A Place of Dead Skunks and White Lines (Part IVb)

The Skunk:  Association with the Church

For one year now, I have chosen to associate with the “Church”.  I attend Sunday worship with a small Protestant denomination near my home, just about every week.  This decision was prompted by David Rudolph’s Paul’s Rule paper which was the culmination of several factors occurring over approximately two years time.

Like the skunk in the middle of the road, this decision has required personal flexibility and a softening of previously harsh and condemning views I held of attending church in general.  Also, like the natural reaction to a dead skunk, most Messianics I know have turned away from me due to this decision.  Such turning away is of course the result of moving in different paths, and in general my Messianic acquaintances have shown understanding toward this decision even though they are disinterested to consider the reasons for it in-depth.  Just one person has reacted with angry and condemning words, refusing to interact with me at all.  Yet, the one common question asked by everyone is ; why would you decide to return to church?  Three aspects of this decision are as follows.

Community

Participating in a One Law congregation for three years, lead me on a continual quest for more stringent practice.  This was my own conclusion, not held by the community at large, who practiced a mixed-bag of subjective Sola Scriptura basics along with pick-and-choose rabbinic liturgy adapted by the leaders.  Although done in all sincerity, and with true devotion to the Master, practice here followed the lowest common denominator approach.  In other words, the leaders shied away from developing community practice standards apart from the basics of corporate worship on the seventh day Sabbath and festival Sabbaths, and observance of a “biblical kosher” diet.  Additional practice was according to the individual’s discretion with no community instruction given regarding it. 

This overarching indetermination regarding community practice was unnerving to me, especially due to the belief that Torah observance was an obligation.   Therefore, I began to study and incorporate more stringent practice personally, for the more detailed I was in my observance then surely the more devoted disciple to the Master I would become.  Eventually, I took on the practice of not driving on the Sabbath, which severed weekly worship with the Messianic community. For nearly a year I worshipped in relative isolation.  At first, there was an exhilarating freedom in this as I was able to develop my own personal halachah without meeting resistance and subtle criticism of others in a community setting.  I did keep in fairly close contact with the community and would drive to worship with them on the festival Sabbath days.  But, it didn’t take long to realize this was an unhealthy path spiritually.  One never advocated in the Apostolic Writings which admonish to “not forsake assembling together”.  Although in the view of some Messianics, (outside of the community I attended) such isolated Torah observance is the price of suffering with Messiah that one who is serious about being his disciple, must endure today.

I have decided to return to church in order to participate in community, and admittedly, to do so in a way in which I can maintain personal Torah observance to the stringency of my choosing.  I pray and worship with fellow believers and participate in the life of this church community through financial giving and hosting of the HaYesod series.  I have grown quite fond of the people there, including the pastor, which has required much flexibility on my part as well as a soft and patient approach rather than a critical view.  

 Identity

One criticism I have received in returning to church is that by doing so I identify myself by association as being in agreement with erroneous teachings of the historic Christian faith.  In other words, by praying and worshipping with Christians on Sunday I strengthen the belief that the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday, and ultimately degrade the Shabbat even if I do observe it personally.  Participation in the church also makes me publicly liable for upholding the ideals of supersessionism and the error of the Trinity. 

Certainly this criticism presents a valid point, but this point also applies regarding worship in a Messianic setting and/or in isolation from any community at all.  By worshipping within a One Law setting I publicly identified myself as a Jewess, being assigned a Hebrew name within the community and encouraged to call myself an Israelite, or Messianic Jew (as Messianic Gentile was considered a misnomer).  I also upheld a form of supersessionism in which the identity of Israel as G-d’s chosen people is obscured through an “expansion theology” approach which assimilates Gentiles into Israel as equally “Jewish”.  The seventh day Sabbath, although reverenced and set apart, was yet degraded due to the lack of a community standard for personal observance despite Torah being understood as obligatory.  Most people went about their business as on any other day, after Sabbath worship and Oneg was concluded. 

But worse yet, is Torah observance in isolation from any community whatsoever.  Of what does this bespeak publicly and by association; except that all other believers, Messianic or otherwise, are steeped in impossible and fatal errors of which I cannot associate myself.  By neglecting association with any Yeshua believing community  I publicly reject all of it, both good and bad, in order to pursue my own personally tested and approved form of worship and observance which I alone deem fit for me. 

I find my identity in the church best summed up by the attendance register used there each Sunday.  In this register each person fills in their name and checks off the appropriate box describing their association with the church as being; a. church member b. visiting denominational member c. visiting non-member or d. regular attending non-member.  I am a “regular attending non-member” of a church community.  This distinction is highlighted every third Sunday of the month as 99% of the congregation goes forward for Holy Communion while me and perhaps 3 or 4 other non-members sit in the pews and sing the Communion hymn (in this closed Communion denomination).  Truthfully, I’m glad for this distinction because it testifies on a regular basis that I participate with this community of believers but am not indoctrinated into it.  I do not recite the Nicene Creed on Communion Sundays, and strongly disagree with supersessionistic theologies of the denomination (which the pastor also disagrees with as evidenced by his comments on the subject during the HaYesod series).  While many church service projects and outreach ministries occur on Saturday’s, I do not participate due to setting apart the Sabbath day.  Although Sunday is set aside as the day of communal worship, it certainly could not be classified as a Sabbath or rest day, as people go about various plans and preoccupations of all types, as on any other day of the week, once the Sunday service is concluded.

I have decided to return to church because association with it identifies me as a Gentile believer in Yeshua in this day and age.  I do not have the opportunity or ability to worship as a G-d Fearer for this category does not exist anymore.  I cannot worship in a Jewish Synagogue freely and openly as a believer in Yeshua and be welcomed to participate to the level of practice I desire.  Worshipping in a Messianic setting leads to confusion in identity as I am viewed as being a Jewess or wanting to be a Jewess.  Being associated with the church seems to provide something of a balance as I am clearly identified as a Gentile believer while yet enjoying freedom to observe Torah as a personal means of devotion and blessing.

Opportunity

In an audio talk given during the 2011 Shavuot Conference at Beth Immanuel in Hudson, Wisconsin, Boaz Michael rallied Gentile Torah observant believers to participate in a Reformation Reloaded.  Being the “future of the Messianic movement” observant Gentiles were encouraged toward one of three paths; a. returning to the church  b. establishing of Messianic Gentile congregations and c. participation in Messianic Jewish congregations.  One key issue presented as crucial to the growth of the Messianic movement was to “change the church” regarding its view of and relationship to Torah and historic understanding of its Jewish roots and Jewish Messiah.  Although this issue certainly is important, it was not a motivation of mine to return to church with an agenda to change the church.  The opportunity to host a HaYesod series happened almost by default and was not a plan of mine in any respect. Actually, I envisioned observing Torah quietly and personally with no intention of mentioning this aspect of my religious practice to others in the church at all.

Although it was not a reason for returning to church, opportunity has become an unexpected result of it.  Admittedly, I am different from any other congregant in the community.  Getting to know me people recognize this and are curious about it.  This naturally presents opportunity to speak of Torah as well as Yeshua and the Apostolic Writings in their historic-Judaic context.  Will this opportunity lead to a “radical reformation” of the small, traditional Protestant church I attend?  Truthfully, I doubt it.  Since ritual (sign-commandment) Torah observance is, in my opinion, hiddur mitzvah (voluntary enhancement of basic, universal, natural law observance) such practice will likely be considered, somewhat, by some individuals, as a novelty.  On the other side of the coin, such opportunity will meet with resistance and misunderstanding too, which I have already experienced to some degree by hosting the HaYesod series. 

After the tense outcome of the HaYesod series I hosted last winter, I determined to keep my convictions and practice to myself and to be even more cautious about this.  I figured the pastor would not approach me again regarding hosting or being involved with a bible study and would perhaps view me as a potential rebel to his authority.  I wondered if it would be best to leave this congregation.   Astonishingly, a couple of weeks ago the pastor approached me after service.  He asked if I would be willing to view a video series about the historic Jesus, Peter and Paul produced by a national television channel. This national channel is seeking the opinions of multiple church denominations regarding the documentary which they hope will provide a connection with Christian audiences and a resource that could be used as a study tool within congregations.  The pastor has asked a handful of congregants to view this and give their opinion and also asked for my comment regarding using this documentary as a bible study.  Remarkably another opportunity has arisen, out of the blue.

With all due respects to the memory of Tim Hegg’s godly father (who I’m sure I would have enjoyed meeting due to his frankness and good humor), I choose to walk among the skunks and lines found in the middle of the road.  For some reason, HaShem allowed me to be directed into the Messianic world, six years ago.  It was there that I discovered the beauty of Torah, the wisdom of the Sages, and my Jewish Messiah, which altered my spiritual course in a most profound way.  This “Torah” is something I cannot give up, and frankly, refuse to give up despite the fact that I am indeed walking in “the middle of the middle road” by also participating in the church.

. . . . . . . . . .

Two suggested resources that I have found helpful and inspiring in walking this middle road of church and Torah include;

 The Unknown Sanctuary; A Pilgrimage from Rome to Israel  by Aime Palliere

 Israel and Humanity  by Elijah Benamozegh

A Place of Dead Skunks and White Lines (Part IVa)

My Conclusion:  The Wisdom of the Middle Road.

 Any person whose character traits all fall in the center, midway between the extremes, is considered wise.

. . . we are commanded to follow the middle path in life. This is the best and most upright way, as the verse states, “You shall follow in His ways” (Deut., 28:9).

Maimonides; Hilchot Deot (Laws of Counsel) Chapter 1 Laws 4b and 5b

The great Sage Maimonides valued the middle path of life, considering it the way of the wise and the most upright way as commanded by Torah.  I agree with his estimation, especially regarding walking along the middle road of Torah observance as a Gentile believer.  But, inevitably my path is made up of skunks and white lines too, just as any middle of the road experience.

The White Line:  Torah Observance as Hiddur Mitzvah

. . . “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws”.  (Genesis 26:5)

From this verse the Sages derive that Abraham kept the entire Torah before it was given at Sinai.  He kept the moral and ethical “commandments” (mitzvotay) that are logically or rationally understood by humanity.  He kept G-d’s “charge” (mishmarti), initiating safeguards that acted as barriers to violating scriptural laws.  He also kept “statutes” (chukotay) which human reason cannot explain.  In doing this Abraham obeyed G-d’s laws or Torahs (vetorotay, plural) understood as a keeping of both the written and oral Torahs inclusively prior to the covenant at Sinai. 

The interesting thing about this verse isn’t so much the exposition of the Sages and the natural question that arises; how could Abraham have kept the Torah prior to Torah being given?  Instead, the fascinating thing is that halachically Abraham was a Noahide.  He, like the rest of mankind, was obligated to the laws given to Noah.  He wasn’t obligated to keep any of the commandments legally except for the commandment of circumcision.  Therefore, Abraham’s decision to observe the mitzvot of Torah before they were given, was technically speaking, a hiddur.  “Hiddur” is the Hebrew word describing “beautification of the commandments”, or the enhancement of commands which are obligatory.  Therefore, Abraham’s keeping of the entire Torah, as understood by the Sages, was a voluntary enhancement of the Noahide laws to which he was obliged.  [1]

The important point here is that in presenting Abraham as having kept the entire Torah, rabbinic theology indirectly teaches that all of the commands of Torah are means of beautifying or enhancing the most basic Noahide laws, given to all of mankind.  Abraham was not hindered or prohibited in his Torah observance as a technical Noahide.  He kept not only the naturally derived, logical laws, as well as “fence laws” but also the laws that supersede logic and are observed out of complete loyalty to G-d as King.  In the same way any Noahide, or righteous Gentile, has the same prerogative as Abraham to voluntarily observe the Torah in its entirety as a means of enhancing observance to which he is obliged.  

 Maimonides upholds this principle in the Laws of Kings 10:10 by saying;  

“We should not prevent a son of Noah who desires to perform one of the Torah’s mitzvot in order to receive a reward, from doing so [provided] he performs it as required [according to halachah]”.  

 This is essentially Divine Invitation, Rambam style.  One who is not prevented is assumed to be invited to perform Torah’s mitzvot, including the “sign” commandments, as long as observance is according to halachah, (with respect for rabbinic tradition and law).  The difference here has to do with performing the mitzvot for reward.  Rambam taught that a righteous Gentile who obeys the seven laws out of fear of G-d and obedience to Him merits a place in the World to Come.  Yeshua and the apostles taught that no one merits a place in the World to Come except through him. The reward of keeping additional mitzvot results in drawing closer to HaShem in this life as well as reward in the World to Come, consistent with “one who observed but was not commanded”.  

The concept of hiddur, or beautification and enhancement of the commandments, is derived from Exodus 15:2 and the “Song at the Sea”.  Here, the Israelites sing to HaShem after crossing the Red Sea proclaiming; “He is my G-d and I will glorify Him”. The Sages ponder how one can possibly glorify G-d? According to Talmud (BT Shabbat 133b), to glorify G-d includes adorning oneself before Him by performing the mitzvot in beautiful ways, such as making a beautiful Sukkah in His honor, or having a beautiful lulav etc.  Remarkably, the Israelites proclaim a desire and commitment to glorify G-d after they have been redeemed by HaShem, being freed from slavery in Egypt. Those who had experienced such Divine redemption were not satisfied with the status quo.  Instead, they desired to glorify G-d, by adorning and enhancing their observance.   

In the same way Gentiles who have been redeemed from slavery to sin by the work of Yeshua, display the same characteristic and desire.  In Acts 10 Peter testifies that when given the Holy Spirit the Gentiles believers, just as the Jewish believers, proclaimed the praises of G-d in the gift of tongues.  Paul teaches in Romans 15 that one of the purposes of Yeshua’s ministry is that; “the Gentiles might glorify G-d for His mercy” (Romans 15:9).  Evidence of the Holy Spirit in one’s life is the desire to want to do more and obey more out of love for and service to HaShem, not being satisfied with the status quo or doing the least possible to “get by”.  

Interestingly, Lancaster on Galatians understands Gentile believers, being described as “sons of Abraham” to occupy a radically “counterintuitive” position as “proselytes by faith” or “spiritual proselytes”. [2]  Yet such terminology is little more than an obtuse label, for what does it mean to be a “spiritual proselyte”?  A Gentile believer is categorized as a “son of Abraham” by displaying the same faith as Abraham regarding G-d’s promised seed (Messiah).  Abraham, the man of faith, according to the exposition of the Sages, was not content with the status quo and did not live by his legal status as a Noahide alone.  Instead he observed the basic commandments in the most enhanced way possible, the way that most glorified G-d, by voluntarily practicing all of Torah, even before it was given.  Perhaps this is the very definition of a Gentile believer as a “son of Abraham” and a “proselyte by faith”, one, who in like manner as his “spiritual father”, desires to live a life most glorifying to G-d by voluntarily observing as much Torah as “he is able to bear”. (cf. Didache 6:2)

This is my “white line” in the middle of the road, observing the Torah as Hiddur Mitzvah, as an enhancement of basic, universal, natural law to which I and all other individuals of the nations are obligated.  This is a prerogative allowed to the “righteous Gentile” per the halachah, and a characteristic implanted within me by the Spirit, through faith as of Abraham, in G-d’s promised seed, Messiah.  This line is straight because it respects rabbinic Judaism as I cannot bear the inconsistency and subjectivity of practice apart from a well-thought out biblically based framework, which I have found in the halachah of the Sages and the “little handbook” called the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.  

This line is also straight because I believe in justification by faith through G-d’s grace by means of the saving work of Yeshua alone.  In other words, I do not believe that upholding the basic, universal or Noahide laws, even out of love and fear for HaShem merits me a place in the World to Come.  This salvation is only possible through Yeshua and the resurrection from the dead that he enables for mankind by legally exonerating men before G-d.  I do believe however that life in the World to Come will be shaped by my faithfulness in this life, and therefore that “reward” is received for faithfulness in observance (done out of love for G-d and neighbor).  Torah observant believers will gain reward in the sense that they will be equipped and prepared to function by the standards of the Messianic Age which will be the standard of Torah, while other believers will be less prepared for this.

Yet, this white line is filled with many dashes in several respects. Being without a Messianic community and/or a proper, qualified, rabbinic authority or teacher, I am left to interpret observance for myself.  Although I do study carefully any mitzvah I desire to take on or “enhance” through more particular or stringent observance, and count the cost of such an undertaking in advance – apart from community such observance is lacking and incomplete.  Yet, in respecting the halachah of the rabbis I have, in my experience, effectively distanced and separated myself from the two options for Messianic fellowship in my area; the One Torah community who loosely follows a mix of rabbinic tradition and subjective Sola Scriptura, and the Messianic Jewish Synagogue which in essence, and to a lesser extent in both categories, does the same.

Following the ideas of the Rambam regarding the righteous Gentile’s “right” to perform any of the mitzvot he desires, places me at odds with varying interpretations of Gentile observance among modern rabbinic sources that position themselves as authorities on this subject.  Unfortunately many such Noahide “authorities” take wide and varying liberties to prohibit righteous Gentiles from certain commands that are often subjectively defined as for “legal” Jews only.  Prohibitions include such things as tzizit, tefillin and mezuzah, as well as not observing the fast of Yom Kippur, and observing the other festivals in a much reduced capacity.  I have even read one opinion that Gentiles who desire to celebrate Hanukkah, should not place the Hanukkiah in the front window, but instead away from it in a place where they can enjoy the light but others, outside, cannot see it.  Although Messianic Jews aligned with the Bilateral Ecclesiology camp, give little if any notice to halachah regarding the “righteous Gentile”, they ironically promote much of the same thinking, by subjectively prohibiting Gentile Torah observance except in “Jewish space”.

Lastly, because I have chosen to associate with the Church and not condemn Christianity in general as a useless and pagan endeavor, I draw from the beauty and structure of traditional and ancient Christian liturgy in combination with rabbinic liturgy in my own practice.  For example; I use various collects and prayers from Christian sources, particularly the Book of Common Prayer, in my personal worship, performed in the general framework of the Orthodox Siddur.  Another such “mixture” is the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper at erev Yom Tov meals (including erev Shabbat), by incorporating some of the liturgical prayers from “The Holy Eucharist; Rite One”, (also found in the Book of Common Prayer), in conjunction with prayer from the Didache as well. 

 This segues nicely into the next topic of my middle road position, the “skunk”; which encompasses my association with the Church.  This topic I will have to save for part IV b of this series, my concluding thoughts on the subject.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1] Rabbi Chaim Miller; The Gutnick Edition Chumash: Book of Genesis, Kol Menachem, Brooklyn, N.Y., 2008 p. 94 (comments of Toras Menachem).

[2] D. Thomas Lancaster; The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, Sermons on a Messianic Jewish Approach, First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield, MO, 2011, p. 124.

A Place of Dead Skunks and White Lines (Part III)

The Reality of the Middle Road:  Skunks and White Lines Meet and Intersect

What defines a dead skunk as being in the middle of the road, if not the white line upon which its carcass lies? In the middle of the road is not found a skunk and a white line, but an intermingling of the skunk and the line.  The skunk softens and slightly obscures the line which intersects it and determines the position of the skunk– as in the middle of the road.

In the same fashion, Divine Invitation and One Torah represent two camps of Messianic thought and theology occupying the awkward middle road of Torah observance for all believers in Yeshua.  Yet, they do not travel this middle road side by side or in parallel fashion but with inevitable intersection and interaction, just as the skunk sprawled across the white line.   

On the soft “skunk” side of this interaction is the agreement both Divine Invitation and One Torah maintain regarding justification.  Obedience to and observance of the law does not gain an individual merit to enter the World to Come.  A place in G-d’s Kingdom (i.e. salvation) is the result of the work of Yeshua alone that renders believers legally exonerated before HaShem.  Justification by grace through faith is a bed that both views comfortably share and uphold.

Yet, both groups also agree in an area that is a sharp and cutting line, especially in the eyes of the Christian world.  This is the understanding and teaching that Christianity rejects the Torah considering it to be nullified and the opposite of faith.  When hosting the HaYesod series for the church group (see post Unintelligible for more details), broad and sweeping statements such as; “Christianity teaches the Torah is nullified” or “Christianity has left behind Torah” were considered unfair and stereotypical.   The pastor who attended the study pointed out that “we do not reject Torah”; “we teach obedience to the 10 commandments”.  Although Messianics would be quick to say that for Christianity there are “nine commandments” and “one suggestion” (the Sabbath), in general I agree with the pastor.  Being raised a Catholic; I can attest to being taught from childhood to obey the 10 commandments. The Catholic child on his way to the confessional is painfully aware that commitment to the commandments is hardly nullified or inconsequential. A quick read of any Catholic Examination of Conscience, reveals a detailed list of particulars, based on the 10 commandments, which the faithful are obligated to uphold and fulfill.

But in the Messianic world, as I have experienced it, this “one size fits all” view of Christianity’s relationship with Torah is based on the definition of Torah as being “the Jewish commandments” or “the sign commandments” — the laws that distinguish Jewish identity.  This “Torah” includes observance of the Sabbath, festival calendar, dietary kosher, tzitzit, mezuzah and tefillin.  Because historic Christianity turned away from such Jewish identifiers many centuries ago, the Messianic community places much focus and effort upon restoring first century practice by observing these outward commandments.  This focus gives rise to the understanding that observance of such identifiers is greater, more important, and/or more sanctifying than obedience to other commands.  This is especially true regarding the “Golden Rule”, to love one’s neighbor as oneself, which is often placed on the back burner, being considered a light and highly subjective command incapable of producing truly deep devotion and authentic discipleship to the Master.  

Yet, the sages ponder Leviticus 19:18, (to love one’s neighbor as oneself), as one of the most perplexing and difficult precepts in Torah.  Taken literally, this command legislates an emotional feeling between one person and another.  In the minds of the rabbis this is incredible; for how can the Torah legislate anything other than action, which is within an individual’s direct control, while emotions lie outside of such personal control?  To overcome this difficulty the unusual Hebrew preposition l’ used in conjunction with the word “your fellow” (l’re’acha, לְרֵעֲךָ) in this verse is understood to refer to having love for one’s fellow, or loving one’s neighbor like oneself.  [1]

Ramban explains that love for one’s fellow does not mean literally feeling the same love for others that one feels for himself.  Rather, this command speaks of wanting for others success, prosperity, happiness, and all good things, to the same degree as we want them for ourselves.  Although we may wish an individual “all the best” verbally, show outward happiness, and even aid them practically toward success, our natural tendency is to want less for others than for ourselves.  [2] Often this tendency is based on inward reasoning that others do not deserve the fullness of all good things.  Therefore, they do not merit to be loved in the sense of truly desiring for them what I want for myself.  In the most basic sense, a person’s love of self is automatic and instinctual, i.e. I don’t have to think of reasons to love myself, I just do.  In the same way, I must love others, automatically, without looking for reasons why I should love someone or seeking qualities that would merit my unhindered desire for their complete success and best.

Yeshua taught that love for neighbor is the indentifying quality of his disciples (John 13:34).  Yeshua’s disciples are to love one another as he has loved them (John 15:12).  His love toward the believer exemplifies the perfect inward desire for the highest possible good for all mankind despite our complete unworthiness; that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).  Yeshua’s atoning work merits justification before HaShem for any person making possible the very best of everything for them, in this life and in the World to Come.  

When DI came to the forefront about two or three years ago, the idea of not being obligated to Torah as a Gentile believer (i.e. to the “sign commandments”), was offensive and grievous to me.  I wanted to be obligated and held accountable for this path of complete discipleship and devotion to the Master.  Unfortunately, both DI and One Torah tend to promote a  “second class citizen in G-d’s kingdom” concept by highlighting the sign commandments as the path of discipleship for all believers based on imitation of Yeshua as an observant Jew. Lancaster on Galatians admonishes Gentiles to observe as many of the sign commandments as they are able because such are “good”, “godly”, and “filled with blessing”.  Observing these commands is “the natural path of biblical life” which stems from “love of G-d” and “imitation of his holy son”. [3] This assumes that those Gentile believers who do not take on the sign commandments voluntarily are missing out on blessing, lacking in love for G-d,  and not following the natural path of biblical life through imitation of Yeshua.  For One Torah, those who do not obey the sign commandments are acting in outright rebellion toward the Sinai Covenant to which they are bound and therefore are “least in the kingdom of Heaven”.

 When Lancaster teaches that Gentile believers are obligated to the  “duh . . . .obvious” commandments, i.e. those that reject the “self evident” works of the flesh (cf. Galatians 5:19-21) [4], he leaves his fellow Gentile audience with a sinking “second class” feeling.  A teaching which assumes that the most to be expected from a non-Jewish believer is to follow a form of natural law, and thereby “walk according to the Spirit”.  This overlooks the fact that godly ideals reached by means of common logic are not automatic.  All people would agree that the fruit of the Spirit, those qualities of “love, joy, peace, patience” etc., define the ideal way human beings should act toward each other.  Yet, such qualities are not instinctive by any means, but continually resisted and opposed within the very human psyche itself.  This is the human condition which the disciple of Yeshua is given ability to elevate through means of the Spirit, by loving one’s neighbor, a command which Hillel understood as equivalent to “the whole Torah” with “the rest” being merely “commentary” (BT Shabbat 31a).

Yeshua himself never taught that the outward Jewish commandments are proof of discipleship to him.  Instead, loving one another is the means of glorifying HaShem and identifying oneself as Yeshua’s disciple to the fullest possible extent, by applying oneself to the most challenging of human endeavors – the inward transformation of the heart.  Instead of elevating the mundane alone, through observance of outward, identifying commandments, all disciples of Yeshua, both Jew and Gentile are obligated to elevate the very inward desires and hidden aspects of human nature, through love for one’s neighbor, as defined in its biblical, rabbinic sense (cf. Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14).  Admittedly, modern day Christianity does teach a very subjective and watered-down understanding of the Golden Rule.  However, this doesn’t mean that loving one’s neighbor (in its proper biblical context) is a lesser or unworthy path of discipleship, or a lighter obligation than taking on the “sign commandments” of Judaism.  Remarkably, just the opposite is the case as all believers are admonished toward a very high calling in Messiah. 

Lastly, I have noticed a strange mixture in the relationship between DI and One Torah, an equation that I’m sure will be most unappealing to both camps, just as the sight of a squashed skunk upon the linear white line in the middle of the road.  The equation goes like this;

DI upholds respect for rabbinic halachah –> rabbinic halachah teaches Noahidism for righteous Gentiles –> righteous Noahide Gentiles are permitted to take on additional non-obligatory Torah observance as long as a distinction is maintained –> One Torah fulfills Divine Invitation (regarding Gentile observance).

Inevitably, One Torah must follow some rabbinic halachah because Sola Scriptura does not provide enough practical detail for community practice, and the historic Church is void of any instruction regarding the “sign commandments” abandoned centuries ago. Therefore One Torah communities, in my experience, make use of a Siddur, follow a synagogue model of worship, have an ark and a Torah scroll, sing the Shema in Hebrew, expect their men to wear kippah, tzizit, tallit, and wrap tefillin, affix a mezuzah in every doorway of the “shul”, perform bar and bat mitzvahs and assign a Hebrew name to each congregant to affirm their identity as Israelites.  Yet, all of this observance is performed in a very adapted and individualized way based on the determination of the community leaders, which makes practice quite distinct from the traditions and majority views found in rabbinic Judaism.  

However, such individualized and “Gentilized” forms of observance are opposed by Divine Invitation which rejects strict Noahidism and encourages Gentile believers to take on the “sign commandments” according to Orthodox halachah.  Yet, by taking on such Orthodox practice the Gentile effectively, in theory, obscures any distinction from his Jewish brother and nullifies a basic premise of the DI theology, that Jew and Gentile are to maintain ethnic distinction; as “Paul’s rule in all the churches”.  But in today’s Messianic situation such distinction is still maintained, even if Gentiles take on Orthodox practice, because Messianic Jews typically reject strict Orthodoxy.  The result is therefore an awkward picture of Gentile believers practicing in a manner of Orthodox Jews and Jewish believers practicing like Noahide Gentiles.

This is a mess of an equation, to be quite frank, a sloppy and difficult spot to consider. Yet, that’s the reality of the middle road, when one looks closely at the interaction of the skunk and the line therein.  

(My Conclusion:  The Wisdom of the Middle Road, will be considered in the final part IV of this series)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1]  Michael Carasik, editor; The Commentator’s Bible, JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot Leviticus, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 149 – 151 (see comments of Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides).

[2] Ibid. p. 151 (see comments of Nachmanides)

[3]  D. Thomas Lancaster; The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, Sermons on a Messianic Jewish Approach, First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield, MO, 2011, p. 243.

[4] Ibid.  pp. 252-253.

A Place of Dead Skunks and White Lines (Part II)

The White Line:  One Torah

 As opposed to Divine Invitation, One Torah theology cannot be classified as something that is soft, fuzzy, tolerant, or flexible. In fact, the very opposite is the case.  Like the white line in the middle of the road, One Torah embraces a monochrome view and moves ahead in an unwavering linear fashion.  Its matter-of-fact sharpness and symmetry, results in a natural intolerance for those who do not uphold its theology.  One is either within the lines or out of line, they are either moving ahead in the right direction or off the path completely.

 One Torah teaches that all believers are fully obligated to uphold the whole Torah  in the same manner as the Jews.  Both Jewish and Gentile believers are required to keep all of the commandments, not as a matter of earning salvation, but as a matter of covenant obedience. Sola Scriptura along with a historical-grammatical hermeneutic are the edge lines that demarcate the One Torah pathway.

 The bottom-line (no pun intended) for One Torah is that transgression of any of the commandments is a sin to which the believer is liable.  This includes trangressing those commandments traditionally regarded as “Jewish identifiers” (such as wearing tzizit and tefillin, affixing a mezuzah, eating kosher, keeping the Sabbath and observing the appointed times). Belief in an identical obligation to Torah for both Jewish and Gentile believers leads to criticism and condemnation of virtually every Christian community and “the Church” in general, just as a line runs down the road as far as the eye can see.  One Torah also promotes uniformity within the body of Messiah which is understood to be “one” in regard to “sameness” as related to obligation toward all of the commandments.  There is no longer Jew or Gentile as all of God’s people, through faith in Yeshua, are understood to be “Israel”.  

 But the funny thing about the line in the middle of the road is that more often than not it is a dashed line rather than a solid line.  Although made up of neat, white rectangles, all running in the same direction, it nevertheless has its gaps in-between.  The same holds true for One Law regarding its basis of Sola Scriptura and a historical-grammatical hermeneutic which inevitably leads to holes in its theology and practice.

One example of this is found in the very artwork used to adorn the CD cover and accompanying booklet of lecture slides for the Identity and One Torah Seminar materials.  A black and white photo of a Hebrew text is displayed with the corner of a tallit and tzizit draped upon it.   Quite appropriate for this One Torah seminar, the text displayed is Numbers 15 which contains the proof-text for this theology; “there is to be one Torah and one ordinance for you and for the stranger (ger) who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16).  In explaining the choice of this text for the artwork design Tim Hegg pointed out that in Numbers 15 is contained the mitzvah of tzizit.  Therefore, since the Scripture says that there is one law for native and stranger and the law of tzizit is contained in the same chapter, this is proof that the sojourning stranger who attaches himself to Israel is to keep the entire Torah  in the same way as the native born, for the tzizit represents all the commandments inclusively. 

Yet, in context the “one law” to be followed by both native born and stranger in Numbers 15,  describes the manner in which a fire-offering should be prepared and offered to HaShem, once Israel is in the land. Any man could bring an elevation offering as understood from Leviticus 1:2 which uses the word “adam”, the most encompassing Hebrew term for mankind in general, to describe “when a man brings an offering to HaShem”.  Historically, the Caesar’s and Alexander the Great are recorded to have brought animals as elevation offerings to the Temple in Jerusalem (in a gesture of political good will).  Yet, the offering brought by a stranger needed to be presented to G-d in the same way as the offering of a native-born Jew, one law regarding this for both, no variation.  Incredibly the historical-grammatical hermeneutic seems to be abandoned in the exegesis of the very proof text defining One Torah itself.

In some of his concluding comments regarding the fundamental errors of the Divine Invitation teaching, Tim Hegg poses the question; “where’s the list”?  In other words, since Divine Invitation teaches that Gentiles are not obligated to all of Torah, what parts of Torah are they then obligated to?  How can one possibly discern this – where’s the list?

Ironically, in the final session of the seminar in which essentials for sustaining Torah communities is discussed, Hegg admonishes his audience to avoid unnecessary distractions in their communities.  One of these distractions has to do with the variability of Sabbath observance within the community.  As Hegg put it; “one person observes A & B, another C & D while another does not observe C but observes A, B & D”.  Tolerance and love for fellow brothers is encouraged in this regard.

Yet this admonishment reveals a difficulty inherent in a Sola Scriptura model that rejects all authority and tradition either rabbinic or Christian, outside of “Scripture alone”. When it comes to the Sabbath this poses a problem, for Scripture commands that one should not do work on it.  What “work” does this entail – where’s the list?  Work as defined by the rabbis is based on the historic setting of Exodus 35 in which donations toward the construction of the Tabernacle is also related.  The work of building the Tabernacle, and the particulars involved in this, define the categories of “work” prohibited on the Sabbath per rabbinic teaching.  Yet this definition of work is rejected as not authoritative in One Torah theology, because Scripture alone is the only authority — although the basis for the rabbinic definition is the Scripture in its historic-grammatical context.  

This is a vicious circle that causes One Torah to end up with  gaps and inconsistencies when it comes to observance among its constituent communities.  Anything that is not specifically spelled out in Scripture based on its literal reading becomes interpreted by individuals and community leaders as they pray and are led by the Spirit.  Hegg himself, in the Identity and One Torah seminar encouraged his audience to pray;  “Father, did I keep the Sabbath in the way you intended?”  Therefore, One Torah lacks a list of consistent halachah just as Divine Invitation which it criticizes lacks a list of formal Torah obligations for Gentiles.  The difference being that for the One Torah proponent the lack of a list is a serious matter for without consistent and clear observance how can one know that they are carrying out a commandment correctly and thereby not sinning against G-d and liable for an infraction? 

Yet, one who questions or veers from the One Torah model is sure to face the white line of division and condemnation in many cases.  Just yesterday, I received an email from a person who has been reading my recent posts, and who tends toward a One Torah theology.  They bluntly advised me — if I continue to participate in a traditional church setting — to place myself fully under the authority of the church, embrace its doctrines and give up all things Messianic.  The message was loud and clear; “You want to attend Church ?  You want to socialize there?, Then give up Torah, because you can’t have it both ways”.  Such severity is astounding on many fronts.  Even the Noahide system which considers Christianity a form of idolatry allows for righteous Gentiles to attend and participate in the Church, “in name only” and still take on additional mitzvot not obligated to them if desired.

But the most disturbing thing about this comment was the screaming gap of inconsistency it betrays.  If One Torah understands the whole Law as an obligation upon every believer, and disobedience to any of the commandments (including  “things Messianic”) to be a sin, how could any person advise a fellow believer to take on a lifestyle of gross error and purposeful sinning? 

But such is the nature of a white line in the middle of the road, which in its uniformity, direction and geometric precision, is a dividing line with gaps and inconsistencies of its own.

(What’s Really in the Middle of the Road?:  Skunks and White Lines Meet and Intersect – will be considered in part 3 of this series.)

A Place of Dead Skunks and White Lines (Part I)

“The only things in the middle of the road are dead skunks and white lines”

 In listening to the audio lectures recorded at the Torah Resource Atlanta Seminar; Identity and One Torah, Tim Hegg attributed this saying to his devout Baptist minister father.  Being conservative and right wing in his viewpoint, Hegg’s father did not appreciate those who attempted to take a “middle of the road” position, and would express his disapproval with this saying.  Hegg used this memory of his father to illustrate the error of Divine Invitation in its attempt to combine rabbinic Judaism with traditional Christianity.  But in contemplating the teachings given at the Atlanta Seminar in relation to the exposition of D. Thomas Lancaster on Galatians I was struck by how profoundly illustrative this saying is when considering the One Law (now called One Torah) vs. Divine Invitation views.

 Inevitably both Jewish and Gentile believers who hold to Torah observance will find themselves in the middle of the road, in that awkward position of not being accepted or understood by either rabbinic Judaism or traditional Christianity.  Remarkably, the saying of Tim Hegg’s father seems to me a fitting illustration of the two major views that occupy this middle road; Divine Invitation and One Torah

 The Skunk:  Divine Invitation

 Like the skunk; Divine Invitation on first glance is furry, soft and non-threatening.  This view takes a loving, patient and tolerant approach that attempts to uphold the role of both Jewish and Gentile believers from the most literal Scriptural perspective and promote peace between Church and Messianic Synagogue.  Yet, when contemplated carefully and in detail, DI presents some less than subtle “aromas” (conclusions) that inevitably produce an offensive reaction on both sides of the “Messianic fence”. 

 DI teaches that both Jewish and Gentile believers should respect the traditions and halachah of the rabbinic sages.  Rabbinic halachah, although not “authoritative” in an overarching sense, should be considered a wise and worthy guideline for the believer’s personal practice.  As Judaism has been keeping the Torah for thousands of years, their sages are viewed as experts in how to walk it out for all people.

 For a Gentile today, the practice of Torah based on rabbinic guidelines involves Noahidism, and the historic role of the righteous Gentile.  Although the concept of the Noahide Laws as the Gentile believer’s obligation to Torah is rejected by DI proponents, the practical conclusion of its teachings is almost exactly this.  The difference being that justification before HaShem and entrance into the Kingdom of G-d (the World to Come) is never by means of works or their merit, for either Jew or Gentile, but only through faith in the work of Messiah alone due to G-d’s grace.

 Although the Noahide laws encompass six prohibitions and one injunction considered incumbent upon all of mankind, Maimonides and others see these seven laws as general categories which contain many other laws within them. [1] The sages understood that the spirit of HaShem could rest upon the Gentile as well as the Jew. [2] Therefore it is taught that the spirit of G-d upon the Gentile is evidenced by a desire to observe the seven basic laws out of obedience to HaShem as the one true G-d, and not merely due to the apparent logic of them.  Those Gentiles upon whom the spirit rests will eventually find the seven basic laws unsatisfying and will desire to draw closer to HaShem by performing more mitzvot encompassed within the seven Noahide categories.  Yet, according to Maimonides, the Gentile who expands his observance to include more stringency within the framework of the seven categories, is observing the most basic moral elements of human existence that are arrived at naturally through human logic. [3]  Compare this to Lancaster’s teaching on Galatians 5 that Gentile’s “led by the spirit” will reject the works of the flesh, which are “self-evident”.  Therefore, the laws of Torah that apply to the spirit-led Gentile, as listed by Paul, are understood to be the universal moral and ethical commandments derived naturally from human logic. [4] 

 According to Maimonides in particular, righteous Gentiles, who desire to do so, may also take on additional commandments not incumbent upon them, as long as Gentile distinctiveness is maintained.  In other words, pious Gentiles should not keep the Torah exactly as the Jew, especially in the matters of observing the Sabbath and studying Torah.  This shows close parallel to the teaching of Lancaster and DI regarding Colossians 2:16, the main proof text for a Gentile “invitation” to participate in the ritual or “sign-commands” of Torah that are not incumbent upon them as they are not to be placed under any legal judgment regarding them.   

 According to DI, one of the reasons a Gentile should abide by as much Torah as they can bear (as instructed in the Didache) is to obtain blessing and reward.  Curiously, this is also taught in Noahidism as Gentiles who take on additional, non-obligatory commandments are understood to merit reward in the World to Come as “one who acts without being commanded”.  The Talmud relates (BT Avodah Zarah 3a) that this reward is not as great as that of the Jew who obeys out of obligation rather than desire. As R. Hanina said; “he who is commanded and does stands higher than he who is not commanded and does”.  This reasoning has to do with autonomy of the will as opposed to the Law of G-d as authority over man.  The individual who has a choice to observe certain commandments therefore does not merit as great of a reward as one who acts in obedience to that which he is obligated.   

 So, for the Gentile believer, Divine Invitation and its core teaching of respect for Jewish halachah, emits an odor of Noahidism, as well as the familiar old scent of traditional Church doctrine that obligates (Gentile) believers to universal ethical and moral commandments exclusively.  Both aromas are generally offensive to the Gentile “Messianic” who in most cases is reactionary and ill informed regarding the seven laws of Noah and who has left behind the errors of the Church swearing never to return. For many this skunk in the middle of the road reeks with such offensive odors that even the soft, furry covering of “justification by grace through faith”, and the assurance of being a “son of Abraham” in the sense of a “spiritual proselyte” cannot make up for it.  Therefore the natural response is to walk away  completely.  This “extremely high price” of losing Gentile constituency has been reiterated in audio talks given by both Daniel Lancaster and Boaz Michael regarding FFOZ’s shift in theology to a Divine Invitation model.

 For the Jewish believer, Divine Invitation in its respect for the sages and traditional halachah, assumes Orthodox observance as the norm.  What else could obligation to all of Torah, the 613 commandments, mean for the Jewish believer in Yeshua today? But unlike the Gentile Messianic who pinches his nose and walks away from the unpleasant conclusions of DI, the Messianic Jew notices the odor of assumed Jewish orthodoxy, but attempts to cover it up.  The air freshener he applies is the teaching of Bilateral Ecclesiology which allows him to tolerate the DI viewpoint and even affirm it in polite and general ways.  The BE Messianic Jew pets the skunk in the middle of the road, maintaining an arms length relationship with DI, while focusing his attention to the left lane of the highway where he attempts to affirm his belief in Messiah as a legitimate form of “reformed” Judaism.

 This is why organizations like Tikkun International frown upon Gentile believers taking on traditional Jewish practice except when they are among Messianic Jews and worshipping in “Jewish space”.  Otherwise, Gentile observance of Jewish practice is understood to damage Jewish identity. [5]  Indeed this a true and embarrassing consequence of Gentile’s taking on traditional practice, as typically Messianic Gentile congregations are more observant in a traditional Orthodox sense then their Jewish brothers at the Synagogue down the road.  At least this has been my experience.  By limiting Gentile believers to worship practices in Jewish space the Messianic Jews effectively force Gentiles to abide by a more liberal framework which does not adhere to rabbinic tradition with the closeness, concern or respect that DI would advocate for them.

 In either case, it seems that both the Torah interested/observant/Messianic Gentile and the Messianic Jew are hesitant to pick up and fully embrace the DI model (in the majority of situations) . . .this being the normal reaction to a the skunk in the middle of the road.

 The White Line:  One Torah — will be considered in part II of this series.

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1]  Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron; Guide for the Noahide, Lightcatcher Books, Springdale AR, 2009, p. 6.

 [2] Ibid. p. 7

 [3] Ibid. p. 9 (cf. Maimonides, Laws of Kings 9:2[1])

 [4]  D. Thomas Lancaster; The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, Sermons on a Messianic Approach,  First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield, MO, 2011, pp. 253-254.

[5]  See Tikkun International’s; Which Law Do We Keep?”, online at www. tikkunministries.org.

Unintelligible

un·in·tel·li·gi·ble

adjective /ˌəninˈteləjəbəl/ 

Impossible to understand

-        dolphin sounds are unintelligible to humans

Web definitions

1. poorly articulated or enunciated, or drowned by noise; “unintelligible speech”

2. opaque: not clearly understood or expressed

3. nonsense that is simply incoherent

4. not intelligible; unable to be understood

To be truthful, I highly dislike the word, “unintelligible”.  Perhaps this is due to its close likeness to the word “unintelligent”.  Although its plain meaning relates an inability to be understood, its composition hints at the idea that incoherent communication is due to a lack of intelligence.  Thus the modern web definitions liken that which is “unintelligible” to utter nonsense, as the chattering of dolphins –which betrays an underlying sheer stupidity.   I have found this word, when used against me in conversation, to be intimidating and annoying.  It is a word that cloaks an arrogant jab in the legitimacy of a dictionary definition.  

Yet, as much as I dislike this word, I have come to realize that it most aptly describes the past year of my spiritual journey and return to a traditional church setting.  Not in the sense of others being nonsensical or stupid, but in the sense of a general incoherence based on my own personal perspective. It was about a year ago, at this time, during Tammuz, that I came across a paper which would challenge my thinking; Paul’s Rule in All the Churches by David Rudolph.  With great concerns on my heart and mind I presented this paper for review to three Messianic believers that I greatly respect.  One immediately labeled it ridiculous and unscriptural.  When I questioned this person further they stopped communicating via email for several weeks, evading any further talk of it.  The second gave an opinion and made clear that they had nothing else to say.  The third promised to give a detailed response against the paper when they were not quite so busy, in about 4 weeks time.  A year later the response has never come.  All three individuals are either completely steeped in One Law theology or have strong One Law leanings, yet they all essentially refused to engage in ongoing and thorough discussion of Rudolph’s paper.  Instead, like dolphins they each offered their brief and varying chattering of protest and quickly swam away into the waters of busyness, disinterest, and evasion.  Fellow Torah observant believers who refused to sharpen iron with iron.  Unintelligible.

From Rudolph’s paper I was led to the writing of Harvey Falk (Jesus the Pharisee) and the ideas of Rabbi Jacob Emden.  This directed me to read various books expounding on Jewish teachings of the Noahide Laws and the “righteous Gentile”.  All of this prompted me to return to a traditional church setting.  While on vacation in early August I dared to venture into an Anglican church for a Sunday morning service.  Sitting in a beautiful cathedral setting and participating in the old traditional liturgy and hymns I found myself shedding tears, for reasons I still cannot totally comprehend.  Returning home I chose a traditional Protestant denomination church three miles from my house and began attending there.  Instead of a cathedral setting, I now sat in a simple sanctuary set among a stand of pines on rolling acres of country field. Instead of the power and grandeur of a pipe organ, I now sang traditional hymns to the less than skillful accompaniment of an electric keyboard.

After three weeks of attendance I was invited to meet with the pastor to become familiarized with church doctrine, as this was the custom of this particular church.  Given a copy of the “small catechism” I met with him for three weeks to discuss doctrines essential to this denomination.  During these meetings I had opportunity to discuss some Apostolic Writing passages from a Hebraic/rabbinic/historical context.  This fascinated the pastor who questioned where I had learned such things.  I explained to him my interest in the “Jewishness of Jesus” and desire to understand the “New Testament” according to the first century Jewish culture in which Jesus lived and participated.  This interest had led me to worship with and learn from “Messianic Jews” for five years including opportunity to be taught under two rabbis, one a Haredi believer in Yeshua, the other traditional Chabad. 

At the final meeting the pastor asked if I was ready to be confirmed as a member of the church to which I quickly responded “no”.  It was my desire to spend some time attending this community and make decisions about such things later.  Although in my own mind I knew I would never be a formal member of this or any other church.  In ending the meeting the pastor explained that my attendance there was “an answer to prayer”.  The community at large is quite advanced in years and have been involved in this denomination all of their lives.  An excitement about Scripture and desire to learn more and “dig deeper” was lacking there, a condition prayed about by the pastor continually.  In me he saw an individual who was “on fire” about the Word due to considering Jesus in his Jewish context.  Therefore, he asked if I would help others to catch this excitement by suggesting or hosting a bible study to introduce people in the congregation to the Jewishness of Jesus. 

I immediately suggested the FFOZ HaYesod series and provided the web link of information to the pastor, who passed the introductory information along to other pastors in his circuit.  Except for one individual who thought the material was “too Jewish”, the others found nothing of concern with it and the pastor asked me to host a group in my home.  Eight individuals signed up for the home group including the pastor and his wife and two elders and their wives.  

The home group met on ten Sunday evenings from January through March.  I was nervous and tentative especially with the pastor attending the group.  But to my shock and surprise, week by week the entire group literally ate up everything presented in the lessons.  There was an excitement and genuine interest; although at the end of each session the pastor gave a summation of denominational views which approved what had been taught.  In learning about the “Appointed Times” and “G-d’s Calendar” the group expressed the desire to host a Seder  for the entire congregation and asked me to organize it.  I explained that I thought it best to host a Seder in my home for the HaYesod group so that they could experience this before doing such on a congregational level.  They didn’t blink an eye when I announced that the Seder would take place on the correct Biblical date, the evening of Nisan 15, a Monday night, after sunset and would occupty 2-3 hours of time.  Unintelligible.

All was going exceedingly well until the final lesson of HaYesod in which the statement was made that the prevalent theme of the Bible is “about Israel”.  This statement so upset the pastor that he could barely sit still until the end of the lesson.  At its conclusion he expressed strong disagreement with this one statement which in his opinion caused all other lessons of the series to be completely illegitimate.  The concerns he expressed were unclear and emotional and the quizzical looks on the faces of his elders betrayed this.  Why was he so upset?  Yet, in the end they rallied around him and his feelings that FFOZ believed Gentiles to be “second class citizens” in G-d’s economy while the Jews alone were “His perfect children”.  Unintelligible.

After this I wondered if the group would bow out of the Seder invitation, but they didn’t.  In arranging a Haggadah for the Seder night I quickly realized there would be a difficulty participating in Communion during it.  The denomination practices closed Communion.   Those who are not confirmed are not permitted to participate for fear that taking the elements unworthily, without correct beliefs, might lead to “eating and drinking” damnation upon oneself.  Not only would I be in attendance as a non-member but also my parents would be attending the Seder.  At the time I was struggling with this conflict an invitation to attend a Messianic Seder came in the mail.  It was a mass mailing from the first Messianic Synagogue I attended, now an MJAA affiliate.  The Seder was to be held on Good Friday night at a local party center, complete with Davidic Dancing and Judaica items for sale.  Unintelligible.

The home Seder meal was beautiful and appreciated by all in attendance, although I personally had to choke back tears at the reality of not taking the Lord’s Supper on this most inspiring and fitting of evenings.  Since then there has been a strained formality between me and the pastor. Four weeks ago was the church picnic. Service was held in a public park pavilion with a cookout afterward on a gorgeous sunny afternoon.  When it was time to leave I said good bye to several people including the pastor’s wife.  Giving me a hug she asked if there might be another Bible study I would like to host as she found the last one to be “so extremely interesting” and she had “learned so many new things”.  I was taken aback by such a suggestion and all I could answer was “I‘ll have to think about that”.  “You do that” she replied “I would enjoy another study with you”.  She might enjoy it, but what about her husband?  As I drove away from the picnic, thinking about this unexpected request, I chalked it up to kind but meaningless words due to not knowing what else to say.  We’ll see if the pastor makes such a request.  The thought of it is . . .unintelligible.

Shortly after the church picnic I received a pleasant surprise in the mail, a complimentary copy of D. Thomas Lancaster’s sermons on Galatians, now in book form from FFOZ.    I was grateful to have the book in my possession and began reading one sermon each evening.  I realized after a few days of reading that sermon after sermon presented reinterpretations involving some “radical” ideas drawn from the modern scholarly new perspective on Paul.  I desired to get feedback from others about Lancaster’s ideas, but at this point my correspondence with Messianics is very limited.  One individual I highly respect was completely uninterested to consider Lancaster’s views on Galatians.  Being “tired” with the “nonsensical mess” of the Divine Invitation theology, this individual will no longer give it enough credence to even bother with it.  So be it.  Therefore, in an attempt to keep myself responsible to revisit and reconsider the other side, I purchased the audio series from the Torah Resource Atlanta Seminar held in November of 2010.  This series presents five lectures involving the believer’s identity, participation in the covenants, as well as two talks refuting Divine Invitation theology.  As unintelligible as it might sound I  have been reading Lancaster each evening and listening to Tim Hegg every morning on my drive to work.  

I am currently listening to the Atlanta Seminar recordings for the second time through, and have only a few sermons from the Galatians book left to read.  Thoughts and ideas are swirling around in my head.  I look forward to giving reviews and reflections on this in upcoming posts, which I have a feeling, might be viewed as unintelligible in the eyes of some, or many.

The Spirit of Pesach in Nine Days Time

Shortly before Purim I sat down to figure out a cleaning schedule for the month leading up to Pesach.  This is the first year I have made such a detailed schedule.  In previous years I focused mostly on the kitchen and dining room and did a quick “once over” of the other rooms for possible evidence of chametz.  Because I am a neetnik by nature and keep the house tidy at all times, Pesach cleaning wasn’t such a big deal.  Yet this year I desire to be more exacting regarding the removal of chametz and to perform a total spring cleaning of the entire home prior to the holiday.

Working full time (three 12 hour days a week) and observing Shabbat leaves only three days in seven to fit in the extra cleaning.  Friday being one of the days, is busy with erev Shabbat preparations and only a few hours in the morning could be dedicated to such cleaning.  All total, of the 28 days between Adar 15 (March 1) and Nisan 13 (March 28) I have only nine days in which to get the job of removing and cleaning all chametz from the house finished — with four of the days scheduled for the kitchen alone.

I found myself wishing I could just stay home the entire month of March and focus exclusively on this task.  I imagined myself leisurely and thoroughly cleaning every square inch being inspired and sanctified by this most holy task for an entire month’s time. But as the reality of my limited schedule and other obligations faced me, the job seemed very daunting and weariness about it set in even before the month of March began.  That nagging voice within me began to well-up; “if you can’t do it right, don’t bother with it.”

In observant Jewish homes preparation for Pesach begins as soon as Purim ends. It is traditional on the evening after the conclusion of Purim for women to read and review the laws of removing chametz (leaven) and to begin the month long process of cleaning the following day. On the evening after Purim ended I printed out my cleaning schedule and hung it on the fridge.  Before going to sleep I sat in bed reading some literature about chametz removal.  As my eyes became heavy  I came across an excerpt from the 19th century work Noam Megadim.

In this work the author questions the halachah regarding matzah for Pesach.  Why is it that Pesach matzah must be made only from grains which can become chametz (undergo fermentation when exposed to moisture)? Certainly a tasty and suitable matzah could be made from other grains that do not ferment and could be handled without even a thought regarding the “18 minute rule” (time the rabbis have established in which fermentation will take place).  How is it that the very substance we so diligently search and scrub and remove with all carefulness from our homes is that which is used for the unleavened bread we eat during Chag HaMatzah?

 The author of Noam Megadim writes;

 “The Torah is teaching us here how to serve HaShem.  No man should seclude himself from the world and live in a wilderness in solitude, in order to insure that he has no opportunity to transgress against Torah – for under such circumstances his observance is not subject to his choice.  Rather it is when one lives together with other people, works with them, does business with them, and yet overcomes all evil inclinations, that is the true way of serving HaShem;  to be in a situation where one could become chametz, and yet succeeds in not doing so – just like the matzah.  For it is only when matzah is made of a substance that could become chametz, but is zealously guarded against this risk, that one can use it for the fulfillment of its mitzvah.” [1]

I found this to be a most meaningful teaching to kick-off the Pesach cleaning season.  It occurred to me that if I did have the entire month to leisurely clean every nook and cranny of the house the job would certainly get done but the spirit of the season would be lost.  With only nine days to complete the task the time must be zealously guarded for the risk of incompleteness and a bad attitude in the process is a real threat.  Pesach cleaning is a situation that presents the possibility of “becoming chametz” if I’m not careful.

Two days later I began to clean the bathrooms – day one of nine of the Pesach cleaning schedule — being oddly thankful for the opportunity to face the “crunch” ahead.  

_____________________________________________________

[1] Noam Megadim as cited in Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, The Festivals in Halachah, Mesorah Publications, New York, 1999, p. 723.

Food for Thought on a Day Filled with Food

Thanksgiving 2009

Although the possibility is often presented, that the Thanksgiving of the Puritans was based on the festival of Sukkot in Scripture, the fact that the original celebration was observed for three days at an undetermined date sometime between late September and early November harkens back to traditional secular harvest festivals as held in their native England. From what I have read this original harvest feast was not called “Thanksgiving” by the Puritans, who used such a term to describe days of formal worship and prayer in which G-d was thanked for specific events (such as a victory in battle).  Such formal days of worship (called Thanksgiving) would not have included native Indian guests and celebrations (such as dancing and singing) as described in the first harvest festival of 1621.  But apart from the possible historical errors, if Thanksgiving is understood as a “Puritan version” of Sukkot, having religious significance as defined by Gentiles, then observant Jews would refrain from celebrating it based on Leviticus 18:3 which is halachically understood to prohibit imitation of or participation in religious (and/or “foolish”) celebrations or customs of the nations.  

I recently came across an article entitled “Is Thanksgiving Kosher?”which surprised me, for I have always considered Thanksgiving to be innocuous at best. In this article the opinions of three leading rabbis are given with two concurring that Jews may celebrate Thanksgiving as a secular holiday.  This concurrence is based on the understanding that Thanksgiving is not a religious observance among Gentiles and that it is not considered obligatory to celebrate it.  The dissenting opinion is based on the understanding that Thanksgiving is dangerously close to a religious holiday among the Gentiles because of its “fixed date on the Christian calendar”.  Interestingly, the Gra (Vilna Gaon), strongly opposed the celebration of Thanksgiving citing it as a “Gentile custom and law with no Jewish basis” and therefore possibly containing elements of idolatry.  

With this in mind, I wonder if it is prudent for Messianics to highlight a possible and uncertain connection between the Thanksgiving of the Puritans and Sukkot as a way of strengthening our Judeo-Christian heritage and dialogue with Jews, when such an association may lead to just the opposite effect in the understanding of observant Jews?  Historically, the facts seem to speak against Thanksgiving as a “Puritan Sukkot” based on the three day timeframe and uncertain date of this event, but also due to the fact that Thanksgiving was celebrated just one time, and was not an annual occurrence or tradition thereafter. Surely, if the Puritans were looking to Torah as a basis of this harvest festival, it would have been an annual occurrence as is Sukkot.  Also, if the Puritans created a “Christian Sukkot” that altered the timeframe and/or dating of the festival as given in Scripture, should this be something, that those of us who hold Torah as G-d’s divine and unchanging instructions, celebrate and/or highlight?  

Although the Puritans are greatly to be admired for their reverance of Scripture and religious zeal, the fact that the first Thanksgiving may well have been the observance of a secular tradition from their British homeland does not downplay the nobility and worthiness of such a celebration. Ironically, it would seem, that sticking with the historic facts, instead of trying to assign possible spiritual meaning to them, is in keeping with the spirit of Torah regarding national and secular celebrations for all of us who follow HaShem’s commands.  

 With those thoughts in mind, its time to fix the turkey and stuffing!

 Happy Thanksgiving : )

125,278 Words Later . . .

How fitting that right on the heels of a lesson about wordiness (see previous post), I became aware of an interesting website that uses typed text to created a ”tag cloud” from the words.  The larger words in the tag cloud represent those that are used most often.  Borrowing an idea from another blog (where I saw this done), I entered all the text of my posts here . . .all the way from 10/14/06 until present . . .all 125,278 words.  Here’s what my tag cloud looks like:

I really like the fact that “God” and “G-d” are the largest words followed by “one” on the left, for in a simple way this illustrates transitions in my understanding that this blog represents.  Thanks to Nate Long for the idea (literaryjoe.wordpress.com).  Image generated by wordle.net

A Strange Sort of Publicity

 “Hanukkah starts the night of December 4^th . . .how wonderful!”  Just a few weeks ago, as I looked up the dates for Hanukkah this year, I remember feeling a sense of relief.  With Hanukkah being early, I could celebrate without the interference of Christmas decorations in the home.  It would be reasonable and easy to request of my husband (who is not Torah observant) that the Christmas décor be delayed until after the 12^th.  Hannukah all by itself . . .  no window lights, wreaths, or Christmas tree to contend with! 

With this in mind I began to consider ways I could decorate for Hanukkah.  A Google search on “Hanukkah décor” and “decorating for Hanukkah” yielded surprisingly few results.  A multitude of Judaica websites featuring Hanukkiahs, and a few party supply sites hawking Hanukkah-theme paper products, gelt, and dreidels was about all I could find regarding decorating for this celebration.  

I considered creating a Hanukkah wreath for the front door or perhaps fashioning a Hanukkah centerpiece for my dining room table, but for some reason these ideas didn’t sit right with me.  It felt too much like “Christmas” re-worked.  To create a wreath or table centerpiece of artificial greens and exchange the familiar red and green for themes of silver and blue just wouldn’t do.  It seemed odd and unnatural, sort of like dressing a Chassidic Rabbi in a Santa Clause suit.  

With no Christmas competition in my home this year, I was suddenly aware of how beautifully and serenely simple Hanukkah is.  A simplicity that is profoundly displayed in the special nine-light menorah used to celebrate this season.  

According to the Rabbi’s the Hanukkiah has a direct opposite purpose as compared to the Shabbat candles.  The candles of Shabbat are meant to illuminate the inside of the home, while the candles of the Hanukkiah are meant to be an illumination toward the outside of the home.  The Hanukkiah is suppose to be set in a window where it can be seen by people passing by, because the purpose of this special menorah is to publicize the fact that a miracle occurred at this time of year.   

What a strange sort of publicity, especially today!  How could the soft glow of skinny candles that burn 60 minutes in my front window, possibly publicize anything, in comparison with my neighbor’s lighted plastic nativity scene, illuminated inflatable Christmas globe, lighted mechanized reindeer, and outdoor lights of all varieties?  When Christmas is publicized so loudly and brashly, how can Hanukkah even stand a chance? 

What Hanukkah is supposed to publicize was debated among the scholars of Yeshua’s day.  This debate centered around the correct way (halachah) of lighting the Hanukkiah.  The house of Shammai taught that on the first night of Hanukkah all eight candles were to be lighted, creating the most brilliant and glowing display, and each night one less candle was ignited, until just two candles remained the final night (the servant candle and one other).  In this way the focus would be abundance to scarcity, the fact that a full amount of oil for one day would last for eight days.  The school of Shammai also emphasized the demise of the Hellenists (what started strong diminished to nothing).

The school of Hillel saw things differently.  They taught that one candle of Hannukiah should be added each night, emphasizing scarcity to abundance.  The house of Hillel focused on the glory of the small band of spiritually pure Jews who started with next to nothing, and ended victorious both militarily and spiritually.  Eventually the halachah adopted was that of Hillel, in which the Hanukkiah publicizes the miracle of scarity to abundance.

The actual details of the Hanukkah miracle have been debated among the Rabbi’s.  If G-d created or miraculously replenished the oil within the Menorah of the Temple during the eight days, then a technical difficulty occurs.  Astute scholars point out that the Torah commands that the Menorah light must be fueled by olive oil that is “pressed” or “beaten” from the olives themselves (see Leviticus 24:2).

If G-d miraculously created olive oil, even though it is chemically the same as oil beaten from the olives, the process of pressing or beating the olives to extract the oil would be omitted.  In this way, some Rabbi’s conjecture that miraculously produced olive oil would be unkosher.  Therefore, the real miracle of Hanukkah did not involve a miraculously abundant supply of oil that stopped when new consecrated oil was available (abundance to scarcity), but rather, that the real miracle was that one day’s supply of oil lasted for eight days (scarcity to abundance).

This is the quiet message of Hanukkah, a message of resourcefulness rather than resources.  A message that is foreign to our society today (both spiritual and secular).  We like to focus on abundance and resources, which may very well explain why Christmas mania increases year by year. 

As a little girl I used to think it strange that in my Grandmother’s day they would put up the tree just one or two days before the holiday. Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s my family would decorate one week before Christmas, with the tree and some various décor inside the house, but my parents never put lights outside.   

Now, it’s not unusual to see Christmas decorations up and lighted as soon as Halloween ends.  Every year the outside displays get more and more extensive, so much so, that recently I watched a program on the Home and Garden network that profiled “extreme” outdoor Christmas displays throughout the U.S.  One couple unabashedly admitted that their electric bill was over 800 dollars a month, but that is was well worth it to have such an extensive outdoor Christmas extravaganza. 

Resources . . . not resourcefulness.  

The same is true in spiritual life as well.  We tend to focus on abundance first. “G-d give to me (faith, hope, patience, love etc.) and then I’ll shine bright for you”.  While in the Jewish mindset, G-d helps those who help themselves, using what I have to the best of my ability, leads to spiritual growth and abundance.  It’s the slow and deliberate process of spiritual maturity, which starts with little and grows brighter every day, and overcomes enormous obstacles, through resourcefulness.

This is the miracle of Hanukkah, a message that is publicized through the soft and brief glow of candles in a window, and not by lighted displays or artificial wreaths or dining room centerpieces.  A strange sort of publicity . . . that will catch the attention of those who truly seek it out.