Part I: Excerpts from UMJC 2012 Conference lecture by Boaz Michael (FFOZ)
What follows are select transcribed excerpts from the lecture titled One Law and Supersessionism given by FFOZ President Boaz Michael during the July 2012 UMJC (Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations) International conference in Baltimore, Maryland. This is only a small portion of the whole speech.
I would like for you to consider that everyone of our theological positions puts us on a particular trajectory, a certain course. And while we may feel or think that you are doing something good or right for the Jewish people, identifying with them, connecting with them, in reality, if our theology is wrong, it puts us on a course or it could put us on a course of potential destruction of the Jewish people. So I ask – what if what you believe today and practice today would be harmful to the Jewish people? What if your Torah practice, the way that you apply the commandments of G-d to your life, what if your Torah practice hurt the Torah, rather than establish it?
We are trying to inspire Gentile individuals that have connected themselves to this movement, to this understanding, to do something great for the Kingdom of Heaven. And for most people, that’s not to leave the Church and go be part of some small fractured little home group, but rather to stay within the framework of that community and be agents of change and work against Supersessionism and Replacement Theology.
There is a movement that embraces Supersessionism, that embraces Replacement Theology, and it’s far more subtle, and it’s far more dangerous. This Replacement Theology comes from individuals wearing a kippah and a tallit, waving Israeli flag and proclaiming that the Jews are G-d’s unique chosen people. Yet in reality, this movement strips Jewishness of every single one of its unique and defining attributes. It rips the Torah out of the hands of the Jewish people, and in many cases even denies them their unique right to the Land of Israel. Just like Christian Supersessionism, this movement replaces Israel with a multinational body of believers. The difference is that the resulting body is not called “the Church”. Instead, it takes on the name “Israel” and proclaims that it is functionally identical with the historic Jewish people. This theology has come to be known as the “One Law” theology, and I am deeply familiar with this theology because I helped create it, nurture it and teach it for several years…We thought we were doing Israel a favor, we thought we were encouraging believing Gentiles to come alongside the Jewish people, to strengthen them and provoke them to be more observant to the covenant. But that has not happened and that’s not what happened. Instead, we’ve damaged the relationship with the broader Jewish community, with Messianic Judaism and Yeshiva-believing Jews, and we’ve hurt the apostles’ teachings that they so valiantly fought to establish.
Not only is One Law theology unbiblical (can’t be sustained by scriptures), but represents the most grievous form of Replacement Theology. It is easy to identify your opponent when they are so clear about it – they make blatant statements. But when you have a friend that really is not your friend – that’s grievous.
Shalom Gene.
Thank you so much for posting this. I feel, I have missed much, by not able to be there.
Your posting and quotations so rite. Thats exactly what I experienced over number of years dealing with messianic followers of One Law idea, or people like “Lets do Torah now, it is for all” It’s amazing how now things turned badly from seems to harmless proposition. We lost many people over this issues. Shame. Im weary about someone waving Israeli flags and do “Davidic” dancing.
I think the One Law movement is so familiar with FFOZ’s position on OL and supersessionism that they’re probably beyond exploding at this point (hopefully). However, I wish they could hear Boaz’s message objectively and realize that “Christians wearing kippot” does not fulfill the Messianic imperitative for the nations. The church (and I include the Gentiles in OL) needs to be able to support Jews in adherence to Torah and seek the national redemption of Israel. In this, we Gentiles will be the “crown jewels” among the nations and we will truly be seeking the peace of Jerusalem and the coming of Messiah.
@ Eli… “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Religious history is filled with nonsense, setbacks and disappointments, and the history of Israel is no different. History, however, is also filled with men and women who stood up for what is right.
“we Gentiles will be the “crown jewels” among the nations and we will truly be seeking the peace of Jerusalem and the coming of Messiah.”
@James… I believe this too.
Gene,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to transcribe. I have done a good bit of this myself at times and so I realize it can be a lot of work, lots of pausing and rewinding.
Having heard his claim that gentile converts observance of Torah hurts the uniqueness of the Jewish people, I can’t help but wonder though what his reasons and evidence are for that claim. Do you recall what sort of Scriptural case he made to support this accusation?
It seems to me that his argument would have to overcome some rather serious weaknesses. For example, Ezekiel says that the gerim will obtain landed status in Israel in the eschaton and yet Ezekiel says nothing about this hurting the uniqueness of the natural-born Israelites–even though it literally involves taking some of the land of Israel. Another example is that the prophets say that the gentiles will be taught Mosaic Torah and will be called to celebrate holy days (Isa 2:2-3; Isa 56:6; Mic 4:2; Zec 8:22-23; etc). Another example is that, in ancient Israel, gentiles converted to Judaism and it never hurt Israel’s uniqueness that there were these un-landed, proselytes who were observing Torah just as if they were a natural-born.
Perhaps you heard him overcome such weaknesses in the evidentiary portion of his argumentation?
Again, thank you for your trouble in making the transcription and helping us all to engage in dialogue regarding the accusation that Boaz has leveled at certain Torah-followers.
Sincerely,
Peter
“Having heard his claim that gentile converts observance of Torah hurts the uniqueness of the Jewish people, I can’t help but wonder though what his reasons and evidence are for that claim. Do you recall what sort of Scriptural case he made to support this accusation?”
Peter, Boaz has seen the “fruit” of this firsthand, having been instrumental, if not the biggest single contributor (at one point) in the creation and development of the One-Law movement. I have seen emails from OL people who are still in the movement or in the process of leaving and have personally talked to those who acknowledged or have come to the realization of its detrimental effects.
Gene,
So if Torah is detrimental to gentiles and detrimental to Jewish uniqueness why then did Torah require gentile converts to follow Torah?
Peter, what’s detrimental is not Torah, but rather the attitude that it is now the Christians, and not Jews to whom the Torah was given, that is now the Gentile believers in Yeshua/Jesus who have the right to interpret Torah, to determine how something in the Torah applies and to whom. What is harmful is the attitude that allows one to disregard thousands of years of G-d-ordained Jewish authority, to freely appropriate and misuse elements of the blood-soaked Jewish heritage, all the while calling oneself “Israel” and even a friend of the Jewish people.
Gene,
One reason it’s difficult to speak out against Boaz is that he says contradictory things and often finds himself being accused of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In one part of an article or lecture he’ll say that gentiles hurt Israel when they observe Torah; In another part he’ll say that there’s a divine invitation offered to gentiles to observe Torah. Logical contradictions.
Perhaps the most harmful proposition of his is that gentiles should stay in Church and be “agents of change.” CHRISTIANS DON’T WANT TO CHANGE. And if you try to infiltrate them, going in under the radar as a secret agent of change, disseminating Hebrew Roots doctrines then they will snap you out of your delusion right fast. They don’t like this type of subterfuge anymore than a Reform rabbi likes it when gentile Christians leave Chick tracts in the bathroom of the synagogue. They will sniff you out and run you out of town on a rail. And they should if you should be so dishonest.
Not only will that plan fail but these Hebrew Roots spies will find that having a dual identity as Hebrew Roots-ite and Johnny Christians is not satisfying. How could it be? Here’s what WILL happen to these Hebrew Roots secret agents (assuming they’re not run out of town on a rail):
the secret agents of Hebrew Roots will assimilate into Christianity, bringing their children to Christian sunday schools, going to events and eating pig hotdogs and pig sandwiches, helping fund Jewish outreach programs that explain to Jews that Yeshua abolished the Torah and how it’s okay to join them for a pig feast on Christmas, Easter, etc.
This is a terrible plan.
“Perhaps the most harmful proposition of his is that gentiles should stay in Church and be “agents of change.”
Peter, what’s wrong with that? People never change? Christians as a group are hopeless and dead set in their ways? (Do you really think that little of Christians?) Or, is it because it is just too difficult / too painful to face the possibility of being scorned/rejected/thrown out? Is it not worth the price of following the Master or since when is standing up for truth a worthless cause?
Let’s not fall into the trap of generalizing Christians (or any other group), that they are somehow incapable of shedding the Supersessionism of their fathers. If [former] One Law people can change (I’ve I met many), so can the Christians. But this is to be done with patience, true friendship and love, not via hit and run “Chick tract” missionary methods you described.
Gene,
Several quick points:
(1) the Master [Yeshua] never said to yoke oneself to workers of lawlessness. So I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that going to church equates with “following the Master.” If you doubt this then ask yourself this: would you recommend that a Jew go to church to learn Torah? Be honest. Admit that you would not and that it’s because they preach against Torah. And then admit that there is NO Scriptural precedent for assigning gentiles to institutions which will most certainly try to indoctrinate them against Torah. Admit that the Torah has always allowed for institutions which teach Torah to gentiles who have converted from paganism to follow the true G-d of Israel.
(2) you said that generalizing Christians as being anti-Torah is a trap. Why? History and all available evidence shows that they not only preach against Torah but their anti-Torah theology has brought about such things as the Holocaust. Can they change? A murderer/rapist can change but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let him baby-sit my three year old.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter, “paganoidism” is a difficult, but quite curable Hebrew-roots disease – especially if caught in early stages.
It’s not the anti-Torah theology that helped bring about the Holocaust, but rather it’s the Replacement Theology/Supersessionism that replaces the Jewish people with someone else. True, being anti-Torah can be one of the symptoms of Supersessionism, but it’s not the cause or root. Instead, the root of Supersessionism is pride and resentment against the Jewish people (Romans 11:18).
Torah defines Jewishness, does it not? So if they hate Torah…you understand the logic, yes?
Oh, Gene, why do you give them such credit? They either hate Jews or they try to get Jews to assimilate (out of misguided sense of love). This is where you send the gentiles to learn about G-d?
It’s because the Nazis went to church like good little Lutherans that a great, great uncle of mine died in Europe.
And they even hate their own kind. Heard of Rwanda? The Hutu would go to church, do praise and worship, then go out and try to exterminate as many Tutsis as possible. Christian churches. This told to me by one who was there.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘L-rd, L-rd,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven….I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:21/23)
So, it is with anyone who claims to be a Jew or a Christian, yet does evil and has no compassion for fellow human beings.
The Torah teaches that gentiles who wish to stop being pagans and start following the G-d of Israel need to learn Torah. Period. They even cease being gerim under the New Covenant–something which was IMPOSSIBLE under the Old Covenant [note that the LXX deems a ger to be either covenanted or non-covenanted but, in either case, never allowed to own land in Israel, until the era of the New Covenant]. The New Covenant allows them to be treated as though they descended from the tribes, proclaiming that they have land rights in Israel. Every prophetic passage that James cites to in Acts 15 is a prophetic passage about the restoration of the house of Israel (note that modern scholars agree that James’ speech offers a conflated quote, a gezerah shavah as it were, and that there is a consensus as to which passages James is alluding). Paul and Peter also apply such passages to the gentiles. To deny their return to Torah (Acts 15.21) by instructing them to remain in an anti-Torah institution (i.e. the Church) is to attempt to thwart G-d’s will.
Let me take a stab at this.
As far as “divine invitation” is concerned, it’s more or less the idea that a non-Jewish believer (let’s call him a Christian) may if he desires, voluntarily take on board some of the mitzvot as he feels led as long as it’s not with the idea that he will actually fulfill the mitzvot as a Jew would. That knocks Gentile obligation to the Torah out of the driver’s seat.
How do a bunch of Gentiles believing they are obligated to the full body of Torah mitzvot the same as Jews hurt the Jews and how is this supersessionist? Let’s look at a simple metaphor.
You have a two classes. One has water and the other has pomegranite juice. Water is absolutely a wonderful substance and is necessary for the existence of life. Pomegranite juice, as my wife and daughter can attest, is really tasty and good for you. Now, if you took a big bowl and mixed lots and lots of water into your small supply of pomegranite juice, the juice would become almost completely flavorless. In fact, it might taste like lightly flavored water. The distinctiveness of the juice would be all but obliterated.
Do you see what I’m getting at. In having bunches and bunches of non-Jews walking around and behaving as if they were Jewish in every aspect except name, they make those people who really are Jews; those people who are uniquely the inheritors of Sinai, redundant and nearly meaningless.
That’s not our role relative to the Jewish people. Like Gene, I’ve also written my fair share of blog posts based on what Boaz has had to say on this topic, not the least of which are Redeeming the Heart of Israel, Part 1 and Part 2. In addition, the third part in my supersessionism in FFOZ’s “Messiah Journal” which should be published next month, also addresses One Law and Supersessionism.
Our role as Gentiles is not to try to imitate the Jews to the point of making Jews and Judaism beside the point. Our role is to support Israel’s observance of Torah, encouraging the national redemption of Israel; encouraging her to seek God and yearn for Moshiach. If you and I were able to flawlessly obey all of the mitzvot that can be obeyed in the diaspora and without a Temple, Priesthood, and Sanhedrin court system, it might enrich our personal lives to a degree but what would it do for Israel and would it be fulfilling the plan God has for who we are?
Without meaning to, One Law has actually become a road block to Israel’s redemption because it has sidetracked so many people from where they need to go and who they need to be.
Not all of us should be in churches trying to encourage Christians to understand the Jewishness of the Messiah, but those people who are already there and connected, but who have a heart for our true role as disciples of the Master can be. The rest of us can do other things to help, each of us as we are called.
Peter, you treat everyone in the church as if they are evil and terrible people. This isn’t true. Across the span of centuries, the church has done many wrongs but some of the folks in the church have done many rights, too. They’ve kept the Gospels alive. Many Christians feed the hungry. They visit the sick. They have gone to Haiti to serve the wounded, the sick, and the homeless. Most of them don’t waste their time arguing on the Internet. They are too busy serving as part of the body of Christ. If the rest of us can help show them a clearer picture of the Jesus they already love, isn’t that worth something?
James, by your logic, G-d was wrong to allow Ruth and any other proselyte to start practicing Torah because this, in some measure, brought about the dilution of the Hebrew race. But you are the only one who sees it this way. G-d does not see dilution. He sees a family that is blessed with many children who desire to serve His will.
If any leader in the UMJC or FFOZ is reading this thread, know that I’m available to debate you in front of a camera and/or audience.
Peter,
I love your cavalier challenges. I imagine you with a Musketeer hat and rapier, shooting your flintlock pistol in the ship mast of your adversary and then retorting ha-HA!. Perhaps swinging away unnecessarily when the distance is quite walkable.
Admittedly, Peter, it does sting me a tad to be told my observance might denigrate a race. It kinds sours the whole notion of an Invitation, even if most of my observance is private. I don’t hold the same low view of church that you do. After all, whenever someone has a question about the Temple or needs me to preside over a Seder, I’m there. However, I go there to help influence others. I imagine neither of us would get anything out of it, and I imagine neither of us ever go back to sit in the pews. I would rather stay home, study, and do tzedakah.
Once you’ve been bonked with the Jewish mallet, the lump never goes away.
My gal and I (she’s into all this too) decided to sit down and plot out our standards and norms of observance in our hypothetical household. I was encouraged, but hearing an call from FFOZ to go back to church sounds like a neat mission, but I feel a bit shipwrecked, like we will be little islands for a long time. What do we do? What do our kids do?
Right now when people ask, I just say I am a student of Judaism. Not a lie. But a G-d Fearer? If I were to guess what that would look like, I would imagine a conservative congregation that adheres to eastern norms, shomer negiah, and has a heightened sense of reverence. Basically Seventh Day Adventist, minus the crazy Dolores Claiborne prophetess. All the strictures but none of the feasts, signs, or moedim (fun stuff). I think that does already exist in many different forms, especially many black churches I have attended in the past.
-Drake
Drake,
First off, that was hilarious. But seriously though if you take up the FFOZ call to infiltrate churches then I shall think of you as the James Bond of Hebrew Roots. : )
Well,
Lots of church folks could learn from you Peter. Maybe you should love them insanely and embrace them in their foibles. I love them.
Why not take your intel and teach them the joys of passover, with the kavanah of Gentiles? Perhaps you can help them and change them. I try to be a resource for them.
Make a dent man. You don’t have to stay there. I don’t.
-Drake
PS. Boaz is awesome. I do not envy the weight he carries. He really cares.
Yes, Peter, imagine how G-d could use you to further his Kingdom if you had a heart for those millions of followers of the Master who are in churches. I am telling you, what people like Boaz are doing among the Gentiles in churches, teaching them to both love Torah and to renounce Replacement Theology, will and already does have a far more tangible positive effect on BOTH on Gentiles and Jews than anything an angry, paganoid, fragmented and leaderless OL movement(s) can muster.
Drake,
Did you read Gene’s transcription of Boaz’s speech? This guy says that gentiles are wrong to think they have land rights in Israel, that the Jews have a “unique right” to the Land of Israel. Would Boaz try to stop G-d from giving a portion of the Land to the gentiles–their inheritance–as we read in Ezekiel 47?:
21 “So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord God.”
Boaz’s teachings attempt to rob the gentiles of their inheritance, their identity, their way of life. Boaz says that there are some aspects of Torah that serve as Jewish identity markers and gentiles must not observe these things. Really? Doesn’t Torah say that G-d gave the Sabbath to Israel to make it holy as a people (i.e. Shabbat is just such a Jewish identity marker)? So that means that gentiles shouldn’t observe Shabbat, correct? Because this would rob Torah from the Jews? But that’s not what the prophets say:
Isa 56:6 “Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant”
There are MANY other such evidences but I’ve made my point.
You know a true teacher when their teachings are in conformity with the Truth of the Scriptures. I’ve just given a brief demonstration that Boaz’s teachings are NOT in conformity with the Truth of Scripture. Boaz says gentiles shouldn’t act like Israelites; but G-d tells them that they ARE Israelites, actual children of Israel with land rights in Israel who are to be treated as ezrach, full citizens in Israel.
And, Drake, I am working on a book about Acts 15 and egalitarian ecclesiology. So don’t think I’m not trying to do my part for the Body.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter said: “James, by your logic, G-d was wrong to allow Ruth and any other proselyte to start practicing Torah because this, in some measure, brought about the dilution of the Hebrew race.”
[sound of loud buzzer on game show] Sorry. Wrong answer. It’s not diluting Judaism if you convert which, relative to the point of history in which Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz lived, is what happened. You don’t have the same dynamic today because conversion is a more formalized process. It’s one thing for a non-Jew to renounce all other faiths and convert to Judaism. When the conversion process is complete, that person is considered just as Jewish as a person who was born a Jew. Having a group of Christians grabbing the Torah and saying, “this is all ours now” is entirely different.
Oh, and Peter, you’re assuming that the “sojourners” mentioned in Ezekiel 47:22 are generic Gentiles or at best, Christians, but you can’t really derive that from the context. They may well be Gentiles who converted to Judaism and thus, have no tribal affliation. Remember, the various portions of the Land of Israel are divided among the 12 tribes, so a convert with no tribal affilation would have no land set aside for him or her. So, God being just, made provision for those converts.
It’s not like all Gentile Christians everywhere on earth as going to be able to crowd into the tiny state of Israel.
Peter, I know that you are writing a “book” (but I and others wish that you simply started your own blog first), but can you point me to any existing authority (outside of yourself being your own authority) or a respected teacher who teaches YOUR version of OL theology? I would like some names, if you don’t mind. And please, don’t tell me that the Bible is your sole authority, like you did the last time. I will be waiting…
On the dawning of the new age, yeah, that would be funny if we were all there in peyos. Then we suddenly discover we know nothing about plowing. “Dang, all this farming is real grunt work!”
Careful what you wish for, Peter. Messiah might give you the largest chunk and say “farm it. For a thousand years. Here’s a shovel.”
Drake… you mean like this: “Aliens will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards. And you will be called priests of the L-RD, you will be named ministers of our G-d. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast.” (Isaiah 61:5)
That might be the case too. Either way, large tracts of land tends to be a large responsibility. Harvest, pay, furlough, tracking, cycles, tithes, housing your staff, medical care for the animals, not being able to leave often or for long periods. Even for an owner who has others work it. Owning land is no easy chore, even if other people do keep it for you.
I have some friends who farm. Their Baby Huey son does all the work, but it’s still a lot. I just think it would be funny if Peter spent 1000 years tallying storage, chasing farm hands, bound to his land.
It would be like going from ranch hand to business owner. Stress!
I would find it hilarious, were it not so sad – for over a thousand years masses of Christians believed that since the Church is (supposedly) the “New Israel”, the Land of Israel and everything that once belonged to the Jewish people was now rightfully theirs, it was now their inheritance (hence the failed “Crusades” to recapture it from the unbelievers). Today, many One Law folks believe the exact same thing, but being a tiny, fractured movement they have no power of Rome behind them. This is why, among many other things, the “Supersessionism” label fits One Law so well.
Drake,
“Careful what you wish for, Peter. Messiah might give you the largest chunk and say “farm it. For a thousand years. Here’s a shovel.”
Nothing would make me happier. : ) To live in the Land, to farm it, to give offerings at Temple…I would be dance and sing all day long with my entire being if such a thing came to pass.
Gene,
“…can you point me to any existing authority (outside of yourself being your own authority) or a respected teacher who teaches YOUR version of OL theology?” Sure. Scripture. Here’s a few:
Isa 2:2-3 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that] the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
Isa 56:6 “Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant”
Jer 31:33 “But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” [Romans 2]
Mic 4:2 “And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
Peter, in other words, you are your own authority, free to lift select quotes and wrest from the Jewish Bible Superessionist interpretations. You are confirming that both the One Law and its sister Two House movement do not have respected authors, teachers or leaders. It’s a house of cards. You seriously think that writing a book of your own you will somehow breathe some life into the long dead horse and make up for the fact that those movements are based on vain imagination of men [and women]?
James,
“It’s not diluting Judaism if you convert which, relative to the point of history in which Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz lived, is what happened. You don’t have the same dynamic today because conversion is a more formalized process.”
You’re forgetting Acts 15:3 “3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted.” NOTE: this is conversion when G-d purifies the heart. Once the gentiles have been purified then they stop paganism (i.e. the fourfold Decree) and they start following Judaism (v. 21).
You’re making the same mistake that the apostle Peter made with Cornelius. Prior to the vision, Peter would not have allowed Cornelius to go into the water, to complete the ritual of becoming Israelite; but after, when Peter realized that G-d had made them clean, nothing and no one could prevent the ritual. I wish you could’ve been transported to that time. I would like to hear Peter’s response to you when you exclaim: “Peter! Don’t let them be immersed like other Israelites! People will think they’ve been accepted into the covenant of Israel!” I would love to have heard his response to you. It probably would’ve gone something like this “…if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who [am] I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
Gene,
Would you like to see the outline of the book?
Well, no. The Gentiles didn’t convert to Judaism, otherwise there would be no Christians. All Christians would be Gentiles who converted to Judaism (and there might be a lot more Jews on earth right now). The struggle we see in Acts 15 is the Jewish Messianic leaders trying to figure out how to apply wholly Jewish worship concepts and practices to Gentiles who were never exposed to them and who were never required convert to Judaism (and in Galatians, Paul was very specific about how no Gentile had to convert to Judaism in order to be justified). The “conversion” those Gentiles went through was from paganism, as you say, to a Messianic worship as applied to Gentiles. That worship would certainly have a lot of “Jewish” elements but it would not turn the Gentile disciples into Jews.
And gosh, would I really say all that to Peter (the Apostle)? You are making a lot of assumptions and drawing a lot of conclusions about me.
Oh, as far as the various quotes from scripture you posted in responding to Gene, none of that means that all believing Gentiles will, en masse, move to Israel and take over the Land. It does mean we will all go up to Jerusalem to worship periodically, but lots of people, even in ancient times, traveled great distances from their homes in the diaspora to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem.
Then they went home again.
James,
The assertion you’re making is that circumcision is metonymy for conversion. Ever notice how Luke uses proselytoi and phoumenoi interchangeably? This is the guy who wrote Acts 15:3. So he clearly didn’t see circumcision as metonymy for conversion.
James,
check this out:
“What suggests most strongly that Luke may think of the Apostolic Decree as specifying minimal standards for the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism is the reference to sebomenoi proselytoi in Acts 13:43. If proselytoi here means ‘converts,’ and if it refers to the same group as that to which Luke has earlier referred as God-fearers (Acts 13:16,26) and will later refer as sebomenoi (13:50), this suggests that all of Luke’s references to God-fearers and God-worshippers are references to converts.” pg. 13 of 15 of Terrance Callan’s “The Background of the Apostolic Decree.
Now, this guy is probably a Christian and so he wouldn’t accept the logical implications of what he just said. But the logic IS there.
Here’s something else from a different author:
“In other words, for the later rabbis circumcision followed by immersion and the full acceptance of the commandments of the Torah was both the terminus a quo and the termus ad quem for conversion. Conversion for them was an event. During the Biblical period, on the other hand, according to Tchernowitz, the terminus a quo of the process of absorption into Judaism was the renunciation of idolatry followed, sometimes several generations later, by circumcision, the terminus ad quem.”
In other words, Acts 15 comports with the Jewish view of heart-purification (i.e. renunciation of idolatry) as the terminus a quo of conversion.
“If proselytoi here means ‘converts,’ and if it refers to the same group as that to which Luke has earlier referred as God-fearers (Acts 13:16,26)”
That’s quite a stretch, Peter!… Don’t you think that there could have been different types of Gentiles in the midst of a synagogue (full converts AND G-d-fearers), and Paul had no way of knowing who was who? You just made a claim that there was no difference between a FULL convert to Judaism and a G-d-fearer. That flies in the face of scholarship and history. Furthermore, these are not “converts to Yeshua” that you can apply the term proselytoi that in NT is reserved for converts to Judaism (at least as NT uses it) to modern-day Christians – Paul just met these people!
The assertion you’re making is that circumcision is metonymy for conversion.
Yes, I am. Luke may have used “proselytoi and phoumenoi interchangeably” but does that mean Paul did in writing to the Galatians? I suppose the answer is up in the air.
I assume this is the Terrance Callan to whom you’re referring: “Terrance Callan, who holds a PhD from Yale University, is professor of biblical studies/dean of special studies at The Athenaeum of Ohio. He is the author of The Origins of Christian Faith (Paulist Press) and Psychological Perspectives on the Life of Paul (Edwin Mellen).”
I certainly am not a Bible scholar and I don’t have a PhD (just two bachelors and a masters, but none of them are in religious studies) but you still only have one source that suggests Gentiles directly converted to Judaism when they came to faith in Jesus Christ. Really, can you find any other reputable Christian or Jewish authorities that are going to agree with such an assertion? I’m sure my Jewish wife would be shocked to find out that all I needed to do to convert to Judaism was to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. I can imagine the look on her face when I tell her you said so. I can imagine what the local Rabbis would say.
Oy.
All sarcasm aside, are you really suggesting that all Christians everywhere are really Jewish?
James,
“but you still only have one source that suggests Gentiles directly converted to Judaism when they came to faith in Jesus Christ.”
No, it’s probably in the neighborhood of several hundred sources. I haven’t counted. I’m not good with math anyway. I have the outline if you want to examine it sometime. The book is still in progress because compilation is time consuming.
“but does that mean Paul did in writing to the Galatians?”
If you’re talking about Galatians 5:3, don’t forget to examine the very next verse, 5:4, to see that Paul is not employing circumcision as metonymy for conversion. He’s specifically addressing a false teaching that taught that gentiles were saved by the work of circumcision. Stay in the context.
Cheers,
Peter
I’ll ask this point blank, Peter. Do you really believe that all Christians everywhere became Jews the minute they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior? Yes or no?
To be precise, they are Israelites, not Jews.
I believe Ephesians 2 which says that the gentiles are citizens in Israel and members of the covenants and no longer “paroikos”. By the way, the LXX translates ger as either paroikos [non-covenanted landless sojourner] and proselyte [covenanted but still landless sojourner]. THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS. So if Ephesians 2 says they are no longer “paroikos” then that just leaves the other option “proselyte.” And the fact that they are proselytes is evident from Paul calling them “politeia” [full citizens] in Israel.
Cheers,
Peter
I find it difficult to believe that you found hundreds of Bible scholars who agree with your conclusions. You even say that Callan suggests “that all of Luke’s references to God-fearers and God-worshippers are references to converts.” Sorry. I’m not turning accepted Christian and Jewish theology upside down based on a suggestion.
James,
I just cited Scripture. What have you got to say about Ephesians 2?
“To be precise, they are Israelites, not Jews.”
Which is why the apostles and authors of NT always referred to Gentile followers of Yeshua as “Israelites”… oh, wait….
Gene,
Does Torah refer to Ruth as “Ruth the Israelite” or “Ruth the Moabite”? Yet, we all know she WAS an Israelite.
Gene,
Try to get around Ephesians 2. Let me see you do it.
You interpreted Ephesians 2 as well as quoted it. As Gene says, there is no reference to the Messiah treating non-Jewish disciples and Jewish disciples all as “Israelites”. Peter, as far as I can tell, you’ve got one named source, a personal belief system that’s way outside of accepted scholarship that you need to defend, and a lot of chutzpah, but that’s about it. Let me know when I can review your book on Amazon.
Cheers.
James,
“I find it difficult to believe that you found hundreds of Bible scholars who agree with your conclusions.”
I never said they agreed with my conclusions. If I can show that they agree with all of premises, that all of my premises are true, then logically the conclusion must be true. And, by the way, this is how academia operates. Every time a scholar tries to destabilize a consensus view, this is what he is doing.
“Does Torah refer to Ruth as “Ruth the Israelite” or “Ruth the Moabite”? Yet, we all know she WAS an Israelite.”
Apples and oranges. As a convert (whatever passed for female conversion back then), Ruth was obligated to Torah as a Jew, but in Acts 15 Gentiles are specifically told what was required of them as Gentiles, requirements that obviously differ from Jews/Israelites.
“Try to get around Ephesians 2. Let me see you do it.”
Peter, I don’t need to get around anything. I’ve already explained to you Ephesians 2 in the past, probably more than once or twice. Once you remove Supersessionist blinders, it comes into focus.
James,
You are so afraid of Ephesians 2 that you have ignored it completely and decided to make an ad hominem attack. Very poor form. I’ll tell you for your own good that people can see right through that rhetorical ploy.
Peter, I don’t need to get around anything. I’ve already explained to you Ephesians 2 in the past, probably more than once or twice. Once you remove Supersessionist blinders, it comes into focus.
Ditto, Peter.
It’s been fun, but the dead horse has been beaten enough.
Ciao.
Gene,
I didn’t think you or James could face Ephesians 2. But I did think you would cite to Acts 15:20. It’s interesting that you think that Acts 15:20 represents the entirety of Torah for gentiles. So they’re allowed to murder and steal now? Get serious. That is not the totality of Torah but merely refers to a prohibition of idolatrous practices. And James explains the reason for the short list in v. 20 by indicating that gentiles would study Torah in synagogue each Shabbat (v. 21). Or perhaps you have a better idea of how v. 21 logically relates to the fourfold Decree? I’d love to hear it.
Peter, you are going around in circles and frankly I am tired of repeating the same stuff over and over.
As I said, I already “faced” and replied to your Ephesians 2 challenge at great length elsewhere on my blog.
Gene,
Excellent. Now people can see on that link that you refused to acknowledge that Paul calls the gentile “politeia” in Ephesians 4:12. Thanks for providing the link for the convenience of your readers.
Everyone,
Look at that link and see that Gene deleted my rebuttal at the bottom.
Convenience, that’s what I am all about, Peter. I am here to serve.
Yes, they can see that you deleted my comment where I cited to roughly twenty lexical sources to show you what the word “politeia” means. They can see that you can’t face the truth. This proves it.
Why don’t we just love each other? Isn’t that Yeshua’s commandment? How about learning to have Emunah? He is the One who changes men and women… He is the One who is changing me… He is in command of everything that happens… He surely will make things straight about being a messianic jewish and being a messianic gentile. He is Mashiach ! He will teach us what to do, regardless of being jewish or gentile. We just need to put ourselves away, and let Him do His Work on us. (Sorry if I misspelled any word, since I’m a spanish spoken person from El Salvador “The Savior”) Please, accept my love as a follower of Yeshua.
Alfredo,
Even people who love each other have heated debates.
Shalom,
Peter
Alfredo,
I defy anyone to be frustrated with Gene for his comment that politeia doesn’t mean citizenship, anyone who knows that the latin analogue to politeia is civitas which literally means “citizenry” and denotes the contractual duties/rights of citizens as a group. This is basic history. Not to mention the context of Eph 2. If Gene renders politeia as “state” then he must render sumpolites absurdly as “fellow states” rather than fellow citizens. Not to mention as well that Paul shows us in Acts 22:28 that he knows politeia means citizen because Paul has a conversation with a commander and employs the term with that sense.
So of course I’m gonna be frustrated when I see Gene hiding from the plain meaning of Scripture.
Ha! I defy anyone *not* to be frustrated. Oh boy…
Peter, plenty of people get frustrated with me. I get frustrated with me. You are in a good company!
Gentiles in the Kingdom will be non-Israelite citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel, an entity the dominion of which will encompass the whole world and from which Messiah will rule both Israel the Jewish nation and all the nations of the Gentiles (which will still very much exist and which will retain their names, identities, languages and locations).
But Gene why would they want a gentile identity? Did not Moshe say that Torah is supposed to be seen as wisdom in the eyes of the goyim? Isn’t that why some are drawn in and want the privileges of citizenship? And doesn’t Torah say:
“LORD, you are my strength and fortress, my refuge in the day of trouble! Peoples from around the world will come to you and say, “Our ancestors left us a foolish heritage, for they worshiped worthless idols.”
So why then would a gentile want to retain a gentile identity for heaven’s sake? And why would G-d refuse the privileges of citizenship to one of His children?
“So why then would a gentile want to retain a gentile identity for heaven’s sake?”
Peter, because G-d doesn’t make junk.
Do you agree that gentile culture is junk (not the gentile himself)?
“Do you agree that gentile culture is junk (not the gentile himself)?”
G-d forbid, of course not! There are many wonderful things in every culture. It’s the tapestry of G-d-created humanity. No, none of it is perfect or untainted in some way. However, how utterly boring would the world be if everyone was “Jewish”.
Do you agree then that gentile *religious* culture is junk? Oh, why do I bother…you’ll just say “Not at all!”
“Do you agree then that gentile *religious* culture is junk? Oh, why do I bother…you’ll just say “Not at all!”
Whenever Gentiles worship idols, then yes – it’s junk, just as it was whenever Jews stooped to worshiping idols. Supersessionism in Christian, “Messianic” and Muslim religions is junk.
Gene,
Re: “Gentiles in the Kingdom will be non-Israelite citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel”
In Torah, didn’t you have to be a member of the covenant in order to have the privileges of citizenship (Ex 12:49, etc)?
Peter said: “But Gene why would they want a gentile identity? Did not Moshe say that Torah is supposed to be seen as wisdom in the eyes of the goyim? Isn’t that why some are drawn in and want the privileges of citizenship?”
I won’t deny that there have been times when the idea of converting to Judaism has been very attractive. I used to think (and sometimes still do) that as a Christian married to a Jew, life would be easier if we were both Jewish. But since then, I’ve realized that God created me as I am, a non-Jew (or non-Israelite as the case may be). Assuming we’ve all been created in the image of God, then none of us are sub-standard, inferior human beings just because we’re not Jewish. If that’s true, then we must all have a purpose in life in serving God just as who we are and as God has designed us to be.
I’m learning to be happy or at least relatively satisfied with who I am and the direction in which God is taking me toward growing spiritually. I don’t believe God wants me to change my identity for someone else’s.
James,
Wasn’t Abraham originally a gentile? Wasn’t he the first proselyte to Judaism?
James,
I’m very curious to what religion you think the gentiles had been converting (Acts 15:3). And if these gentiles were merely ceasing to be idolaters then why were they always hanging around the Jews (Galatians 2, Acts 10, etc)? You don’t need to go to a synagogue to learn the Torah (Acts 15:21) if all you need to know for the rest of your life is “don’t be an idolater.”
Because God called him to be Avraham Avinu. What’s Abraham got to do with God creating me as who I am? It’s not as if God has called me to change my identity just to satisfy someone else’s priorities, Peter. If you want to fight for your “right” to become an Israelite, so be it, but please don’t try to drag me into it. I believe I’m OK the way God made me and as He’s continuing to help “remake” me…as a better Gentile disciple of the Master.
James,
Acts 15 gives you some compelling metonyms for covenantal life. Did you know that James/Peter called the gentiles a “covenanted people” [laos]? And did you know that a gentile cannot be a laos (Isa 63:19)? Did you know that Israel was the ONLY laos (Deuteronomy 14:2 LXX)?
Peter said: “I’m very curious to what religion you think the gentiles had been converting (Acts 15:3).”
When the Master gave his Jewish disciples the command to make disciples of the nations (Matthew 28:18-20), he did something that had never been done before. Instead of suggesting that the Gentile disciples convert to Judaism (and that was already being done in late Second Temple Israel, see Matthew 23:15), he was instructing them to make Gentiles disciples without conversion to Judaism. Otherwise, the commandment wouldn’t have been so startlingly dramatic and so difficult to understand for the Jewish disciples (see Acts 10).
Why would the Gentile disciples of the Master hang around with the Jewish disciples? Sorry Peter, but this should be an “oh duh” obvious one. The Gentile disciples, at first, would have no clue as to who the God of Israel is, who the Messiah is, and how it all worked, since it was so radically different than the pagan religions they had previously followed. Even the concept of ethical monotheism would have been totally foreign to the Gentiles.
Naturally, they’d need a lot of help, so they’d need to stick close to their mentors. Plus the “Messianic faith” of the First Century Gentile disciples would look a lot more “Jewish” than it does in the 21st Century church. That wouldn’t have made them Jewish, it would just mean the Gentiles were close imitators of the original Jewish template in terms of worship practices.
Peter said: “Did you know that James/Peter called the gentiles a “covenanted people” [laos]?”
Yes, Christians are a people under a covenant. The Messianic covenant, which allows non-Jews access to the Holy God as the Jews also have, but not with identical conditions. The Jews are under the Mosaic covenant as well, which provides a different dimension for their worship and observance than the covenant under which you and I operate.
James,
They needed mentors in order to be ethical? They didn’t already know that it was wrong to murder and steal? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Also, I don’t see how baptism (etc) is ethical.
James,
Re: “Christians are a people under a covenant. The Messianic covenant”
What is the “Messianic covenant”? Don’t you mean “New Covenant”?
Didn’t Messiah inaugurate the New Covenant?
Peter, please try to keep your thoughts/comments a bit more organized instead of parceling them out into strings of tiny little comments. Thank you.
Gene,
If I don’t parcel them out then you’ll say I’m writing a thesis. But, fine, no more parceling.
Peter, so… you were trying to sneak in a thesis… piecemeal? [ha ha]
You hold such strong opinions on your beliefs and comment in defense of them quite often (so it’s not like you don’t have the time!) – why don’t you start a blog… like today? What a perfect way to channel all that pent-up theological energy! I promise to visit.
Gene,
Here it is. First post ever: http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/
Happy now?
Shalom,
Peter
Peter said: “What is the “Messianic covenant”? Don’t you mean “New Covenant”?”
“You say potAto, I say poTAto…”
But old songs and movies might not appeal to you. ;-)
Yes, I believe the Messiah augmented or amended the covenant to allow Gentiles to enter into a covenant relationship with God, but without deleting the covenant He made with the Jewish people at Sinai. The amendment, which I think of as the Messianic covenant (my term…as far as I know, no one else uses it) gives people like you and me the ability to enter into a relationship with God and to be part of His Kingdom (but not real estate owners in Israel).
Yes, as I said before, the Messiah did something amazingly new and unprecedented in the history of the world. He gave the whole world the ability to enter into a covenant relationship with God without having to convert to Judaism!
Really Peter, the NT scriptures would read so much differently if Jesus had told his Jewish disciples just to go and convert all the Gentiles to Judaism. That wasn’t a radical change at all and it wouldn’t have required ratifying the existing covenant or creating a new covenant. By the creation of a new or Messianic covenant, with portions that apply specifically to Gentiles (remember, the Messianic covenant would have had other portions that applied specifically to Jews, which ratified but didn’t do away with the Sinai covenant), it completely shoots down the idea that what the Jewish disciples of Jesus were doing was simply converting Gentiles to Judaism.
Peter said: Here it is. First post ever: http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/
Happy now?
Deliriously so, since in the past, I’ve been encouraging you to make this move. One question though. Who’s Roland?
“One question though. Who’s Roland?”
LOL
Roland is a mythical gunslinger from The Dark Tower series. : )
Oh. I keep forgetting names are “fluid” in the blogosphere. Welcome, Roland. ;-)
OH!!! I LOVED THE DARK TOWER SERIES!!!
Dude, I hear they are making a movie, and slated Javier Bardem to play the mythic Roland Deschain.
Man, that series was unreal. The most awesome, hardcore hero ever.
It appears we have much in common, Peter.
Drake,
Sounds like that movie could be awesome.
Gene,
I added your site on my links section:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/