How Jesus may have viewed conversion to Judaism
David Flusser was a professor of Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was also a devout Orthodox Jew and a renown author who contributed much to the study of Jewish history and understanding of Jesus the Jew. In his book The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius Flusser turned his attention to Jesus’ view on conversion as practiced during the Second Temple period. Professor Flusser focused on Matthew 23:15 as an example of how seriously Jesus considered the Jewish obligation to fulfill the legal requirements of Torah, but also, no less seriously, the non-trivial consequences of bounding Gentile converts to Judaism to Torah’s stringent requirements upon their conversion.
The liberal school of Hillel was not distressed to see Gentiles becoming Jews. By contrast, the school of Shammai made conversion as difficult as possible. The following sayings show that Jesus shared the strict stand-point of Shammai. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). A non-Jew who lives according to certain fundamental moral laws, without following the whole Mosaic law, is blessed. The proselyte, the Gentile who has converted to Judaism, however, is bound by the whole law. If a proselyte fails to fulfill the whole law, which formerly did not obligate him, his conversion to Judaism is itself the cause of his becoming a child of hell. Quite needlessly he has thrown away his blessedness. (The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, By David Flusser, R. Steven Notley, p. 50)
From Jesus’ words we can glean the following four pieces of information:
- First of of all, the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees he was addressing were law-breaking Jews themselves.
- Secondly, we can also say that by making converts to Judaism from Gentiles and entering them into the Mosaic Covenant, these particular bad apples among scribes and Pharisees were legally obligating Gentiles to full Torah observance. This obligation will come into play during the time of Judgement.
- Thirdly, with the sinful teachers being law-breakers themselves, these Jewish religious teachers were not teaching their converts how to observe that Torah in the proper manner, i.e. how to fulfill the terms of the covenant to which all converts to Judaism bind themselves by their own free will (in contrast to Jews who are born obligated to all terms of the covenant but still bear the punishment for breaking them).
- And fourthly and most distressingly, by turning their Gentiles disciples into Jewish converts who were disobedient to Torah, these scribes and Pharisees were doing them a far greater disservice than if those Gentiles had remained as they were before their conversion (e.g. remained “G-d-fearers”). In other words, as Flusser writes, by becoming a “bad” Jew instead of remaining a righteous Gentile, the convert “[q]uite needlessly he has thrown away his blessedness.”
For his part, Apostle Paul too appears to have viewed formal conversion to Judaism as legally binding on all converts and the subsequent obligation to the whole of Torah as serious enough to warrant a stern warning:
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Torah. (Galatians 5:3)
Well done – brief and to the point.
Gene,
Carl likes your points so at least you’ve got your choir on your side.
On a serious note, thanks for the book recommendation. I’m going to go see if I can locate that book today. It sounds very interesting.
Peter, I am honored to have someone like R. Kinbar read and voice approval of something I’ve written. Coming from someone like him means a lot. Choir he is not.
I wonder if the missus would be too put out if I bought a new book right now?
No, seriously, that was great, Gene. It certainly confirms that during the Messiah’s day and during Paul’s, Gentiles were converting to Judaism and that there was a difference in how compliance to the mitzvot was treated between a righteous Gentile and a Gentile who converted to Judaism. It also has terrific applications in terms of the relationship between Jews (Messianic and otherwise) and we Christians from the nations.
Thanks.
Gene,
Is this book a retranslation of his earlier work entitled simply “Jesus”? By the way, here’s a link to a summary of Flusser’s The Sage from Galilee:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/flussers-sage-from-galilee-important.html
Something else to think about: what I described above, and Jesus’ own words seem to confirm it, illustrates why it’s so important for those rabbis who are guiding, officiating or sponsoring conversions to be truly devout, righteous, exemplary Jews in their own right. The rabbis, who in some cases spend years guiding a convert, have a direct influence on the subsequent lives of their converts.
Some, today, have a mistaken belief that it doesn’t really matter what the rabbis participating in the conversion process observe themselves, how they act in their day-to-day life and what they believe, that everything falls on the convert. Not so!
I appreciate insights like those given in this article.
Thank you
Thank you, Onesimus.
I see that you’ve been again getting some flack on your blog because of your sticking up for Jews. May G-d remember that.
Yes Gene, the issue of God’s relationship with Jews seems to stir up the worst in some people.
I wonder how literacy and limited access to books played in with the Converts of that age. I would imagine a large chunk of converts were illiterate peasants, making learning rather hard.
“I would imagine a large chunk of converts were illiterate peasants, making learning rather hard.”
Drake, Jewish sources records many wealthy [Roman] nobles, especially among the women (I suppose circumcisions without anesthesia thwarted many a man), as being interested in Judaism and seeking conversions. I think that heaving a lifestyle where one is absolutely forbidden to work a particular day during a week and must eat kosher meals would be really hard for someone who is a peasant working for a feudal lord or a servant in a household. Which was, I would venture to say, another reason why Christianity and not Judaism spread so quickly. Apart from confessing faith in Jesus and abstaining from certain pagan things deemed sinful – both no doubt dangerous in that society as is – it didn’t otherwise require too great a lifestyle change, especially if one was a slave or a lowly disposable servant without a valuable trade.
King Agamemnon in the Illiad was recorded as being illiterate, and in Plato’s Republic, they mentioned how he could not tally his own fleet on the way to Troy. It existed I think even amongst nobles, especially peasant kings who rose to power by hook and crook. I would imagine it would be hard for a Roman dignitary to convert simply for the fact that he could no longer participate in the sacred games and feasts that obligated his status to attend. He could be demoted or worse once news got out that he went native.
Either way, I wonder: had the besora had come to an era of broad education, literacy, and surplus for liesure, would many more hearers of it would have become Jewish converts.
It seems that there are 3 barriers to entry. 1. social 2. learning 3. the yetzer ra
Plus, I think when I say illiterate, I don’t always mean stupid or dumb, but illiterate in the target language. Cicero was a genius, but illiterate…in Chinese.
Drake, considering that there were very few books to go around to begin with (no personal Bibles on the shelf to read before retiring for the night), most converts simply learned by listening to teachers (who no doubt spoke in their language). Also, siddurs did not come into existence until much later, so most worshipers simply memorized their prayers. Which means that Hebrew literacy for the new converts may not have played as great a role as one might imagine.
Gene,
I’ve been thinking about your post, the points raised by Flusser and would like to make the following points:
(1) Yeshua didn’t think all Pharisees were children of hell;
(2) Yeshua presumably only thought the hypocritical Pharisees were children of hell and thus only the proselytes of hypocrites would be made into children of hell;
(3) Thus, Yeshua wasn’t against non-hypocritical proselytism.
Yeshua didn’t like the idea of hypocrites spawning greater hypocrites. So this passage isn’t about the genuine efforts at proselytism and shouldn’t be used thus.
Peter, yes, that’s a good summary of my post.
Gene,
Your points included something that isn’t in the New Covenant. Your points referred to the idea that there could be a righteous gentile. (1) there’s no one perfectly righteous. Since all the gentiles are sinners then they need atonement. However, atonement is only offered through covenant. Therefore, to be a “righteous gentile” (i.e. non-covenanted) only gets you eternal damnation. (2) since “righteous gentile” means non-covenanted, this category explicitly doesn’t exist in the New Covenant.
Peter, I’ve already discussed this with you many times, so I am not inclined to get into this again with you. But to counter your idea that Gentiles can’t be righteous unless they become Israelites, here’s something from Acts 10:22:
“We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and G-d-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.”
Also, Noah was called “righteous” by G-d (even BEFORE G-d made a covenant with him), and he certainly wasn’t an Israelite/Jew (since there were none at that time).
“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with G-d.” (Genesis 6:9)
Noah, I venture to say, did not get “eternal damnation”.
“there’s no one perfectly righteous.”
Did I ever claim that? As I showed to you, G-d doesn’t expect “perfection” from those He considers righteous. “Lot, a righteous man”, as we read 2 Peter 2:7, is good example of that.
Yeshua himself acknowledged and praised righteous Gentiles. Speaking of centurion who came to him for help for his servant:
“I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” (Matthew 8:10)
G-d considers such faith in Him as “righteousness”. (Genesis 15:6)
Note: I fully expect for you to acknowledge none of the counter arguments and quotes I just made and continue to insist on your point of view instead.
Gene,
Noah made sacrifices and it was the blood that made atonement for the soul. Noah and Abraham operated within the covenantal tradition going back to Adam and Eve. Note that Abel sacrificed animals. Who taught him that I wonder? Abraham (and Lot) knew all about sacrifices. You’ll note that Abraham was part of a direct line of people from Noah. The transmission was unbroken and progressively revealed.
The “righteous gentiles” were OUTSIDE of this covenantal tradition. Post-Abraham, it could only be accessed through circumcision. Post-Yeshua, it could be accessed through Yeshua directly (with the Abrahamic still fully intact to direct descendants).
With which of the above points do you disagree? And, by the way, I’ve never had this specific discussion with you. I’m learning a lot about your doctrines today. You seem to be saying that this so-called righteous gentile status was enough for salvation. Is that what you’re saying? Note: if Cornelius was considered righteous by first-century Jews but that does not equate with salvation. Only atonement equates with salvation. And Cornelius didn’t have atonement until he met Yeshua (note that Cornelius was uncircumcised and thus not able to access the atonement benefits of the Sinaitic Covenant. He was utterly without hope, a stranger to the covenants).
Peter, all nations of the world will partake in the benefits of the New Covenant that G-d has made with Israel and the whole world will be Redeemed, because G-d loves the whole world (John 3:16), not just Israel. Your belief that Gentiles can only obtain salvation when they cease being Gentiles and become de-facto Jews (or “Israelites” as you like to differentiate – but I refuse) is false and unbliblical. Since this is something that I have indeed gone over with you too many times to count, I do not wish to spend more time on it going round in circles with you. I hope you understand.
“all nations of the world will partake in the benefits of the New Covenant that G-d has made with Israel and the whole world will be Redeemed, because G-d loves the whole world (John 3:16), not just Israel. Your belief that Gentiles can only obtain salvation when they cease being Gentiles and become de-facto Jews (or “Israelites” as you like to differentiate – but I refuse) is false and unbliblical”
Amen and again I say AMEN! I LOVE this post!
Why is this so hard to grasp for some? I mean God made non-Jews first, so we’re His “OG’s” (original Gentiles :-) ) and we are now in the “times of the Gentiles” which, as I read the bible, means that He is gathering us in and INCLUDING us in the beautiful blessings. And in fact, this is a SPECIAL time where He even allowed the partial hardening of the “natural branches” just for us “OG’s” because if Jews had recognized Yeshua officially then I suspect that it would have brought the culmination of end-times and there wouldn’t have been a time of the Gentiles.
Did Yeshua say to “go out, therefore, and make Jews of all nations…” No wait, he said “go out therefore and gather all the 10 lost tribes, you know I want nothing to do with the “others” of creation… ” No, wait… How’d it go again? Oh yeah, make disciples of ALL nations i.e., GENTILES!
I don’t know how people can read the bible and not get this. I feel incredibly blessed and very humbled by that. And I don’t need to demote Jews nor elevate Gentiles, Gods plan is sweet, amazing, and full of blessing and wisdom.
Lrw,
Loved the enthusiasm and candor in your post. Succinct and to the point.
Shalom Aleichem!
Why is this so hard to grasp for some?
To be fair, many non-Jewish “Messianics” were taught for years or even decades that there was “One Law for the native born and the alien” and that information is well ingrained into their psyche and identity. Now that “the movement” has evolved and more accurate information is available relative to how the Bible defines the roles of “Messianic” Gentiles and Jews, it is very hard for some to surrender a status or role that they’ve become quite used to.
I remember when FFOZ first announced that they had been wrong in supporting the One Law position and that they were correcting their teachings and organizational stance. I felt angry and betrayed and shot off a very pointed comment or two on Facebook in response. It was like being given an important and valuable gift and becoming comfortable with it, then having it suddenly ripped away.
I suppose I could have become one of those angry “deniers” and continued to “demand my right” to “Torah obligation,” but I started to think. FFOZ had finanically just shot themselves in the foot. A large number of their constituants simply abandoned them, abruptly and significantly reducing their income. Why would they do that when in any practical sense, even if privately they’d come to the conclusion that One Law was unsustainable Biblically and theologically, they should have publicly maintained their OL position in order to make sure they survived as a ministry? It only made sense if moral and spiritual honesty were more important to them than an income.
I became curious and started investigating. At about the same time, I started looking at my wife’s pursuit of her Jewish identity as an individual and as a member of the Jewish community through different eyes. Long story short, I realized that I had been wrong in my One Law assumptions and shifted my perceptural and theological paradigm accordingly.
But to say that it was difficult is a gross understatement. A lot of people aren’t capable of that kind of change. I even recently wrote about how difficult it is to “share Abraham” so to speak, and accept that only certain blessings are passed down to the nations (Christians) through Israel. Exchanging self-entitlement for a more mature reality is very hard and not everyone is going to accept it.
More’s the pity.
“many non-Jewish “Messianics” were taught for years or even decades that there was “One Law for the native born and the alien” and that information is well ingrained into their psyche and identity”
Thank you for your reply, that’s helpful, and I agree that God only has one Torah (Law) but there’s no way to say everyone is obligated in the same way to it since 1. Not even all Jews are obligated to it in the same way, and 2. Nowhere do the Apostles say we are, rather they tell/teach Gentiles the Apostolic Decree. I mean we have a pretty sweet deal if you think about it.
Maybe it’s easier for me since I never really was a. Exposed to rampant replacement theology and b. rejected the little I was exposed to. I have experienced the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in relationship with Him over the years in a way that has assured me of His love. I honor His chosen people (even married one) and know that I’m not a Jew, but am supposed to be a protector of them.
Somewhat like the email’s that go around about the father being hurt because no one wants His son. Well I also apply that to His special people Israel. How can I love God and NOT love His people? And watering them down so I can include myself in their identity isn’t loving them.
Just as the genders are evidence of Gods distinction, so is the Jew/Gentile identity.
James, your post reveals that you not only have a sharp mind, but that you have a humble attitude, and recognize that God’s ways aren’t man’s ways. That’s needed from ALL His children, Jew and Gentile alike.
James, your post reveals that you not only have a sharp mind, but that you have a humble attitude, and recognize that God’s ways aren’t man’s ways. That’s needed from ALL His children, Jew and Gentile alike.
Thanks, Lrw. We may have similar perspectives because we are both intermarried Christians married to Jewish spouses. I think that gives us a perspective that many non-Jews in “the movement” lack. To paraphrase a common saying, “stuff gets real” when you’re intermarried. ;-)
Lrw,
Re: “…I agree that God only has one Torah (Law) but there’s no way to say everyone is obligated in the same way to it since 1. Not even all Jews are obligated to it in the same way, and 2. Nowhere do the Apostles say we are, rather they tell/teach Gentiles the Apostolic Decree. I mean we have a pretty sweet deal if you think about it.”
A life without G-d’s perfect Torah that gives freedom is a “sweet deal”? What a bizarre thing to say. And what a bizarre way to construe “make disciples of all the goyim.” The very concept of “discipling” means that you teach them to put into practice everything that they see in you. Paul commands the gentiles “put into practice everything you’ve seen me do.”
So the question is not how are the One Law people missing anything. The question is how are you missing something that is in the plain language of Scripture. You can’t in good conscience use the Apostolic Decree as a Torah substitute. It wasn’t intended as such. Why leave out the Ten Commandments for example? If you read the verse right after the Apostolic Decree, it says the reason for the short list of pagan prohibitions: it refers to how the gentiles will learn the Torah of Moses every week in Shabbat. They could only be accepted into the synagogues if they started by abstaining from paganism. That it should be obvious there’s more to life than merely abstaining from paganism, James stated the expectation that the gentiles would continue their conversion (epistrepho) by attending synagogue.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter,
If you read my post more carefully, you’ll notice I never said that the Apostolic Decree is a Torah substitute, nor did I say that we Gentiles are to live a Torah free life. What I did say is:
1. We Gentiles are beloved of God and are the “original” of creation. He made Jews for a specific reason later on and for whatever reason you and I aren’t in that group. I don’t feel insecure about that and don’t view it as a negative as I’ve had numerous encounters with Him and have no doubt of His amazing love.
2. The whole of Torah doesn’t apply to any one person, including those whom it was given to, namely Jews. Therefore, I don’t find that I’m “missing” anything because it so clearly says that we Gentiles AREN’T held to Torah as Jews are nor do we BECOME Jews. I didn’t make the rules, God did and the Apostles bound it.
You seem to believe that one is either Jew or pagan and while that may have (largely) been the case at one time, it isn’t today. Believing in the Jewish Messiah doesn’t make you Jewish, it makes you adopted into blessings that aren’t yours without Yeshua and the Jewish people.
That is the sweet deal I was talking about along with our role as advocating for them, and making as many friends for them and Israel as possible while there is yet time.
I agree that as we grow in Messiah we learn His ways more and more (discipleship), but we still don’t become Jews as Paul points out, He is not JUST the God of Jews, but of Gentiles too.
It’s beautiful Peter.
I fail to find any compelling biblical model for “conversion” (as it’s done today) The “conversion” of Ruth was a heart change and although Judaism says otherwise, the bible doesn’t and I believe it’s a profound picture of what we gentiles do when we chose to believe in Yeshua. Notice Ruth never lost her identity and is always called the Moabitess (not the Jewess).
I notice those who are married to Jews seem to be more secure in this concept (I could be wrong, just my observation), if you have Jewish people in your life there’s just no getting around it, they are unique! :-)
Lrw,
Re: “Therefore, I don’t find that I’m “missing” anything because it so clearly says that we Gentiles AREN’T held to Torah as Jews are nor do we BECOME Jews.”
“It” clearly says gentiles shouldn’t follow the Torah in the same way as Jews? Where does “it” say that?
@Lrw: As you and I both know, the question of what is Messianic Judaism and thus, what are the different roles for the non-Jewish and Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah are a complex set of questions. Gene is unlikely to be back on his blog until Tuesday night at the earliest due to Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah, so we won’t get his input or any administrative oversight on his blog until then.
Peter: “It” clearly says gentiles shouldn’t follow the Torah in the same way as Jews? Where does “it” say that?
Clever Peter, what I actually said was that it (Torah) doesn’t apply in the same way to non-Jews as it does to Jews. This is really hard to miss. It’s God who created the distinctions and He maintains them, as so the Apostles.
I suppose you think that just anyone who believed in God could perform the Temple rituals?
The question is where in the heck does it EVER say that non-Jews become Jews when they believe in God (even Ruth didn’t), and where does it EVER say that the gentile believers in Yeshua become Jewish and are held to the Torah in the same way a Jew is?
I would think that the Apostolic Decree would be wholly inadequate, misleading, and a horrible trick on the part of James if that’s the case.
James: Complex indeed, no easy answers, but it does require a bit of a deep breath and to realize that we are impugning His character (and His Word because it doesn’t make any sense otherwise) to believe that He can only be the God of Jews. It’s not a sin to be a gentile anymore than its a sin to be a man/woman.
Lrw,
You said “it” was “clear” that gentiles aren’t held to Torah in the same way as gentiles. Where’s your evidence for that? Where is this clear statement?
Now, I’ve not said that gentiles become Jews. On the contrary, on my site I have a FAQ section in which I explain the difference between a Jew (a communal, political, religious, and cultural term) and an Israelite by covenant (something that is objective).
So when I ask you to cite evidence for your assertion that gentiles are not bound to Torah in the same way as Jews, I’m not asking for evidence that gentiles become Jews. I’m only looking for you to support the specific assertion that gentiles are not bound to Torah in the same way as Jews.
Citing evidence for one’s views is fundamental to rational discourse. People who don’t cite sources/evidence for their views demonstrate that they are not interested in reason. If you continue to refuse to cite evidence for your views then everyone will know that you are not a reasonable person. I’m extending to you the opportunity to demonstrate that you ARE a reasonable person. But the choice to accept such an invitation belongs entirely to you.
Shalom,
Peter
…but it does require a bit of a deep breath and to realize that we are impugning His character (and His Word because it doesn’t make any sense otherwise) to believe that He can only be the God of Jews. It’s not a sin to be a gentile anymore than its a sin to be a man/woman.
Of course not. God is the God of all the people of the earth.
Peter– Hahahah, I feel like I’m in a court of law and you are the Judge giving me one more chance to get myself outta trouble before he declares me in contempt of court and off to the clink I go.
Get a grip Pete–I can see you don’t suffer from a shortage of ego…
My “evidence” is the entire bible. But the particular areas I’ve already brought up haven’t even been addressed yet so why go on?
Regarding your position, I see God gave His Torah to Jews who are defined as the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That’s a DNA profile. Then, there are SOME things that are required of the ALIENS who sojourn with them, but other things that are not. For instance, IF they want to (choice involved for the alien, not so for the Jew) partake in the lamb at Passover, they MUST be circumcised, but no “alien who sojourns” gets to take a turn as Priest, correct? Correct.
But in order to even say “aliens who sojourn with Israel” there must be a distinction, yes? Yes! My point exactly.
There also must logically be a distinction between the Jews, the Aliens sojourning with them, and the REST of humanity too, yes? Yes!
Then we see things like prophecies where Jews are differentiated between the rest of the population (go ahead an pick any prophet) and NT passages which say Jews are to make disciples of all nations, but it doesn’t say they are to go gather the poor souls who don’t realize they are the “lost” tribes of Israel.
Again, if your position is that all believers are or become Israel and are equally held to Torah in the same way a Jew is, then the Apostolic Decree was a really dirty trick or James was in serious need of you being there to teach him a thing or two. Additionally, Paul wouldn’t/couldn’t have said many of the things he did TO GENTILES if you’re correct. Additionally, if believers become Israel, who the heck is the great multitude in heaven after the 144,000 of all the 12 TRIBES of Israel?
Please, be merciful… ;-)
Lrw,
I’m really not trying to give you a hard time (believe it or not). I’m merely encouraging to back up your statements with evidence.
Now let’s examine your claim and the evidence you presented in your most recent post. Your claim contains the following elements which I’ll label numerically: (1) the New Testament clearly states (2) that the Mosaic Torah (3) applies different to Jews and gentiles.
This is a very specific claim that requires specific evidence. A reasonable person tasked with evaluating your claim would expect to see evidence from the New Testament, something clear (i.e. something not reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations), which pertains specifically to Jewish and gentile obligation or non-obligation to Mosaic Torah.
However, if a reasonable person were to examine your most recent comment, they would not see a reference to a passage in the New Testament containing a clear statement explaining that the Mosaic Torah applies differently to Jews and gentiles. In fact, the only reference they’d find is a vague reference to the Apostolic Decree, a passage which has been interpreted in multiple ways. But the way it cannot be interpreted is as a set of ethical instructions because the context of the decree in verse 20 refers to “pollutions”. This demonstrates the cultic context of the Decree. Further, we know that pagan practices involved cultic prostitution and strangulation of the animal in order to lock in the blood of the animal to produce a sweet savor for the demons to which it was offered.
So to substantiate your claim that the New Testament clearly says that Jews and gentiles have different obligations to Mosaic Torah, you referenced a passage that prohibits the gentiles from participating in idolatry. Since Jews are also prohibited from idolatry, this fails to demonstrate a differentiation between Jews and gentiles.
Also, Acts 15 says that the gentiles are (1) converts (epistrepho); (2) members of the covenant (“a people called by His name”); (3) expected to follow Mosaic Torah (Acts 15:21). So this doesn’t help your case. It actually evidences that there is no racial differentiation in Torah obligation as between Jews and gentiles.
Shalom,
Peter
@Lrw: Actually, Galatians 5:2-5 is probably the most straightforward statement I can find that tells the non-Jewish disciples that “Torah-obedience,” which would be required only if they (we males, anyway) were circumcized (converted to Judaism), would not do them (us) any good. Galatians 3 also clearly outlines that we are to consider ourselves sons (and daughters) of Abraham, who came to faith and was considered righteous before accepting circumcision.
It would be nice if the Bible gave us a clear, plain roadmap to follow, but such is not the case. When I complained on my own blog, that trying to find such a roadmap for the New Covenant was frustrating, Rabbi Carl Kinbar chastised me (deservedly) and told me basically that I have plenty of company, so why was I worrying?
As near as I can figure it so far, the Abrahamic covenant, or more specifically, the statement within the covenant that says the nations will be blessed by the offspring (singular) of Abraham, the Messiah (as we’ve subsequently learned from Paul), is our covenant connection to God. The New Covenant validates and confirms this for us, but I can’t see our covenant connection expanding to include anything from Sinai.
Christian scholars spend all of their lives studying the texts, revising their theories, and coming to newer understandings. It’s a little presumptuous to imagine that we can hinge our entire identity in Christ and all that it means on a single word translated from Acts 15 or any other part of scripture. I think that’s one of the things Rabbi Kinbar was trying to tell me. Understanding who we are involves continual study and learning. But as I mentioned to you and Michele on my own blog, beyond “all the arguments and hassling over theological details, it’s our compassion for one another that speaks the loudest about God.”
Paul understood this when he wrote 1 Corinthians 13 and the Messiah himself commanded this in John 13:34. If we ever become worried about what commandments we are supposed to obey as Christians, it has been made abundantly clear to us already.
I mentioned several references, you just glossed over.
If the Torah applied equally to gentile’s believing in Messiah, then the letter from James would have said as much instead of saying not to burden the newbies.
You also ignored my references to the Torah itself differentiating between Jews (DNA group) and others.
YOu also ignored my references to Paul saying they indeed do NOT become Jews (Israel) nor do they NEED to, nor SHOULD they because THEN they WOULD be obligated to Torah in full as Jews are.
Again, you inferred my references to Revelation 7.
I hate to point out that your argument about Acts 15 (Apostolic Decree) being interpreted in many ways is quite weak, because that can be said of all the of the bible. The Revelation 7 passage is but one example as all the cults ignore what is clearly said and insert themselves into the text i.e., “no, it’s REALLY the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are the 144,000.” Yeah, right.
Oh, PS, IF gentiles are equally bound to Torah then why didn’t Paul have them circumcised? Yet, He did have Timothy the Jew circumcised.
James: “Actually, Galatians 5:2-5 is probably the most straightforward statement I can find that tells the non-Jewish disciples that “Torah-obedience,” which would be required only if they (we males, anyway) were circumcized (converted to Judaism), would not do them (us) any good.”
Hi James, I agree, but let me also say that as a lifelong believer in and experiencer of God this just isn’t an issue for me. I read the bible as a whole and I cannot find anything that would lead me to believe that I’m supposed to be Jewish, or am secretly an Israelite if I came to faith in Yeshua. I guess I can thank my traditional Baptist exposure maybe, or just the fact that if I, as a gentile, am so repugnant to God, then He sure has a funny way of showing it as He has been so sweet, kind, rescuing and AMAZING in my life. Perhaps that’s where my security lies.
In other words, it’s a NON issue for me and I don’t go looking for refutation of this doctrine because I’m not at all, in the least, convinced that it’s there. It’s contrary to the story as I see/understand it and to God as I know Him.
Well said, Lrw. “For God so loved the world.”
Lrw,
Re: “I hate to point out that your argument about Acts 15 (Apostolic Decree) being interpreted in many ways is quite weak, because that can be said of all the of the bible.”
You said that the Decree was clear, did you not? And “clear” means that reasonable people cannot disagree on the meaning. However, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the meaning of the Decree. Thus, you shouldn’t have said “clear.” And to further illustrate my point here’s what some modern scholars have to say:
“At the heart of the chapter is verse 20, the council’s decree. Yet for New Testament scholars THIS VERSE HAS BEEN A PUZZLE; even under the most careful historical enquiry, THE MEANING AND RATIONALE OF THE DECREE WAS NEVER ENTIRELY CLEAR,” Proselytes and Pressure Cookers: The Meaning and Application of Acts 15:20 by John Proctor.
“Commentators have generally suggested THREE POTENTIAL SOURCES for the prohibitions: rabbinic teachings, the so-called Noahic precepts, and Leviticus 17-18,” A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15 by Charles H. Savelle.
“Another issue that must be examined is THE NATURE OF THE PROHIBITIONS themselves. Are they to be understood as ETHICAL, SOCIETAL, CULTIC, or some combination thereof?”A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15 by Charles H. Savelle.
In conclusion, modern scholars have a range of views regarding the sources for the Decree, the nature of the provisions in the Decree, and the relation between the Decree and the context of the passage. These scholars are all reasonable people and they happen to interpret the Decree differently. Therefore, you can’t say that the Decree is “clear.” To say that it is clear to you when brilliant scholars disagree is rather arrogant, wouldn’t you agree?
Re: “YOu also ignored my references to Paul saying they indeed do NOT become Jews (Israel) nor do they NEED to, nor SHOULD they because THEN they WOULD be obligated to Torah in full as Jews are.”
Are you referring to Galatians 5? If so, you should know that Galatians 5 is not about proper ritual circumcision. On the contrary, Paul was addressing an improper type of circumcision, the false variety that was performed for justification (Gal. 5:4). In Acts 15, Peter similarly confronted improper circumcision and, like Paul, called this works-based justification an unbearable “yoke.” Notice how Peter contrasts this yoke of works-based justification with grace-based justification:
“Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
In conclusion, I’ve demonstrated that Galatians 5 addresses improper circumcision. Therefore, you can’t use Galatians 5 as an argument against PROPER circumcision.
Re: “If the Torah applied equally to gentile’s believing in Messiah, then the letter from James would have said as much”
Why?
Sincerely,
Peter
James,
“Well said, Lrw. “For God so loved the world.””
Thank you and BINGO! :-)
Also, didn’t see the autocorrected word in above message to Peter where I said:
“Again, you inferred my references to Revelation 7.”
That shoulda said ignored instead of inferred. Oh dear I hope I don’t get hard time for that one.
JK Peter…
Peter said: “And ‘clear’ means that reasonable people cannot disagree on the meaning”.
__________
Is that what ‘clear” means to you?
Unfortunately “reason” is often overruled by our preconceptions and prejudices. So few of us are GENUINELY reasonable because we prefer to cling to what we WANT to believe instead of seeing what is obvious to other “reasonable” people.
We tend to INTREPET scripture to fit OUR favoured viewpoint.
One of the hardest things to do is to accept scripture at face value and just accept what it actually says. If we did that we would have to make some very challenging changes to our lives and often we don’t really want to do that. It’s therefore easier to project a desired meaning into scripture to avoid that need for personal change.
Onesimus,
Re: “One of the hardest things to do is to accept scripture at face value and just accept what it actually says.”
If you read from an English translation then you are not taking the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts at face value. You’re relying on the idea that (1) there are adequate words in the English language to convey a foreign concept (2) that the manuscripts used by the translator are the most reliable manuscripts.
Even when you read from the original language from a reliable manuscript, you still can’t take a passage at “face value.” But you must take it in context. For example, you wouldn’t gouge out your eyes, would you? (Matthew 5). You don’t hate your parents, do you? (Matthew 14:26). Yet, that’s what the TEXT says at face value. So face value means nothing.
Our process should be to (1) obtain the best available text and then (2) examine the context. Only then will we be a good position to understand the author’s intent.
Considering the complexity in (1) acquiring the most reliable text and (2) understanding the context, it would be extremely unwise to take any text at face value. When confronted with a difficult text, one should consult all available resources. This is only wise, yes?
The best available resource is the one given by God Himself – that is the Holy Spirit given as a teacher.
We can spend so much time and effort trying to delve into the REAL meanings of individual words that we miss the overall meaning of the whole contex of those words.
Problems arise when we give more importance to individual words on the page than we give to the One whom the words on the page reveal.
Onesimus,
Amein! : )
I’m I newbie to this site, so my apologies if this had already been discussed elsewhere.
The author of the quoted book makes this statement:
”A non-Jew who lives according to certain fundamental moral laws, without following the whole Mosaic law, is blessed.”
Can someone help me find Old Testament passages that would support that statement?
Was Jesus or Paul against conversion to Judaism for gentiles? If I convert to Judaism(without having to reject Yeshua) Will I lose my place in the world to come?
@ken05777
“Was Jesus or Paul against conversion to Judaism for gentiles?”
I believe that both considered conversion and converts to Judaism a fact of Jewish life.
On the other hand, would Apostle Paul approve of conversions to Judaism after starting his mission to bring uncircumcised Gentiles to the G-d of Israel and the Jewish Messiah? Again, I think that while he would approve of conversions (being a Jew who observed the Written and Oral Torah), he would strongly discourage Gentiles from pursuing them (just as Orthodox rabbis do today and as Paul also did in Galatians). Why? Because a righteous Gentile is of equal worth to G-d as a righteous Jew and because of what G-d did through Messiah for Gentiles (accepted them as people of G-d and His children).
Paul would probably consider it a great disservice to the work that the Messiah did if Gentiles believed that in order to be acceptable to G-d they first had to become Jews and take on the full yoke of Torah. He fought very hard against such a thing.
“Will I lose my place in the world to come?”
Only G-d knows who gains an entry into the world to come. Many will tell Messiah that they believed in him and even did many great things in his name, but because they were actually wicked in the way they lived he won’t acknowledge them as his own (Matthew 7:23).
However, a conversion to Judaism cannot be the cause of losing salvation. At the same time, thinking that you are now more righteous simply because you became Jewish and started to perform some commandments that you have not in the past, without actually having the true righteousness that is of G-d, should definitely be a cause for concern. Also, not being observant after voluntarily legally obligating oneself before G-d to the Torah in order to become a “Jew” should worry all perspective converts.
@ D. Watson
“”A non-Jew who lives according to certain fundamental moral laws, without following the whole Mosaic law, is blessed.” Can someone help me find Old Testament passages that would support that statement?”
Sorry, I just came across this comment.
First of all, please keep in mind that the Bible is a Jewish document (a Jewish constitution and history) that was written by Jews and for Jews. While many Torah commandments pertain to basic morality applicable to all, being a Jewish document there are naturally not very many instructions directed specifically to the Gentiles, especially after Noah disembarked from his boat.
Speaking of Noah – G-d has already provided basic instructions to Noah, and in fact Noah was considered a righteous man (Genesis 6:9) even before that (so, he obviously adhered to a certain moral code). Rabbis have expounded on those instructions. From the Jewish point of view, Gentile individuals who adhered to those, would be considered righteous in G-d’s eyes and therefore considered blessed. And indeed, we read that G-d has blessed Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:1) and established a covenant between Himself, Noah and Noah’s descendants. So, from this we can surmise: G-d-fearing/honoring Gentiles who lived a moral life (which included abstaining from certain things G-d forbade to all) and did not worship idols were blessed.
The author that I quoted, professor David Flusser, says that a Gentile who has voluntarily taken on Torah commandments through conversion has opened himself to curses (recorded in the Torah) reserved for Israel/Jews should they fail to obey all of Torah:
“If you do not obey the L-RD your G-d and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:” (Deuteronomy 28:15).
Clearly, if a Gentile who was previously blessed without having to observe all of Torah, obligated himself to Torah but fails to observe it, he will be sinning and thus be cursed and forfeit blessings he would otherwise have:
“But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.” (Ezekiel 18:24)
Thanks for your answer Gene,
So I can convert to Judaism with the right perspective?
“So I can convert to Judaism with the right perspective?”
About the right perspective….the question I have for you, Ken, is – WHY do you want to convert to Judaism?
Well, for one I feel it in my soul that I can keep the covenant.
“Well, for one I feel it in my soul that I can keep the covenant.”
Ken, I’ve never heard this given as a reason for conversion. Israel has not been able to keep the covenant from the time it was “signed” between G-d and the Jewish people. This is why we are technically still in exile, without our Temple. What makes you feel that you can do it when we have failed?
I’m sure that I won’t be perfect at everything.but I actually meant to say that I feel that I can try my very best to keep the covenant.
Do you have e-mail that I can contact you more about this subject?
Ken, my contact info is at the top of the blog, on the Contact page.