IS A
POSTMISSIONARY, TRULY MESSIANIC JUDAISM POSSIBLE?1
by Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.
for LCJE-NA, San Antonio, April 18, 2007
Since the title of this paper comes in
the form of a question, I want to remove all suspense and
answer the question up front. Is a postmissionary, truly Messianic
Judaism possible? The answer is absolutely, categorically,
incontrovertibly, without question or equivocation, NO. As
stated (in Gentile terms) by Oswald Smith, “The church
that does not evangelize will fossilize,” and once we
lose the missionary burden and spirit and passion –
which, inevitably, begins with one’s own people –
we lose an essential aspect of the heart of the Lord and an
essential component of our faith. This is certainly an extremely
critical question!
Obviously,
both the title and subject of this paper are inspired by the
watershed volume of Dr. Mark Kinzer, Postmissionary Messianic
Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People2,
a volume that has received considerable attention in the Messianic
Jewish community, especially in academic circles.3
All of us are indebted to Dr. Kinzer for his careful scholarship
and for the many important issues he raises, some of which
challenged me personally, forcing me to look again at some
familiar texts and to ask myself some searching questions.
Certainly, there are many topics that he has put on the table
in a clear and reasoned way that demand our attention, most
specifically, the question of the problem of assimilation
for Jewish believers and the proposed solution of a strict
bilateral ecclesiology.
On the other hand, in the midst of 300 pages of often nuanced
and sophisticated arguments, it is somewhat shocking to arrive
at two of the book’s main conclusions: first, that Jewish
believers should embrace Orthodox Judaism; and second, that
our witness of Yeshua to our own people should henceforth
“be rendered in a postmissionary mode.”
Kinzer
explains the second point as follows: “. . . the Jewish
ekklesia will, as the UMJC definition states, ‘bear
witness to Yeshua within the people of Israel.’ The
Jewish ekklesia will not hide its light under a bushel. Its
Yeshua-faith and its Judaism are not two separated realities
but one integrated whole. Its Yeshua faith will affect every
dimension of its life, including its participation in the
wider Jewish world. However, its witness to Yeshua will be
rendered in a postmissionary mode.”
What
does exactly does this mean? “First, the Jewish ekklesia
will realize that it must first receive the testimony borne
by the wider Jewish community to the God of Israel before
it is fit to bear its own witness. It must hear before it
can speak. It must learn before it can teach. What it receives,
hears, and learns will affect the substance – and
not just the form – of what it gives, says, and teaches.
Second, the Jewish ekklesia bears witness to the One already
present in Israel’s midst. It does not need to make
him present; it only needs to point other Jews to his intimate
proximity. The Jewish ekklesia bears witness to the One
who sums up Israel’s true identity and destiny, who
lives within Israel and directs its way, who constitutes
the hidden center of its tradition and way of life. In the
words of Joseph Rabinowitz, it bears witness to ‘Yeshua
achinu’ – Yeshua our Brother, who like
Joseph, rules over the Gentiles while providing for the
welfare of his own family who do not recognize him. For
the Jewish ekklesia, all Judaism is Messianic Judaism because
all Judaism is Messiah’s Judaism. Third, the Jewish
ekklesia bears witness discreetly, sensitively, and with
restraint. It is always aware of the painful wounds of the
past and seeks to bear witness to Yeshua in a way that brings
him honor from among his own.”4
In
all candor, and with due respect for Dr. Kinzer’s scholarship
and personal commitment to the Lord, these suggestions are
outrageous and must be categorically rejected, with the exception
of several phrases with which, I trust, we would all agree.
That is to say, would any of us argue that we should be insensitive when witnessing to our people? And would any of us differ
with the concept that Yeshua “sums up Israel’s
true identity and destiny”? Putting these small disclaimers
aside, however, I reiterate: These suggestions are outrageous
and must be categorically rejected.
The
rest of this paper will be devoted to articulating my response
to Dr. Kinzer’s “postmissionary” proposal.
For the moment, I want to add my own comments to the statements
just quoted: “First, the Jewish ekklesia will realize
that it must first receive the testimony borne by the wider
Jewish community to the God of Israel before it is fit to
bear its own witness.” Translation: Before we can share
our faith, we who are commissioned by Yeshua and empowered
by His Spirit to be His witnesses must first receive the testimony
of a diverse Jewish community that continues to reject Jesus
as Messiah and considers our belief in Him to be completely
idolatrous. “It must hear before it can speak. It must
learn before it can teach.” Translation: We must learn
from those who, for the most part, have not spent a second
meditating on the glorious truths of the New Covenant Scriptures
and instead, for the most part, have spent their time immersed
in the traditions of man. They, who Paul tells us are enemies
of the gospel on our account, are now our teachers, and we
their students. “What it receives, hears, and learns
will affect the substance – and not just the form –
of what it gives, says, and teaches.” Translation: As
we listen carefully to the rabbinic authorities, we will learn
that our view of the Messiah is not in harmony with the rabbinic
view, that our view of the authority of the Torah is not in
harmony with the rabbinic view, that our view of God is not
in harmony with the rabbinic view, that our view of salvation
and atonement is not in harmony with the rabbinic view, that
our view of the inspiration of the New Testament is not in
harmony with the rabbinic view, that our view of oneness with
our Gentile brothers and sisters is not in harmony with the
rabbinic view, and that if we do not submit ourselves fully
to rabbinic authority we can make no real claim to legitimate
Judaism. So, if we listen and learn well, we will no longer
have our faith!
“Second,
the Jewish ekklesia bears witness to the One already present
in Israel’s midst. It does not need to make him present;
it only needs to point other Jews to his intimate proximity.”
Translation: The prophets who spoke of God abandoning our
people because of our sins were actually mistaken, since God
never abandons His people Israel. And Yeshua Himself was mistaken
in claiming that there would be tangible judgment on His generation
for their rejection of Him along with His real absence from
their midst until they recognized Him as Messianic King.
“Third,
the Jewish ekklesia bears witness discreetly, sensitively,
and with restraint.” Translation: Forget about the bold
and fearless proclamation of Yeshua the Messiah in the Book
of Acts; forget about Paul’s counsel that his answer
to both Jews and Greeks was the undiluted message of Messiah
crucified (yes, forget about the fact that, in the words of
one prominent evangelist, “the power is in the proclamation”);
forget about Yeshua’s promises that we would be put
out of the synagogue for our faith and that we would be persecuted
by our own people for our association with Him. It’s
time for a new and better method, one that emphasizes being
accepted by the very community which the Scriptures tell us
would often reject us, a method that to a great extent bypasses
the reproach of the cross. “It is always aware of the
painful wounds of the past and seeks to bear witness to Yeshua
in a way that brings him honor from among his own.”
Translation: From here on, we assume that every Jew we meet
– even the most secular, anti-traditional, detached-from-his
or her-roots Jew – is keenly aware of the painful wounds
of “Christian” anti-Semitism and will not respond
to a compassionate and clear call to repentance, will not
respond to the convicting power of the Spirit, will not respond
to the power of the gospel, and will not respond to the glorious
testimony of the Son of God (although this is how many of
us – including the presenter of this paper – came
to the Lord). Such is the way of postmissionary Messianic
Judaism. (And I have not even mentioned the fact that Dr.
Kinzer wants the Christian Church at large to adopt a similar
approach in terms of restraining its witness to the Jewish
people, a suggestion that would literally damn multitudes
of our people.)
I
suspect that some of you may be a little uncomfortable at
this point, thinking that my “translation” is
over the top. Rather, what is over the top is the thesis being
put forth by Dr. Kinzer and others, and it calls for a strong
and unambiguous response. Anything less than that allows us
to entertain concepts that, in my opinion, fly in the face
of key biblical truths, most centrally, that our people are
lost without explicit faith in Yeshua and that it is our sacred
mission to be unapologetic witnesses for Him, to them.
While
reading Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, I found
myself going back and forth in a spirited internal debate
over many of Dr. Kinzer’s important points, but his
conclusions brought me to Tevye’s famous breaking point
in Fiddler on the Roof, “There is no other hand!”
To reiterate once again: He is asking us to negotiate that
which is non-negotiable, and I say this as someone who is
close to a good number of rabbis, including the ultra-Orthodox.
To
be sure, my hundreds of hours of dialogue and discussion with
the rabbinic community – especially, Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox
rabbis – have produced in me a profound respect for
traditional Judaism, an appreciation for the beauty and spirituality
of many of our traditions, and a pained conflict in my heart
over the lostness of these people for whom I deeply care.
To me, traditional Judaism is the most beautiful and comprehensive
religion made by man, yet it remains so near and yet so far.
Even
more personally, most of us as Jewish believers have loved
ones who have died without a profession of faith in Yeshua
– my own dear father falls in that category –
and we all hold out hope that somehow, someway, through last
minute divine intervention, we will see these loved ones in
the world to come. Yet we cannot change our theology to make
a way when Scripture makes no explicit way.
For
several years now, I have had a weekly dialogue by phone with
an ultra-Orthodox rabbi from Lakewood, New Jersey, sometimes
studying Talmud and New Testament together, other times just
talking about our respective views on various subjects. (I
should note that this rabbi is a rare Tanakh expert in his
very frum community, since the great majority are not as fluent
in Bible as in rabbinic traditions.) We even covenanted to
pray regularly for one another with the following words: “God,
I pray for Y- and for myself that you would give us the courage
to follow You and Your truth wherever it leads, regardless
of the cost or consequences, whether by life or by death.”
Our love and respect for each other is deep, and yet we both
recognize that the distinctives of our beliefs are mutually
exclusive – this would be the case even if I were a
card-carrying, Hashivenu-belonging, orthopractic, Torah-observant,
Messianic Jew – and that to accept the other’s
faith would mean the fundamental repudiation of our own. We
hold to two different systems of authority and live with two
different spiritual orientations, and despite the massive
areas of commonality and solidarity we share, we are in two
different religious camps with a great divide between us.
I
am, quite obviously, sensitive to the emotional issues involved
in this discussion, I am sensitive to the theological issues
involved (most prominently, the pervasive influence of supersessionism
in Christian thought and practice), I am sensitive to the
intellectual issues involved (specifically, with regard to
traditional Jewish thought and praxis), and, having spent
many years speaking to the Church about the horrors of so-called
“Christian” anti-Semitism, I am sensitive to the
historical issues involved as well. The scriptural testimony,
however, is absolutely clear, and that must be our final guide.
My
response will emphasize five main points: First, that our
calling as Jews in general and as Messianic Jews in particular
requires us to be active witnesses; second, that the Jewish
rejection of Yeshua today is integrally related to our forefather’s
rejection of Moses, the prophets, and the Messiah Himself;
third, that the New Covenant documents make abundantly clear
that our people are lost without explicit faith in Yeshua
as Messiah; fourth, that the overwhelming emphasis of the
New Covenant documents is YESHUA rather than Judaism; and
fifth, that the path to postmissionary Messianic Judaism is
the path to the negation of the true Messianic faith.
To
begin, then, I have stated that our calling as Jews in general
and as Messianic Jews in particular requires us to be active
witnesses. As stated by Christopher J. H. Wright in his important
new volume, The Mission of God, “As Luke 24:45-47
indicates, Jesus entrusted to the church a mission that is
directly rooted in his own identity, passion and victory as
the crucified and risen Messiah. Jesus immediately followed
this text with the words, ‘You are witnesses’
– a mandate repeated in Acts 1:8, ‘You will be
my witnesses.’ It is almost certain that Luke intends
us to hear in this an echo of the same words spoken by YHWH
to Israel in Isaiah 43:10-12.”5
The
text in Isaiah begins and ends with these words: “You
are my witnesses,” declares the LORD . . . You are my
witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God.”
What
is the lesson we can learn from this? Before the time of Yeshua,
the people of Israel were called to be witnesses of the
one true God to the nations, declaring His glories to
the world. Once Messiah came, the Jewish disciples were called
to be witnesses of the Messiah to the rest of their Jewish
people, as well as to the rest of the world, as stated
in the texts from Luke and Acts just referenced, “This
is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from
the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness
of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning
at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things” (Luke
24:46-48). “But you will receive power when the Holy
Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth”
(Acts 1:8).
This
understanding is also reflected in Paul’s famous words
in Rom 1:16, words which, I suspect, are not shouted from
the rooftops of postmissionary, Messianic Jewish congregations:
“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power
of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for
the Jew, then for the Gentile.” And let us not forget
the Lord’s words to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus:
“Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared
to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what
you have seen of me and what I will show you” (Acts
26:16). Romans 1:16 reflects Paul’s role as a witness.
My
point, then, is quite simple: As Jews, we are called
to be witnesses of the one true God to the nations, and as
Messianic Jews, we are called to be witnesses of
the Messiah to our own Jewish people as well as to the nations.
Can anyone doubt for a minute that this was the self-understanding
of the Jewish believers in Acts? Can anyone doubt that they
saw themselves as the God-chosen remnant, calling their ignorant
and/or unbelieving nation to repentance and faith? No amount
of historical, theological, or ecclesiastical developments
can alter this reality, and without the witness of Jewish
and Gentile followers of Jesus, our people will remain ignorant
of their Messiah. And, speaking directly to my fellow Jewish
believers, if we cease to be intentional, deliberate, and
unashamed witnesses of our God and Messiah to Israel and the
nations, we fall short our calling as Jews and as
Messianics.
Furthermore,
the reason the Spirit was given in Acts was so that we could
be witnesses, and regardless of one’s pneumatology,
there can be no doubt that the primary purpose of the giving
of the Spirit, according to Luke-Acts, was to empower us to
be witnesses. This means that postmissionary, Messianic Jewish
congregations are quenching and/or limiting the Spirit’s
purpose and power. Stated more bluntly, to be postmissionary
is to fail to work fully with the Holy Spirit’s intentions
and, at times, even to work against the Spirit’s intentions.
(Note, in passing, that there are roughly sixty references
to the Holy Spirit in Acts as compared with only seventeen
references to nomos, law, and some of those latter
references occur in contexts speaking of the Torah’s
witness to the Messiah. Note also that the name Moses occurs
19x in Acts while Iesous is found 69x and christos
is found 25x.)
This
fundamental point of our calling to be witnesses could be
developed at length, but since it is so self-evident, based
on a straightforward reading of the New Testament texts, and
since it will be further reinforced by the points that follow,
I will move on.
Point
number two: The Jewish rejection of Yeshua today is integrally
related to our forefather’s rejection of Moses, the
prophets, and the Messiah Himself. Dr. Kinzer and others would
argue that the Church’s departure from its Jewish roots,
coupled with its historical sins against the Jewish people,
have rendered its witness to Israel ineffective at best and
destructive at worst, since acceptance of the Church’s
message would mean Jewish assimilation and, with that, the
abandonment of Israel’s unique calling. Furthermore,
it is alleged, God has providentially preserved our people
through rabbinic Judaism, and therefore traditional Judaism
must be affirmed as valid. As stated in Postmissionary
Messianic Judaism, “Our thesis – the legitimacy,
value, and importance of rabbinic Judaism – remains
intact. That thesis is crucial. If rabbinic Judaism is not
valid, then no Judaism is valid.”6
Now,
I am sorely tempted to focus on this thesis, but that is not
the primary purpose of this paper. Suffice it to say that
if rabbinic Judaism is “legitimate” – and
I say this with, perhaps, more respect for rabbinic Judaism
than many Messianic Jews would have – it must be taken
on its own terms, and those terms include: 1) the supremacy
of torah she-be-al-peh, the Oral Law, both in biblical
and halakhic interpretation, calling for immersion in the
Talmud and Law Codes; 2) the rightful authority of
the rabbis, both past and present, meaning that it is not
for our us to pick and choose which aspects of rabbinic Judaism
to keep and which to discard; 3) the rejection of God’s
tri-unity, most particularly, the rejection of the deity of
the Son, and the rejection of any type of “salvation”
experience through faith in Yeshua’s death and resurrection.
I
remind you that in the early days of Hasidic Judaism, the
Hasidim were subjected to excommunication primarily because
of halakhic deviations, while the Karaites to this day are
rejected as legitimate practitioners of Judaism because of
their rejection of the oral traditions. And, according to
the well-known pronouncement of the Agudath HaRabbonim in
1997:
The
Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada
(Agudath Harabonim) hereby declares: Reform and Conservative
are not Judaism at all. Their adherents are Jews, according
to the Jewish Law, but their religion is not Judaism.
The Agudath Harabonim has always been on guard against any
attempt to alter, misrepresent, or distort the Halacha (Jewish
Law) as transmitted in the written and oral law, given by
G-d through Moses on Sinai. It has, therefore, rejected
recognition of Reform and Conservative movements as Judaism,
or their clergy as Rabbis. It has publicly rebuffed the
claim of “three wings of Judaism”. There is
only one Judaism: Torah Judaism. The Reform and Conservative
are not Judaism at all, but another religion.7
Not
only, then, are some Messianic Jews deceiving themselves by
thinking that they can openly maintain their New Covenant
faith and at the same time be received by Orthodox rabbis,
but they are deceiving themselves by thinking that Orthodox
Judaism is fully valid in God’s sight. If it is, then
Messianic Judaism is not – and I have yet to meet an
Orthodox rabbi who would dispute this point, let alone recognize
the legitimacy of a Messianic Jewish “rabbi.”
Volume
5 of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus – the final volume, thank God – is devoted to
traditional Jewish objections, focusing on the Oral Law, and
so I refer those interested in a further critique of rabbinic
Judaism to that volume when it is published.8
For
now, I will return to my second point, namely, that the Jewish
rejection of Yeshua today is integrally related to our forefather’s
rejection of Moses, the prophets, and the Messiah Himself.
That is to say, before there was such a thing as “Christian”
anti-Semitism, before there was such as thing as supersessionism,
even before there was such a thing as rabbinic Judaism, our
people had been consistently guilty of rejecting the Torah
and the prophets – this is testified to by the historical
record of the Tanakh, the words of the prophets, and the words
of the psalmists – and Yeshua’s rejection by our
people in the New Testament (at the least, on a corporate,
leadership level) is traced directly to this pattern. As Stephen
said to the Sanhedrin, not to some godless mob on
the street:
“You
stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears!
You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy
Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?
They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous
One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him –
you who have received the law that was put into effect through
angels but have not obeyed it.” (Acts 7:51-53)
This
is in harmony with Yeshua’s own words to the scribes
and Pharisees in Matthew 23:29-39 (and note v. 32: “Fill
up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”),
and it is consistent with the messages of the apostles in
Acts, right to the closing verses:
The
Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he
said through Isaiah the prophet: “Go to this people
and say, ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.’ For
this people]s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear
with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise
they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand
with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’”
Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation
has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen! (Acts
28:26b-28)
It
is clear, then, that our Messianic Jewish forebears in Acts
saw our people’s rejection of Yeshua as part of our
historical pattern of disobedience, and the fact that the
good news was now being embraced instead by the Gentiles (see,
e.g., Acts 13:46-48) was further evidence of divine judgment
on our nation. This stark reality that Jewish loss meant Gentile
gain was not candy-coated into something redemptive for Israel,
as it is in Postmissionary Messianic Judaism (we’ll
return to this, below); rather, it was a national tragedy.
You
might say, “Fine and good. I accept your perspective
in terms of the Jewish rejection of Jesus in New Testament
times, but that was before Christianity broke away from its
roots and presented a distorted message to our nation. Surely,
our people’s ongoing rejection of Jesus is primarily
due to Christianity’s failure.”
Really?
On what empirical information is this argument based? When
and where did our people suddenly become compliant to the
truth of the gospel as long as it was presented in culturally
and religiously relevant terms? And why is it when an extremely
religious Jewish person comes to faith in Yeshua, he or she
is all the more violently persecuted by family and friends
– no matter how “Jewish” a lifestyle he
or she continues to live?
You
say, “But you’re missing the whole point. The
religious Jewish community doesn’t really know who Yeshua
is because His image has been so distorted by the Church.
That’s the reason for persecution and rejection.”
Needless
to say, as readers of my book Our Hands Are Stained with
Blood9 know only too well, I am painfully
aware of the fact that the Church has often driven Jewish
people away from Jesus rather than drawn Jewish people to
Him, and I am encouraged by the gradual rise of a more sensitive,
biblically-rooted witness from the Church to Israel. And,
to a certain extent, I agree with the points just stated.
But it is a complete non sequitur to argue that because
of Gentile “Christian” anti-Semitism Messianic
Jews should enter into a postmissionary mode with our
people, as if we should no longer actively give our people
needed medicine because others gave them poison. How does
this follow? And how does it follow that the sin of “Christian”
anti-Semitism now changes the essential nature of our people?
If our leaders rejected Yeshua when there was no question
about His Jewishness or the Jewishness of His followers, if
we were put out of synagogues before the “Gentilization”
of the Church, why do we think that now, after more than 1,900
years, that will mystically change – in the absence
of a strong, missionary mentality? Have our people been further
hardened by the faulty witness of much of the Church? Without
a doubt. But a postmissionary, muted witness will hardly bring
them closer to God.
Bear
in mind that rabbinic Judaism teaches that the closer you
get to Sinai, the purer the revelation and the higher the
spiritual state of the people, as stated classically in the
Talmud, “If the former generation was like angels, we
are like men; if they were like men, we are like donkeys”
(b. Shabbat 112b). Yet the generation of the Tannaim, the
contemporaries of Yeshua and His emissaries, is the generation
so soundly rebuked in the New Testament writings. Rabbinic
Judaism could not possibly countenance that that
generation could have been guilty of missing the Messiah.
Consider
also the spiritual state of our people today: A maximum of
10% worldwide are observant, in America, we have a disproportionately
high percentage of Jewish atheists (8.3% compared to a national
average of 5.2%, including 0% of African Americans), the government
of Israel is riddled with corruption, Israeli young people
are caught up with drugs and sex like most of the Western
world (remember that Israeli women in the army are allowed
two free abortions), and those who most virulently oppose
Messianic Jewish congregations are the ultra-Orthodox. Is
this the fault of “Christian” anti-Semitism, or
is this part of our people’s fallen nature, a nature
shared with the rest of humanity? Isn’t this a manifestation
of our historical failure to submit to God’s laws and
listen to His prophets?
I
believe that Paul for his part (as we will see shortly) would
attribute our people’s ongoing rejection of Yeshua to
divine hardening because of our past sins, and this leads
directly to my third point, namely, that the New Covenant
documents make abundantly clear that our people are lost without
explicit faith in Yeshua as Messiah.
Dr.
Kinzer has written that, “. . . we must be able to affirm
that Yeshua abides in the midst of the Jewish people and its
religious tradition, despite that tradition’s apparent
refusal to accept his claims.” Indeed, he claims that,
“Paradoxically, the Jewish no to Yeshua becomes a sign
of his presence in Israel rather than of his absence.”10
May
I read that again? “Paradoxically, the Jewish no to
Yeshua becomes a sign of his presence in Israel rather than
of his absence.” Really? I doubt that Jeremiah in his
day or Paul in his would have taken much comfort in such a
proposal.
Remember
first the just cited words of Yeshua, Stephen, and Paul in
the Gospels and Acts, excoriating our people – especially
the leadership, including the Pharisees – for rejecting
the Prince of Life. Yet this “Jewish no,” which
receives such harsh rebuke, “becomes a sign of [Yeshua’s]
presence in Israel rather than of his absence”? This
“Jewish no,” which causes Yeshua to weep in agony
in Luke 19 and causes Paul to shake off the dust of his feet
in Acts, “becomes a sign of [Yeshua’s] presence
in Israel rather than of his absence”? Absolutely not!
The Lord’s words, “You will not see Me again”
(see Matt 23:37-39) speak of His absence, not presence, and
they are the direct result of this very same “Jewish
no.”
At
the risk of being too simplistic, let me remind you of just
a small portion of the New Testament witness. Luke 7:30 states,
“But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s
purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized
by John.” According to Luke, the “Jewish no”
was tantamount to a rejection of God’s purpose for themselves,
and that was before many of these same people rejected Yeshua,
both in His death and resurrection, making that “no”
all the more emphatic.
Let’s
look in John’s Gospel. There Jesus said, “‘For
judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will
see and those who see will become blind.’ Some Pharisees
who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What?
Are we blind too?’ Jesus said, ‘If you were blind,
you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you
can see, your guilt remains.’’” (John 9:39-41)
What
was the cause of this spiritual blindness? The New Testament
authors pointed back to Isaiah’s prophecy about divine
hardening: “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous
signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.
This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet . . . .”
(John 12:37-38a; and notice the vivid language in v. 40: “He
has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts”!)
Dr.
Kinzer, however, has an answer for this too: “Thus God
has caused a partial hardening to come upon nonremnant Israel
so that he might accomplish his purpose for Israel and the
nations.”11 So, we are told first that the
Jewish rejection of the Messiah – which is everywhere
in the Scriptures equated with a rejection of God Himself
– becomes a sign of His presence among the very people
who rejected Him, and then we are told that this hardening
of heart, which was the explicit result of divine judgment,
is actually God’s means for accomplishing His purpose
among those very same people – and, I might add, according
to Dr. Kinzer, it is a redemptive purpose for Israel at that.
So, no is yes and judgment is blessing and absence is presence
and hardening is redemptive. Are we actually supposed to embrace
this?
John
follows his quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 with this comment:
“Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed
in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess
their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue;
for they loved praise from men more than praise from God”
(John 12:42-43). It appears that he did not share Dr. Kinzer’s
optimistic assessment!
How
did Paul assess the spiritual condition of his people? His
words are unambiguous, and it is only through the most tenuous
exegesis – really, tendentious exegesis – of these
texts that the force of his words can be denied. He begins
by stating, “I speak the truth in Messiah – I
am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit
– I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from
Messiah for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race.”
(Rom 9:1-3) So deep was his pain that he goes out of his way
to say, “I am not exaggerating!”, likening his
grief to that of the prophet Jeremiah who witnessed the devastation
of his nation (see Jer 15:18, “Why is my pain unending
and my wound grievous and incurable?”) If possible,
Paul, like Moses, would be cut off for the sake of his people,
so conscious was he of their lostness. And, if I may interject,
this is a good test of our own hearts: Do we too carry that
pain for our people? Are we grieved that the very ones who
were chosen by God to be His covenant people are the ones
most associated with Yeshua’s rejection? If Dr. Kinzer
and his colleagues were correct, there would be little need
for such grief. In fact, rather than anguish for the fathers
(or, grandfathers) of rabbinic Judaism, Paul should have had
admiration.
Listen
carefully to his words:
What then shall we say? That
the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained
it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued
a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because
they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.
They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” (Rom
9:30-32)
Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for
the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify
about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal
is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness
that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they
did not submit to God’s righteousness. (Rom 10:1-3)
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain,
but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they
could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this
very day.”
And David says: “May their table become a snare and
a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May
their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs
be bent forever.” (Rom 11:7-10)
. . . some of the branches have been broken off . . . .
They were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand
by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God
did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you
either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of
God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided
that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will
be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they
will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
(Rom 11:17, 20-23)
To
summarize: Paul’s heart was broken because his people,
as a nation, had not embraced the Messiah, an unspeakable
spiritual tragedy. Israel had not attained the righteousness
for which it sought, stumbling over Yeshua, the divine stumblingblock,
and thus he prays for his people to be saved. (Not to be a
rocket scientist here, but if you are praying for someone
to be saved, that implies that they are lost.) Their zeal
for God is not based on knowledge, they sought to establish
their own righteousness, not submitting to God’s righteousness
(this is sounding pretty serious), thereby not attaining the
very thing for which it earnestly sought, and becoming objects
of divine hardening. (Am I somehow to believe that Paul would
have a different assessment of full-blown, Talmudic Judaism?)
Now,
remember Dr. Kinzer’s positive description of the divine
hardening, a hardening that he interprets to be only partial
on the nation (rejecting the predominant interpretation that
the “hardening in part” means that “the
remnant is not hardened,” and understanding it instead
to mean that the whole nation is only partially hardened).
He wrote, “Thus God has caused a partial hardening to
come upon nonremnant Israel so that he might accomplish his
purpose for Israel and the nations.” Not only do John’s
words (John 12:37-43) speak against this, as noted above,
but Paul’s words in Romans 11:7-10, speak again this.
The hardening on “nonremnant Israel” is hardly
partial and certainly not positive. Listen again to some of
these words:
God
gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not
see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.
May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block
and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so
they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.
Words
like these – especially David’s imprecations –
were spoken over God’s enemies, and yet they are quoted
here with reference to Israel’s hardening. There is
nothing partial or positive in these words! The result of
this hardening, then, is that the unbelieving branches were
broken and cut off and became subject to God’s sternness.
Thankfully,
we know the end of this story:
Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full
number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will
be saved, as it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness
away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when
I take away their sins.” (Rom 11:25b-26)
But
let us not understate the lost, spiritual condition of our
people – despite the zeal of many religious Jews –
let us not forget that the Israel which will be saved is the
same Israel that has been hardened (and, is therefore not
saved at present), and let us not ignore Paul’s words
in Rom 11:28: “As far as the gospel is concerned, they
are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned,
they are loved on account of the patriarchs.”
Are
we now to sit at the feet of those who are enemies on account
of our faith in Yeshua, those who still have not submitted
themselves to God’s righteousness through faith in Messiah’s
shed blood, those who are still cut off, and embrace their
form of Judaism, becoming their students? Anyone needing an
example of a redundant question need look no further.
To
this day, our people still have the words of the Torah, and
to this day, Yeshua’s words speak to them: “But
do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser
is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses,
you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you
do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe
what I say?” (John 5:45-47) Truly believing in Moses
means truly believing in Yeshua, while, conversely, rejection
of Yeshua is proof of the rejection of Moses. Paul affirms
this too: “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil
covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord,
the veil is taken away” (2 Cor 3:15-16). As expressed
in 1 John: “Who is a liar at all, if not the person
who denies that Yeshua is the Messiah? Such a person is an
anti-Messiah — he is denying the Father and the Son.
Everyone who denies the Son is also without the Father, but
the person who acknowledges the Son has the Father as well.”
(1 John 2:22-23, JNT)
You
might say, “But how can you possibly state that religious
Jews, who are staunch monotheists, are not part of the godly
remnant? In the times of the Tanakh, the ones who came under
judgment were idolaters, not monotheists.”
True
enough, but idolatry was largely eradicated from our people
by the Babylonian exile, and still, a far worse, more prolonged
exile befell our people over the last twenty centuries because
of our rejection of the Messiah. And the principle opposition
to Yeshua came from the religious establishment, often from
those whose traditions made void the Word of God, yet it can
be argued that that these were the very traditions that laid
the foundation for incipient rabbinic Judaism. And Paul was
able to write that the very people who were zealous for God
had now been hardened and cut off.
To
repeat: The New Covenant documents make abundantly clear that
our people are lost without explicit faith in Yeshua as Messiah.
Does that mean that there is no spiritual light among our
people? Certainly not. There is spiritual light and truth
in the midst of all people, how much more those who preserved
and passed on the Scriptures. But to acknowledge that is a
far cry from emulating the spirituality of rabbinic Judaism
and entering into a postmissionary mode.
My
fourth point is that, the overwhelming emphasis of the New
Covenant documents is YESHUA rather than Judaism, and thus
Dr. Kinzer’s argument, “If rabbinic Judaism is
not valid, then no Judaism is valid,” is hardly relevant.
The question to be asked is not, “Which Judaism is valid?”
Rather, the question to be asked is, “Who is Yeshua?”
It
has sometimes been noted that Paul’s statements about
the Law are misunderstood because we fail to remember that
he was writing to Gentiles rather than Jews, but this observation
overlooks something even more important: No normal Pharisee
or rabbinic Jew would ever say the things that Paul says about
the Law, regardless of who his audience was, nor would he
say such things about “Judaism.”
Remember Paul’s words in Galatians 1, the only time
in the New Testament that the Greek word for “Judaism”
is found.
For
you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how
intensely I persecuted the congregation of God and tried
to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews
of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions
of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth
and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son
in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did
not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see
those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately
into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. (Gal 1:13-17)
Now,
Dr. David Stern has famously rendered the Greek word Ioudâsmos with “[traditional] Judaism,” certainly a noble
attempt to avoid the typical “Judaism vs. Christianity”
dichotomy. Nonetheless, for Paul, the contrast was between
his former life “in Judaism” and his new life
in the Messiah. Henceforth, being a Pharisee was quite secondary.
Before
reiterating this, let me quote W. S. Campbell, writing in
the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, who notes
that, “The term [Judaism] appears to describe the Jewish
way of life as a whole as it is distinct from that of other
religions.” Now, Ignatius was certainly wrong when he
wrote that, “It is absurd to say ‘Jesus Christ’
and to practice Judaism” (Epistle to the Magnesians
10:3), and it is against such misunderstandings that Dr. Stern’s
rendering of “[traditional] Judaism” makes sense.
But, to repeat, the contrast was clear: Once Paul’s
whole emphasis was placed on advancing in Judaism; now his
whole emphasis was placed on knowing Messiah.
What
traditional Jew could ever write these words?
Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators
of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we
who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Messiah Jesus,
and who put no confidence in the flesh – though I
myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in
the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of
the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew
of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal,
persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness,
faultless.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the
sake of Messiah. What is more, I consider everything a loss
compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Messiah
Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I
consider them rubbish, that I may gain Messiah and be found
in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes
from the law, but that which is through faith in Messiah
– the righteousness that comes from God and is by
faith. I want to know Messiah and the power of his resurrection
and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming
like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the
resurrection from the dead. (Phil 3:2-11)
For
Paul, to be in the Messiah was to be seated in heavenly places
(Eph 2:1-7; Col 3:1-4), to have died to sin and to have entered
into newness of life (Rom 6:5-11), to “serve in the
new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written
code” (Rom 7:6). What traditional Jew could possibly
write, “May I never boast except in the cross of our
Lord Jesus the Messiah, through which the world has been crucified
to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision
means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal
6:14-15)?
Listen
again to Paul’s words – and they have nothing
to do with the question of New Covenant, Spirit-directed,
Messianic Jewish orthopraxy, which can certainly be debated,
but rather with the question of emphasis – and ask yourself
again, What traditional Jew could ever write such words? And
why should we enter into a postmissionary mode with those
who do not understand and embrace these words, words that
they desperately need to understand and embrace?
He
has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant –
not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills,
but the Spirit gives life.
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved
in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites
could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of
its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of
the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns
men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry
that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no
glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if
what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is
the glory of that which lasts! (2 Cor 3:6-11)
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened
by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in
the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so
he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous
requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do
not live according to the sinful nature but according to
the Spirit. (Rom 8:3-4)
This
is not the way of Pharisaic (or, rabbinic) Judaism, and there
is very little intersection between language such as this
and the language of the Talmud.13 Study some tractates
of the Mishnah, beginning with Berachot (rather than just
perusing the ever-popular Pirkei Avot), and then dive into
the Talmud Bavli and work your way through a tractate like
Bava Metsia, which is often used for introductory study, then
read passages like the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 8, and
tell me that these are not two different spiritual and religious
emphases.
It
is true that, according to Acts 21, there were tens of thousands
of Jewish believers in Yeshua who were zealous for the Torah,
some of whom were certainly Pharisees, and they saw no contradiction
between their faith in the Messiah and their observance of
Torah. Again, the question of New Covenant, Messianic Jewish
orthopraxy is a subject in itself. But they understood that
Yeshua defined their Jewishness rather than their Jewishness
defining Him (something, I’m afraid to say, has happened
to some of the Messianic Jewish movement).
That’s
why Hebrews reminded them that, “We have an altar from
which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to
eat” (Heb 13:10), also pointing to the fading glory
of the system of sacrifice and priesthood current in their
day:
If
perfection could have been attained through the Levitical
priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to
the people), why was there still need for another priest
to come – one in the order of Melchizedek, not in
the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood,
there must also be a change of the law (Heb 7:11-12).
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and
useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better
hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God (Heb 7:18-19).
. . . Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant
(Heb 7:22).
. . . the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to
theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior
to the old one, and it is founded on better promises (Heb
8:6).
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made
the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will
soon disappear (Heb 8:13).
. . . the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able
to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only
a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings
– external regulations applying until the time of
the new order (Heb 9:9b-10).
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming
– not the realities themselves (Heb 10:1a).
First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings
and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased
with them” (although the law required them to be made).
9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your
will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second
(Heb 10:8-9).
. . . we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by
the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us
through the curtain (Heb 10:19-20a).
I
ask you again: What traditional Jew would write words like
this? Little wonder, then, that the destruction of the Temple,
which was such a terrible blow for traditional Judaism, was
not such a blow for the Messianic Jews, who had already found
a better way – and it was not the way of Pharisaic,
and then incipient rabbinic Judaism, a Judaism that, according
to Dr. Ray Pritz, was rejected by the Nazoreans as well.14 (The Nazoreans, it will be recalled, were probably the most
“orthodox” Messianic Jews of antiquity in terms
of holding to the basics of the New Covenant faith.)
Let
there be no mistake about all this: Our hope, our life, the
essence of who we are, is defined by our relationship to Yeshua,
from which our Jewishness draws its definition, and He is
the pearl of great price. Finding Him overshadows everything
else we have, we are, and we ever could be.
It
is because of the radical nature of this glorious new faith,
a prophetic faith that threatened the establishment, that
Yeshua warned His disciples that “they will hand you
over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues”
(Matt 10:17). He also said that “they will put you out
of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who
kills you will think he is offering a service to God”
(John 16:3). Why would some Jewish leaders do such things?
In harmony with what we have been stating in terms of the
union between Yeshua and His Father, “They will do such
things because they have not known the Father or me”
(John 16:4). All this, however was a cause for rejoicing (see
Matt 5:10-12), which is why, after being flogged and ordered
not to speak anymore in the name of Jesus, Acts 5:41-42 records,
“The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because
they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the
Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to
house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good
news that Jesus is the Messiah.” Identification with
our people was not the primary issue; knowing Messiah and
making Him known was what consumed these believers.
And
this leads to my fifth and final point, namely, that the path
to postmissionary Messianic Judaism is the path to the negation
of the true Messianic faith. In my early years in the Lord,
I was often subjected to the emotional argument that my ancestors
died rather than believe in Jesus, and yet I willfully accepted
Him. How could I do such a thing? Today, I can hear Peter
and the apostles saying to our postmissionary friends, “We
were beaten and flogged and rejected and maligned by our people
because of our testimony of Yeshua, and with one voice we
said to our leaders, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it
is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.
For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’
(Acts 4:19-20) We had to speak! We could do no other.
“When
we were put in prison and commanded to be silent, the angel
of the Lord delivered us and said to us, ‘Go, stand
in the temple courts and tell the people the full message
of this new life’ (Acts 5:20) – and we did, without
shrinking back. And when the high priest and Sanhedrin said
to us, ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this
name,’ saying, ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem
with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of
this man’s blood,’ we replied, ‘We must
obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus
from the dead – whom you had killed by hanging him on
a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and
Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins
to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the
Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him’
(Acts 5:28-32). We explicitly disobeyed Gamaliel and the national
leadership, rejoicing when we were counted worthy to suffer
reproach for our Messiah, and not counting our own lives dear.
In fact, some of us, like Stephen, were killed because we
were trying to be witnesses rather than trying to save our
lives.
“Yet
you want to be accepted by the people who rejected us. You
want to be embraced by the system that helped shed our Savior’s
blood. You want to be restrained in your witness while we
were bursting with a message of repentance and forgiveness.
Could it be that you are simply (and subtly) trying to save
your own lives? (See Matt 10:37-40) Could it be that you are
unconsciously trying to avoid the offense of the cross? (See
Gal 6:12) Could it be that you have forgotten that ‘everyone
who wants to live a godly life in Messiah Jesus will be persecuted’
(2 Tim 3:12)? Have you forgotten Yeshua’s own words,
that ‘A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant
above his master. It is enough for the student to be like
his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head
of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the
members of his household!’ (Matt 10:24-25) There was
a reason that our Master instructed us, ‘When you are
persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth,
you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before
the Son of Man comes.’ (Matt 10:23). Yet you think you
have found a better way?”
For
years I have quoted the searching words of the Methodist leader
W. E. Sangster, “How shall I feel at the judgment, if
multitudes of missed opportunities pass before me in full
review, and all my excuses prove to be disguises of my cowardice
and pride?” 15 How shall we feel
if multitudes of missed opportunities pass before us
in full review and all our excuses prove to be the result
of a too-sophisticated theology that missed the forest for
the trees, a theology fueled by our efforts to be accepted
by man more than by God?
Dan
Harman once said, “So long as Jesus was misunderstood
He was followed by the crowd. When they came to really understand
Him, they crucified Him.” 16 This will also
be our experience with the traditional Jewish community. They
will accept us only to the point that they misunderstand what
we really believe (unless, of course, we change our beliefs
so radically that they are no longer biblical). Once they
understand us, they will put us out again. Why then make such
an effort to be accepted?
And
yet there is more. For years now, I have received emails and
calls from distraught spouses, family members, and friends
of former Messianic Jews who had now denied Yeshua and become
traditional Jews. And a common denominator in their lives
was that they became fascinated with Judaism, which then redefined
Yeshua – first stripping Him of His deity, then stripping
Him of His distinctives, and then, ultimately, leading to
the outright denial of His Messiahship. And now, Dr. Kinzer
has added another element to his call to embrace rabbinic
Judaism: He has called for us to enter into a postmissionary
mode with our people, and with a heavy heart I can only say
that to do so would mean the end of a truly Messianic Jewish
faith, and as, postmissionary Messianics (certainly an oxymoron!),
if we tried to save our lives – meaning, tried to become
accepted by the Jewish community at the price of a watered-down
witness – we would, as a result, lose our real lives.
Indeed, in the words of Dawson Trotman, we are “born
to reproduce,” and when we cease to reproduce, we cease
to fulfill our birthright.
I
am, therefore, afraid that postmissionary Messianic Judaism
will prove to be the beginning of the road to apostasy for
many Jewish (and even Gentile) believers, the beginning of
the road to spiritual confusion for many more, and, generally
speaking, the beginning of the road to the shriveling up and
dying up of true “Messianic Judaism” for many
congregations. Ironically, if the postmissionary strategy
is followed (and I’m confident it will not be on a wide
scale), it would relegate all Jewish outreach to Gentile believers,
leading to the very assimilation that Dr. Kinzer so fears.
(I can assure you that if not for the witness of loving Gentiles,
I would have died in my sins decades ago, and I can equally
assure you that had these Gentiles sought to point me to rabbinic
Judaism rather than to Jesus, I would not have turned away
from my decadent life.)
Had
not Dr. Kinzer been so bold as to entitle his book Postmissionary
Messianic Judaism, I would not have been so bold in my
response. But in the sight of God, I could do no less, and
our Jewish people deserve nothing less. Will you join me in
affirming your wholehearted commitment to be an unapologetic,
unashamed, missionary-minded Messianic Jew (or Gentile), regardless
of the cost or consequence? Can we do anything less?
No
one likes shame or rejection, and no one desires to be cast
out by his or her very own family. But that is why the New
Testament writings continually call us to be unashamed in
our witness, recognizing the intense pressure we have to face.
I leave you, then, with this exhortation from Hebrews.
The high priest
carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as
a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.
And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make
the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go
to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. For
here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking
for the city that is to come (Heb 13:11-14).
1
Because this paper was prepared for public presentation, I
have kept footnotes and academic discussion to an absolute
minimum. In another context, I hope to provide the scholarly
apparatus to support all the main lines of discussion included
in this paper.
2
Mark S. Kinzer, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining
Christian Engagement with the Jewish People (Grand Rapids:
Brazos, 2005)
3
Witness the discussion in Kesher, 20 (Winter/Spring
2006), 4-64, and Mishkan 48 (2006), 3-72.
4
Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, 304-305.
5
Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking
the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press), 66.
6
Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, 260. Note that
the Scripture Index to this volume includes references to
1-2 Maccabbees, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Rabbinic Literature,
but not the Church Fathers.
7
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/historic_declaration_mar1997.html. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Orthodox_Rabbis.
8
Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus:
Volume 5, Traditional Jewish Objections (forthcoming).
9
Michael L. Brown, Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The
Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People
(Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1992).
10
Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, 217, 226.
11
Ibid., 126.
12 Judaism,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin,
eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993; electronic edition).
13 See my 1988 paper, “The Place of Rabbinic Tradition
in Messianic Judaism,” for more on this; the paper is
available at /tradition.htm.
14
Ray A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End
of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the
Fourth Century (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill, 1988).
15 I first discovered this quote in Leonard Ravenhill’s
classic volume, Why Revival Tarries (Minneapolis:
Bethany, 1962).
16
I do not have the original source of this quote.
Download this document in Word format: click
here
|
