Now its clear that for many people these are not exclusive categories. There are many people I have known for whom life seems to work out perfectly. Career choices, marriage, children, and indeed religious beliefs and lifestyle are well ordered to the point that it seems as if they were simply following the connect-the-dot drawings we encountered as children.

For others, and it seems myself, this is anything but true. The simple reality is that “parnasa” or livelihood and meaningful relationships seem to be out of reach. Yet in spite of the challenges and despair that often arises because of these two areas, the real point of internal tension is the point of religion (i.e. Judaism).

The simple fact is that as much as I desire to “fit in” in the established Messianic Jewish movement, I find myself more disconnected and increasingly disappointed with it. The more I study and the more formal and higher academic studies I pursue, I experience mixed feelings. I have never considered myself proud or haughty (to use a somewhat archaic term), but I am increasingly bewildered by the depth of respect and awe extended to what I feel are self-appointed leaders and self proclaimed scholars.

They have little training and even those who have achieved high levels of study are the products of seminaries and schools which reflect little in common with historic Judaism.

I feel that the more I learn at this academic level, I realize how little I know and how much we are faced by problems which seem to be largely ignored by the majority of those in Messianic Judaism. I feel that I am perhaps the only one to blame having perhaps as some have accused traded simple faith for a deeper, yet troubling path. But how I can quench the thirst I have to know G-d through history, texts, and through the mesorah without which we could not even read the biblical text? How can I not desire to know G-d through the fullest depths of His Creation?

Others will say that I may struggle because I have focused my attention on mental exercises rather than on the spiritual. I have asked this question myself. Is what I seek simply a mental exercise? Is as Maimonides suggests, the challenge to achieve perfect contemplation of the Divine, the end purpose? This can easily create a notion of G-d that one cannot pray to.

Yet I do not think so, because to ignore the “challenges” that are presented in the biblical text, the history of Israel, the theological challenges presented by the Holocaust, by Christian Supercessionism, by  archeological and textual discrepancies or challenges in the Bible, as well as the wisdom of the Sages, the victories and hopes of Israel, and the very reality that a messianic dawn might give birth to is not a simple mental exercise.

It is a reflection of the soul’s tension to live in the midst of physical and spiritual and moral challenges. It is the challenge of faith in the Divine; something unseen and yet inescapable. Something troubling and yet uplifting.

I fear I may never experience happiness…I pray that I find meaning.

Share This

The problem lies in the first half of the statement assuming that the rise of the state of Israel lies in its rise as a phoenix from the ashes of the Holocaust. This is important since this assumed linkage in the “creation” or “birth” of the state  is often used byArab revisionists of Israel’s history. Its important to remember the rise of the Zionist movement, particularly in the reaches of Russia stemming from the days of Hovavei Tzion and others. An important book to read is the Zionist Idea which includes a collection of essays by every major Zionists in the 19th and early part of the 20th century.

<a href=”http://www.ffoz.org/blogs/2008/04/the_ghosts_of_auschwitz.html”>The Ghosts of Auschwitz</a><p>Whether you realize it or not, it is the Holocaust that is responsible for the birth of the modern state of Israel and the reassessment of Christian tradition and theology. Those things do not justify the Holocaust or make sense of it. …</p>

Share This

<a href=”http://chesedoutreach.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/reform-rabbi-dan-cohn-sherbok-on-messianic-judaism/”>Reform Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok On Messianic Judaism</a><p>Dan Cohn-Sherbok is a rabbi of Reform Judaism and a prolific author on religion. He is currently Professor of Jewish Theology at the University of Wales, Lampeter. Contrary to the official position of Reform Judaism, Cohn-Sherbok is …</p>

Share This

The idea of “Lost Tribes” is attested to in various apocryphal sources including Tobit and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. The idea also exists in various Aggadic sources and it is from these passages that the Messianic and “Hebraic” movements which endorse these views often feel their interpretation of the biblical text as accurate and justified. One problem with this, is the fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of Haggadic literature in the realm of Jewish thought. Haggadic literature  includes a wide range of  parables and stories, proverbs and tales, commentaries  on Biblical verses and on every subject imaginable. The comments need not be taken literally and often serve a pedagogical purpose.  Sometimes they bear memory of the past; other times they preserve the particular views of one voice. This is important to keep in mind.

Different pictures of the exile and the subsequent restoration are presented in various biblical passages. This has led some to adopt the idea of the “Ten Lost” tribes despite a number of problems that quickly become apparent after a review of the biblical texts in question.

The destruction or dissolution of the two Israelite kingdoms can be summarized as follows. The Northern Kingdom suffered two successive incursions or conquests in its territory. The first as recorded in 2 Kings 15:29 reveals that:

“In the days King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglat-Pilneser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor- Gilead, Galilee, the entire region of Naphtali; and he deported the inhabitants to Assyria.”

The second stage occurred under Sargon II during the reigns of Hosea, King of Israel, and Hezekiah, king of Judah. This event also stands recorded in the biblical text of II Kings 17:5-6.

“Then the King of Assyria marched against the whole land; he came to Samaria; and besieged it for three years. In the ninth year of Hosea the of Assyria captured Samaria; he deported the Israelites to Assyria and settled them in Halah, at the [River] Habor, the River of Gozan, and in the towns of Media.”

The author of II Kings then relates that the King of Assyria transplanted people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and settled them in the Northern King of Israel in place of the people that had been exiled. The account presented in Chronicles, however, differs significantly and reduces the extent of the Assyrian aggression considerably. According to I Chronicles 5:25-26:

“But they [the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom] trespassed against the G-d of their fathers by going astray after the gods of the people of the land, whom G-d had destroyed before them. So the G-d of Israel roused the spirit of King Tiglat-Pilneser of Assyria-and he carried them away, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Haram and the river Gozan, to this day.”

The difference is clear. According to the text of Chronicles the principal tribes affected were Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. According to the Chronicler, the rest of the northern tribes remained in the land.

The view that holds that there are “Ten Lost” tribes is further challenge in part by the fact that according to II Chronicles 30: 1-5, King Hezekiah extended an offer throughout the entire lands of Israel and Judah to participate in a Passover celebration:

“Hezekiah sent word to all Israel and Judah; he also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh to come to the House of the L-rd in Jerusalem to keep the Passover of the L-rd G-d of Israel…. The king and the whole congregation thought it proper to issue a decree and proclaim throughout all Israel from Beer-Sheba to Dan that they come and keep the Passover for the L-rd G-d of Israel in Jerusalem-not often did they act in accord with what was written…The couriers went out with the letters from the king and his officers through all Israel and Judah …proclaiming, “O you Israelites! Return to the L-rd G-d of your fathers…and He will return to the remnant of you who escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. “

For Hezekiah, the tribes are still in existence in the north.

We must also look to the Chronicler’s statement found in chapter nine for additional insight: “All Israel was registered by genealogies; and these are in the book of the kings of Israel. And Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their trespass. I Chronicles 9:1.” The key is all Israel.

The Chronicler’s statement is extremely bold in light of the later views held by Ezra and Nehemiah; Israel or “All Israel” as the text states was never truly exiled and never left the land. Israel as a whole, however, remained in the land and this exile existed only as a mark in the overall history of Jacob’s descendants.

The Book of Ezra further states “Then the people of Israel—the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles—celebrated the dedication of the house of God with joy. 17 For the dedication of this house of G-d they offered a hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred male lambs and, as a sin offering for all Israel, twelve male goats, one for each of the tribes of Israel.

Additional comments can be made regarding this issue. For those that remain unconvinced as to the problems underlying the lost “10 tribes” we can also point to the following. Which Ten Tribes are missing? All agree that Judah and Benjamin were not exiled. So now either 10 or 11 tribes remain (if Manasseh and Ephraim are counted as two tribes). The Levites were not exiled so now the number is reduced to either 9 or 10. The tribe of Simeon was located geographically within the boundaries of Judah. So now the number is further reduced to either 8 or 9. Luke 2 mentions a certain Anna from the tribe of Asher. Without delving further the point is clear.

All Israel is present with the community of Israel known to Ezra and Nehemiah.

Share This

The growth of the Kabbalah was not received warmly by many pundits. Part of this opposition was based upon similarities between the doctrine of the Sefirot and the trinitarian formulation of Christian thought. Part of this similarity was based on the Kabbalistic idea of “three lights” allegedly propounded by Hai Gaon (circa 1230).

Basic Trinitarian Thought

Diverse beliefs existed in early Christianity, but the basic premise of trinitarian thought can be expressed as follows: the G-dhead is an eternal plurality; and the Logos (i.e. the Word, or the Son) and the Spirit, though truly manifested in space and time, can exist within the Father.

As a result, the Son and the Spirit are co-existent and co-eternal with the Father. For further clarification we may turn to Augustine, the venerable Church father, of the 5^th century. To describe the Trinity, Augustine made extensive use of analogy and in particular of analogies using the soul.

In his work, On the Trinity, Augustine describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as comparable to a person that loves, that which is loved, and the power of love. He also viewed the Trinity as analogous to memory, intelligence, and will. For Augustine, the trinity served to describe the character of G-d as a person.

Basic Concepts of the Sefirot

As Rabbi Kaplan explains, the Sefirot constitute the inner structures and makeup of the Universes. They are the means through which G-d interacts with the universe. They are as Kaplan explicates, the bridge between G-d and his creation. Nothing in the universe can occur except through the medium of the Sefirot. The Sefirot are also described as the attributes of G-d and can be in reflected in man. Similarity may be found with early trinitarian thought in this matter.

Irenaeus, another church father of the second century explained the nature of G-d into ways. In the first, G-d existed in his intrinsic being. In the second, G-d existed as he manifested himself in the process of his self-disclosure. For Irenaeus, G-d in his inner being was ineffably one, though containing Word and Wisdom from eternity.

The Logos and the Spirit are then the hands of G-d, the medium through which he reveals himself. This may be compared to the view of the Sefirot adopted by Azriel of Gerona. According to Azriel, the Sefirot were a necessary part of G-d’s totality and perfection, providing him with finite power to complement his infinite divine power.

The Key Difference

The differences between the Sefirot and the Trinity are many. Kabalistic views on the Sefirot and/or the “three lights” are in contrast to the Trinity completely impersonal in character. There is an absence of specific relationships of the kind existing in trinitarian thought among the elements of the Sefirot.

The sharpest distinction lies in the challenge of evolving Christianity to articulate the nature and origin (i.e. created versus begotten) of a physical and yet divine Christ. The Kabbalists sought to resolve the anthropomorphic qualities attributed to G-d in the Bible through the Sefirot. The critical difference therefore lies in the attempt to relate the physical and eternal divine nature of Christ to the Father as as a distinct person as opposed to the Sefirot which only seek to relate G-d’s power in the Universe.

Abraham and Isaac: Personification of the Days of Creation.

According to Kaplan, the seven lower Sefirot are analogous to the seven days of creation. Chesed is the first of these seven lower Sefirot and parallels the first day. Gevurah, or the left arm, corresponds to the second day of creation. Chesed-Love can intimate kindness and more importantly altruism or unconditional giving. Gevurah reflects in some ways the opposite of Chesed.

Chesed implies a lack of constraint, boundlessness. Gevurah, however, connotes the ability of G-d to restrain and withhold himself from creation . The synthesis or the balance of these two Sefirot, argue the Kabalists, allow the world to exist, for only a delicate equilibrium can insure the survival of creation.

Kabalistic thought also assigns biblical personalities to the seven lower Sefirot. Abraham and Isaac correspond to Chesed and Gevurah respectively. Abraham is reflective of Chesed by his selfless acts of kindness. As a few examples we may note his preparation of food for travelers. The most striking of his selfless acts is his intercession on behalf of the Sodom in an attempt to have G-d spare the city. Thus we may describe Abraham as the true altruist. Abraham also reflects Chesed by his character as initiator.

Isaac’s reflection of Gevurah is best demonstrated by his restraint during the ordeal of the Akedah. Isaac is capable of subjugating his own person, both physical and spiritual, for the sake of allowing his father Abraham’s devotion to G-d to be manifested.

With these connections in mind, the we can see how Abraham and Isaac are reflective of the first two days of creation. G-d’s creation of the earth on the first day is reflective of G-d’s altruism. For G-d had no need to create the world other than, as Kaplan asserts, to bestow goodness upon man. His creation of light also reflects Chesed. For light by nature is unbounded and unrestrained. The second day of creation can be connected to the person of Isaac by considering the fact that the firmament, the division or the restraining of the waters took place. G-d restricts the water and thus like Isaac reveals the ability of an individual to restrict or establish boundaries.

Works Consulted.

[1] Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, (Philadelphia: JPS, 1987.), p354.

[1] William G. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), p.26-27.

[1] Aryeh Kaplan, Inner Space, (Jerusalem: Moznaim, 1991), p.37.

[1] William G. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), p.7.

[1] Sanford L. Drob, Kabbalistc Metaphors, (Northvale: Aronson: 2000), p.9.

[1] Aryeh Kaplan, Inner Space, (Jerusalem: Moznaim, 1991), p.61.

[1] Ibid. 61.

[1] Ibid. 62.

[1] Ibid. 9.

Share This

According to this perspective, which has been promulgated by a number of leaders in various Messianic Jewish organizations, “rabbinic Judaism” rejects ”charismatic or prophetic events” thereby eliminating a place for God’s Spirit in favor of a system, which is wholly dependent upon the decisions of men (i.e. the rabbis). For all the sincerity of those who uphold this position, this stance renders any measure of rabbinic tradition as suspect and promulgates a view in which the rabbis are seen as resisting the intervention of the Spirit.

Yet I would suggest that this point of view has been partially derived from an erroneous reading of a certain Talmudic passage. Let me state clearly that the purpose of this essay is not to convince the reader of the efficacy of incorporating rabbinic practice in his or her life and community, or to imply that the rabbis should be followed blindly. The purpose is to correctly portray the manner in which the rabbis perceive their authority and God’s interaction in this process in the hope that Jewish tradition can be better considered by messianic congregations as they seek to enhance their congregational identity and experience.

Rabbi Eliezer and the Carob Tree

The Talmudic passage cited to promulgate the popular messianic view of rabbinic exclusion of God is often referred to as the incident of Rabbi Eliezer and the Carob Tree. The passage in Baba Metsia 59a-b begins with a dispute regarding the purity status of a disassembled oven. I will forgo this portion of the debate and begin with Rabbi Eliezer’s appeal to the miraculous to vindicate his halakhic position to his colleagues.

“On that day Rabbi Eliezer produced all of the arguments in the world, they did not accept them from him. So he said to them, ‘If the law accords with my position, this carob tree will prove it.’ The carob was uprooted from its place by a hundred cubits and some say four hundred cubits…They said to him, ‘There is no proof from a carob tree…’”

The debate continues with Rabbi Eliezer seeking to justify his position by a series of other miraculous. The majority rejected each of his miracles and upon this he stated the following:

“’If the law accords with my position, let heaven prove it!’ An echo came forth saying, ‘What business have you with Rabbi Eliezer, for the law accords with his position under all circumstances!’ Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said, ‘It is not in heaven.’”

If we stop here, it would seem that the rabbis did indeed deny the relevance of charismatic events in their decisions. How is it possible that the Sages would reject a heavenly voice and thereby reject God? However, the passage continues:

“’What is the sense of ’It is not in heaven,’ Said Rabbi Jeremiah, ‘[The sense of Joshua’s statement is this] For the Torah has already been given from Mount Sinai, so we do not pay attention to echoes, since You (i.e. God) have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai,’ ‘After the majority you are to incline… (Exodus 23.2)’”

Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues rejected his miracles and even the supposed intervention of Heaven. The intervention of heaven is itself hyperbole, but, I would assert that the rabbis objected to Rabbi Eliezer’s positions for a variety of reasons.

The Nature of Divine Inspiration in Rabbinic Thought

The rabbis’ rejection of Rabbi Eliezer’s appeal to miracles was partially based on the idea that they were acting under divine inspiration by none other than the Ruach HaKodesh. Scholars were seen as the heirs to the prophetic tradition and consequently reflected the will of God in their decisions when they acted under a majority consensus. Nachmanides’ commentary on Deuteronomy 17:18-11 illustrates this idea:

“For the spirit of God is with the ministers (i.e. the rabbis) of His sanctuary, and He does not abandon those committed to Him, who are forever preserved from error and stumbling block.” (Joel Roth, The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis, (New York: JTS, 1986), 121-122.)

Just in case, you forgot, my point is not to affirm the legitimacy of rabbinic authority! Instead, the goal is to properly understand that the rabbis did not see themselves as suppressing God’s involvement but rather follow the rules established by God at Sinai. For God to intervene outside those rules is therefore nothing else than a Divine test. (Eliezer Berkovits, Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha, (New York: Ktav, 1983), 48.)

The Threat of the False Prophet

The rabbis also opposed Rabbi Eliezer on the basis of Deuteronomy 18:22 which deals with the rise of a false prophet. Though Rabbi Eliezer was certainly not a false prophet, his appeal to the miraculous triggered a weary response by his colleagues. Deuteronomy makes it clear that “false” prophets could indeed manipulate nature by invoking foreign deities or even the name of God. People might then place their confidence in these prophets and be led to violate the Torah’s commandments. Moses claimed that God could certainly test the people of Israel to determine whether they truly loved God with all their hearts. Prophetic oracles or miracles might even come to pass, but the true test of divine source was found in the continuity of the decision with Torah guidelines. Since the Torah was not in heaven, a prophet could not claim special competence to produce or even render decisions simply on the basis of his prophetic abilities.

The Primacy of Prophecy and Divine Intervention

But the most important issue at stake for the rabbis was in establishing the proper delineation between the role of prophetic or charismatic intervention and the process of Torah exegesis.

According to the Rambam, a true prophet has authority to decide matters pertaining to war and peace, economic policy, and even to temporarily, to suspend the laws of Torah in a national crisis for purposes of repentance (i.e. Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel). Legal decisions were derived at by the process of expounding verses of Scripture to reach dependable conclusions. Thus Rambam makes it clear that prophetic intervention is ineffective as a means of deriving halakhah. (Zvi Lampel, Maimonides’ Introduction to the Talmud, (New York: Judaica Press, 1987), 97.) A prophetic or charismatic event though valid, did not maintain primacy in the area of legislation. In matters of legislation, proper exegesis of the Torah took priority.

Did the Sages then oppose prophecy or charismatic events as an integral part of the rabbinic system? On the contrary, they retained validity to relate the meaning of past events, spur repentance, and declare Israel’s future history. In this area, prophecy takes precedence over Moses:

“Said Rav Yose bar Hanina, ‘Four decrees did our lord, Moses, make against Israel. Four prophets came along and annulled them.’ Moses said, ‘And Israel dwells in safety alone at the fountain of Jacob, (Deuteronomy 33:28) Amos came and annulled it: ‘Then I said O LORD God, stop, I ask you how shall Jacob stand alone, for he is small, ‘ and it goes on, ‘The LORD repented concerning this: This also shall not be says the LORD God.’ (Amos 7:5-6). Moses said, ‘And among those nations you shall have no repose’ (Deuteronomy 28:65) Jeremiah came and annulled it: ‘Thus says the LORD, the people that were left of the sword have found grace in the wilderness, even Israel when I go to provide him rest.’ (Jeremiah 31:1). Moses said, ‘The LORD…visits the sin of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children to the third and to the fourth generation’ (Exodus 34:7), but Ezekiel said, ‘the soul that sins it shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:3-4). Moses said, ‘And you shall perish among the nations’(Leviticus 26:38) but Isaiah said, ‘and it shall come to pass in that day that a great horn shall sound and they shall come who were lost in the land of Assyria (Isaiah 27:13)’ ( Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, Type of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism, (New York: Routledge, 1999), 87-88. )

This is the very opposite of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and his colleagues! In the first case, a charismatic event in the form of a voice from Heaven could not intervene in matters of halakhah, but it becomes evident that with regards to the intervention of the Holy Spirit on behalf of Israel’s future history, prophecy supersedes Torah.( Ibid. 91.) Rabbinic Judaism therefore does not simply reject the intervention of prophecy or the Holy Spirit in matters of halakhah. It simply recognizes distinct boundaries by which they are separated.

Share This

Here is the initial email:

Hello, Our names are Kyle and Miriam we are interested in your church. However, there are a couple of basic questions we would like to have
answered first.

What is the church’s position on the speaking in tongues?

What is the position on the state of the dead? (What happens to a
person’s soul when they die?)

Do you believe in the rapture? (As presented by the movies and books
that are so popular)
Here is my response 

Thank you for your inquiry. I am curious to know what the extent of your familiarity with traditional Judaism or Messianic Judaism is.

Our synagogue reflects the structure and perspectives of a traditional synagogue community with the major exception of our acceptance and affirmation of Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel. That being the case our community reflects the norms of traditional Jewish life (e.g. Hebrew liturgy, tradition, worldview, identity) as much as possible.

Interestingly, there exist only four major groups or denominations with the normative (non-messianic) Jewish community. Those divisions are largely reflective of differing perspectives on the observance of the mitzvoth (i.e. commandments) and their
practical implementation. Judaism emphasizes observance/behavior as the primary marker of Jewish “faith.”

In contrast, traditional Christianity, its variegated forms,  largely holds creedal formulations as defining the boundaries of orthodox faith and  hence there exist hundreds if not thousands of Christian denominations whose doctrinal perspectives often differ only slightly from each other.

That being said, our community emphasizes what we consider to be core commitments of faith (e.g. Torah and the revelation of Yeshua to Jews and non-Jews) while maintaining a measure of tolerance towards differing views on the charismatic gifts,  eschatology, etc. In our circles, we have some that affirm to the existence of charismatic gifts and others who do not. We leave potentially devisive “doctrinal” perspectives to continual study and
discussion while emphasizing the many common points our community holds.

I realize that most Christian churches have very well defined perspectives on these issues. We respect that approach and honor those perspectives, but emphasize a synagogue/community model we believe to be in continuity with the historic expressions and perspectives of Jews through the centuries.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance (or confusion!).

Share This

According to Rabbi Hartman, the Torah provides the Jewish community with a historical memory of a living G-d who selected the Jewish people from among the nations through whom which He would be sanctified in history.

Furthermore according to Rabbi Hartman, the essential question in Judaism is not the nature of what is “good.” This is already established as it states in the Tanakh “It has been told you, O man, what is good and what the L-rd does require of you.” (Micah 6:8). Rather the principal concern is the ability to embody the will of G-d in action. G-d therefore is revealed in the life history of the community “ I am the L-rd your G-d who brought (or because I brought) you out of the land of Egypt.”

The individual member within the Jewish community understands the primary role of the community in shaping his or her spiritual identity. To separate oneself from the community is to cut oneself off from the G-d of Israel and hence the G-d of history. The divine will, history, community, and action are dominant and interconnected in organizing the principles of daily Jewish life.

Judaism and the Challenge of the Non-Jewish World

All this Hartman states in order to try to establish a framework for understanding Maimonides (the greatest Jewish philosopher of the Medieval period) in his book Torah and Philosophical Quest and the complicated struggle or tension Maimonides may have encountered in living a devout Jewish life while simultaneously remaining true to his philosophical quest for universal truth and reason.

While the importance of such an issue may not seem to be so clear cut at first glance, the relevance for Messianic Jewish communities is all too real.

In the normative Jewish community, the question has always been, “How does one live a Jewish life and engage or respond to the challenges and confrontation of the truth claims, philosophy, lifestyle, etc. presented by the outside world?”

The Relevancy for Messianic Jewish Communities

With regards to Messianic Jewish communities, we may phrase the problem as follows: “Can individuals embrace a historical and spiritual understanding of Jewish tradition, a devotion to the Torah, and combine this with an intellectual and spiritual commitment to the Mashiach despite the fact that this places them at odds with the rest of the historic Jewish community? Is it possible? How can it be done?

There have been four responses to the general question of Jewish interaction with the non-Jewish world which reflects the manner in which Jews have sought to react to the challenges presented by dominant societies throughout the centuries.

The responses are as follows: the way of insulation, the way of dualism, the way of rejection, and the way of integration. Aspects of some of these overlap with others in certain areas. These four approaches I believe also apply to Messianic Jewish communities.

To establish a frame of reference for our question, I will briefly review historical Jewish perspectives on the issue and then review various scenarios which might reflect Messianic Jewish responses.

The Challenge to Judaism

For normative Judaism, the challenge of embracing Jerusalem or Athens (in a metaphorical sense) was a real issue of tremendous significance. While Hellenism is a historical phenomenon, it serves to represent the everpresent struggle toward assimilation and potential abandonment of Judaism by Jews caught between two competing worlds.

This is perhaps most strikingly and violently seen in the Maccabean struggle, but was also experienced intellectually and theologically in subsequent generations. This was true for individuals like Philo of Alexandria and especially, in the philosophical arena, was confronted by or embraced by various medieval Jewish philosophers (i.e. Saadiah Gaon, Yehudah haLevi, Moses ben Maimon, Levi ben Gershon, etc.) as a threat by some and a strength to Judaism by 0thers.

For Maimonides, the issue of engaging Judaism and extra-Jewish knowledge or revelation (outside of Judaism) was seemingly resolved (see Moreh Nevuchim – the Guide to the Perplexed), but was less so by many of his rabbinic contemporaries and successors. That his Aristotelian views were coupled with an embrace of classical Judaism was highly problematic for many. His opponents adopted a number of interesting responses to the faith and philosophical challenges presented by the dominant non-Jewish society of the day.

The Way of Insulation

One approach in dealing with the outside world is the “particularistic” position which embraces the view that Jewish thinking has its own native categories; other modes of non-Jewish thinking are superfluous or even inimical to Jewish thinking and authenticity. It has also been referred to as the “way of insulation” by David Hartman.

At its extreme, the “way of insulation” , as Hartman describes, simply rejects and dismisses “foreign modes of thought” by refusing to accept them as serious. Attempting to explain or substantiate Jewish values within the category of another philosophical or religious framework requires the affirmation of the competing system as rational and legitimate to some extent. If one denies outside views as inherently lacking any legitimate claim, then one need only to ignore the claim. The act of dedicating oneself to a manner of life decreed by G-d automatically delegitimizes any claim made by human reason independently made without divine revelation.

The strength and advantage of this position is its very insulation and hence protection of an entire body of knowledge from all serious challenges. Problematic questions are simply denied legitimacy. According to this view, the ultimate guarantor of true knowledge is found in G-d, as the ultimate source of revelation. With G-d as the guarantor of true knowledge, any competing claim is easily dismissed; moreover, considering alternative foreign claims or philosophies hints of irrationality and arrogance.

From a historical perspective, the opposition to the type of encounter between Judaism and the outside world embraced by Maimonides took some seemingly contradictory forms. For example, the Maharal (Judah Loew of Prague) while opposing philosophical inquiry, nevertheless, embraced Kabalistic thought which itself was strongly influenced by Platonic ideas. Judah Loew of Prague argued that Kabbalah was an authentic way of Jewish thinking and classical philosophy was not. To justify his acceptance of Kabbalah, Judah Loew of Prague pointed to the fact that even the word Kabbalah comes from the root kibel meaning tradition. That is, Kabbalah is the mesorah (i.e. authentic Jewish tradition). In contrast, “Jewish philosophy” is never referred to the tradition or as kibel. For the Maharal, classical philosophy is instead the individual contemplation of the philosopher.

For the Maharal, philosophy is based on Greek thinking which has several fundamental claims that are inherently inimical to Jewish life. The Maharal also pointed to the pseudo work entitled Tefilato sh’Aristo - The Prayer of Aristotle in which Aristotle repents and asks G-d for forgiveness for introducing ideas that were inimical to Judaism to buttress his attack on philosophical inquiry. For Judah Lowe, authentic Jewish philosophy is Jewish thinking.

Rabbi Moses Isserles however argued against the Maharal’s vehement opposition to all philosophical inquiry and can be viewed as a reconciler between philosophical inquiry and mysticism. For Rabbi Isserles, there was no true clash between philosophy and mysticism. They are both a part of the tradition, because they really are the same thing but they speak about things in a different ways and hence both are legitimate ways of Jewish thinking.

The complexity of the way of insulation becomes clear in applying this to Messianic communities because two aspects of this may be adopted. In cases where they are challenged on these issues, some Messianic Jews may argue that theological Christian fundamentals (i.e. classical Trinitarian thought, Sola Scriptura, original sin, etc.) are in fact truly part of the classical Biblical tradition and therefore part of true Biblical faith. The validity of this statement is not our concern but rather a recognition that these are major points of differentiation between classical Judaism and classical Christianity. A defense against the seeming incongruity of certain theological ideas with classical Judaism and the Messianic perspectives of most Messianic congregations are often argued to simply be due to misinterpretation or a corruption of originally “Biblically Jewish ideas”, much like Isserles’ claim about Greek philosophy and Judaism.

For Rabbis Isserles, Plato and the other Greek philosophers derived their knowledge from Jewish sources. He argued that the Jews invented philosophy and went as far as to assert that Plato was a disciple of King David and Solomon. His assertion led to the question of how is it that the Greeks espoused views that were inimical to Jewish thought and why philosophy had fallen out of favor in Jewish circles brought about because of the tribulations of Jewish life. This fits in well with Messianic communities that essentially defend the theological perspectives of the Church fathers (be they anti-semitic or not).

According to Isserles, the Greeks learned philosophy but corrupted it by introducing various ideas which deviated from its Jewish foundations. As far as Isserles was concerned, the task of Jews was to reconstruct philosophy as it was originally.

This task of “reconstruction” is one that many Messianic Jews seem to embrace. Their contention is that Messianic Jews are restoring Biblical faith to its true origins eliminating those Christian and Jewish practices that obscure the true nature of biblical faith. Any challenge presented by the Mesorah (i.e. the classical Jewish tradition) or Christianity are simply rejected as baseless since either lack inherent legitimacy or authority.

The act of dedicating oneself to a manner of life decreed by G-d automatically delegitimizes any claim made by human reason independently made without divine revelation. This view is found in the 12^th and 13^th centuries in response to the rise of Jewish philosophy but was also espoused by rabbis of the Renaissance period. For Judah Loew, Maimonides was poisoned through his exposure to foreign influences since the study of philosophy lent legitimacy to outside knowledge. For the Maharal, truth does not exist outside of Judaism.

While there are certainly various ways this manifests itself in the Messianic Jewish community, one common occurrence is to deny the existence of anything that does not correlate with the overwhelming evangelical tendency to describe things as Biblical. That is many, Messianic Jews see themselves as the true and sole inheritors of ancient Israelite faith and see the Bible as the only authoritative source, not simply the definitive one. All other sources including halakhic, Talmudic, historical, scientific, etc. are rejected as baseless or meaningless in authority.

The development of those theological perspectives they hold critical to their faith are divorced from the intellectual and spiritual tradition of Christianity from which many grew. Nothing that stands against their view of what is Biblical is to be accepted.

It also however exists in an surprisingly opposite form. Anything which is not Orthodox (and often Hasidic in nature or substance) is foreign to historic Judaism. The Mesorah becomes increasingly rigid and in an extreme form can be used to exclude any continued relevancy of the Maschiah.

This is also manifests in another convoluted form especially in circles of non-Jewish adherents to Messianic Judaism. One can find “Orthodox” non-Jews whose adherence to Halachah begins to restrict their ability to fellowship with Messianic Jews and non-Jews who they deem to be less observant than them, despite the inherently problematic perspectives on non-Jews and Torah present in traditional Jewish thought.

The basic element here is a sincere desire to adhere to a “Torah” or Biblical lifestyle, though the nature of what Torah means is often divorced from its historical and theological context. Furthermore, while it adherents often embrace many Jewish practices and often adopt certain modes of behavior, the underlying theological framework remains one that is fundamentally Christian in nature and which retains many of the same fundamentalist tendencies and attitudes towards a variety of theological issues. This typically manifests itself in the Biblical versus rabbinic motif.

The Dualistic Approach

Another approach to confronting the challenges presented to Jewish life by the outside world is the dualistic approach which reflects a loyalty to ones tradition, while accepting the truth-claims of a competing system.

The approach essentially bifurcates or compartmentalizes aspects of a person’s life. A person may view the scientific or philosophical claims of non-Jewish systems as valid or even possibly incompatible with Jewish thought, but separates this mental understanding from his or her practical life. This individual sees merit in maintaining Jewish tradition regardless of whether the may intellectually question the “consistency” of this with outside views. They may do so for a variety of reasons including because they believe that this contributes to a well-ordered society, preserves the Jewish people, etc.

At its extreme, the dualistic approach separates an individual’s knowledge from his practices. In this mode, the individual can disregard the outer forms of observances as simply contributing to the well being of a well ordered community. Rituals and traditions can be viewed as meaningless but the moral actions justify the spurious claims upon which the former are based.

The idea of dualism is of course a common accusation against Messianic Jews – which they claim adherence to Judaism while simultaneously claiming adherence to a faith perspective that is fundamentally separate from Judaism and in the case of Christianity fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of Judaism.

In the Messianic community, this perspective has been adopted by many a congregation which view Jewish rituals and traditions as inherently meaningless other than as to further a collective cultural identity of the community or to further their apostolic calling. The preservation of Jewish identity however is sub-ordinate to a spiritual identity that is grounded in the notion of a universal body of “believers” that takes precedence over Jewish identity and hence over Israel.

Hence the theology and in fact lifestyle of most Messianic Jewish congregations are largely evangelical in nature even as they maintain some aspects of Jewish praxis. These Messianic Jews are dualistic in their ability to preserve Jewish tradition (in some form) despite the underlying fundamentals behind them that may challenge their Christian perspectives, or vice versa. Arguing against a legitimate Oral Tradition on the basis of the theological view of the sole authority of Scripture, does not keep many communities from arguing against “the Rabbis” while continuing to practice Jewish customs otherwise unknown or incomprehensible outside an Oral Tradition.

For those who adopt this perspective, this dualistic approach protects the tradition and beliefs (as understood by the individual) from counter claims. In the case of Messianic Jewish expressions that follow this approach, the accusations of hypocrisy towards Jewish concerns are dismissed since their “Messianic Jewish community” is the only entity truly capable of using Jewish methods to justify its end goals of universal redemption. Here we do find similarity in the “way of insulation” in the sense that counter truth claims are largely ignored.

This approach whether in normative Jewish circles or in the Messianic community bifurcates the realms of thought and action. As Hartman notes, “the G-d of metaphysics and the G-d of history are never confused.” A person’s acquiescence to this kind of thinking and its theological claims are justified by the inherent functionality it affords rather than by the truth it claims.For Messianic Jews, the realities of historical Jewish life and the inherent problems of incompatibility with Christianity in its post apostolic era are simply dismissed as ancillary to the principal questions of redemption.

The Way of Rejection

This approach is relatively straightforward as it is in the normative Jewish community. In the case of the normative Jewish community, the individual is incapable of reconciling Judaism and Jewish obligations with the outside world (whether in terms of the truth claims about the superiority of Jewish truth claims, or simply the desire to abandon Jewish distinctions for acceptance in greater society).

In the case of the Messianic belief, the individual that chooses this path is incapable of accepting the Christian claims and views regarding the nature of the Mashiach and coupling this with Judaism.

This individual is incapable of reconciling the disconnect between the Jewish theological perspectives that the very concept of the idea of a Messiah is rooted in for the views of the Messiah presented by Christianity.

Judaism and Christianity are two distinct religious traditions and any attempt to reconcile them, as far as this individual is concerned, are pointless and meaningless. Christianity is triumphant; Judaism is irrelevant in the cause of the Messiah. Jewish identity and Judaism are a dangerous lure to forsaking what is most important. The justification for this lies in the view that Judaism is simply incompatible with true Biblical faith.

Not surprisingly, this is the view that the normative Jewish community would prefer that messianic Jews take- one which they feel is much more honest.

At the other side of the spectrum, a Messianic Jew can reach the opposite decision. The challenges presented in accepting a long rejected Messiah as the legitimate Jewish Messiah is all too complex. The challenge of forging a path that takes seriously the continued relevance of Judaism and the rejected Messiah is simply too much to ask. This individual abandons, suppresses, or subordinates his faith for acceptance in the Jewish community and an identity which lends itself to a “single” identity.

The Way of Integration

The way of integration recognizes that inherent challenges presented in embracing the messianic claims of Yeshua of Nazareth while also embracing, promoting and upholding Judaism and Jewish tradition .

The way of integration recognizes the distinction and validity of the classical Jewish tradition, the distinction of Jewish thinking, the inherent differences found in the fundamental perspectives of Christian thought as influenced by the Western Hellenistic tradition and is capable of struggling with the hard questions no matter where they might lead.

The way of integration is descriptional in nature – not doctrinal or definitional. The individual that accepts this view is capable of operating independently of the Christian tradition and dogma while intellectually grappling with the simple fact that Christianity has preserved the only texts that provide the revelation of the Maschiah.

The critical issue is to be free of the contraints and non-Jewish approaches which cause much of the incompability to arise. One need only to look at the premium placed on creedal formulations of faith in Christianity to understand the fundamental differences between Jewish and Christian approaches to knowing G-d, though the differences go far beyond this. The proper articulation of Christian faith is understood by the affirmation of a series of propositional statements, deviation from which can render an individual heterodox. At the extreme, the advent of the Protestant reformation and its offspring in subsequent centuries reveals that even seemingly minor doctrinal deviations can spark the rise of a new denomination or create chasms in existings ones. The argument to borrow from Maimonides, is the true knowledge of G-d as reflected in a philosophical understanding. The simple fact that the contemporary Jewish experience manifests itself in 3 or 4 or 5 movements at most reveals the reality that Judaism understands its approach to “knowing G-d’ through a very different basis than does its Christian counterpart. The way of integration calls for the individual to wrestle with these issues.

The individual in the way of integration understands that history, textual criticism, science, and philosophical inquiry are all part of the nature of G-d’s revelation and interaction with the world. It recognizes the validity of Jewish practice and Jewish texts and indispensable aspects of Jewish identity. It understands halakhah as a binding and authoritative element yet allows for the consideration and flexibility of it given the complicated nature of Messianic Jewish communities. Most importantly, it understands that there is Jewish thinking and non-Jewish thinking – a fact largely misunderstood by even the various Torah oriented movements in Messianic circles.

The basis of the accommodationist or the way of integration position also lies in the confrontation, exposure, and finally engagement with non-Jewish forms of thinking and life. An individual does not have to approach faith and reason as an either/ or approach. The individual takes the knowledge claims of outside sources seriously but allows for the validity of human thought to engage him. For the integrationist, Divine revelation need not be in conflict with human understanding, history, the challenges presented by either the classical Jewish tradition, or Christian theology.

But when human understanding appears to conflict with a traditional understanding of religious tradition, the integrationist allows for rational truth to alter the meaning of religious challenges as informed by Jewish texts and a knowledge of the Maschiach. The integrationist allows for the supremacy of the knowledge of G-d, but recognizes the endowment of creation by G-d with reason.

Share This

That challenge is only intensified in communities that characterize themselves as Messianic. The idea of reaching out to individuals on the fringes of the Jewish community, the outcasts of Israel, so to speak is a mission many Messianic Jewish communities might identify with.

What happens however, when someone refuses to follow the basic tenets of Jewish faith? How should one react to individuals that trust in Yeshua and yet refuse to adhere Jewish practices that are fundamental to Jewish identity? For most Messianic Jewish communities this does not present a problem since they do not embrace any notion of halakhah.

For those communities which do embrace the validity of halakhah, the choice in embracing someone and “rejecting” them becomes a very serious issue. A fundamental aspect of Jewish identity is circumcision. The lack of circumcision in an adult Jewish male, for example,  presents the Messianic Jewish community with a no easy solution. The necessity of circumcision to Jewish identity is d’Oraita and is the act which marks Abram Avinu’s transition to Abraham Avinu. So powerful is the event of milah that it merits a change in name, a practice of course followed for converts to this day.

The abandonment of circumcision as an aspect of the covenant, has been adopted by Reform and some aspects of other “progressive movements.”   The basis of course lies in the general abandonment of halachah as a binding system.

So what is the halakhically oriented Messianic synagogue to do when presented with these and other issues which confront the validity of halakhah? The choices of course are difficult and may either serve to rebuff the individual or compromise the standards of halakhah which may serve to buttress their fledging existence.

Share This

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

For those interested in Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, and more.

Share This