Some messages posted by someone who is a friend of mine on Facebook have stirred up quite a ruckus over the past few days, mainly because they question or challenge what the writer sees as widely held Christian beliefs about the Torah.

The tone of the posts is negative toward those Bible-believing Christians who don’t believe that the Sabbath, dietary laws, or other “ceremonial” laws are binding anymore for any believers in the Messiah.

I understand the feeling that the message of the continuing validity of Torah needs to be out there, and that Christians’ lives will be richer if they understand the Jewish context of their faith.

But I disagree with the approach.

I used to be one of the most arrogant, obnoxious Hebrew roots proponents out there, referring to “Sunday Christians” as “pagans” or even, sometimes, “heretics.” But I also realized how sinful such an attitude was, that it was causing division in the Body of Messiah, and that it was even in some aspects a matter of bearing false witness because what I was saying about them wasn’t true.

One of the specialities of the Hebrew roots movement is stirring up division in the Body with an attitude of superiority over those who disagree with them (not that they’re the only ones who do this). It also greatly injures the very thing they say they’re trying to do: persuade more believers to observe more aspects of the Torah. I’m sure they feel they’re spreading the message of God, and that they’re backed up by the Bible, but are these really the “works” they want to be known for? Strife? Divisiveness?

One of the discussions focused on Christians who don’t think they have to do the “works of the law.” The writer pointed out Romans 2:13:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

He didn’t, however, also discuss Romans 3:20:

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

In other words, it’s not so simple. What Paul is saying about a Gentile’s relation to the Law is a little more complex than one verse.

But what the writer appears to be focusing on are such “works of the law” as keeping Shabbat, dietary laws, etc. In other words, many of the so-called “ceremonial laws” that most Christians feel are done away with, or have been fulfilled in Christ.

Those things are important. They were commanded to the Israelites directly from God Himself.

But what Hebrew roots promoters often don’t bring up, and not in these messages at all, are the matters of the Torah that Yeshua held most highly: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. They also rarely, if ever, promote what Yeshua said would divide the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

When one looks at Hebrew roots organizations, especially national ones, it’s rare to see any kind of outreach that truly benefits the less fortunate. They do exist, but are few and far between. There likely are some outreach efforts on the local level, but I’m talking mainly here about the national or even international level.

Who, instead, is carrying out these values and actions? Who is being obedient to Messiah?

Christians, the same ones being insulted and patronized by Hebrew roots promoters for not “keeping” the law. There is no Hebrew roots equivalent of Samaritan’s Purse, or Voice of the Martyrs. Yet people in these movements feel free to point fingers and make accusations.

And if Hebrew roots followers who unkindly or disrespectfully criticize Bible-based Christianity justify themselves by saying they do donate to ministries that help the poor or reach out to the desperate justify themselves, odds are it’s a Christian organization … which is doing the work. Another question is how many Hebrew roots leaders who deride mainstream/Bible-believing Christians or Christian teaching in their sermons or Bible-study classes are holding those services and classes in churches which have agreed to rent to them.

The Hebrew roots attitude toward the rest of the Body of Christ needs to change, or it will do one of two things: destroy itself or continue its irrelevancy while still destroying its relationships with other Christians and ripping apart families.

Much better is the attitude of organizations such as First Fruits of Zion, which holds to the validity of Torah but with an attitude of love and peace toward their brothers and sisters in Christ. Or the attitude of other Messianic Jewish organizations that seek to come alongside their brothers and sisters to work together rather than to tear down.

In fact, a book I finally got around to reading this week published by FFOZ, Tent of David: Healing the Vision of the Messianic Gentile by Boaz Michael, offers a brief critique of where the Church has gone wrong on Israel, but it prefaces that with a chapter called “The Church Is Good.” It’s a good example of what the attitude of messianics, whether Jewish or Gentile, should be toward the Church.

Michael writes:

It isn’t difficult to find good things to say about Christianity. First, Christianity has brought billions of people to Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah and King of the Jews. This is a non-trivial accomplishment. …

Second, Christianity has helped uncountable numbers of poor, hungry, destitute, abandoned people. Myriads of counselees—drug abusers and alcoholics, victim of abuse, troubled spouses—have benefited from a pastor’s biblical advice. …

Most of these people—the poor, the abandoned, the disenfranchised, and the abused—will never understand how Yeshua fulfilled the Passover. They may never taste matzah. They may never utter a single word of Hebrew or even be able to read the Bible in their own language. Yet they rely, just as we do, on the saving grace of God through Yeshua the Messiah. …

The Christians who, throughout the ages, have propagated this message and tried to soothe the hurting, feed the hungry, and speak to social injustice have been keeping the weightier matters of Torah. …

Third, Christianity has preserved the New Testament. Just as the Torah cannot truly be separated from the Jewish community and the Jewish interpretive tradition that has developed around it, so the New Testament cannot really be separated from the Christian community and Christian interpretive tradition. …

Fourth, Messianic Gentiles would not exist without Christianity. They have no direct relationship with the first-century church, the apostles, or the New Testament that has not already been mediated by Christianity—and this is not a bad thing.

We have much to be grateful to the Church for.

After 10 weeks of HaYesod sessions, a baker’s dozen of students appear to have a better appreciation of the Jewish context of the Gospel.

I hosted the sessions, which were actually held over a span of 12 weeks. But even though I was the host, that doesn’t mean I was the teacher. I learned plenty from the sessions, which were created by First Fruits of Zion and featured teachings by Boaz Michael, Daniel Lancaster and Toby Janicki.

We had a good mix of students: young, middle-aged, and older; men and women; families and singles; charismatics, evangelicals, Reformed, and Sabbatarians. The discussions, which were scheduled to follow the video presentations but sometimes ended up taking over the breaks as well, were always lively. There was not 100 percent agreement with the material; neaither was there 100 percent agreement among the students. But there was 100 percent willingness to hear each other and to hash out the implications of what was being taught. And that may have been the most encouraging aspect of the program (besides the incredible snacks).

The disagreements with the material simply meant that students were taking the teachings seriously enough to wrestle with them and voice their concerns or objections.

One question was: If God’s covenant from Sinai with the Jewish believers in Messiah is still in force, what does this mean for Gentile followers of Messiah? (FFOZ’s response to that in the final episode, “Our Walk–His Path,” was that Gentiles are invited to engage in the observance of that covenant through Shabbat, dietary practices, and in other ways, but that they shouldn’t assume they are “replacing” Jews.) Other concerns were with the teachings on covenants and how that should be understood.

But the basic goal of the HaYesod program–to help believers in Messiah come to a fuller understanding of Him and the Apostles in their Jewish contexts–was, I believe, achieved. I think there are now 14 (I’m including myself) disciples of the Master who will be better disciples because of HaYesod.

God gave the 10 Commandments to His people about 3500 years ago. These commands were given specifically to Israel….and not to the other nations in the Old Testament. When we move into New Testament times, “Israel” takes on a new flavor. All of a sudden we are told that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (Romans 9:6) What? Really?

That’s right. God makes all things new. There is a new covenant for the people of God beginning with Jesus Christ. God redefines what it means to be a “Jew.” Starting in New Testament times 2000 years ago, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly.” (Romans 2:28) Just let that sink in for a moment. It’s no small transition from the way it had been for the first 4000 years of human history. Beginning in the New Testament era, there has to be an “internal adoption,” and not just a biological pedigree. There has to be “new birth.” (1 Peter 1:3) And there has to be sanctification. A person literally becomes a new creation the moment the living God comes to dwell inside his body when he is converted through faith in Christ. (see 2 Cor. 5:17 & 1 Cor. 6:19)

You’ve heard of “Judaizers”? This guy is a “de-Judaizer.” Or maybe a “re-Judaizer.”

My question would be whether all of the curses also accrue to these new Jews. He doesn’t say. But he does say this:

In the New Testament, you can’t just embrace the commands of God as your own until you first enter a relationship with God. You have to become a “New Testament Jew” so to speak.

A “New Testament Jew.” First I’ve heard of one of those. So to speak.

The Chosen: This was a great read when I was young, but felt stiff and wooden on the re-read. You know that writer’s cliche about “Show, don’t tell”? Potok (or his editor) just tells … and tells and tells and tells. What he tells is extremely interesting, though. It’s mostly about two things: Chasidism and modern Orthodoxy, and what happens when they clash. The family of Danny Saunders and Reb Saunders’ congregation are trying to hold on to the values of the Old World. Reuven Malter and his father, David, are trying to adapt to modernity while holding on to their Orthodox Jewish identity. In the middle of all of that comes young Chasid Danny, who wants to escape his fate as an heir to the family dynasty and become a psychologist (Abraham Twerski, anyone?). Reb Saunders, who has not spoken to his son outside of study for more than a decade as a way of teaching him to understand pain, uses Reuven, part of that threatening modernity, to reach out to his son.

This was my first exposure to anything Jewish, so it holds a special place for me, even if I didn’t like it as much on the recent re-read. The narrative is interrupted too much for history lessons. The relationship between Reuven and his father isn’t developed as much as that of Danny and Reb Saunders is, which is funny, considering that for most of the book, Danny and his father don’t really have a relationship.

Next: In the Beginning, My Name Is Asher Lev, and The Gift of Asher Lev.

The Chosen received rave reviews when it was published, and established Potok as a novelist, though. That was a good thing, because he went on to write many more and much better novels, starting with …

The Promise, the sequel to The Chosen: Something happened between Potok’s first two novels, because The Promise reads like it’s written by a totally different writer. The characters are fully developed, the plot lines smooth, the message not so much in-your-face.

The story is again told from Reuven’s viewpoint, and this time, much of the story is about him. Psychologist-in-training Danny Saunders still has the plot spotlight, though, as he tries to help a schizophrenic boy named Michael.

Potok beautifully unveils the demons haunting Michael and handles Danny’s treatment of him well, but the more fascinating plotline is Reuven’s relationship with Reb Kalman, an old-school Talmudist who doesn’t like Reuven’s scientific method of explaining Talmud, which Reuven had learned from his father. Like The Chosen, we have a clash between tradition and modernity. In this case, it’s a draw. But the character of Reb Kalman is intensely drawn and, despite his arrogance, sympathetic, and I found on my re-read most enjoying the classroom scenes featuring the interplay between him and Reuven.

Danny? He saves the day with Michael and gets engaged to a non-Chasidic girl who is the daughter of another modern Jew considered an apostate. Oh, well, as Isaac found out, boys will be boys.

May you be blessed in His blessings.

Two-house theology basically teaches that when a Gentile becomes a believer in Yeshua, he/she becomes an Israelite. Thus, as Israelites, the former Gentiles (or discovered Israelites) are now required to obey the Torah in all its aspects, including the Sabbath, dietary laws, etc.

“One-law” theology holds that the Torah is applicable and binding on all believers because:

1. Of several verses in Torah, such as Numbers 15:16, which state that there shall be “one law … for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
2. Of the belief that the difference between Jews and Gentiles has been obliterated in Messiah (Ephesians 2:15) in such a way that Gentile believers must be like Jews and keep laws formerly kept only by Jews..

What I have come to find interesting is that both of these theologies (two-house/messianic Israel and one-law) can be held by the same person or even congregation. Or, rather, that one person would want to hold and push both of them.

Especially since they each render the other unnecessary.

Sure, they both come to the same conclusion, that all believers in Messiah should keep the Torah, no matter who they are. But to hold both viewpoints, what I’ll call a 2/1 (two-house, one-law) viewpoint, appears to be inconsistent, or contradictory.

If you believe that all believers in Messiah are automatically Israelite, then there is no question that they must keep all of the laws in the Torah addressed to Israel, such as the dietary laws, the Sabbath laws, the festival laws, and on and on, even the purity laws and sacrificial laws in the presence of a Temple.

So why do some of these people who hold to a two-house theology also stress the verses that command that “there shall be one law for you and the sojourner”? If they’re already Israel, then claiming a one-law position is beside the point. The one-law theology stresses that the Torah is fully applicable both to those who were born Jews (native members of the House of Israel) and to Gentiles. If you hold to a two-house theology, then the “Gentiles” in your frame of reference are unbelieving Gentiles, and you don’t need to prove your point regarding the need for believers to be Torah-observant in all aspects from the “one-law” verses.

If you can clear this up for me, I’d appreciate it.

I hooked into Potok when I was assigned to read The Chosen in a high school American lit class. It is what also hooked me into things Jewish, which led me to convert to Judaism, which is why after I accepted Messiah I eventually became messianic Jew/Torah-observant believer. So in some ways, a reading assignment at a Catholic high school has determined several aspects of the past 25-plus years of my life.

After The Chosen, I caught up with Potok’s other novels out at the time—The Promise and My Name Is Asher Lev—and then continued to follow him as his other works came out. That was a period in my life when I routinely would finish a book and, if I had really liked it, would flip back to page 1 and start over again. I did that with Potok’s books, so rich were they in Jewish thinking and storytelling.

I rarely spend time on fiction anymore, though, trying to devote my reading time—what little of it there is with a job and three children at home and other responsibilities—to Scripture and related material before picking up a novel. However, Potok’s Jewish novels (I’m distinguishing them from his novels based on his Korean War experiences) are more than just fiction. They teach about Judaism and they expose the lifeblood that runs through the Jewish people’s veins, much more so than, say, a Leon Uris, and—can I say this?—as much as an Isaac Bashevis Singer.

So a few years ago, I decided to revisit Potok’s novels in order of publication for a couple reasons: to experience them after having learned much more about Torah and Jewish studies over the past several years; and to experience them after having lived much more of life.

I plowed pretty quickly through The Chosen and The Promise, but when I was about two thirds of the way through Asher Lev, I became sidetracked with other responsibilities and put aside the Potok books. Recently, however, I was able to resume reading them, and will be sharing here how I see them at this later juncture in life. Right now, I’m kind of stalled between In the Beginning and The Book of Lights. I own the former, so was able to read it at leisure. The latter, however, is from the library and I’m not such a fast reader, so may have to check it out a couple times before I get through it. (Plus, I’m about to start leading a HaYesod class and also have to do a lot more preparation for our new Shabbat meeting arrangements, so I may be completely stalled for a while. We’ll see.) So I will at least give my thoughts on The Chosen, The Promise, My Name Is Asher Lev, and In the Beginning. That’s halfway through the set.

(Photo credit: Denty One)

Historical parallels can be overdone and misleading, but there’s one I’m sensing that would explain a lot.

In the first century, faith in Yeshua of Nazareth was a Jewish phenomenon for several years, decades even. It doesn’t appear that the first Gentile believed in Yeshua until nearly 20 years after his death (although some say 10), namely Cornelius the Centurion stationed in Caesarea. Even then, we can tell from Paul’s letters and the accounts of Acts that faith in Messiah continued to be declared in and find adherents mainly among Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in synagogues throughout the Roman empire.

So, even though it had become apparent that the Kingdom of God had been opened up to Gentiles and was no longer an exclusively Jewish domain, it also appears from the Acts narrative that the “Jesus movement” continued to be a Jewish movement, based in synagogues. That’s where Paul primarily went to proclaim the Gospel, although it also appears from his letters that separate fellowships, if not separate congregations, had developed. However, there’s nothing to suggest that these groups didn’t continue to follow a Jewish rubric, either led by Jews or by God-fearing Gentiles.

Although we have no Scriptural record beyond approximately A.D. 60, it appears that this remained the situation until the Jewish war with Rome that ended in 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the Temple. Following that event, Rome instituted the “fiscus Judaicus,” a punitive tax levied against Jews throughout the Roman empire to help pay for the construction of a pagan temple in Rome. Combined with the lack of a central messianic authority in Jerusalem, that tax may have been one of the factors to begin the division of Gentiles from the Jewish people, even from the Jewish believers. It is speculated by many scholars that Gentile believers in Messiah didn’t want to have to pay the tax or face the anti-Semitic wrath of the Roman government, and so began to identify themselves separately from the Jewish people, even from the Jewish believers. Philip S. Alexander, in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135, says that another result of the war, the triumph of rabbinic Judaism over other forms, also helped to speed the division.

In any case, it’s clear that by the end of the first century and early second century, Gentiles had begun to dominate the assembly of Messiah, creating what we know as the Church. They started to change traditions, drifting from Jewish observances such as Shabbat, festivals and the dietary laws. At first, that may have just been a natural consequence of being separated from their Jewish roots; later, it became intentional as a way to distinguish themselves from Jews. New church structures began to arise, as did theologies that demeaned the place of the Jewish people in the Kingdom.

In short, what started as a Jewish movement became, less than 100 years later, a predominantly Gentile faith, one in antithesis to Judaism. Was this because Jews turned their back on Messiah en masse? That could be part of it, although the faith at first had plenty of Jewish momentum and was even well-regarded by many Jews who didn’t believe in Yeshua, especially in Jerusalem. James, the brother of Messiah, for instance, was well-regarded in Jerusalem as an exceedingly pious man, only put to death by the same Sadducean leaders that sent Messiah to the cross. By the end of his life, though, Paul appeared to be pretty disillusioned about more Jews coming to faith (Acts 18:6).

This change resulted in such developments as:

1. Jewish leadership of the Yeshua sect disappearing, being replaced by Gentile believers.

2. Observance of outward Torah covenantal signs such as Shabbat, the feasts and dietary laws by Gentile followers of Messiah being altered or abolished.

So what’s the parallel? I think the same thing is happening with the messianic movement of today.

The early days of what we now call messianic Judaism were dominated by Jews, chiefly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many Jews had come to faith through the Jesus movement, which appealed to members of the ’60s counterculture, and they decided to embrace some traditions of their Jewish heritage in worship and lifestyle. This was reinforced by Israel’s Six-Day War triumph that saw the reclamation of Old Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, especially the Wailing Wall. Many saw that as a sign that prophecy regarding those sites was being fulfilled and that the “time of the Gentiles” had been fulfilled, that it was time for Jews to begin embracing their Messiah.

As Gentiles began to join this messianic movement in the 1980s and ’90s as a more authentic expression of a primitive Yeshua faith, though, history began to repeat itself. At first, many Gentile messianics operated within Jewish frameworks, such as the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations or the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. They bristled, though, at not being counted as full partners in the messianic movement, saying they felt like second-class citizens. For instance, to be a full congregational member of the UMJC, a congregation has to have at least 10 Jewish members and a Jewish leader.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the Gentile messianic movement began to assert itself through such organizations as the Messianic Israel Alliance and, now, Messianic Covenant Community. The One-Law movement, that Torah applies equally to both Jewish and Gentile believers, also began to grow in that time period.

One of the results of this has been an antagonism toward Jewish interpretation of Torah (even among some Messianic Jews). Messianic Gentiles frequently frown on Jewish tradition as the “traditions of men,” as if nothing they do are traditions of men.

And, as time goes on, it appears (although this is just a guess from observation of messianic interaction and discourse on the Internet) that messianic Gentiles are nearly to the point of outnumbering messianic Jews.

Numbers aside, though, what counts is the attitude. And the attitude that I see from the Two-House, One-Law movements is another shoving aside of Jews in the messianic movement. This is mainly being done through efforts to erase the distinction between Jews and Gentiles by misappropriation of verses such as Ephesians 2:14 and Galatians 3:28.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to discourage Gentile involvement in the messianic movement. It’s a glorious fulfillment of prophecy about Gentiles coming to the Jewish Messiah and His people. What I’m concerned about is that the messianic movement in the 20th and 21st centuries is making the same mistake as the messianic movement in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

If you’re totally observant in an Orthodox way, it’s a no-brainer: You don’t use electronics anyway.

But some messianics, especially messianic Gentiles, may feel more free to use electronics AND the Internet.

Please answer the questions below to give others a sense of messianic believers’ use of the Net on Shabbat.

On Shabbat, I use:

Jacob Wrestling with the Angel illustration by Gustave Doré (1855) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mike,

Just as you provided a bit of a bio, I will as well.

I am a Gentile, I see myself as a Gentile. Even though my Mother’s side of the family, the “Hersheys,” have a legend that they descended from believing Jews about 500 years ago. (In those days unfortunately it was called conversion)

I also agree with FFOZ on most things. Based on Acts 15 I agree that “Gentiles are not obligated to keep all aspects of the Torah, they certainly are encouraged to do so”.

To the rest of your phrase “ without usurping Jewish identity” I would also agree, however again from Acts 15, I see James excited about Gentiles coming to faith and rebuilding David’s tabernacle.

So for me as a Gentile I am looking for an opportunity to participate in rebuilding the ancient kingdom. The prophets give us many visions of how that will happen and I believe the New Testament must be interpreted parallel to or even deferential to the prophet’s visions. Thus I am what many call “Two House” however my dream is not Two House but One House under Jewish Davidic leadership and Levitical Priesthood.

So to your questions

• What do the various movements within Messianic Israel and Messianic Judaism need to agree on in order to be at peace and in good fellowship with each other?

“Righteousness by Grace through Faith” is the foundational principle, in other words  “Righteousness by Grace through Faith” as described in Genesis 15:6 is first and all other Biblical instruction is of  great value but follows this first and primary concept. Both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 read in this light should be the basis for our mutual understanding and fellowship.

•  What can we agree to disagree about? In other words, what’s not essential?

We can agree to disagree about how Torah is applied. In other words we all hold Torah to be of great value and believe that it is and will be written on the hearts of New Covenant believers but we extend considerable grace as to specific individual application.

•   What “terms” should be excluded from discussion that are offensive to each side or are considered inaccurate?

I would like to see the term “Replacement theology” excluded. Based on the below text from Jeremiah 31

³⁵ This is what the Lord says,

he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar—
the Lord Almighty is his name:
³⁶ “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”

³⁷ This is what the Lord says:

“Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,”
declares the Lord.

In no case is Israel replaced by anyone!

The below passage from Isaiah speaks of Jacob’s descendants embracing the name Jacob and the name Israel. One needs to ask why? Have these names been out of favor?  Have many sons and daughters of Jacob denied their heritage?  Is God doing a new thing and causing these names to become loved again? I believe the answer has to be yes, yes, yes.

Isaiah 44

New International Version (NIV)

44 “But now listen, Jacob, my servant,
Israel, whom I have chosen.
² This is what the Lord says—
he who made you, who formed you in the womb,
and who will help you:
Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant,
Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
³ For I will pour water on the thirsty land,
and streams on the dry ground;
I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring,
and my blessing on your descendants.
⁴ They will spring up like grass in a meadow,
like poplar trees by flowing streams.
⁵ Some will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’;
others will call themselves by the name of Jacob;
still others will write on their hand, ‘The Lord’s,’
and will take the name Israel.

The Younger Brother of Luke 15 did not replace his Older Brother but his return did make the Older Brother angry. I contend the house of Judah is represented by the Older Brother and the House of Israel now Gentiles because of evil living are represented by the prodigal son.

Try to imagine what the Father wants to see happen. He wants to see the Older Brother welcome home his Younger Brother, He wants the Younger Brother to be teachable and take correction. He expects the Older Brother to take leadership in the home, teaching the Father’s ways to his Younger Son who has been gone so long that “the ancient paths are but a strange thing to him.”

• In what venues could we come together with mutual respect and not feel as if we were violating our consciences or contradicting ourselves?

The Three pilgrimage holidays or an event that explained more clearly how to celebrate the appointed times of Leviticus 23 and showed the shadows or outlines of Messiah.

These are the things Gentiles have really messed up and long to, or should long to return. They are also where the Jewish people have expertise and could be a great blessing to the whole household of faith.

In conclusion:

I am calling for Messianic Jews to stand up and lead the whole household of faith!