentile Believers are not part of the nation of Israel?”
I am just giving an off-the-cuff reply without fact-checking. Let me know if what I say needs further evidence. The term translated commonwealth is understandable from the Roman imperial context. Rome offered to the upper classes of client states citizenship. But the people of the client states were not actually Roman. The citizens had the same benefits, but were still outsiders to the culture and ethos of Roman life.
Paula Frederiksen’s Augustine and the Jews offers a great look into the ways ethnicity, religion, and identity defined people in the first century. No Roman citizen from Syria, for example, would be truly Roman, but would share the same privileges of citizenship. Likewise, in Messiah, gentile believers share the same privileges, but not the ethnic identity of Israel. And some aspects of Torah are about ethnic identity and the special relationship between Israel and God. To these things, gentiles are not privileged.
Derek,
You wrote: “Let me know if what I say needs further evidence. The term translated commonwealth is understandable from the Roman imperial context.”
Yes, Derek, more evidence on your part is required. You would have to show that the relatively recent term “commonwealth” (late middle english) was intended for use in an ancient context.
Since that is impossible, I recommend that you consult any Biblical lexicon (e.g. Thayer and Smith) and you will readily see that the only possibility here is “citizen.”
After you verify what I’m saying, please redact your previous assertion that Ephesians 2 serves as proof that gentile Believers are not part of the nation. The evidence is to the contrary.
(I will readily admit to you that I was a nerdy English major, my obsession with words only exceeded by my obsession with Star Trek)
Blessings to you,
Peter
Not being as brainy as the two of you (Derek and Peter), I tend to think of the whole “citizenship” thing in terms of metaphor (my favorite mode of communication).
For the sake of argument, let’s say all people born in the U.S.A. are U.S. citizens. We all have the same rights and privileges with no distinctions between us (this is way oversimplified, but let’s roll with it). Now let’s take a sub-class within the citizen pool and make them police officers. Police officers, in addition to having the same rights and privileges as the rest of us, have additional obligations. Even when off duty, a police officer has a heightened responsiblity to intervene if witnessing a crime that the rest of us do not bear. In fact, if the officer does not exercise that duty, they are subject to personal liability and discipline within the police department.
Now let’s say that Messianic Jews and Christian Gentiles (I know that label won’t sit well with non-Jews who consider themselves “One Law” but again, bear with me) who are grafted in, thanks to the Messiah, are considered to have the same “rights and privileges” relative to God’s love and access to Him. However, Jews, because of their special covenant status, have additional responsibilities (like police officers, but don’t take the metaphor too far, I’m not saying Jews are “spiritual cops”) on top of being citizens. That’s kind of how I see the whole Jew/Gentile/citizen thing relative to Ephesians 2.
Gentile disciples are no more “second-hand citizens” in the kingdom (which is the underlying fear of Gentiles when faced with Messianic Judaism outside of a One Law framework it seems) relative to Jews anymore than ordinary U.S. citizens are “second-hand” relative to police officers. One sub-group has a higher set of responsibilities and a different status on top of the citizenship status because of their specific role. That’s why Paul can write Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3:28 (neither Jew nor Greek) and not contradict himself.
Just my humble two cents tossed into the hat.
Peter:
I did not hinge my comment on the meaning of “commonwealth” but on the Roman imperial context in which upper class families in client states were granted citizenship.
This is not about lexicography (word meaning) but historical context (the meaning of “citizen” in the Roman imperial context).
What say you?
Derek,
You wrote: “This is not about lexicography (word meaning) but historical context (the meaning of “citizen” in the Roman imperial context).”
Exegesis, as you know, involves both content (language) and context (literary, grammatical, historical, logical, etc). So why then would I agree with you that this issue involves only historical context and not lexicography? All of these issues are intertwined in exegesis and so I would have to disagree with a narrower approach.
You were telling Keith that Ephesians 2 serves as evidence that gentile Believers are not part of the nation of Israel. Ironically, your evidence included the word “Commonwealth” which, in the Greek, means “citizen.” Observe how politeia is used elsewhere in the New Testament. It’s used to mean “citizen.” It’s used this way because that’s what the word means.
You’re arguing that Paul doesn’t want to use politeia as it’s used elsewhere in the New Testament as “citizen” but that Paul wants to use this term in some sort of qualified sense as “lesser citizen.” Before I proceed to refute this as a possibility, am I correctly characterizing your argument here?
Peter:
Word meanings always mean what the intended audience would understand in context.
Paul was a Roman citizen, but not a Roman
A gentile Yeshua-follower has Israelite citizenship, but is not an Israelite.
As for my claim that Ephesians 2 shows distinction as well as unity, consider:
-The proper translation of 2:15 is “one new man out of the two” (not “in place of,” see Markus Barth’s commentary).
-The two still exist and the oneness is unity, not uniformity.
-2:18, the access to God is for “both,” so there are still two entities (Jews and gentiles).
-If you opt for “one new man in place of the two,” the new man is law-free, not Torah-observant
-If you opt for “in place of,” 2:15 means Torah is abolished
-Nowhere does Paul indicate that gentiles are bound by the full Torah, but quite the opposite speaks continually of gentile freedom from Torah
-What was bothering the gentile believers was the synagogue excluding them, thus Paul’s one-sided argument emphasizes unity and not distinction.
-The covenant which gentiles are included in is the “covenant of promise” (vs. 12) and not the “covenant of law” — Abrahamic, not Sinai.
Therefore, supposing you wish to remove Ephesians 2:11-22 from the rest of Pauline theology and argue on the basis of this passage alone, the result will not be One-Torah-for-all but No-Torah-for-anyone (the standard Christian view that Torah is obsolete).
On the other hand, if you take this passage together with other Pauline statements, it does not break the mold of Romans 11:17-29, but affirms “the two” as well as “the one” throughout.
Therefore, Ephesians 2 confirms the unity and diversity of Jew and gentile in Messiah, as Paul does in all his writings. It does not teach the uniformity of Jew and gentile in Messiah.
Derek,
I’ll go ahead and write an email to you since it’s becoming evident that your responses are going to involve assumptions about my faith (e.g. saying that I’m a non-Jew). If you’re going to assume that, I’d prefer you do it privately in an email correspondence. It’s like if someone said to you in front of third parties, “Derek, you’re a non-Jew .”
You’d probably keep cool and point out, “My status as a Jew is not up for debate.” You’d know that the person making that statement about you was completely ignorant when it came to the true nature of your status before the community and before G-d since they are not with you at all times to know whether you’ve converted. In the same way, I would invite you not to make statements about me when you are completely ignorant when it comes to the nature of my status before community and G-d, a status which, for all you know, I’ve had since birth.
By the way, I practice Judaism—not perfectly, not even all that well. Same with my parents. My dad may not perfectly fulfill the mitzvah of mezuzah, for example, if he fails to check the scroll inside the mezuzah that is currently affixed to the front of his house. You might go to his house and check the mezuzah and find that inside the scroll has deteriorated thus preventing him from discharging this responsibility. But he’s practicing to the best of his ability. We all do what we can and it isn’t helpful when I’m trying to discuss Torah on here to enhance my understanding of my faith and people keep saying “gentile! gentile!” I’m very puzzled by this and perhaps even a little offended. Just because someone defends the idea that there are no racial divisions in the Torah of the New Covenant (what has been exonymically and falsely referred to as “One Law) doesn’t mean that they are a gentile. If I’m practicing as a Jew and I have a bunch of people spreading lashon hara about me then it hurts my reputation in my community and could even hurt me financially when clients wonder to themselves “This guy wears a kippah but people are saying he’s not Jewish…hmm, I guess I don’t want him as my lawyer after all.” Lashon hara is bad on many levels not just the economic level.
Blessings,
Peter
Peter, why is this so difficult? On is either a Jew, or one is not. One has either officially converted, or one has not. It’s a very simple. If a person was not born into a Jewish family or has not officially converted, one is not a Jew. Period. End of story. Practicing Judaism does not automatically makes someone a Jew – birth and conversion does.
Why would I worry about what people thought about me wearing a kippah if I am indeed a Jew? I do not worry or care. If you are Jewish, neither should you.
(And please, enough with “I am a lawyer” stuff. Most of us here have degrees.)
Gene,
If it’s so simple then why is a good portion of the New Testament devoted to this topic?
A pet peeve of mine is when people say things like “Reference X makes it clear that…” or “Reference X clearly shows…” or “Reference X is simple..” etc. If you think it’s so simple then maybe one day you can take it up with Paul about why he suggested that there are more ways to enter the New Covenant than merely through ritual circumcision. In the mean time, just saying it is simple doesn’t make it so nor does it contribute substantively to the discussion.
And if you would stop making disparaging references to me personally then I wouldn’t have to defend myself against you or any other bully for that matter.
Peter, I have not said a single disparaging thing about you or to you. You, on the other hand, already threatened legal repercussions for reasons no one here understands (including me).
Who’s being the bully here? Not that I am intimidated by your threats.
“In the mean time, just saying it is simple doesn’t make it so nor does it contribute substantively to the discussion.”
Many halachic concepts have long been established and accepted by communities that follow Torah AND halacha, with minor variations. Jewish communities, save for the liberal streams that accept neither Torah nor halacha as binding, follow the same basic understanding of what it means to be a Jew.
Not disparaging? Really? I practice Judaism and am known as a Jew in my community and you’re on here saying I’m a gentile–that’s not disparaging? That wouldn’t have repercussions on my ability to pursue clients? Gene, it doesn’t matter if you don’t understand this. I’m really done defending myself and then having you criticize the way I’m defending myself.
Peter, if one is indeed a Jew, no amount of calling that person a Gentile will change that fact. If some Joe Schmo started calling Alan Dershowitz on some blog a Gentile, he wouldn’t lose clients nor would it change the fact that he’s a Jew. It doesn’t matter whether or not he was “observant”. What matters are indisputable facts.
I am with Derek about the “reticence” you exhibit regarding being Jewish. I don’t understand what’s the big deal here. Whatever, man. Moving on…
Butting in here, but according to jewfaq.org, a Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
Is there something wrong with this definition?
Peter:
I apologize. I thought you had stated that you were not Jewish. My mistake. I will change that reference both in my comment and in the blog post I made out of it.
I’m curious, though, if you are Jewish, why you are so mysterious about the issue? If I made an error in calling you a non-Jew, why don’t you just say, “But, Derek, I am Jewish?” I’m not trying to be cute or funny. I literally do not understand where all the reticence is to say you are or are not Jewish.