Talmud: What is your position concerning the Talmud?

The two Talmuds, the Babylonian Talmud and the smaller Jerusalem Talmud, both compose several centuries of Rabbinic gemara or commentary on the Mishnah. The Mishnah was composed by approximately 200 C.E. and makes up what is considered to be the Oral Torah. According to Jewish tradition, two Torahs were given to Moses on Mount Sinai: the Written Torah (the Pentateuch or Chumash), as well as the Oral Torah or explanations on how to perform the Written Torah’s commandments. In Orthodox Judaism today, both the Written Torah and Oral Torah hold equal status. In non-Orthodox Judaisms, they comprise the basis of Jewish custom and tradition.

The overall Messianic position on the Talmud varies from congregation to congregation. Many agree that the Oral Torah should be given an equal footing with the Written Torah. Others want nothing to do with the Oral Torah and believe that only the Written Torah should be followed. Then again, there are many who fall somewhere in between, recognizing the primacy of the Written Torah, but not discounting the customs and traditions that the Oral Torah represents. This group would recognize that the Mishnah and Talmud contain the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), but would urge that we also look for what is spiritually edifying in them employing proper discernment, casting aside those things that clearly are not good (Philippians 4:8).

We would not elevate the Oral Torah or Oral Law over the Written Torah or Pentateuch (what is contained in Genesis-Deuteronomy), but believe that it is a mistake to totally cast it aside. The Mishnah and Talmud, in particular, are valuable sources of commentary, historical data, and spiritually edifying material. They are perfectly valid to use as secondary resources to supplement one’s understanding of the Bible. At the same time, the Mishnah and Talmuds are also broad-sweeping collections of literature, so one should expect (particularly with the Talmud) there to be some internal inconsistencies and differences of opinion among Rabbis.

The easiest way to employ the Talmud is your Bible study is to note Talmudic references in a technical commentary as you examine the text verse-by-verse. Some ecumenical study Bibles like the Jewish Study Bible or New Interpreter’s Study Bible have Talmudic references sprinkled in their commentary. The most popular English edition available is the Soncino Talmud. Judaic scholar Jacob Neusner has also edited his own modern English version.

updated 21 August, 2006

Tanakh/Tanach: I have seen you use the term Tanakh/Tanach. What does this term mean?

Tanach ($nt), also commonly spelled as Tanakh, is a composite Hebrew term for Torah (the Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Messianic Believers prefer the term Tanach (Tanakh) rather than using the term “Old Testament,” because the term “Old Testament” often brings with it thoughts of these Scriptures being old and outdated. If anything, when the term “Old Testament” is used in writing or speaking, it is only done so for the familiarity of others who are unfamiliar with the term Tanach.

updated 23 November, 2006

Technology, Effect on Torah Observance: Do you believe that the evolution of technology should influence our application of the Torah?

There are actually three important factors that we need to consider today when we apply the Torah: (1) technology, (2) culture, and (3) economy. The Written Torah was originally given to Moses approximately 3,300 years ago at the base of Mount Sinai. Even in the Biblical world we see changing dynamics that indicate that the Torah as it was originally given to Israel cannot be kept. As Israel evolved into a Kingdom and into a foreign power, the Torah had to be applied differently. Things regarding the sacrificial system had to be modified when the Temple was constructed in Jerusalem, as the commandments were originally given concerning a Tabernacle that was portable. Following the end of the Babylonian exile, the Jews who returned lived in a land along with the Samaritans, and by the time of the First Century almost two-thirds of the entire Jewish community was living in the Diaspora. Major centers of Diaspora Jewry were established in Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, and even Rome. When we see the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah and the Apostles, their view of the Torah is most certainly affected by their Sitz im Leben or Situation in Life.

Consider the Apostle Paul, author of more than half of what we consider to be the “New Testament.” Paul was a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel, who even today is revered in the Jewish community. The Pharisaical movement arose approximately 120 years before Yeshua as a reform movement. Some of the original goals of the Pharisees were to emphasize personal holiness and piety, social justice for the Jewish people and the oppressed masses, and above all provide an halachic orthopraxy for the Jewish people in environments and settings for which the Torah was not originally given. One of the major goals of the Pharisees was to go out into the world and make converts, practicing what today we call “missionary evangelism,” and they were extremely successful in the Mediterranean basin. To many in the First Century, especially Sadducees, the Pharisees were actually considered to be liberal—even though today we largely consider them to be fundamentalists. The Pharisees actually wanted to bring “freedom” to the entire world by proclaiming who the God of Israel was, even though by Yeshua’s day, and subsequent generations of Pharisees having passed on, the leadership was frequently hypocritical.

Fast-forwarding to today, the Twenty-First Century, how many of us think that we can follow every commandment of the Torah, when in actuality we cannot? This is not to encourage ignorance of the Torah’s commandments, but is a reflection of the reality that we are not living in the world of ancient times. In the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament we see that technological, cultural, as well as economic factors change the application of the Torah in both the Jewish and early Messianic communities. The same is most definitely true of us today. Technology, culture, and economy are determining factors with how we apply the Torah. The question we have to always answer is whether we are trying to return to the exact lifestyle of the ancients—or the theology of the ancients.

How do these factors relate to our emerging Messianic theology? We need to determine with accuracy how the Apostles lived out the Torah in their lives first, so we can then properly ask what they would do if they were living today. But this requires more study, meditation, and above all reasoned discussion among ourselves than is presently occurring in the Messianic community. Are we going to hold to a strict and rigid view of the text, like some, who then cannot answer questions relating to what they do about the Torah’s instructions that appear to be outdated? Or, are we going to be part of a reforming movement focusing on personal holiness, piety, and justice toward our fellow humans—like the Pharisees originally were, and which Paul was? These will be some of the questions that dominate our discussions in the days ahead, and we would certainly ask you to consider them in your study of God’s Word and personal time with Him.

posted 24 February, 2006

Tefillin: Do you believe that Messianics should wrap tefillin (phylacteries)?

A steadfastly important admonition in the Torah is to remember not only how the Lord led Ancient Israel out of Egypt with His powerful hand and arm, but also how His people are to have His Word placed upon their own hands and foreheads:

·  “So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:16).

·  “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead” (Deuteronomy 6:8).

How these instructions have been interpreted by much of historical Judaism is viewed with a great deal of suspicion and mistrust by many non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic community—but most significantly in the Two-House sub-movement. Observant Jews who observe this direction, bind leather boxes known as tefillin (!yLpT) or phylacteries (derived from the Greek phulaktērion, fulakthrion) onto their arms and heads, remembering that the Lord led His people out of Egypt with an outstretched arm, and that they are to have His Word in their minds. Tefillin are used as an important part of a Jewish person’s daily prayers.[a]

In Orthodox Judaism, wrapping tefillin is considered to not only be one of the most important commandments of the Torah, but one of the most key rituals that identifies oneself as a Jew. Within the broad Jewish tradition, the instruction to bind God’s Word on the hand and forehead has been taken literally, as the phylacteries include small parchments inside that have transcribed these Torah instructions (Exodus 13:1-10, 11-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21). Conservative and Reform Jews will also frequently wrap tefillin, but probably not as frequently as the Orthodox. These latter two Jewish sects will also allow women to use tefillin, whereas in Orthodox Judaism only men use them.

The custom of wrapping tefillin is not that commonplace within the daily prayer activities of today’s Messianic Jews, although there are some trends which indicate that this is changing, with more open to the tradition.

Many non-Jewish Messianics view this Torah instruction as being entirely allegorical. They take it as meaning that God’s people are to only have His Word present in what they do with their hands and with their minds.

While remembering what God’s Word says about what we do with our hands and minds is surely important, this does not make the practice of wrapping tefillin wrong or invalid. That the custom of employing phylacteries in Jewish prayer was present several centuries before the ministry of Yeshua is non-disputable.[b] The common rejection of using tefillin or phylacteries, for any kind of personal prayer, is often disputed from the basis that Yeshua the Messiah spoke against them in His criticism of the Pharisaical leaders:

“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments” (Matthew 23:5).

Does Yeshua speak against wrapping tefillin in this verse? In his criticism of the Pharisaical leaders, Yeshua also criticized these individuals for their wearing of tassels or tzit-tzityot. Yet, elsewhere we see that Yeshua Himself wore fringes attached to the corners of His garments:

“Wherever He entered villages, or cities, or countryside, they were laying the sick in the market places, and imploring Him that they might just touch the fringe of His cloak; and as many as touched it were being cured” (Mark 6:56).

“And a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped” (Luke 8:43-44).

Yeshua’s word of Matthew 23:5 is clear: “They do everything to be observed by others” (HCSB). Yeshua actually criticizes these Pharisees for the manner in which they wore tzit-tzits and wrapped tefillin, in order to draw attention to themselves. The Messiah does not say that the custom of wrapping tefillin or phylacteries is wrong and ungodly. It is quite feasible that Yeshua Himself had employed tefillin within His own personal prayer times. The very purpose of taking the time in the morning, and binding a physical, ritual object like the tefillin or phylacteries—is so that one can be disciplined and focused in one’s prayers and entreaties of the Heavenly Father.

There are Messianic Jews today who recognize the practice of wrapping tefillin as one of several interpretive options of how to have God’s Word placed upon the hand and forehead. It is certainly an exercise that can direct one’s attention upon God’s Word.

Now if you do not wish to wrap tefillin and consider it an invalid interpretation of the Torah, you are entitled to your opinion. Some of you may not wrap tefillin because they can very expensive, or you are unprepared to make the commitment to use them on some kind of regular basis. None of us needs to find ourselves criticizing Judaism, though, for adhering to a custom that long pre-dates the Messiah’s ministry. Wrapping tefillin in prayer times—not to be seen by others—is something which is to enhance the intimacy and communication between a person who uses them, and his (or her) Creator.

NOTES

updated 20 July, 2011

Terrorism: What is your feeling on global terrorism? Does it have any prophetic significance?

Terrorism, in comparison with “established war,” is a relatively new phenomenon, as it began being employed as a technique of the “poor man’s war” in the mid- to late- 1960s, as various Left- and Right-wing militant movements gained publicity by taking hostages, blowing up commercial jetliners, and committing terrorist acts in public places. Terrorism, like all methods of violence, can have indirect prophetic significance, even though at present we do not see any specific mention of it in the Bible. We believe that it is important that as responsible citizens we be aware of the implications of terrorism, and how terrorism can be used to bring in controls that curtail civil liberties.

The most important thing to consider as it relates to global terrorism is the fact that terrorism is aimed at those who are watching the terrorist attacks take place. We have to be very conscious of how we react to any events that occur, so we do not fall into fear and into giving into terrorists’ demands.

updated 23 November, 2006

Textual Criticism: I have heard you use the term “textual criticism” before. What is this?

Textual criticism, also known as “lower criticism,” as noted by F.F. Bruce, “is the restoration of the wording of a document when alterations have been introduced (deliberately or inadvertently) in the course of copying and recopying. Before the invention of printing, when each copy of a document had to be written out separately by hand, scribal errors were especially apt to occur” (ISBE).[a] It is employed to determine what the original reading of a Biblical text was, taking into account the oldest available texts and textual fragments of Scriptures, ancient translations of Scriptures available, and quotations of Scripture in ancient literature. The same entry goes onto state,

“If the autograph or original document survives, scribal errors can be corrected by reference to it. But if it has long since disappeared (as has happened with all the original emplars of biblical books), and the surviving copies differ from one another here and there, the original wording can be determined only by comparative study of these copies. The scribal habits of individual copyists, and the remoteness of proximity to individual MSS to the original…must be investigated” (ISBE).[b]

We do believe that the Holy Scriptures are inspired of God and that they are not myths, borrowed or copied from pagan stories or the contemporary religions around Ancient Israel. However, textual errors have occurred in the copying and transmission of the Scriptures over the centuries, be they in the Hebrew Tanach or Greek Apostolic Writings. Some of these errors were unintentional mistakes, and others may have been intentional for doctrinal reasons.

The two most commonly employed Biblical texts today that cannot be considered “critical texts,” because they have not been compared against textual discoveries, are the Masoretic Hebrew text (MT) for the Tanach and the Textus Receptus for the Greek Apostolic Writings. We use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (same as the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.), both produced by United Bible Societies. These are the same critical texts that are used in modern translations such as the Jewish Press Society Tanakh, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version. These critical texts have the variant manuscript readings in their footnotes.

NOTES

updated 23 November, 2006

Thanksgiving Day: Do you believe that Messianic Believers in the United States should celebrate Thanksgiving Day?

The tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving Day goes back to the Pilgrims who settled the Plymouth Colony in 1621. Originally, these colonists were English Puritans who had protested against much of the popery or Catholic elements present in the Church of England. Being persecuted in England, they had settled in the Netherlands for a season, but discovered that they would not be totally satisfied until they found a home of their own where they could practice their religious convictions in total peace.

The Pilgrims’ intention was to actually settle in the colony of Virginia, but their voyage to the New World caused them to be led off course and settle in what is today Massachusetts. They were greeted by a harsh Winter that caused many of them to die from cold and hunger. In the Spring of 1621, the Pilgrims planted their first crops with the help of the local Indians. By that October, the Pilgrims celebrated their harvest to boost the morale of those who had endured terrible loss and hardships. They wanted to thank God and their Indian neighbors for the bounty that had been provided.

As Puritans, the Pilgrims’ spiritual convictions came from a strict reading of the Bible. They were very intent on eliminating any opulent elements of Catholicism from their worship. Much of their society was focused around the idea that they had fled England in a similar way to how the Ancient Israelites were led out of Egypt. As America was viewed as a new “Promised Land,” much of the symbolism of the Old Testament was adopted for the Pilgrims’ life. The emphasis on thanking God with a large communal meal in the Autumn is likely appropriated from the Tanach themes of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Thanksgiving Day is a holiday intended to commemorate the hardships of some of the early settlers of America, and how thankful they were to have God preserve them through times of difficult trial. These early pioneers and pilgrims were godly men and women who left Europe to flee religious persecution and establish a Bible-based community in the New World. Because we as Messianic Believers would not be here without Christians such as these, it is entirely appropriate for us as Americans to remember what they did.

updated 23 November, 2006

Theological Categories: What theological category does your ministry best align with: fundamentalist, conservative, or liberal?

The three broad theological categories, as ranging from Right to Left, are: fundamentalist, conservative, and liberal. On the Right end of the spectrum are often those holding a strict “black-and-white” view of issues, who are frequently unwilling to allow for any variance of Biblical interpretation or application regarding non-essentials. On the Left side of the spectrum are those holding to a very loose view of the Bible, perhaps even treating it as mythology, but one that can still guide humans in their interactions with “God.” Stuck in the middle are those who hold to the integrity and final authority of Scripture, but allow for variance and application regarding non-essentials, and are willing to allow for some critical examination of Biblical texts, but not at the expense of denying the Bible’s accuracy.

Our ministry falls well into the Center category of being conservative.

posted 26 September, 2006

Tithing: What can you tell me about tithing from a Messianic perspective? How am I to honor God with my money and resources today?

There are a wide variety of opinions given as to what “tithing” means, even though all of us should agree that we need to honor the Lord with our resources. One of the things that we should keep in mind is that the instructions regarding tithing in the Torah, specifically with land, produce, livestock, etc., were intended to be kept in the Land of Israel in conjunction with the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple service. Since most of us live in the Diaspora, and there is no operative Tabernacle/Temple service today, we can only keep these commandments in principle and have to find another way to apply them.

The Book of Acts is probably the best place to start, where we see that the early Messianic community shared many of their possessions and gave money, supplies, and goods to one another as they needed them. This too, of course, would be a challenge since today’s Messianic community is spread abroad, and most of us are not in need for someone else to provide us with daily wares. Furthermore, we do not live in an economy that would largely allow for common ownership to this extent. When we see the early Messianic community growing beyond the borders of Judea we see that as congregations were established, monies were regularly collected for the expenses of the local assembly and for the traveling Apostles. Paul’s letter to the Philippians, for example, is largely written thanking them for a generous contribution that they made to his ministry work.

Today, these are all things we have to consider as we return to the Hebraic Roots of our faith and the Messianic movement continues to grow. Many people do not have local assemblies and as such do not consider it important to give a tithe. These individuals are largely served and taught by independent Messianic ministries, but sometimes do not support them financially in any way. Is this right? Many people feel convicted to tithe, but do not know how to do it.

We see the issue of tithing and giving offerings applied in some unique situations in the Apostolic Scriptures. We would encourage you to support those who teach and minister to you just as the Apostles did. From the Apostles’ work our faith was able to survive and last almost 2,000 years. In today’s Messianic movement, which has quite a bit going against it, there is a great deal of difficult work ahead to establish a theology and discipline that will last for future generations. People who are on the front lines in Messianic ministry need the financial support of others so they can continue the work that God has given to them. Pray to the Lord and ask Him how He would have you serve Him with your finances.

posted 16 September, 2006

Tongues: What do you believe about speaking in tongues? What occurred on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out?

The issue about speaking in “tongues” is as much a debate in mainstream Christianity as it is in the Messianic movement. There are people in the Messianic movement today who come out of the varied charismatic movements, which frequently emphasize the gifts of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and other so-called “signs and wonders.” In our experience, many who come out of these backgrounds are some of the hardest to convince of Torah observance and the Messianic lifestyle, because many charismatics are of the opinion that they have “freedom in the Spirit,” yet this freedom often goes beyond what is Scripturally defined for us. We are also continually reminded of the Messiah’s warning to us, “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24, NRSV).

We are certainly not of the opinion that the “gifts are dead” and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were only available to those in the First Century. We are continuists,[a] but are also of the opinion that there has been gross misuse of the Spiritual gifts in recent years via some of the Pentecostal and charismatic groups that have popped up, and that we must return to a Scriptural foundation in what the Spiritual gifts actually are. God would not be doing a “new thing” in the world today that does not have some precedent or continuity with what is already seen in the Bible.

Speaking in “tongues,” as it is often manifested today in Christian assemblies and in some Messianic congregations, is often a person being “supernaturally empowered” to speak in some form of unintelligible gibberish. We certainly do not doubt the fact that we can be supernaturally empowered to speak in “groanings too deep for words” (Romans 8:26) or “groans that words cannot express” (NIV), as Paul calls them. But these groanings are only intended to be used when “the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us,” and these “groanings too deep for words” (NASU) are different than what is commonly thought to be “speaking in tongues.” These groanings could be called one’s personal prayer language with God, and only used when one has an urgent prayer to say and does not know what to say, so the Spirit takes over.

Speaking in “tongues,” as it is Biblically defined, is being supernaturally empowered to speak in an intelligible, foreign language that one does not know, or being supernaturally empowered to speak in one’s native language and being heard by others in their native language which is different. We see this occur in the Book of Acts at Shavuot/Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon those assembled: “And they were all filled of the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave ability to them to speak” (Acts 2:4, LITV). Acts 2:8 attests that those assembled said, “how do we hear each in our own dialect in which we were born?” (LITV). Those proclaiming the gospel at Shavuot/Pentecost not only were supernaturally empowered to speak or be heard in foreign languages, but were also speaking or being heard in the specific regional dialects of those assembled.

We believe that the gift of tongues is for today, but that it is not speaking in the meaningless gibberish that it is often credited as being. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:22, “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.” This is because from the example given to us in Acts, the speaking in other languages occurred so that the good news of salvation in Messiah Yeshua could be proclaimed to those who needed it. This is why speaking in “tongues,” or more correctly languages, is a sign for unbelievers.

NOTES

Torah, Before Mount Sinai (Abraham): I have heard many Messianic Believers claim that the Torah existed before Mount Sinai, and that Abraham kept it. To what degree is this actually true?

This entry has been adapted from the forthcoming paperback edition of The New Testament Validates Torah (due sometime 2011)

When the Instruction of God was finally codified, it was given to the people of Ancient Israel. But torah (hrAT) as God’s Teaching, contrary to what many contemporary Christians might know, certainly pre-dated Mount Sinai. Genesis 26:5 affirms how the Patriarch Abraham “obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” The Hebrew translated “laws” in most Bibles is torotai (ytrAt) or “My Torahs” (ATS), also “teachings” (NJPS) or “instructions” (TNIV). Abraham surely obeyed God, and knew a wide degree of what He considered acceptable and unacceptable prior to the formal giving of the Torah to the Ancient Israelites.

In Genesis 26:5 affirming that Abraham obeyed God’s “laws,” what these various “Torahs” would have likely included would have been a series of instructions primarily relating to ethics, morality, various sorts of animal sacrifice, and other practices that would mark him out as serving the One True God and not the gods of Mesopotamia or Canaan.[a] The usage of the plural torot (tArAt) could imply that as Abraham grew in his relationship with the Creator and fellowshipped with Him, that he was taught more laws by Him as time progressed, such as the rite of circumcision and the significance it would have for his descendants.[b] Originally having to answer the call of the Unseen God to leave Ur (Genesis 12:1; 15:7), Abraham was surely not told everything he was to do all at once.

A common Jewish interpretation of Genesis 26:5, as the Soncino Chumash notes, holds that “Abraham fulfilled all the laws of the Torah before they were revealed at Sinai, arriving at a knowledge of them through inspiration.”[c] In some cases, Jewish interpreters have taken the plural torot or “laws” to be both the Written Torah and Oral Torah,[d] the latter of which composes literature like the Mishnah and Talmud. While it is very possible that among the various “laws” Abraham followed could include those various oral explanations that would aid Ancient Israel with the keeping of the commandments codified at Mount Sinai, the main point to be taken from Genesis 26:5 is that Abraham’s faith in the Unseen God was in no way incompatible with him being obedient to whatever instructions such a God gave him. Abraham could not remember the Passover, which is clearly rooted in the Exodus of the future nation of Ancient Israel from Egypt. But among those things which could be clearly given to him, Abraham was faithfully obedient. In his Genesis commentary, John Calvin correctly detected the main focus of what Abraham following God’s “laws” means:

“[A]lthough laws, statutes, rites, precepts, and ceremonies, had not yet been written, Moses used these terms, that he might the more clearly show how sedulously Abraham regulated his life according to the will of God alone—how carefully he abstained from all of the impurities of the heathen—and how exactly he pursued the straight course of holiness, without turning aside to the right or to the left.”[e]

John H. Sailhamer similarly concludes, “by showing Abraham to be an example of ‘keeping the law,’ the writer has shown the nature of the relationship between law and faith. Abraham, a man who lived in faith, could be described as one who kept the law.”[f]

Of course, many readers of Genesis 26:5 do not know what to do with the assertion that Abraham followed God’s “laws” or “Torahs.” The critical tradition, which views the Pentateuch as being a compilation of different sources after the Babylonian exile, might view this only as a statement of the so-called J source or Yahwist,[g] which has been read into the account and is largely fictional. While it is easy to disregard such a liberal opinion, even conservative Christian readers issue objections to the mere thought that Abraham observed any of what would later be codified as the “Mosaic Law.” Objections are often made on the basis that Abraham married his half-sister, which is clearly prohibited.[h] Later, Jacob married two sisters,[i] and also erected a pillar to God.[j] Worst of all, Abraham took his wife’s handmaiden Hagar to conceive a child,[k] a definite practice of Ancient Near Eastern paganism which has never been viewed with the greatest of compliments in the Scriptures.[l]

The answer to much of this can elude some people, but these oversights—aside from the obvious fact that these people were limited mortals and were by no means perfect—is that there was a period when the Patriarch Abraham was an idolater, and such influences are not always easily removed. Joshua 24:2 states,

“Joshua said to all the people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, “From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods [elohim acheirim, ~yrxa ~yhla].”’”

It is true that the Torah would not be formally codified or written until Mount Sinai. But, it is to definitely be noted that a large part of the Torah being given to Ancient Israel in such a written form was to help establish the Levitical priesthood (Galatians 3:19), and with it regulate atonement for sins via animal sacrifice in the Tabernacle or Temple until the arrival of the Messiah (Hebrews 10:1, 3). The plural torotai is undoubtedly used in Genesis 26:5 to describe the obedience of Abraham, because he had to learn all of the instructions—mitzvotai chuqotai v’torotai (ytrAtw ytAQx ytwcm), “My commandments, My statutes and My laws”—directly from God, albeit somewhat loosely in some cases.

J.H. Hertz, in his Pentateuch & Haftorahs, suggests that the commandments (mitzvot, twcm) Abraham received were “Laws dictated by the moral sense, e.g. against the crimes of robbery, bloodshed, etc.,” that the statutes (chuqim, ~yQx) were “Laws ordained by God which we are to observe although reason cannot assign an explanation, e.g. the prohibition of swine’s flesh,” and laws (torot, tArAt) were “Customs and traditional ordinances orally transmitted from generation to generation.”[m] Passing any of this down orally to the succeeding generations would have been highly difficult, because of how various pagan, Ancient Near Eastern practices are seen interspersed within the early narratives of Genesis, and would have required an authority like Moses to finally and formally deliver via the transcription of the Pentateuch or Chumash.[n]

Generally speaking, all mature Christians agree that Abraham is an example that born again Believers are to follow (cf. Romans 4:16), but any argument that Abraham lived his life and conducted himself entirely on blind faith, with no instructions or commandments of any kind to follow, is most unsupportable.

NOTES

posted 02 September, 2011

Torah, Command not to “Add to”: In Deuteronomy 4:2 we are told not to add commandments to those of the Torah, yet in Judaism, and in the Messianic movement today, we have many people who follow traditions of men that some claim are “commanded,” or at least authorized by God. I am confused.

Why do many non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic community (frequently in the Two-House sub-movement), think that they can widely reject a majority of Jewish interpretations of the Torah, and associated tradition?

Much of what one encounters in the views of various independent Messianics, is a great deal of significance given to a passage of the Torah like Deuteronomy 4:2. Within this verse, Moses tells the Ancient Israelites, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” The primary emphasis of this commandment, more than anything else, is that God Himself the only One who can tell the people of Israel what to do and not to do. This is most serious given the overall message of Deuteronomy opposing idolatry and sexual immorality in the Promised Land, which the people are preparing to enter.[a] A noticeable number of non-Jewish, Messianic individuals, also think that Deuteronomy 4:2 quantitatively rules out any Jewish tradition from being recognized as a legitimate expression of Torah observance, to be followed by (any of) God’s people.

However, if we were to hold to a strict interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:2, then this likely means that when situations arise which require the faith community to make judgments on various issues or circumstances that are not directly or indirectly addressed in the Torah, or any part of Scripture, that any decision could possibly be acceptable. In the independent Messianic community today this has led to many interpretations of the Torah that are foreign to mainline Judaism, and can be quite offensive to our Jewish brethren. It can lead to everyone doing what he or she feels is right (cf. Judges 17:6; 21:25), with confusion about what to do often abounding. (Even various evangelical Christians on the outside wonder about what they witness.)

It can be irresponsible to strongly assert that traditions are not at all commanded by God, when the Torah itself later says that if a matter arises within Israel, that His people are to follow the rulings of the priests and judges who He has recognized as occupying positions of authority:

“If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case. You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you. According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left” (Deuteronomy 17:8-11).

The clause of interest is al-pi ha’Torah (hrATh yP-l[), “According to the tenor of the law” (YLT),[b] which is given to those needing a definite judgment issued regarding a matter.

Some would make the argument that every Rabbinical ruling made in Orthodox Judaism today needs to be followed by the Messianic community, but this definitely goes too far. At the same time, though, Deuteronomy 17:11 does give a wide degree of authority to those in religious leadership that needs to be considered—as at least with what we should consider to be a consultative authority. Many within today’s Messianic Judaism believe that its Torah observance should parallel the major halachic matters that bind the broad Jewish community together (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform). This would include when it celebrates the appointed times, including Chanukah and Purim, how we would dress in a congregational environment, how we generally eat kosher, and other traditions that are beneficial to the community. Of course, there is internal variance witnessed in Messianic Judaism, just as there is variance among Jewish sects today.

If a person in the independent Messianic movement has never been exposed to Messianic Judaism, or if someone is naturally predisposed to “do his own thing” (or even worse, “buck the system”) and not respect an established order, then it should not be surprising to see a strong impetus to develop applications of the Torah that are foreign to Judaism. (For many complicated reasons, outward un-conformity is something easily discerned within much of the Two-House sub-movement.)

The instruction in Deuteronomy 17:11 is that God’s people are to “Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left” (NIV). We should not believe that what is implied here is a blind obedience to the ancient rulings left by all of the Sages and Rabbis of Judaism. Messianic Believers have to ultimately evaluate their rulings against the canonical Word of God, to see if something aligns with the spirit of the Word, as most major rulings relate to ethical value judgments that the Scriptures may not directly address. With all things, we have to see whether it parallels God’s written Word, and enhances our relationship and walk with Yeshua. There are clearly things that have come down through history that can deter our walk with Him, but then there are many things that can enhance it. Each of us must use proper discernment and consideration.

What is perhaps most important more than anything else is that the rulings anticipated by Deuteronomy 17:8-11 have to be made by recognized, qualified spiritual leaders of the community. The Torah is designed to be lived out in a community, as opposed to an exclusive “one-on-one” basis between oneself and God. A prime example of this witnessed today, is that when you see kosher-for-Passover food items, they often say “consult your rabbi” on the packaging. This indicates in some way that there is debate over whether or not an item is kosher for Passover, and that the ultimate determination should go to your local rabbi, who can evaluate what your personal circumstances are.

This can be a difficult concept for many who come from evangelical Christian backgrounds to accept, because many are often not used to their pastor making “rulings” on what Believers should do or not do concerning God’s commandments. Many non-Jewish Believers are taught in church that our relationship with God is just between us and Him. While this is ultimately true, each of us is also in covenant with other members of the faith community. Just like many probably went to a pastor for spiritual guidance, prayer, counseling, or just help regarding an issue, and took his advice and followed it, so do the rulings of the Rabbis apply. Just as we would expect a pastor to be anointed by the Lord and for his words to carry authoritative weight, so can the rulings of the Rabbis.

Of course, as with all things, we should never follow the opinions of a Christian pastor blindly, nor should we ever follow the rulings of the Jewish Rabbis blindly, either. We have to test everything against God’s Word, to make sure that it aligns with the character of our Heavenly Father, and we have to see if it is something that enhances our walk with Him, rather than takes us away from Him. More than anything else, we have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis, and recognize the fact that there is a great deal of “grey” when it comes to interpretation and application. In today’s emerging Messianic community, hopefully we can find a proper balance between Scripture and tradition, where neither is considered unimportant.[c] We should also pray to have good local Messianic leaders be raised up by the Lord, who can issue sound decisions for their own communities and the issues they face (cf. Matthew 16:19).

NOTES

updated 20 July, 2011

Torah, division of commandments: How am I to appropriately understand the division of the Torah’s commandments?

Yeshua the Messiah did teach us that there were “weightier provisions of the law,” such as “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). He affirms that the greatest of the Torah’s commandments are the admonitions to love the Lord God and to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28; cf. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). It is a fact that there is a prioritization among the Torah’s commandments between those that carry more weight and those that may be considered “least” (Matthew 5:19), especially as there are differing penalties for the violation of various regulations. The teaching of our Messiah does indicate that the Torah’s commandments are divided in some way. Determining what this way is, however, has been a matter of theological discussion and debate for millennia.

Greg L. Bahnsen makes the important remark, “Christians throughout the history of the church who have advocated the authority of the Old Testament law in Christian moral instruction, such as the Reformers or Puritans, have not…done so because they make Moses the locus of their authority! Rather and more realistically, they have done so only because their true Lord and Authority, Jesus Christ, directs them to honor and obey the moral commandments of Moses.”[a] In Reformed Christian theology (and to a lesser extent historic Wesleyan theology) the commandments of the Torah have been classified under the broad categories of: moral, civil, and ceremonial. It is believed that with the coming of Yeshua and His sacrifice, the civil and ceremonial laws of Ancient Israel have been abolished, but never the Torah’s commandments regulating ethics and morality which are to remain true for all people of all times. Reformed expositors interpret passages such as Ephesians 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:14 as relating to the annulment of not the Torah as a whole, but rather the ceremonial and civil law.

In the Twenty-First Century when the evangelical Church has largely cast aside any of the Torah as relevant instruction for Believers today, we as Messianics should rejoice with our Christian brethren who have always held the Torah’s ethical commands as always having relevance! We have more in agreement with them than in disagreement, as the same Biblical passages we look to for the continued validity of the Torah are the same passages they look to for the importance of the “moral law.” However, is the classification of the Torah’s commandments into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws something that is entirely accurate? No one would doubt that there are Torah commandments that appear to be moral, civil, or ceremonial—but does the Torah itself divide its commandments this way? This may be a place where the Jewish theological tradition can step in and provide us with another perspective.

Of the 613 categorized commandments in the Chumash/Pentateuch, it is held that there are 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments. The negative commandments would largely relate to various prohibitions placed upon God’s people (i.e., the Sixth Commandment which forbids murder), but positive commandments could largely relate to things that would help God’s people and others in the larger community such as allowing the poor to glean one’s field. Within the Torah, we see its mitzvot (twcM) often classified among three distinct categories:

1.  edot (tWd[): “warning signs, reminders, urgings” (CHALOT).[b]

2. chuqim (~yQx): “divine statute[s]” (CHALOT).[c]

3. mishpatim (~yjPvM): “decision by arbitration, legal decision” (CHALOT).[d]

Each one of these various divisions denotes a degree of significance for a Torah commandment. Edot would be those things that God has placed for His people to be safe and for their well-being. Chuqim are often likened to things that do not make logical sense to the human mind, but God has told His people to follow them to demonstrate proper obedience. Mishpatim would be the closest thing to what we would call case laws, things that one can turn to when trying to evaluate what would be the best decision in a situation that would be in line with God’s will and character.

While these are three broad categories of commandments, seen within the Torah itself, the Oral Torah as seen in the Mishnah and Talmud demonstrates that the Rabbis have spent considerable time into classifying the commandments (and their application/non-application) even further. The six significant divisions in the Mishnah, from the Second Century C.E., include:

1.  Agriculture
2.  Appointed times
3.  Women
4.  Order of Damages
5.  Holy things
6.  Purities[e]

From those broad headings the Torah’s commandments are often further divided into various sub-categories as titled by the Mishnah tractates, and the Talmud which is essentially commentary on the Mishnah.

The division of commandments seen in the Mishnah does appear to be much more natural from a reading of the Torah than the traditional Reformed Christian division of moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. We would suggest that considering the Torah’s commandments from the classifications offered by the Mishnah would be better for today’s Messianic movement, especially as it is a major part of our Jewish theological heritage.

Of course, determining what part (if any) the Oral Torah and its commentary would play in our emerging Messianic theology and Torah halachah is another issue altogether. Many believe it should not be considered. But we believe that it should not be removed from the conversation of our Biblical Studies as we wrestle with how to properly live out the Torah today. Yet, this conversation should also include linguistic and historical analysis, comparison of the Pentateuch with other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, and most significantly the life example of Yeshua and His Apostles. Along with such analysis will come a realization of which commandments are “greater” compared to commandments that are “least.” And as always, when tradition is considered we must not forget the instruction given by Paul in Philippians 4:8:

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

NOTES

posted 17 September, 2008

Torah, moral and ceremonial law: How do you respond to the claim that Christ has done away with the ceremonial law, but that the moral law of God remains?

The divisions of the Torah of Moses among sets of “moral law” and “ceremonial law” are artificial. While we certainly commend Christian theologians for wanting to maintain the integrity of at least some of the Torah, the Torah does not categorize itself in terms of a commandment being “moral” or “ceremonial.” What many Christian denominations advocate is that some of the Torah’s commandments, those pertaining to the Sabbath, the holidays of Israel, the kosher dietary laws, male circumcision, etc., were abolished by the sacrifice of Yeshua—things believed to fall under the classification of “ceremonial.” They do not, however, advocate that Yeshua abolished commandments relating to personal relations, and how we are to love others, treat others with respect, not murder, steal, adulterate, etc.—things believed to fall under the classification of “moral.” This is different from some other Christian denominations and traditions that advocate that the entire Torah was abolished by Yeshua.

When approaching the Torah and studying it on a regular basis, one quickly discovers that it makes no distinction between “moral” or “ceremonial” commandments. The Torah, rather, divides its commandments among one’s status in society. If one is a male, one does commandments that are applicable for males, either married males or unmarried males. If one is female, one does commandments that are applicable for females. There are also commandments for children, priests, those in business, farmers, the Levites, and those living only inside the Land of Israel. The Torah is not difficult to follow as a Believer in Yeshua with the Holy Spirit, as not all of its commandments can be applied to our lives in a modern-day, Diaspora setting.

posted 07 June, 2006

Torah, only focused on: I have spent some time around “Messianic Believers,” and all they seem to be focused on is the Law of Moses—yet they tell me that they are trying to live “fully Biblical” lives. Is it true you just focus on the Torah in your Bible studies?

Like any religious group, the persons you are describing must be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is absolutely true that there are Messianic congregations, fellowships, and individuals that only focus on the Torah in their Bible studies and exposition. When all one focuses on is the Torah—and sometimes the Written Torah in a vacuum devoid of its historical context in the Ancient Near East—one can become anemic in his or her understanding of God’s Word. This is no different than the many Christians who only focus on the “New Testament” in their reading of the Bible, and today’s emerging Messianic movement needs to avoid making the same mistake in reverse by only focusing on the Torah.

As a ministry, we fully encourage Believers to make use of the revelation God has given us in the Biblical Books of Genesis-Deuteronomy. They form the foundation that the rest of Scripture progressively builds upon; but they by no means make up all of Scripture. When we read the Torah on a regular basis, we are reminded that God has called us out as His people, and has great plans for us if we obey Him. The constant problem is that for many centuries God’s people have not obeyed Him, and we have all fallen into the traps of sin. This is why Yeshua had to come and die for us at Golgotha (Calvary). The Torah itself is not enough without Yeshua. The Torah shows us the high standard of God that He wants us to live up to, but as fallen human beings we are totally incapable of living up to that standard. The Torah shows us our inherent need for a Divine Savior because we fall short of keeping God’s commandments.

For us as Believers in Yeshua, the Torah reveals for us the character and holiness of our Heavenly Father, that we should diligently strive to integrate into our daily lives. It gives us foundational instruction on human interaction, and how we should be concerned about social justice and righteous behavior in our communities. It teaches us important things about the human condition that have remained true ever since Creation. Hopefully, these are the things that Messianic Torah studies focus on, as God empowers us to be about His work in today’s world that desperately needs the gospel message of salvation.

Our challenge during the next few years will be how we can balance Torah study with a study of other parts of the Bible. A Messianic fellowship or congregation that only focuses on the Torah will be just as incapable to address the challenges of today’s society as a church that only focuses on the Apostolic Scriptures. Furthermore, there are many issues in the Torah itself—primarily in terms of ancient history—that today’s Messianic movement is largely unprepared to address. We would encourage every one of you to regularly survey the Scriptures: reading the weekly Torah portions, being engaged in a mid-week study of another Biblical text, and then regularly reading yet another Biblical text for your own study and reflection.

Our ministry efforts to produce Biblical commentaries under the “for the Practical Messianic” banner will hopefully produce more studies that you can use, but these take a great deal of time and research—and it admittedly will be a lifelong process in order to complete the entire Bible. In the meantime, please do read through all of the Scriptures on a regular basis, so you can gauge where your life presently is in the Lord, and where you need to improve both in your understanding of the Word and in your relationship with Him and other people.

posted 22 January, 2007

Torah, Yeshua: I heard a Messianic Bible teacher say that Yeshua was the Torah made flesh. I do not understand this concept. Can you please explain?

According to John 1:1, Yeshua the Messiah is the Word, who is God. We are told, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). These words tell us that Yeshua, who is the Word and who is God, became flesh. We know as Believers that Yeshua is the Word made flesh because He embodies the Scriptures physically in His words, actions, and deeds recorded for us in the Gospels.

Hebraically, the Word of God is synonymous to the Torah or Law of God. The following passages from the Tanach equate God’s Word with His Torah or Law:

“According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left” (Deuteronomy 12:11).

“And many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.’ For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3).

“Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble and dry grass collapses into the flame, so their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 5:24).

“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).

“Many nations will come and say, ‘Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths.’ For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Micah 4:2).

These Scriptures all equate God’s Word with being His Torah. By saying that Yeshua is the Torah made flesh, Messianic teachers are communicating that Yeshua embodies the Torah’s commandments in His teachings and actions, and thus in essence, in everything concerning Him.

posted 29 December, 2005

Tradition, Role that it plays: What role, if any, do you believe tradition should play in our examination and application of Scripture, particularly the Torah?

There is a wide variance of opinion in the emerging Messianic movement relating to what role, if any, tradition should play as we study and apply the Bible in our daily lives. This is particularly true regarding our individual pursuits of a Torah obedient lifestyle. How we follow the commandments of the Torah is a huge issue, and often the Torah itself gives us no explanation(s) of how various commandments are to be kept. The two basic options available at our disposal are to (1) develop our own opinions and applications of commandments, or (2) consult the traditional opinions and applications of commandments as developed by Judaism.

The classification of how much tradition should be followed by Messianics today can probably be listed under three broad categories: (1) staunch traditionalists, (2) anti-traditionalists, and (3) philo-traditionalists. Staunch traditionalists would be those who follow Jewish tradition without any hesitation and who may consider extra-Biblical works like the Mishnah and Talmud to be at the level of inspired Scripture. This would include those trying to emulate an Orthodox Jewish and/or Chassidic style of halachah in the Messianic community. Anti-traditionalists, in stark contrast, are those who want nothing to do with any kind of mainline Jewish tradition. This could include those who believe in following the Karaites, and/or insist on usage of the Sacred Name. Anti-traditionalists are often against practices like men wearing the tallit and kippah (yarmulke), wrapping tefillin, and celebrating holidays like Chanukah or Purim, and while promoting forms of “Torah observance” may actually appear to be anti-Semitic. Philo-traditionalists make up the centrist view between the two. This would include those who have a high respect for Jewish culture and tradition, and generally follow a Torah observant lifestyle quite consistent with Conservative Judaism, tempered by the fact that we live in a modern world. Philo-traditionalists value works like the Mishnah and Talmud, but do not consider them superior to the Tanach or Apostolic Scriptures. Our ministry very definitely falls into the philo-traditionalist camp.

The debate over “tradition” in the Messianic movement today is not going away. Most often, the argument against employing Jewish tradition and culture in one’s personal halachah is going to come in the form of statements like, “You don’t want to trade Church traditions in for Synagogue traditions.” While it is absolutely true that we want to have a Scripturally sound faith, based on the Bible first, the fact of the matter remains that the Bible does not often tell us how to apply commandments in our lives, and we will face life situations that the Biblical text does not directly or indirectly address. Many hermeneutical systems employ tradition and history to be used when it is clear that Scripture does not address something.

It is very true that Yeshua the Messiah spoke against tradition when it invalidated the Word of God, and took people away from weightier matters of the Torah like love, mercy, and respect for others. Yet at the same time, socio-historical studies in the Gospels are revealing more and more that Yeshua’s theology was closer to the Pharisees than any of the other sects of First Century Judaism, and that He indeed kept many of the traditions and customs extant in the culture of His day. The Apostle Paul urged the Corinthians to “maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2, NRSV), and studies in the Jewish background of his teachings are likewise revealing more and more that he continued to be a Pharisee long after his conversion (Acts 23:6). The independent Messianic movement today cannot dispense with the reality that while speaking against tradition when it annuls Scripture, Yeshua nevertheless lived out and followed much of the tradition of His time. This speaks to our ever-present need to be studying the Gospels and examining each event of His life on a case-by-case basis, employing the right background information.

posted 26 December, 2005

Tribulation, in it: Do you think we are currently in the Tribulation?

There are currently no indications to us that the Seventieth Week of Israel has started. Some prophecy teachers have claimed that the Tribulation has started either though the initiation of certain peace negotiations in the Mideast or what they claim that God “has shown them,” meaning exclusively to them. But, there have been no significant events of a prophetic, world changing nature that have occurred within any of the proposed timespans.

In spite of the fact that we are not in the Tribulation period, it is very important that we follow the Middle East peace negotiations, globalization, and other world events as each day we get closer to the return of the Messiah. This is true whether it will happen in our generation, or sometime beyond our lifespans.

posted 05 January, 2006

Tribulation, seven years: Why do you believe that the so-called “Tribulation” is seven years long? The Scriptures only say that it is three-and-a-half.

The prophecies of Daniel 9 indicate that Israel has been allocated 70 weeks, each “week” or shavua ([Wbv) being a period of seven years. The last of these 70 weeks, the Seventieth Week of Israel, is commonly called the Tribulation period by prophecy teachers. Because of Yeshua’s words pertaining to the “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21; cf. Daniel 12:7), which will be three-and-a-half years in length, and the usage of the term “Tribulation” in reference to the entire Seventieth Week, some get confused. When most refer to “the Tribulation” they are referring to the entire seven-year period, whereas the term “Great Tribulation” is often used in reference to the last three-and-a-half years of terrible hardship and judgment.

posted 05 January, 2006

Trinity: Do you believe in the Trinity?

The following entry has been adapted from the editor’s article, “What Does the Shema Really Mean?”

We believe that God, Elohim in Hebrew (~yhla, a plural word), has revealed Himself to humanity in the co-existent manifestations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is clear by any cursory reading of the Holy Scriptures. What is commonly called the Trinity was determined by the emerging Christian Church to be the easiest attainable understanding of God that allowed for a plurality of manifestations to exist without succumbing to the heresies of Arianism, which denied the Divinity of Yeshua, or Modalism, which advocated that God could only exist in one particular form or “mode” at a single time. A standard summary of what the Trinity is, in a great deal of Christendom, is offered by the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms:

“The Christian church’s belief that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons in one Godhead. They share the same essence or substance (Gr. homoousios). Yet they are three ‘person’ (Lat. personae).”[a]

When one encounters the subject of the plurality of Elohim or God in much of today’s Messianic movement, there is no shortage of statements or Messianic writing and literature that will denounce the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity—that God is composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as somehow being “pagan.” For some reason or another, any possible parallel or detectable connection to another religion, as small as it might be—of God being composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—means that the concept is to be flat rejected. This is a problem, because the historic doctrine of the Trinity is one of a multitude of potential beliefs that can be rejected via such a method, because of possible parallels or connections with paganism. There are scores of possible connections to be made between the early chapters of the Book of Genesis, and Ancient Near Eastern mythology—yet there is no widespread clamor in the current Messianic movement to say that the Noahdic Flood is really just the Epic of Gilgamesh repackaged into Israel’s Scriptures.[b] Flippantly claiming that something is just outright “pagan,” often without any substantial evidence, has been used far too frequently in today’s Messianic movement to reject things that are legitimately communicated by the Bible.[c]

Of course, the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity, is something that specifically developed in the Second-Fourth Centuries C.E., with much of the Christian Church having been cut off from its Hebraic Roots, leads a great number of Messianic people to treat it with some suspicion. Some are prone to reject any doctrine or belief that originated in Christendom, precisely because it is Christian. Others, however, know that this is inappropriate, because the Christian Church of the Second-Fourth Centuries C.E. used the same Holy Scriptures—both the Tanach and Apostolic Writings—that we use today. Millard J. Erickson properly advises all of us, “While those who give special authority to church councils have their authoritative answer [about the Trinity], that answer does not necessarily suffice for those Christians who do not consider the prouncements of the church councils infallible.”[d] Our attention needs to be placed squarely upon the Biblical text, to see if the concept of a God composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is something that can be legitimately derived from Scripture.

Much of the confusion that can arise from Bible readers wondering where a doctrine of some Trinity appears in Scripture, is that they typically look for a specific formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be found. It is widely recognized that today, the so-called Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8 in the Textus Receptus,[e] is unoriginal to what was originally written, which was, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”[f] However, the immersion formula of Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” is something which is not unoriginal to the ancient copies of Matthew’s Gospel,[g] and it has been argued on theological grounds by some that immersing in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a theme that naturally arises from what has been communicated by Matthew’s Gospel.[h]

It would be too simplistic for any Bible reader to think, though—as those who oppose any doctrine of God being composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit commonly do—that these are the only two places in the Apostolic Scriptures where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen functioning together. While the formula Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not always used as such, there are a selection of passages in the Apostolic Scriptures where these manifestations of the Godhead are seen functioning together, and co-existing side by side:

“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons” (1 Corinthians 12:4).

“The grace of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4-6).

“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

“Peter, an apostle of Yeshua the Messiah, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Yeshua the Messiah and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure” (1 Peter 1:1-2).

“John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Yeshua the Messiah, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (Revelation 1:4-6).

If you were to remove Matthew 28:19, the customary immersion formula, from your deliberations, you will still have to reckon with the above passages, which give us significant clues about the composition of God. Is it at all reasonable to conclude that a plural Elohim or God is composed of the co-existent manifestations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? There is ample evidence from the Biblical text that those who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, are not on unsafe ground. They have had to make decisions that affirm the Son as Divine, and the Holy Spirit as something separate from the Father, as both being integrated into the Godhead along with the Father. At the same time, when one sees references to “the seven Spirits who are before His throne” (Revelation 1:4), or to “a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Messiah” (1 Corinthians 10:4)—it might be said that the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity can be incomplete. A Godhead composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being incomplete, however, is a far cry from the Trinity being pagan. Working with the Biblical evidence, rather than to conclude that Elohim or God is only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—it might instead be that Elohim or God is widely demonstrated to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As mortal human beings, none of us wants to ever find ourselves placing inappropriate limits on our Eternal God, and conclude that there are no other manifestations of Him beyond Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A great deal of Messianic Judaism to the present time, has never had a problem with viewing the plurality of Elohim (~yhla) as being at least composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[i] Messianic Judaism has demonstrated some aversion to using the term “Trinity,” as employed by much of Christianity, and instead preferred—and we should think rightfully so—to use valid alternative terminology like tri-unity, or perhaps in some cases, revealed tri-unity. Such terms would align with the Biblical evidence that God is composed of the co-existent persons or manifestations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—but it does not discount the possibility, or even probability, that there is more to God which has been largely disclosed to mortals. A rather recent perspective is offered by Barney Kasdan in his commentary Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah (2011). Remarking on Matthew 28:19, “Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh” (CJB), he summarizes,

“…While Messianic Jews affirm the concept of the tri-unity of the one God, we may not necessarily agree with [some of] the Greek words and explanation [historically offered]…Undoubtedly some of the Hebrew background would have made a great contribution to this doctrinal discussion. Even though it is good and proper to ask some deeper questions about the nature of God, we should emphasize that Yeshua himself called the Sh’ma the greatest commandment (cf. Mark 12:28-34). One thing is for sure: Whatever the New Testament teaches about the pluralistic aspect of the one God, it must be consistent with the full revelation of the Tanakh (cf. Matthew 5:17).

“Some conclusions from a Messianic Jewish perspective lead us to view God as One and yet as a mysterious plurality within that unity. This is reflected in the words of the Great Commission of Yeshua, as the disciples are to go ‘in the Name’ (reality) of the Father, the Son, and the Ruach HaKodesh. It must be pointed out that even with the mention of the three realities of God, Yeshua uses the singular word ‘name’ in describing all three. This is consistent with the mystery of the one God revealed in a plurality of manifestations.”[j]

It is absolutely true that there are others in Messianic Judaism, as well as the One Law/One Torah and Two-House sub-movements, who would repudiate the idea that the Elohim or God of Israel can reveal Himself to humanity in the co-existent persons or manifestations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Where this has Biblical evidence, tends to be lacking. Where this has emotional evidence, as though everything that the historic Christian Church has believed is to always be rejected, is something quite plentiful. Yet for all of us, our loyalty should be to whether or not a God composed of (at least) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be reasonably deduced from the Biblical text.

If I had to answer “yes” or “no” to the question, “Do you believe in the Trinity?”, I would answer “yes.” If I could explain myself following this question, I would add that “God might be more than the Trinity, though.” This is why Elohim (~yhla) or God might be better considered to be a revealed tri-unity, or to adapt traditional Christian terminology, a principal trinity. To deny that God is surely composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is to go against what has been communicated to us in Holy Scripture, and how it is to mold the worldview of Believers.[n] In all likelihood, there is more to our Eternal God that goes beyond the co-existent manifestations or persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that would, at the very least, confuse us as limited mortals. Many evangelical Christians I know would be open to this, because God, after all, is far bigger and more wonderful than any of us can humanly imagine. At present, much of who God is and how He has acted in human history, has to be left as a mystery, something yet to be revealed to us until the Eternal State.

That there is One God, as the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 commands us to believe, cannot be denied. For Believers in the Messiah of Israel, we are to recognize Him as the One Lord, as His early followers did (1 Corinthians 8:6), with Yeshua integrated into the Divine Identity. And beyond this, that there is more to the composition of Elohim or God, can surely be recognized, even if much of it remains a mystery to us at present.

NOTES

updated 17 October, 2011

Two-House Teaching: Where does your ministry stand in regard to the Two-House teaching?

It would be fair to say that Outreach Israel and TNN Online are not considered a “Two-House”  ministry, given the wide and broad array of theological topics we address, germane to the Messianic community. We disavow the popular/populist variety of the Two-House teaching that has been promulgated since the 1990s, via a number of pseudo-denominations and sensationalistic groups and dominant personalities. Yet, in 2008, at least, one Messianic Jewish ministry actually allowed the following statement to be featured on their website: “The Two-House doctrine, in its most basic terms, simply maintains that the nation of Israel was divided following the reign of Solomon and will be reunited during the end times.”[a] This is the approach taken by our ministry to this subject matter. We would affirm a larger restoration of Israel, involving the exiled Northern Kingdom as a participant, yet to occur in Biblical prophecy.

We acknowledge a greater, end-time restoration of Israel to come that is prophesied, going beyond the rebirth of the State of Israel in 1948, as important as this has surely been. Such a larger restoration of Israel involves the Jewish people, descendants from the exiled Northern Kingdom, and many scores of companions from the nations themselves. While there are pockets of people in remote corners of places like Southeast Asia, Southern Asia, Central Africa, and the Mediterranean basin, who claim to be descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom, and probably are—these are areas generally within the sphere of influence of the old Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Empires, and where the exiles of the Northern Kingdom could have been legitimately scattered and/or assimilated (cf. Jeremiah 31:10; Hosea 8:8-9; Amos 9:8-9). We believe that the Lord will restore together the Jewish people, scattered Israel/Ephraim, and their associated companions from all nations before the Messiah’s return (Isaiah 11:12-16; Jeremiah 31:6-10; Ezekiel 37:15-28; Zechariah 10:6-10). We approach this topic from the basis of unfulfilled end-time prophecy, and not on the basis of some kind of racial identity. We do not at all encourage non-Jewish Believers who are a part of today’s Messianic movement, and who recognize themselves as a part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13; 3:6) or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), grafted in by faith (Romans 11:17-18), to identify themselves as some kind of “Ephraimites.”

The eschatology-based approach toward addressing the reunification of Judah and Ephraim, with many of the specific details only known by an Eternal God, is frequently not the approach that one encounters in much of the well-known literature surrounding the subject matter.[b] It can be said that there is a distinct difference between a populist Two-House teaching, which essentially advocates that the majority of non-Jewish Believers are likely descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom, versus a more Biblical approach to the issue that focuses on the distinct prophecies of a greater restoration of Israel.

We have definitely strived, as best we can, to focus the attention of today’s Messianic people on a larger scope of expectations regarding the restoration of Israel, with the descendants of the exiled Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim as a player. Unlike the populist Two-House teaching that has garnered the most attention in the past ten to fifteen years (1996-2011), our ministry has made it clear that trying to trace this tribe going here or that tribe going there is a fruitless endeavor. Jeremiah 31:10 clearly directs us on how, “He who scattered Israel will gather him.” Many of the finer details of the larger reunification of Israel to be anticipated are only known by the Lord. And, there will be many associated companions from the nations themselves involved in the restoration process, in all probability being the significant majority of those who participate. (Most of the non-Jewish Believers one is likely to encounter, forcibly identifying themselves as some sort of “Ephraimites,” are probably not.)

Concurrent with this, our ministry also has a consistent track record of speaking out against many of the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiments witnessed in the Two-House sub-movement. We believe that if there is a greater restoration of Israel at hand, which effectively involves all who acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—that today’s Messianics must show proper respect and honor to our Jewish and Christian forbearers, employing their great virtues to accomplish His mission and purpose.

NOTES

updated 15 August, 2011

Tzit-tzits: Do you believe that Messianics should wear tzit-tzits/fringes/tassels?

Within the Torah, one of the most interesting instructions that is given to the Ancient Israelites is, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make for themselves tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they shall put on the tassel of each corner a cord of blue” (Numbers 15:38; cf. Deuteronomy 22:12). When many non-Jewish Believers have their first exposure to the Messianic movement, it is usually by attending a Shabbat service on Saturday morning at a Messianic Jewish congregation. Like the traditional Synagogue, one will witness that many men, and even a few women, will be wearing some kind of a four-cornered garment, called a tallit (tyLj), with tassels or fringes on it.[a]

When one sees a tallit (tyLj) or prayer shawl, onto which four tzit-tzits are attached, one at each of the corners, a person is undeniably connected to the ancient past. Tallits vary in size from a small shawl to a large garment that can be used as a kind of cloak, and they usually have colored stripes, often blue or black. These prayer shawls are customarily worn during prayer times, and often in congregational services. In traditional Judaism, the tallit is only worn during the daytime, except for the evening of the high holidays of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.

Wearing tassels, fringes, or tzit-tzityot (twycyc) is easily observed on the clothing of many Orthodox Jews today. A garment that is usually worn is the tallit katan (!jq tyLj), a four-cornered undergarment worn by men onto which tzit-tzits are attached and then can be pulled out to be seen at the waist. Conservative and Reform Jews will often only wear a tallit with tzit-tzityot during the Shabbat service, the Fall high holidays, and personal, private prayer times.

Largely in Judaism, the tzit-tzits that are witnessed on the tallit or tallit katan are all white. Why is this the case? The blue dye or techelet (tlkT) that was used for the single fringe on the tzit-tzit was traditionally taken from a small sea snail (b.Menachot 42b), and following the destruction of the Second Temple the process was largely lost to history. There are organizations in Israel today which have claimed to rediscover the original blue dye, or a close substitute, and there are various observant Jews who will now wear tzit-tzityot with a thread of blue. There are also those who do not do this, and continue to simply wear all white fringes.

Generally speaking, today’s Messianic Jews will fall somewhere within how Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews observe the commandments to wear tzit-tzityot. Some of today’s Messianic Jews wear the tassels or fringes with the cord of blue, but others do not.

Many non-Jewish Messianic Believers today who have entered into the Messianic movement have gone along with their Messianic Jewish counterparts, in observing the instruction to wear tzit-tzityot. This more often includes having the cord of blue. This may involve using tzit-tzits imported from Israel using the apparently-rediscovered techelet blue dye. It is also quite frequent, however, to encounter many homemade tzit-tzits with a synthetic blue dye. In a great deal of the independent Messianic world, especially in the Two-House sub-movement, while tzit-tzits can be witnessed on a traditional tallit, more frequently homemade tzit-tzits with a synthetic blue cord are attached to belt loops. (It is also true that there are some Messianic Jews who have taken to wearing their own tzit-tzits with a synthetic blue dye, on their belt loops.[b])

Beyond this, there is a large cottage industry that has developed, with various multi-colored tzit-tzits with a synthetic blue cord present. Some of these tzit-tzits are white, with a synthetic blue cord, and a synthetic red cord to presumably represent the blood of Yeshua. Yet, unless tzit-tzits are either white with the techelet cord of blue, or all white, they stand outside of the window of what would be recognized as legitimate Torah halachah by most of today’s observant Jews.

Problems can often abound, when we see tallits being employed in a disrespectful manner, and in ways for which the tallit was never originally intended. Many non-Jewish Believers in the broad Messianic community are unaware of the diversity of views present in Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism—which for the latter two includes the acceptance of females wearing a tallit (or at least a feminine pastel tallit). To avoid problems, it is recommended that they pick an already established manner, and be consistent in using it.

While everyone has a free will, the Jewish reaction—especially in the Land of Israel—to independent interpretations of wearing tzit-tzits speaks for itself, and it is anything but positive. Tzit-tzits with a synthetic cord of blue look very odd when associating with non-believing Jews (although they do not incur anger, as much as they do mocking). Picking up a tallit for anything other than personal morning prayers or congregational worship on Saturday morning, can be a bit out of place.

NOTES

updated 20 July, 2011

$25.00 including U.S. shipping & handling