4/28/2009

Sin Is Defined by the Law – Aaron Eby’s Boundary Stones, Part 2

A couple of weeks back I introduced you fine blog readers to Aaron Eby’s new book, Boundary Stones, a short book written for Christians in a non-condemning manner and in simple language describing how ordinary Christians ought to approach God’s Law.

This week we are discussing part 2 of Eby’s book, which argues for the position that sin is defined by the Law.

At first glance, for many Christians this doesn’t sound too terrible a proposition. I rarely encounter resistance from Christians when stating that the Law defines sin. Most folks are on board with that. It’s only when this premise is taken to its conclusion that this idea becomes a theology-shaker.

Eby starts off with some foundation-building statements from the New Testament. He recites Scripture, saying, “All have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. The wages of sin is death. Jesus came to save us from our sin. We’re sinners saved by grace.

sin

Now I must admit to you, fine blog readers, I hear these oft-repeated statements so much I have a hard time taking them in with full meaning. I mean, they’re almost religious clichés now that I’ve heard them so many times. It’s kind of like John 3:16 – you’ve heard it so many times that its all too easy to take lightly these powerful and meaningful statements. I have to read it 4 or 5 times and let it sink in to make it meaningful again. I almost have to re-word those phrases so they become less cliché.

“Everybody’s done evil sinning, so none of us are like God. If we keep sinning, it leads to a death sentence. Messiah took away that death sentence. We sinning people are set right with God because of His undeserved forgiveness of our sin.”

There, better.

Your Honor, what did I do wrong?

Ok, so that all sounds good, right? But what, exactly, is sin? I mean, if sin leads to a death sentence, we’d better have a darn good understanding of what sin is, right? If sin is so terrible that Messiah had to die, taking our sin on himself, we sure as heck should know precisely what is and what is not sin. Eby argues, if sin is such an ugly thing to God, there must be a clear definition of what is right – not a sin – and what is wrong – a sin.

Eby likens this to a guilty man standing before a judge. When the guilty verdict is read, the judge does not simply state a verdict (e.g. “You’re guilty!”) Rather, the judge is specific, stating precisely what law was broken (e.g. “You’ve been found guilty of grand theft and larceny…”).

Likewise, we need specifics, we need a something that tells us exactly and with great painstaking detail what sin is. Without such a document, the judge can hardly be called a righteous judge if the defendants don’t know right from wrong.

Fortunately, our Righteous and Just Law-Giving God has given us such a document. Eby lets Scripture explain:

“It is the Law that brings wrath; where there is no Law, neither is there transgression.”

-Romans 4:15

Paul is saying, if the Law didn’t exist, if there were no commandments to break, no one would be guilty; sin wouldn’t exist. But because God did give the Law, it is possible to sin, and therefore, God’s punishment is justified.

Eby again cites Paul:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law.

-1 Corinthians 15:56

And 1 John also makes this explicit:

“Everyone who sins also breaks the Law; in fact, sin is Lawlessness.”

-1 John 3:4

 

The Law is the document that tells us what sin is

And to dispel any foolish notions that some other law, rather than the Law, is being spoken of here, Eby explains the Greek word here, anomia, comes from the prefix a- meaning “without”, and “nomos”, meaning Law. The Hebrew equivalent of nomos is Torah, that is, instruction. In Scripture, these nearly always refer to the books of the Law written by Moses.

The books of the Law contain the precise, painstakingly detailed list of what God considers right and wrong – God’s commandments. This list includes the famous 10 Commandments. The books of the Law list the acts God considers sin: stealing, murder, and certain sexual unions, for example. It contains fine-grained laws dealing with everything from destruction of property, inheritance issues, prohibition against eating certain kinds of animals, idolatry, holidays, marriage, when to work and when to rest, giving to the poor, wages and compensation; nearly every issue of human conduct is addressed in some form in the Law.

And praise God for it! The Righteous and Just Judge, our God, has detailed exactly what he finds right and wrong, an explicit list of things He considers sin. And praises to God that this standard is not a relative one, shifting with the times to whatever the downward-spiraling world finds acceptable. Wahooo! Praise Him!

But some Christians raise a good question: If the Law is really God’s standard of right and wrong, why wasn’t it around from the beginning?

Eby answers this with proof from Scripture that the Law was around, in rudimentary form, from the beginning. It had yet to be revealed on a national level, but it existed. In Scripture, God says that Abraham “obeyed My voice, kept My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” Likewise, Noah knew which animals God considered clean and unclean long before the Law was revealed on a national level to Israel.

We have, from the beginning, known what God considered right and wrong. Whether this was revealed to the early patriarchs or on a national level to Israel, or on a global scale to the world as it is today, God’s standard of right and wrong – the Law – remains.

Condemning, judging, sin…ugh, I don’t want to hear it!

All this talk about judging and condemning and sinning isn’t a popular message. It is common for Christians to bemoan, “This isn’t why I came to Christ. Jesus set me free from all this. If the Law condemns, and the Law is the power of sin, let’s just get rid of the darn thing! Jesus is grace. Jesus is love. Jesus is all I need.”

The above message is difficult to combat. It’s kind of like how, in the recent US Presidential election, a certain candidate talked almost exclusively about positive things. People like to hear that kind of thing. People don’t like to hear about tough realities. We like to hear about sunshine and rainbows.

sunshine rainbows

We like to hear about the Health, Wealth, and Prosperity Gospel. We don’t like to hear about the bad things we do, and the Law spells out just how bad we really are.

It’s an uphill battle defending God’s commandments.

Eby states that the Scripture warns us against such flowery views; a Godly life isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. Back in the real world, our ugly sin is highlighted by the Law, and we’re judged accordingly. Hard as it is to face this reality, we must resist the urge to dismiss God’s Law, as much as some of us would like to. This is why Paul defends the Law, saying,

What should we say, that the Law is sin? Certainly not! If it wasn’t for the Law, I wouldn’t have known what sin is. I wouldn’t have known coveting to be a sin, for example, if the Law hadn’t said, “You shall not covet.”

-Romans 7:7

Just as earthly laws give power to the prosecutor to prosecute, power to the jury to convict, and power to the judge to sentence, by no means is this a problem with the laws! On the contrary, that is a purpose of the laws. Laws are good and healthy and necessary for society.

Likewise, God’s Law serves to keep us from doing wrong, to show us where we’re wrong and to give power to the Judge to sentence us when we do wrong. The Law is good and healthy and necessary for the people of God. This prompted Paul to say,

The Law is holy, and the commandments are holy and righteous and good.

-Romans 7:12

Scripture defines sin as any failure to obey the commandments in God’s Law, and these laws are necessary and good and healthy for us.

But we’re all guilty…so what’s the point?

We’re all criminals according to God’s perfect standard in the Law. No person, outside of Messiah Himself, has been able to perfectly follow God’s standard of righteousness defined in the Law.

Eby writes, “It’s a good thing the story does not end there! We’ve all broken the commandments in the Law, and so we’re all guilty and all deserving of sentencing. Only the Messiah, Jesus Himself, fully obeyed every applicable commandment found in the Law. In His death He paid the penalty for breaking the Law that was due us, and by faith in Him, we receive the gift of eternal life. Thank God that our eternal status does not depend on our ability to perform all the commandments!”

After Messiah’s death, the Law’s punishment does not apply to us due to the grace of God. Now we’ve found freedom. We were once in bondage to sin, says Eby, but now we are free.

We must be careful so as not to abuse this freedom. This freedom in Jesus is not a freedom to sin – that is, to break the commandments in the Law – instead, this freedom is freedom from the law of sin and death. Because we’re free from sin, we’re free from its penalty: death. We are not free to commit sin now that we have God’s grace. Because this is such a tempting thought, Paul had to address this explicitly:

What then, are we to sin because we’re not under the Law, but under grace? By no means!

-Romans 6:15

Conclusions

Now that we’re new creations, we shouldn’t continue sinning, we shouldn’t continue breaking God’s commandments. On the contrary, to show an affirming sign that we love God, we should be keeping His commandments in the Law.

Eby cites Paul again,

Don’t let sin in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Don’t present your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who’ve been brought back to life from the dead, and your body to God as instruments for righteousness. Sin will have no dominion over you, since you’re not under law, but under grace.

-Romans 6:12-14

In Jesus, we’re free from our bondage to sin, and no longer under the penalty of breaking God’s Law, which is death. The Bible defines sin as breaking God’s commandments. Now we’re able to serve God as instruments of righteousness and obey His commandments.

Eby paints a picture of the opposite result: if we continue to lead a life of unrepentant sin, it would appear we’re still in bondage. And if we’re in bondage to sin, we must not be new creations. And if we’re not new creations, then we certainly haven’t received God’s gift of grace by faith in Jesus. If we’re obedient to sin, then we’re slaves to sin. If you’re obedient to God’s commandments in the Law, then we’re slaves to God. This is why Paul says,

Don’t you know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey. It’s either sin, which leads to death, or obedience, which leads to righteousness.

-Romans 6:16

Jesus came to take away our sins, not just forgive them. If they’re taken away, they shouldn’t be in you. John states,

Jesus came to take away sin and in Him there’s no sin. No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning. No one who keeps on sinning has seen Him or known Him.

1 John 3:5-6

In the Bible, “sin” is breaking the commandments in the Law. The Law is God’s righteous standard of right and wrong. The penalty for breaking the Law is death. But the penalty has been paid for those who have faith in Jesus. We are now free from sin, and free to serve God by obeying His commandments.

4/25/2009

Blog o’ 5

On April 25th, 2004, this blog was born. That makes this blog 5 years old! And 5 years is like 70 in intarweb years. Seriously, it’s a cause for celebration.

:blows celebratory shofar:

It’s amusing looking back at what this blog was intended to be, and how it’s evolved. The first couple months, years even, were comprised of a mish-mash of neither-here-nor-there topics that didn’t attract too many visitors. It sucked, mostly. In the past 2-3 years, I started focusing on a consistent posting schedule with a consistent, cohesive set of topics. My schedule was, and remains, 2 posts a week on faith- and family-related matters.

In these 5 years of blogging, I’ve had hundreds of thousands of unique visitors (ain’t nothin’ to spit at for a personal blog!). I’ve seen the readership increase 100-fold, the comments increase, and discussion improve. And according to the google gods, I now get several thousand hits per month with this little blog thing. That’s cool.

I was a 20 year old bachelor guy when I started this blog. Now that I’m 5 years the dumber, I can say in retrospect this blog served as a means to improve my writing and communication skills. It’s succeeded in that regard. But more importantly, it has greatly matured me in my faith. Really. One thing that’s really helped is the exposure to varying belief systems. I’ve been exposed to atheists, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, 31 flavors of Protestant Christians, secularists, academics, pluralists, and both Blues Brothers.

blues 

(Just kidding about the last one; wanted to make sure you were paying attention.)

Having this kind of input variety and community exchange tends to refine your beliefs pretty quick, throwing out things that just don’t matter in the long run. I now think it’s unhealthy for a person of faith to be shielded from external input of the world. Shielding is not the answer. Having people challenge your faith is one of the best ways to strengthen it.

A lengthy list of good things have come of Blog the Great. My beliefs have evolved into a more pragmatic faith. I’m less concerned about where others are at and more concerned with where I’m at with God. I think that’s a good thing. It’s caused introspection when I was previously focused on other people’s beliefs. The blog started as a soapbox for me to stand on and preach to people. It’s now more of a discussion forum, where I post what I think I believe, and some big discussion results and I end up learning and sharpening. Through the blog, I’ve met a number of Messianic leaders that have strengthened my faith, encouraged me, lifted me up, given me some stability. Guided me to a better relationship with God. Can’t put a price on such a thing. God be praised for it.

Blogs without readers are nothing. And blogs without comments aren’t blogs. You fine blog readers and commenters have made this blog. I appreciate every comment I get. Really. I respond to just about every real comment. Thank you, fine & dear blog readers, for hanging around. A big thanks to blog reader and Christian good guy Gary Kirkham who, despite vehemently disagreeing with many of my theologies, has hung around longer than any other reader and has almost always conducted himself in a respectable manner.

This blog has served a darn good purpose. I’m happy with where it’s at. Here’s to another 5 years, fine blog readers. :cheers:

4/20/2009

What Galatians Really Says

This past week, an unbelieving Jew-turned-Christian friend of mine, a very visible music artist in the Christian community, announced to the world that Messianics ought to read aloud the book of Galatians at their Passover Seders, drop all forms of Judaism, and be “free from Torah bondage”.

It was a bit discouraging to read this from a fellow Jew and believer in Messiah. Yet more discouraging to know that it is gentile Christians who have led him to this belief. Yet more discouraging still that many Christians are probably rejoicing in such news of Jewish abandonment of Torah and adoption of Christianity and Mother Church.

In response, I told my friend, “I’ll read Galatians until it agrees with Messiah in Matthew 5!”

In the end, though, I’m none too worried about my friend. I think he’s rebelling against his former religion. It’s something that God will work out in him in the proper timing and in His own way. I’m certain of it.

But Galatians itself is another matter. It is a key Pauline letter that Messianics often skip over without properly addressing. Messianic apologist J.K. McKee writes,

For Messianics today, Galatians often proves to be a problem text, as a surface reading of Galatians may appear to be quite negative toward a lifestyle of Torah obedience. As is summarized by most Christians, “Certain Jewish teachers, who professed to be Christians and acknowledged Jesus as Messiah, were obscuring the simplicity of the gospel of free grace with their propaganda. They insisted that to faith in Christ must be added circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law” (NIDB, 367). Similarly, much of the Messianic movement has been accused of doing the same thing.

Indeed, when Christians confront me with some Pauline quip from Galatians, my usual response is, “Ok, now fit that in with the rest of Scripture.” Very little addressing of Paul’s actual letter is done.

Later this week, I will write some of my own thoughts on Galatians and Judaism that I’ve re-evaluated over the years. But today, I wanted to post a paper by Dr. Daniel Botkin on the topic of Galatians. It’s a great read and well-grounded. It reflects many of the thoughts that have been on my mind regarding Paul. I hope you fine blog readers can muster the attention span to read it through. Enjoy.

--

The Ghost of Marcion and What Galatians Really Says

by Dr. Daniel Botkin


If a person has a fair amount of exposure to Mainstream Christianity, and a familiarity with the Bible, he may notice that Mainstream Christianity often de-emphasizes the Old Testament and puts a disproportionate amount of emphasis on Paul's epistles. I would hesitate to say that any part of the Scriptures could be overemphasized. However, if we give uncalled-for weight and emphasis to certain parts of the Bible, and neglect what the rest of the Scriptures teach about an issue, we will probably develop an imbalanced view of that particular issue.

By volume, Paul's epistles make up approximately 5% of the Bible. Paul's writings are Holy Scripture, but neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit expected us to give more weight and authority to these epistles than we do to the Old Testament or to the rest of the New Testament.

By putting a disproportionate amount of emphasis on these letters that Paul sent to various churches, we fail to follow the example of Paul, who told the Ephesians, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Ac 20:27). By neglecting certain parts of the Bible, we ignore Paul's declaration that “all Scripture is inspired and is useful” (2Tim. 3:16).

Christianity's strong emphasis on Paul's writings and lack of emphasis on so much of the rest of the Bible is puzzling. It is especially puzzling when we consider Peter's warning about Paul's writings: “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort. As they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2Pet.3: 16)

If it was easy for Paul's contemporaries to misunderstand his epistles, we can be sure that it will be even easier for us to do so, with out limited knowledge of the situations and problems Paul was addressing when he wrote to these various churches. Yet some Christians, perhaps unknowingly, are more intent on following the easy-to-misunderstand teaching contained in Paul's letters than they are on following the plain teaching of the Messiah Jesus contained in the Gospels.

 

What caused the Church to being paying so much attention to Paul?


How did this shift of focus come about? What caused the Church to begin paying so much attention to Paul and so little attention to the Law and the Prophets and other parts of the Bible? To discover the answer to this question, we must go all the way back to the Second Century. After all the original Apostles had died, other people took on the responsibility of continuing the Church’s work. The original Apostles were all Jews, who had been exposed to the teaching of the Law and the Prophets since their childhood. The leaders who replaced them were mostly gentiles from pagan backgrounds, who had comparatively little understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures. We can read about these people in various documents from the Second Century. One Church historian has this to say about these documents:
  "Many stories come in versions so distorted that it is hard to decide whether the principal characters were worthy successors to the apostles, or the devil's own agents. Perhaps their contemporaries were as uncertain as we were."1

There is one character, however, which was undoubtedly one of the devil's own agents: The heretic Marcion, who lived in the second half of the Second Century. Marcion taught that the entire Old Testament should be rejected because it belonged to an evil, inferior God, and not to the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth.

Marcion was very anti-Jewish; therefore he also rejected any New Testament writings which appeared to speak favorably of "Jewish practices" (i.e., keeping the laws and commandments of the Old Testament). As one writer notes, "Marcion started the trend which has had many followers right up to the present –– if it doesn't suit the theory, excise it as spurious or an interpolation."2

By the time Marcion finished editing the Scriptures, his "Bible" consisted of nothing more than Luke's Gospel (minus the "Jewish" elements) and ten of Paul's epistles. Paul, Marcion taught, was the only apostle who could be trusted. Marcion's anti-Jewish; pro-Paul churches spread throughout the Roman Empire and soon became a major threat to the Messianic faith. According to historians, Marcion's heresy continued to spread until it finally died out sometime around the Fifth Century.

We who claim to believe the Bible must ask ourselves an important question: Did Marcion's anti-Jewish, anti-Old Testament, pro-Paul heresy really die out? Or did the Church simply succumb to it and accommodate it and incorporate it, in a subdued form, into Mainstream Christianity?

Of course our Bible, unlike Marcion's, includes the Law and the Prophets, but how much do we heed their instruction? When we examine the average Christian’s attitude to the Law and the Prophets, it is obvious that the ghost of Marcion is very much alive in the church today.

Although the Church pays lip service to the inspiration and authority of all the Scriptures, its de-emphasis of the Law, the Prophets, and anything "Jewish," and its heavy emphasis on Paul, reveals that the Church today is basically Marcionite in practice. For those who doubt this assertion, let us examine some things that Marcion taught, and we will see that the spirit of Marcion still has a very strong influence of the Church today.

Marcion's most influential writing was a work entitled Antithesis, described as "a highly competent work" which consisted of "contrasted statements arranged to prove the incompatibility of the law and the gospel".3

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) there are no known copies of Antithesis in existence. What we know about Marcion's teachings comes mainly from the writing of those who opposed his heresy.


Two 'Gods'?


The one to write the most about Marcion was Tertullian, a church leader who wrote a lengthy work called Against Marcion. Tertullian describes Antithesis as "A work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to Antithesis."4

No real Christian today would admit to believing in two gods, of course. Yet many believers make such a division between Old Testament Law and New Testament grace, that they view the Law as something opposed to grace. The law is seen as something obsolete and of little use to a Christian. Such a warped view of God's Law will carry over into our view of God Himself. If God's Old Testament Law is opposed to God's New Testament grace, we end up with either a schizophrenic God, or Marcion's two gods.
  "Marcion sets up unequal gods." Tertullian writes, "The one a judge, fierce and warlike, the other mild and peaceable, solely kind and supremely good."5

Is this not exactly what many Christians do? They shun the "Old Testament God" because He is too stern and fierce. They focus instead upon the "New Testament God," who, in their minds, does not expect obedience to His laws. Listen to Tertullian's description of Marcion's God, and see if it is not a description of the god presented by the Church today: Marcion's god "displays neither hostility nor wrath." He "neither condemns nor disdains" and "does not punish." "A better god has been discovered," Tertullian sarcastically writes, "one who is neither offended nor angry nor inflicts punishment……..he is merely kind. Of course he forbids you to sin—but only in writing. It lies with you whether you consent to accord him obedience."6

"To what purpose does he lay down commands?" Tertullian asks. "This god is exceptionally dull-witted if he is not offended by the doing of that which he dislikes to see being done."7

We might ask ourselves the same question about the God we worship: To what purpose does He lay down commands? We are certainly not Justified by keeping the Law. We are justified by faith. But after we are justified, what are we to do with God's Commandments? Are we to put them into practice, or are we to disobey them?

One thing that has helped the ghost of Marcion to thrive so well in the Twentieth Century Church, is the popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible. Even Christians who have never seen a Scofield Bible have probably been affected by it indirectly, through preachers and teachers who have been influenced by it.

The Scofield Bible contains many excellent study notes and aids to understanding the Scriptures. Several of Scofield's notes, however, strongly suggest a Marcionite view of Law and Grace. A reader of Scofield's notes is left with the impression that Law and Grace are mutually exclusive.

Scofield's anti-law bias has fed and nurtured and sustained the tares of nomophobia (fear of the Law) that Marcion sowed in the Church nineteen centuries ago. As the end of the age approaches, God is sending forth His messengers to uproot these tares, so His wheat can mature and bring forth the fruit of obedience to God's Laws. 

 

Spirit of Lawlessness


A spirit of lawlessness has been hanging over the Church for most of its history. Some Christians have been influenced by it more than others have, of course. Paul saw it beginning in his lifetime. Second Thessalonians speaks about “The secret power of lawlessness” Which was “already at work” when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians.

Paul told the Thessalonians that before the Messiah returned, there would be a “falling away” (apostasy, “departure from truth”). This departure from the truth would then open the door for something called “The man of lawlessness” to come forth. This “coming of the lawless one” would be accompanied by “all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders” which would “deceive those who are perishing.”

“They perish because they refused to love the truth and be saved,” Paul writes. “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.” In preparation for the Return of the Messiah, God is also sending powerful revelation to graciously expose the ancient lie, so that those who love the truth can depart from error and be freed from the bewitching influence of the spirit of lawlessness.

In 1989, Ted Turner of CNN declared the Ten Commandments obsolete and offered his own “Ten Voluntary Initiatives” as an alternative to God’s outdated laws. No one should take Turner seriously, of course, but he did make one comment that deserves our attention. “Nobody around likes to be commanded,” he said. “Commandments are out.”8

Christians may scoff at Turner’s idea of replacing God’s Laws with human ideas, yet is this not the very thing the Church has done with some of God’s Commandments? We have replaced the 24-hour, seventh-day Sabbath with an hour or two of Sunday morning worship; we have replaced the Biblical holy days with holidays of pagan origin; we have replaced God’s dietary guidelines with our own ideas about what we should eat.

After a person has been forgiven and justified by faith, where should he look for moral instruction? Should he look to God’s Commandments to tell him how to live the Christian life, or should he ignore God’s Commandments and live according to man’s suggestions? Even Scofield, in spite of all his anti-law bias and nomophobia, concedes that the Old Testament commandments “are used in the distinctively Christian Scriptures as an instruction in righteousness.”9

 

Against Marcion


In Against Marcion, Tertullian accuses Marcion and his followers of “forbidding what (God) commands and commanding what He forbids.”10

The ghost of Marcion continues to do this in the Church today. Mainstream Christianity has criticized believers for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, for celebrating the Biblical holy days, for practicing the dietary law, and for refusing to shave their beards—things that God has commanded. And, like Marcion, Mainstream Christianity often commands what God forbids: “Forget the Sabbath. Ignore the holy days and dietary laws. And shave that beard, so you will look like a Christian!” (Many Bible colleges and seminaries command their students to shave their beard, in spite of God’s command in Lev. 19:27).

Marcion, like many church leaders today, misused the words of Jesus and the words of Paul to support this nomophobic, anti-Jewish, pro-Paul gospel. Tertullian rightly points out that Jesus’ verbal attacks on the teachers of the Law were not aimed at the Law itself, but at man’s perversion and misuse of God’s Law. “He is not criticizing the burdens of the law,” Tertullian writes. The burdens Jesus criticized were, according to Tertullian, “those which they piled on of their own, teaching for precepts the doctrines of men.”11

Tertullian shows the importance Jesus attached to keeping the commandments when he writes about the rich young ruler who approached Jesus: “So when he is asked by that certain man, “Good “Teacher, what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?”, he inquired whether he knew –which means, was keeping, the Creator’s Commandments….Come now, Marcion, and all you companions in the misery and sharers in the offensiveness of that heretic, what will you be bold enough to say? Did Christ here rescind those former commands….?12

Tertullian opposes Marcion’s misuse of Paul’s writings by pointing out the “Jewishness” of Paul’s faith, and then asking, “What had (Paul) still to do with Jewish custom, if he was the destroyer of Judaism?”13

He also refers to Romans 7:7, to combat Marcion’s hatred of the Law: “What shall we say then? That the law is sin? God forbid.”Shame on you, Marcion. God forbid: the apostle expresses abhorrence of complaint against the law…Yet he adds even more: “The Law is holy, and its commandment is just, and good.”14 As Tertullian points out later, “you cannot make a promoter of the law into an opponent of it.”15

Unfortunately, the Church ignored Paul’s positive statements about the Law and Jesus’ warning about the necessity of continuing to practice and teach the Old Testament commandments. (See Matt. 5:17-19)

The Epistle of Barnabas, an influential letter written in the Second Century, indicates the general direction the church was heading in its attitude to the Old Testament. “The main theme of Barnabas,” writes one church historian, “is a spiritualization of the Mosaic Law. The writer holds that the Jews were wrong to take the Old Testament literally.”16

Everything in the Old Testament was allegorized to give it a Christian meaning. Even the commandments were taken figuratively, because, according to Barnabas, “The Law of Moses had never been meant to be taken literally.”17

Even the dietary restrictions were said to represent not actual food, but various kinds of sinful habits.

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho also shows early Christianity’s negative attitude toward the Law. Trypho the Jew expresses bewilderment when he tells Justin, “(You Christians) spurn the commands…and then try to convince us (Torah-observant Jews) that you know God, when you fail to do those things that every God-fearing person would do. If, therefore, you can give a satisfactory reply to these charges and can show us on what you place your hopes, even though you refuse to obey the Law, we will listen to you most willingly, and then we can go on and examine in the same manner our other differences.”18

Justin replies by saying that the Law is “obsolete,” “abrogated,” “voided,” and tells Trypho, “You understand all in a carnal way.”19

Not all followers of the Messiah were influenced by the nomophobic, anti-Old Testament, pro-Paul gospel of Marcion. There is historical evidence of several groups of believers who practiced the Law as an expression of their faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah.

After Trypho asks Justin about the possibility of believing in Yeshua as the Messiah and continuing to observe the commandments, Justin writes his reply: “Yes, Trypho, “I conceded, there are some Christians who…desire to observe as many of the Mosaic precepts as possible—precepts which we think were instituted because of your hardness of heart—while at the same time they place their hope in Christ…”20 Justin obviously disagreed with these Law-keeping Messianic believers, but he does acknowledge their existence.

The best-known of these groups who believed in Yeshua and practiced the Torah were the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. There were other groups, more obscure and far less orthodox, such as the Elchasaites and the Pseudoclementines.21

Some doctrinal errors in some of these predominately Jewish groups probably contributed to the decision of the Mainstream, Gentile Church to adopt Marcion’s anti-Law, anti-Jewish attitude. One writer notes that “Jewish Christianity in various forms continued as a disturbing factor until almost the Fifth Century.”22

It is interesting that this is the same time that Marcion’s heresy supposedly “died out.” Once Marcion’s error (in a modified, subdued form) had been fully assimilated into the Mainstream Church, “Jewish Christianity” was no longer a “disturbing factor” because the Law-keeping Christians were greatly outnumbered by those who had adopted Marcion’s attitude toward the Law. The number of those who upheld both the Torah and the Messiah (see Rev. 12:17 & 14:12) was so insignificant by the Fifth Century that the Mainstream Church no longer considered them a threat. They could now be written off as a fringe group, and conveniently ignored. Though they were few in number compared to the now-Marcion-ized Mainstream Church, these groups who upheld both the Torah and the Messiah continued to exist until at least as late as the Tenth Century.23

While Mainstream Christianity, influenced by Marcion, de-emphasized the law and over-emphasized Paul, groups such as the Ebionites totally rejected Paul, viewing him as an apostate and enemy of the Law. Both of these extremes are distortions of true, Biblical faith in the Messiah.

The solution is not to reject either Paul or the Law; the solution is to view Paul’s writings in a way that will allow them to harmonize with what the rest of the Bible says about the Law.

How should a disciple of Yeshua / Jesus view Paul’s epistles? For those who desire to be faithful and to live “by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, “ seven guidelines are listed below. The Bible student should keep these guidelines in mind when reading Paul’s writings.

 

Over-All Biblical Context


Paul’s epistles, like any other part of Scripture, must be viewed in the light of the entire Bible. This means that when we are dealing with the Law, we must not focus in on a few statements Paul made, and ignore everything else the Bible says about God’s Law. As pointed out earlier, Paul’s writings make up approximately 5% of the Bible. Paul’s writings must be understood in a way that will make them compatible with what the other 95% of the Bible says. In other words, let the other 95% of the Bible interpret the 5% that Paul wrote.

It is important to remember that for many years, the Old Testament was the only Bible the Early Church had. The New Testament writings were gradually accepted into the canon of the Scriptures. It was not until about the middle of the Second Century that the term “The Scriptures” referred to the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.24 Therefore, when New Testament writers mention “The scriptures” or “The commandments,” they are referring to the Old Testament.

Historical Context


The New Jerusalem Bible, in its “Introduction to Paul,” makes this statement: “It is important to remember that Paul’s letters were not meant as theological treatises: most of them represent his response to a particular situation in a particular church….Paul’s letters do not give any systematic and exhaustive exposition of his teachings; they presuppose the oral teaching which preceded them, and enlarge and comment only upon certain points of that.”25

Because Paul often wrote to correct particular problems in particular churches, we must have some knowledge of the situation Paul was addressing if we are to understand his writings. Sometimes the problem can be inferred from Paul’s remarks, but often we are left with little or no knowledge of the situations Paul was dealing with.

Theologians often try to reconstruct the historical backgrounds of the epistles and make educated guesses about the problems Paul was addressing. This can be a noble effort, if it is done in a sincere attempt to come to a clearer understanding of what Paul taught. Unfortunately, many people come to an understanding of Paul that contradicts what the rest of the Bible teaches, either by incorrectly reconstructing the historical background, or by ignoring it altogether.

 

Peter's Warning


It is important to bear in mind Peter’s warning that Paul’s letters are not easy to understand: “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position” (2Pet.3:16f).

Those with little or no knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures are especially apt to misinterpret Paul’s writing to their own ruin. Notice, it is not the Law-keeping disciples of Yeshua who distort Paul’s epistles—it is “lawless men” that Peter warns us about.

 

Jesus' Warning


Early in His ministry, the Messiah spoke this warning to His followers: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).

Our Master’s warning seems plain and simple enough to understand, yet many Christians mistakenly believe that by fulfilling the Law, He thereby abolished it. This is exactly what He is warning us not to think! “I have come to fulfill the Law, “: He says, “but do not even think that by fulfilling it, I am thereby abolishing it.”

Sometimes it is easier for people outside Mainstream Christianity to see the blindness of Christians in this area. The Jewish Encyclopedia quotes Jesus’ warning of Matt. 5:17, and then makes this bold statement: “The rejection of the Law by Christianity, therefore, was a departure from its Christ.”26

In an article with the catchy title, “Jesus Was Not a Christian,” the writer points out that “Jesus certainly wouldn’t have been recognized as a Christian throughout his entire life. “He scrupulously adhered to the Law of Moses” and “enjoined his disciples to keep every detail of the Torah.”27

A story in the New York Yiddish Forward tells of a reporter’s encounter with an old Hasidic Jew in Paris years ago. This Jew had a fervent faith in Jesus as the Messiah. When the reporter asked him about the compatibility of Orthodox Judaism and belief in Jesus, the old man replied, “Who then should believe in Him, the gentiles?” The reporter describes the old man’s remarks this way:

“He said that only Jews can truly accept belief in Jesus as the Messiah and regard him as the last prophet, for gentiles can never accept such a lofty faith. It is next to impossible for them to walk in His ways, for first of all, Yeshua, as he called Him, commanded to observe all the Jewish laws, the entire Torah, and gentiles do not even know this.”28

Of course it is not impossible for gentiles to accept and practice such a lofty faith. The question is, will they do it? Or will they continue to cling to the lies of Marcion?

 

Paul's Positive Statements About the Law


Many Christians overlook or choose to ignore the positive things Paul said about the Law. He writes, for example, “The Law is holy, and the Commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). Paul says, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law” and “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s Law” (Rom. 7:22,25).

He tells Timothy, “We know that the Law is good if one uses it properly” (ITim. 1:8). To the Corinthians he writes, “Keeping God’s Commandments is what counts” (ICor.7:19). Even when explaining the righteousness that comes by faith, Paul is careful to make sure his readers know that their faith does not give them an excuse to ignore God’s Law: “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the Law” (Rom.3:31).

Paul's Negative Statements About the Law


Paul, in his negative statements about the Law, was not criticizing the Law itself, but man’s misuse of the Law. The Law was meant to be a moral guide for a people already justified by faith, but some people in Paul’s day were depending on their Law-keeping as the means of their justification before God. What Paul criticized was not Law-keeping itself, but making Law-keeping the basis of one’s justification before God.

Between the Babylonian Captivity and the time of the Messiah, Israel developed an erroneous understanding of the Law’s purpose. The Jews who first returned from Babylon knew that their exile had been the result of the breaking of God’s Laws; therefore, they put a heavy emphasis on the Law when they returned to their homeland. Unfortunately, this new emphasis eventually developed a theology that caused some people to erroneously view Law-keeping, rather than faith, as the key to their justification. Paul’s negative statements about the Law were simply his attempts to correct this erroneous use of the Law.

One writer puts it this way: “Paul, in his epistles, affirms the Law, yet condemns the wrong emphasis men place upon it. In this sense he is turning believers back to the original intent of the law, it being a rule for godly living for those who are already redeemed. He rejects the later shift towards making it a means of salvation.”29

Another author says basically the same thing when he writes, “Paul rejects the law as a “Method of Salvation” but upholds it as a “Standard for Christian Conduct.”30

To dispel these false accusations, the elders of Jerusalem had Paul go with four men who had taken a vow (probably a Nazarite vow), telling Paul that in this way “all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also work orderly, keeping the Law” (Acts 28:17).

To his Jewish accusers from Jerusalem, Paul said, “I have committed No Offense, either against the Law of the Jews or against The temple”(Acts 25:8). To the Jews in Rome, he repeated the same testimony: “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people, or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered prisoner into the hands of the Romans” (Acts 28:17).

Paul's Example

It is very clear that Paul continued to keep the Law after he met the Messiah. The only thing that changed was Paul’s reason for keeping the Law. Before, he had kept it in an effort to be justified before God. After meeting the Messiah, he found the justification he had sought through his Law-keeping. Paul was justified through faith, and the Law was internalized, “written upon the heart,” as Jeremiah prophesied it would be (31:31-34). Now he desired to obey God’s commandments because of the inward impulse of his new nature. His obedience was no longer the result of an external compulsion to justify himself before God by Law-keeping. Thus, he was free to obey “in the way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code: (Rom.7:6).

By keeping the Law, in the right way and for the right reasons, Paul left an example for all disciples to follow, whether Jew or non-Jew. Some people seem to think that only Jewish believers were expected to continue practicing Torah. The so-called “Great Commission” rules out this possibility. When Jesus instructed His Jewish disciples to go to “all nations (Gentiles),” He told them to teach the Gentile nations “to obey everything I have commanded you (My Jewish Disciples)” (Matt.28:18ff). He commanded His Jewish disciples to obey the Torah (Matt 5:17-19 & 23:1-2), and they were to teach the Gentiles to do it.

The key to godly living is not to ignore the Law and elevate Paul, as Marcion did. Nor is the solution to overemphasize the Law and reject Paul, as the Ebionites and others did. The solution is to do what Paul said to do: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of the Messiah” (Icor.11:1). If we truly follow Paul’s example, as he followed the example of Messiah, we will begin to practice Old Testament commands that the Church has ignored or changed.

A.W. Tozer wrote, “Probably no other portion of the Scriptures can compare with the Pauline epistles when it comes to making artificial saints.”31 Let us avoid artificial sainthood by keeping in mind the above-mentioned seven guidelines for understanding Paul’s epistles.

As we let the naked truth of Holy Scripture renew our minds and change our thinking, the sunlight of God’s Word will dispel the mist of the ghost of Marcion. We will find ourselves transformed as the fog lifts, and as we see the Law as God always meant it to be seen: as something positive, holy, and good, “if one uses it properly” (1Tim.1:8).

Let those who wish to whole-heartedly follow the Messiah begin to learn the commandments, practice them, and teach them to others, for ”whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:19). As we banish the ghost of Marcion, the “spirit of lawlessness,” from our theology, we will see the commandments not as a yoke of bondage, but as a moral guide by which we can joyfully live a life that is pleasing to the Heavenly Father. Then we will be able to rejoice in God’s commandments as the psalmist did:

“I will praise You with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws…I rejoice in following Your statutes as one rejoices in great riches…I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on Your laws. I hold fast to Your statutes, O Lord; do not let me be put to shame. I run in the path Of Your commands, for You have set my heart free…I will always Obey Your law, forever and ever. I will walk about in freedom, for I Sought out Your precepts…Great peace have they who love Your Law, and nothing can make them stumble” (Ps.119:7,14,30-32, 44f,165).

References
  1. Smith, M.A. From Christ to Constantine (London: Intervarsity Press, 1971), p. 14.
  2. Ibid., p.53.
  3. Tertullian, Against Marcion, trans. And ed. Ernest Evans (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. xv.
  4. Tertullian, IV.1.
  5. Ibid.,I.6
  6. Ibid.,I.26f
  7. Ibid.
  8. Turner''s Commandments, ""Peoria Journal Star, 27 Oct., 1989, section D, p.22.
  9. The Scofield Reference Bible, ed. C.I.Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p.1245.
  10. Tertullian, IV.1.
  11. Ibid., IV.27
  12. Ibid., IV.36.
  13. Ibid., V.5.
  14. Ibid., V.14.
  15. Ibid., V.17.
  16. Smith, p.39
  17. Eerdman''s Handbook to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), p.102.
  18. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch.10.
  19. Ibid., ch.11, 14
  20. Ibid., ch.47.
  21. Austin, Bill R. Austin''s Topical History of Christianity (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1983) p.72f.
  22. Ibid., p.73.
  23. Flusser, David Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (New York: Adama Books, 1987), p
    Guidelines How to View Paul
  24. Smith, p. 63.
    Guidelines How to View Paul
  25. The New Jerusalem Bible, ed. Henry Wansbrough (New York: Doubleday and Co.,1985), p.1852f.
    Guidelines How to View Paul
  26. The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. Isidore Singer New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903), Vol.V.,p.52.
  27. John Murray Smoot, Jesus Was Not a Christian, “A Way in the Wilderness, ed. M.G. Einspruch (Baltimore: The Lederer Foundation, 1981), p.28
  28. J. Feldman, “Yozel’s Hasid, “The Ox, the Ass, the Oyster, ed. Henry and Marie Einspruch (Baltimore: The Lederer Foundation, 1975), p.74.
    Guidelines How to View Paul
  29. Michael Schiffman, “A Pauline Understanding of the Place of the Law for New Covenant Believers, “The Messianic Outreach, 7:3 Spring 1988, p.9.
  30. Bacchiocchi, Samuele The Sabbath in the New Testament (Berrien Springs, MI: University Printers, 1985), p.101.
  31. Gems From Tozer (England: Send the Light Trust, 1969), p.18

4/17/2009

It is shabbat (and the end of Passover)…

This shabbat I’m the guy playing the music for our Bible study meet up. I love when I get to do this!

I picked out a few of my personal favs this week:

  1. Lamb – Dancing in Jerusalem
  2. Marty Goetz – Psalm 1
  3. Lamb – Many Will See It
  4. Israel’s Hope – I Want to Worship You
  5. Barry & Batya Segal – Hodu L’Adonai

Some good classics that you can really worship the Lord to!

Also, as the week of Unleaved Bread comes to a close, for your enjoyment dear blog readers, here are some snapshots of our Passover seder we did last weekend. We rented a cabin for the day and had about 40-50 folks celebrating Passover with us:

The leader's table 

sedertables1

sedertables2

We had lamb and the traditional Passover foods: charoset, bitter herbs, parsley, unleavened bread, some sneaked-in wine (thanks Wayne!). We had a Messiah-focused Passover service, and did some ministering and really worshipped the Lord in music and song to boot.

And thanks to Katie, Lydia, and all the folks that made this happen! Your efforts are greatly appreciated!

Hope you all had a fine Passover and Unleavened Bread week.
Shabbat shalom, fine blog readers!

4/13/2009

On Critiques of Easter

Messianic apologist J.K. McKee posted 2 videos on Easter that explains what the real objection is to Easter. (It is not a rejection of Yeshua’s resurrection!)

J.K. also chides some of us Messianics for being too harsh on our Christian brothers during this time, telling us that celebrating Yeshua's life, death, and resurrection is not a sin, and too often we accuse Christians as such. There are many righteous Christians who are, pagan traditions aside, celebrating Yeshua's resurrection. Rather than a mean-spirited attack, we should be gracious and specific in our rebuke.




4/10/2009

Why we’re celebrating Passover

Chag Sameach Pesach! That’s Hebrew for, “Happy Feast of Passover”! Many of us will be keeping God’s Passover today or tomorrow.

I wanted to compile a big list of reasons why we keep Passover. The list of reasons is going to gracious and non-confrontational. It’s going to be a long list with lots of …

…uhh, hold on a minute.

Do you have kids? Did you answer yes? (Sorry, I can’t hear you with all the 1s and 0s flowing through those jumbo intarweb pipes.) You know when you send your kid to bed, and OH! How they drag their feet!

“Dad, can’t I just stay up a little longer?”

“Why not?”

“If that’s why, couldn’t you let me stay up just 5 minutes longer?”

“Come on, please?! It’s only 5 minutes!”

“Why can’t I stay up 5 minutes more?”

“Why not only 5 minutes?”

“Can I just watch one more thing on the TV?”

And so on.

Foolish is the father who answers each question ad infinitum.

Wise is the father who says, “No more questions. You will go to bed now because it is time.”

With that, the tables turn, and now the burden of action is back on the child, with correction looming over his head.

What does this have to do with Passover?

I wanted to write a blog post that I could refer back to over time, something containing a compiled list of reasons we keep Passover. I started writing it in this post. But then something happened. But my parental instincts kicked in. I realized much of the questioning of Passover was much like that little child, ever reluctant to do what he’s told, hoping he’ll have more free time to do his own things, like watching TV or playing his games.

Just like the father saying, “You’ll go to bed because it is time”, there is really one real reason to keep Passover.

Why do we celebrate Passover? Drum roll, please…

 

God told us to.

 

Yup. Do we need any more reasons?

No, really. This isn’t a joke or something to be taken lightly. If we really believe the Scripture is actually inspired from God, then God told us to. He told *you* to – yes – even you gentiles. In fact, the New Testament specifically and in no unclear terms commands gentiles to keep the Passover.

Now it’s true, volumes could be written detailing more reasons: the Lord Jesus kept the Passover; if we’re really his disciples, we ought to follow our master. He told us to keep the Passover, saying, “Do this in remembrance of me.” as he celebrated the Passover himself with his disciples. Paul directly tells gentile Corinthians to keep the Passover. The Passover is about redemption from bondage, and Jesus freed us from sin. And so on. Like I said, a million + 1 reasons.

But to list and detail each and every reason is to answer all the questions of that child, dragging his feet, hoping to find some way around his father’s command, some loophole. Just 5 more minutes of TV. A few more minutes to play my game. Just one more year of painted egg hunts and chocolate rabbits.

No more. Now is not the time to drag your feet. If you know what’s best for you, you’ll celebrate His Passover because it is Passover time.” The appointed, set time has arrived.

That’s why we keep Passover, dear Christian friends. God told us to. If you need more reasons than that, I politely suggest your priorities need reordering.

A wise Jewish Pharisee who deeply loved Yeshua once said, “The night is far spent; the day is close at hand.” Yes, no more feet-dragging. This Jewish man said to his gentile friends, “The time has come for us to celebrate the Passover, not with wickedness and malice but with sincerity and truth.”

I hope you all can find a Messianic congregation or even a church that celebrates God’s Passover this weekend. Many churches are doing a “Jesus in the Passover” celebration this year; maybe that’s a good place to start. Those of you that know me personally, call or email me, you’re invited to our Passover.

I know it’s hard. I know you’re busy doing your own thing this weekend, watching TV and playing your games going on Easter egg hunts and celebratory pig dinner and all that. But it’s time to stop playing games. It’s time to keep God’s Passover.

May God find you keeping his appointed time of Passover – not next year, not later, not some time in the distant future – but this year. This weekend. No more feet-dragging. It’s time.

4/06/2009

Power to the [lay]people!

Yes, it's a joke. Lighten up. Stuffiness is not a prerequisite for being religious. You're not a puritan.Last week I had a hard time writing blog posts. Not out of a lack of content, mind you – I’m a veritable fountain of near-useless information that I’m all too ready to deploy on the unsuspecting world. Rather, I had one little thing on my mind that I didn’t really want to write. This one little thing was totally blocking my other thoughts and creativity, preventing me from writing anything half-interesting.

Hoping this one little thing would pass, I managed to squeeze out 2 blog posts. Ok, I’m lying. I didn’t actually write those 2 posts. My older brother Jesse wrote last week’s post on Passover & Easter. And thanks to my younger brother Aaron for this beautiful song. So really I wrote 0 posts. But I still managed to satisfy the demand for ultimate blogging success and stuck to my schedule of 2 blog posts per week. All in the name of Blog the Great.

But here we are a week later and I still have that one little thing on my mind. Like a stubborn kidney stone, it just won’t pass! Only way to make it pass is write it here and off the chest it goes, I hope, freeing my mind and skillful fingers to write fanciful prose not seen since the days of Shakespeare. Or just the usual junk I write. Either-or.

Let me tell you what that one little thing was.

Weeks ago I was talking theology with 2 leaders in the Messianic movement. Oh yeah, I’m sly like that. The theology was about things that don’t matter much in the long run: the calendar, and the exact timing of Yeshua’s death and resurrection. Even though these things don’t matter that much long-term, there was some heated, fierce debate. (We religion-people like to do that a lot, turn little nothings into big somethings.)

 

The Jewish Calendar

J.K. McKee, a Messianic apologist (perhaps the Messianic apologist?) and academic, a guy I have a whole boatload of respect for, wrote a post on the Jewish calendar. Now the calendar issue is a silly one: To compress a volume into a sentence, the issue is that the current Jewish calendar, created in the 4th century CE, is not the same one defined in the Torah. [Duh.] Some follow the Jewish calendar (like McKee) and others (like me) follow an agriculture calendar we hope is more faithful to the Scripture.

Yeah. It’s a trivial thing to argue about. You’d think we’d have something better to do with our time than argue about calendars. But religion can make you dumb like that.

J.K. McKee’s post angered me, but, armed with my newfound wisdom of a pragmatic faith, knowing full well the world is not impressed with our silly arguments about calendars, my response was gentle and gracious:

As you know, JK, I’m an agricultural calendar guy.

[big, wordy response goes here…]

In the end, I think we shouldn’t be dogmatic about calendar issues. There are way more important things to tackle, greater things to concern ourselves with.

Ta-dum! Situation resolved peacefully. But, alas, it didn’t remain so. I’ll explain in a moment.

 

The timing of the Messiah’s death and rising

I switched gears and totally forgot about McKee’s post.

A day or so later, I went over to the blog of another guy I have a lot of respect for: Derek Leman. Derek’s a Messianic gentile who really has a heart for the Jewish people and Judaism. I love his well-researched studies. He’s very grounded and very real, something uncommon to encounter in a sea of airy spiritual people. So I like him. I respect him.

Derek wrote a post about the timing of Messiah’s death and resurrection. Which day of the week did Messiah die? Which day of the week did he rise? That kind of thing. Fun to debate about, silly to get dogmatic about. Derek posted a well-researched belief: Jesus was crucified on Friday. I disagreed and said so in the comments.

Armed again with the dual-wielding pistols of pragmatic faith and knowledge of the silliness of certain dogmatic arguments, I spoke graciously:

I’ve done a boat-load of study on this stuff. Seriously, a boat-load. :-) Here’s my current understanding:

[long-winded, stuffy details here]

Ok? So that’s my best understanding. I’ve done a lot of research to arrive at this conclusion. There are probably holes in it and things not quite right. But that’s my best Scriptural understanding I’ve come to at this point.

Oh boy, what a mistake it was to post that!

Things started getting heated. Derek started sweating profusely as I sliced him apart with my cunning theological arguments. Ok, I’m lying again. Derek tore me a new theological hole, ripping apart everything I hold dear. No, that’s not the truth either. Basically, we went back in forth in the comments, starting off graciously, but each comment getting more heated than the last, passive-aggressively getting on each other’s nerves.

In an off-the-record email, Derek said to me,

Your starting point must be Torah, the way the festival works, and the data from the gospels.

Ummm. Yeah, Derek. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Derek Leman's alter-ego?

I wanted to say, “Thanks for dismissing my views as if I never once glanced at the Torah nor took a gander at the gospels in the last 5 years. Thanks.”

Thankfully, I held my tongue again, my response containing only a reassurance to Derek that I am indeed using data from the Torah and gospels as my foundation.

But things raged on, as J.K. McKee chimed in the comments, saying:

It is insufficient for any reader to examine the English of Leviticus 23 and then start making conclusions…

Oh, so first I wasn’t studying the Torah or gospels, and now I’m just looking at Leviticus 23 and pulling theology out of my magic theology hat! Woohoo! Isn’t this fun?!

This is apparently where I get my theology from. VOILA!

Finally, Derek said something that sent me over the edge into a violent fit of internet argument rage! Grrr! Hulk ANGRY! Derek said something that really frustrated me. Really. He said:

Please think and study before making such statements that further confuse the issue.

Oh, man! What a mean, sneaky rabbi! My first thought, thank God I didn’t post it, was, “I’ve studied this stuff for 5 years now. Who the hell are you to talk to me like that!” It was as if Derek was the old, wise, bearded man of the mountain, and I’m just some youthful traveler foolish enough to contradict him. “Please think before posting.” My butt.

Thankfully, I didn’t post anything nasty. Twice now I’d been angered, despite trying my best to be gracious and loving, but praise God, I had some patience and longsuffering, something I’ve learned from certain Messianic leadership. I stepped away from the computer. I let it cool down. Coming back later, I told Derek,

Whew, this is getting a little heated. I didn’t want this to become a spiteful debate about things that, in the long run, don’t really matter that much.

Derek, I’ll respond after I’ve had time to study more on the objections you raised, and after things have cooled down a little. :-)

Shalom, guys.

I might have been lying; I wasn’t even sure if I wanted to talk about it anymore. (I still haven’t responded 2 weeks removed.) If it’s just gonna turn ugly, gosh, forget that crap, I don’t want any of it.

(There were a million + 1 other passive-aggressive statements uttered, but they’re uninteresting and I fear I’ll lose your valuable and ever-short attention span, dear blog reader, if I recite each one.)

Oh, if only it ended there. I always regret my acts of disgrace, and ungracious I was soon to be…

 

Back to the calendar

Remember McKee’s post about the calendar? Well, some folks at our Bible study sent it around to each other and started discussing it. As the discussion of it progressed, I realized that McKee’s post was too dismissive and spoke from a lofty, high ground of educated understanding. Like that old man perched up on the mountain, speaking down to us mere mortals, so was McKee on his blog. It was clear to me his post contained conjecture and subjective musings, not the real gold-plated truth some painted it to be. “A bunch of crap!” I thought to myself.

I was tired of being belittled. I have been gracious on calendar and dating issues, yet in a single week I was twice insulted and belittled.

I decided it was time to let it all hang out.

Dismiss all my appointments. Cancel my meetings. Turn off the Old Tyme radio, Marge, SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.

duty_calls

I wrote a crisp, short, cutting response to McKee. I really told him what’s what. I told him in what was now my 2nd comment, one which didn’t make it past blog comment moderation:

John, we’re trying to follow the Torah the best we can. I can’t speak for everybody else, but we follow the agricultural calendar because that’s the message we get from the Torah, not because of some scary apocalyptic timeline.

You might say we’re dumb — most of us lack higher theological education, we don’t have the necessary astronomical, historical, and contextual knowledge to make sound judgments. We don’t have the background in Greek and Hebrew to get the word straight from the horse’s mouth, so our judgments are off.

Maybe that’s all true, but damn it, we’re following God best we can. And the best we can do, when it comes to the calendar — interpreting the Scriptures best we can — leads us to something other than the Hillel II Jewish calendar created in the 4th century.

Thus, I wrote my first ungracious comment in 2009. :blows celebratory horn:

Gah. Old friend J.K. didn’t take too kindly to this comment, pointing out my use of profanity. I apologized for being ungracious, but told him I’m not ashamed of the comment. J.K. was kind enough to see past my spurt of ungraciousness. He forgave my ungraciousness. We haven’t talked since. :cries:

I was ungracious, overwhelmed by zealous emotion, for which I apologized. But there is something legitimate there I was trying to communicate, poorly as usual. And now that I’m 2 weeks removed from that blinding zeal, I think I can communicate it properly…

 

Power to the laypeople!

I’m a lay person by all means. That means I’m not part of the educated clergy. I’m just a dude in a congregation. That’s ok. I have a short college education at a tiny community college in Joliet, Illinois. I can’t even remember the name of my college’s sports team. More importantly, I’m not privy on the newest theologies, not well-informed of the latest doctrines! I don’t have a theological degree, unlike Derek Leman and John McKee.

But I’m not stupid, either. At least, I play a smart guy on the intarweb blogging scene. That counts, right?

What I wanted to communicate is in 2 parts. I’m going to communicate them now. Ready? They’re simple, so you don’t have to think very hard to understand them.

The first part is that laypeople like me should respect and value the theology of the highly educated in our movement. They’ve spent great personal fortunes, undoubtedly depleting said fortunes, in an effort to become learned. They’ve succeeded. All other things being equal, we laypeople ought to value their opinions, conjecture, and theologies higher than that of laity.

The second part is that our educated leadership should not dismiss views of laypeople on the sole count that we’re laypeople. That’s the feeling I got when talking to Leman and McKee. “Please study and think before talking…”, “You can’t just read 1 chapter and pull theology out of it…” “You need to understand 2nd Temple Judaism before you can have any understanding in the area…” And so on. Thanks for assuming I’m a dumb redneck with no education, no context, no study. Because that’s the message my educated leadership was sending me. Don’t do that, dear educated leadership. Not all of us are dumb.

(Hmm, maybe I should copyright that sentence. Not All of Us Are Dumb®. There. )

 

Conclusion

I love the educated leadership in the Messianic movement. I regularly give money to them whenever I can afford it. I routinely hold up their words as examples when talking to people about Messianic Judaism. I value them more than they know. I wish I could write a hundred paragraphs about them, if only it would not bore you fine blog readers. If we in Messianic Judaism lost this irreplaceable generation of educated leadership to Christianity or Orthodox Judaism or agnosticism, inexplicably worse off our movement would be.

I only ask that our educated leadership would value our contribution, the contribution of the laypeople. By all means, pick apart our arguments, show us where our theology is wrong. But don’t dismiss us while you stand on that steep lofty mountain of higher education, dismissing us just because we’re laity. And don’t assume we’re all dumb. That’s insulting.

We can learn from the Methodists. John Wesley sent out laypeople as preachers, lay-preachers – an unthinkable and widely criticized act at the time. These men weren’t ordained by the Church of England, yet religion took a turn for the better because of them, despite these men not always having the proper ordination or higher education. God can use us dumb people.

Likewise, even though many uneducated leaders in Messianic Judaism have occasionally hurt the movement, on the whole, the faith is better with us in it. Really. We can make it better through our faith and servitude, even though our academic knowledge pales in comparison to the great, educated leaders going before us.

And now that that’s off my chest, a load has been lifted. It’s smokin’ to high heaven, like incense on the altar.  

Thanks for listening to this rant. We now return you to our regular scheduled programming.

4/01/2009

Kadosh HaShem

My younger brother Aaron, now attending Hebrew school in Israel, wrote a little song inspired from traditional Hebrew prayer. He sent me a video the other day showing him singing and playing it on his guitar. I enjoyed it, and hope you do as well, fine blog reader. It’s in Hebrew, but with an English translation overlaid.

The song is entitled Kadosh HaShem. Kadosh is a Hebrew word meaning set apart, or holy, and HaShem is an honorary title for God, literally meaning “The Name”. It is put to a slow, worshipful, niggun-like tune. Aaron tells me the song is inspired from the traditional Jewish Amidah prayers. Enjoy!

Kadosh HaShem