|


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
[a]
Consult Ronald L. Eisenberg,
The JPS
Guide to Jewish Traditions
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 2004), pp 382-386 for a summary
of how tefillin is employed in
the mainline Jewish Synagogue.
[b]
Cf. R.L. Omanson,
“Phylactery,” in ISBE, 3:864-865;
Ruth Santinover Fagen, “Phylacteries,”
in ABD, 5:368-370.
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
[a]
F.F. Bruce, “Criticism,” in
ISBE,
1:818.
[b]
Ibid.
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
[a]
Consult “The Charismatic Gifts Debate,”
in Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy,
eds., Across the Spectrum:
Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002), pp 212-224. updated 26 February, 2010
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
[a]
Cf. J.H. Hertz, ed.,
Pentateuch &
Haftorahs (London: Soncino, 1960),
95.
[b]
Genesis 17:10-27.
[c]
A. Cohen, ed.,
The
Soncino Chumash (Brooklyn: Soncino
Press, 1983), 145.
[d]
Cf. Nosson Scherman, ed.,
ArtScroll Chumash, Stone Edition
(Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, Ltd.,
2000), 129.
[e]
John Calvin:
Genesis,
trans. and ed. John King (Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 2:60.
[f]
John H. Sailhamer,
“Genesis,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed.
et. al., Expositor’s Bible Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:187.
[g]
Gerhard Von Rad,
Genesis: A Commentary, revised
edition (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1972), pp 270-271.
[h]
Genesis 20:12;
prohibition: Leviticus 18:9, 11.
[i]
Genesis 29:15-35;
prohibition: Leviticus 18:18.
[j]
Genesis 28, 22; 31:13; prohibition:
Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 16:22.
[k]
Genesis 16.
[l]
Cf. Galatians 4:25.
[m]
Hertz,
Pentateuch &
Haftorahs, 95.
[n]
At least in terms of the
narrative materials from Genesis
1:1-37:2, a conservative scholar like
R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the
Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1969), pp 548-551 holds that
this material could have originally
survived on eleven clay tablets that
could have later been used by Moses in
the composition of the Pentateuch.
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
[a]
Consult the author’s article “The
Message of Deuteronomy.”
[b]
“according to the mouth
of the law” (LITV); “According to the
sentence of the law” (KJV).
[c]
For a further discussion
of related topics, consult the author’s
exegetical paper on Matthew 23:2-3, “Who
Sits in the Seat of Moses?”
in the Messianic Torah Helper
(forthcoming).
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
[a]
Greg L. Bahnsen, “Response to Douglas
Moo,” in Wayne G. Strickland, ed.,
Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 391.
[b]
CHALOT,
266.
[c]
Ibid., 114.
[d]
Ibid., 221.
[e]
English titles are taken
from the Table of Contents in Jacob
Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New
Translation (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1988).
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
[a]
Donald S. McKim, Westminster
Dictionary of Theological Terms
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1996), 288.
[b]
This is discussed further
in the editor’s article, “Encountering
Mythology: A Case Study From the Flood
Narratives.”
[c]
It has to be noted that
Outreach Israel Ministries and TNN
Online, against the more common
convention seen in much of the Messianic
movement, has never argued that the
holidays of Christmas and Easter are
“pagan,” per se. What we have instead
argued is that these
holidays are
non-Biblical, because the
events
that they are intended to commemorate,
the birth of the Messiah and His
resurrection, are Biblical.
Consult the relevant
sections of the
Messianic Winter
Holiday Helper and
Messianic Spring
Holiday Helper by
TNN Press.
[d]
Millard J. Erickson,
Making Sense of the Trinity: Three
Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 2000), 15.
[e]
“For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one” (1 John 5:7-8, KJV).
[f]
Bruce M. Metzger,
A
Textual Commentary of the Greek New
Testament (London and New York:
United Bible Societies, 1975), pp
715-717.
[g]
R.T. France,
New
International Commentary on the New
Testament: The Gospel of Matthew
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1117
states, “There is...no evidence that
this is not an original part of the
Gospel of Matthew.” For a Messianic
evaluation of this, consult the article
“In the Name of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit: Matt 28:19 – A
Later Addition to Matthew's Gospel?” by
Tim Hegg, available for access at <www.torahresource.com>.
It cannot go unnoticed
that the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew, which various Messianics think
is superior to the canonical Greek
Matthew, does lack any reference to
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew
18:19. The Shem Tov Matthew, though, was
put together from a Jewish
anti-missionary work entitled
Even
Bohan (!hwb
!ba),
and dates from the Fourteenth Century
C.E. An evaluation of the Shem Tov
Matthew is provided in the editor’s
article “Is
the Hebrew Matthew an Authentic
Document?”
[h]
In the view of John
Nolland, New International Greek
Testament Commentary: The Gospel of
Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 1269,
“The choice of language
is well rooted in earlier Matthean
language. So it seems natural to think
of Matthew as taking up important
strands of the story he has been
telling. In 1:1 Matthew summarized in a
triad of names the genealogy to follow,
by means of which he defined Jesus in
relation to the history of God’s prior
dealings with his people. Now at the end
Matthew sums up his own narrative and
identifies in briefest compass the
significance of his chief protagonist by
speaking of Jesus as the Son in relation
to the Father and as closely linked with
the Holy Spirit. Matthew’s story has
been about the action of the Father
through the Son and by means of the Holy
Spirit.”
[i]
Michael Schiffman,
“Messianic Jews and the Tri-Unity of
God,” in John Fischer, ed.,
The
Enduring Paradox: Exploratory Essays in
Messianic Judaism (Baltimore:
Lederer, 2000), pp 61-69; Michael L.
Brown, Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2: Theological Objections
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), pp
52-59.
[j]
Barney Kasdan,
Matthew
Presents Yeshua, King Messiah: A
Messianic Commentary (Clarksville,
MD: Lederer Books, 2011), pp 396-397.
It cannot be overlooked
in the case of both Schiffman, in
Fischer, 69 and Kasdan, 396, that they
have referred to the Zohar and its
assertion of there being “three heads”
of God. While this could be used as a
reference to claim that the idea of the
One God of Israel made up of three
persons or manifestations is not
incompatible with Jewish theology, the
Zohar originates from the Middle Ages
and is thus not reflective of the Jewish
theology of the broad First Century—much
less the fact that the Zohar is a main
work of the Kabbalah and Jewish
mysticism. This is why we should think
that the approach detailed in Richard
Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), of
Yeshua being integrated into the Divine
Identity of the
LORD or YHWH, better corresponds
to views present within the broad First
Century period.
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
[a]
(2008).
Two-House Doctrine
Debate.
The Messianic Center.
Retrieved 14 August, 2011 from <http://www.themessianiccenter.com>.
[b]
This would be especially
true of the literature and approach of
the Messianic Israel Alliance, which our ministry
largely finds to be simplistic and
under-developed.
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
[a]
Consult Ronald L. Eisenberg,
The JPS
Guide to Jewish Traditions
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 2004), pp 377-382 for a summary
of how the tallit is employed in
the mainline Jewish Synagogue.
[b]
They are advertised on p
23 of the 2010-2011 Messianic Jewish
Resources Catalog published by
Lederer.
updated 20 July, 2011 |