I'm not sure that Jesus, with his teachings on prayer, would have ever worn phylacteries in public, if ever at all. And I have to say, I think Christ Pantocrator looks pretty Jewish.
But I hear what you are saying - I've been in a Biblical Theology course this winter, and we've been talking a bit about supercessionism: what constitutes it, how guilty are we, etc. But ultimately, Jews and Christians today are 2000 years different. Sometimes I think we forget that.
Dale Fincher
· 7 months ago
Hey Will, I'm unsure what you mean that a phylactery would have been irrelevant because of his teaching on prayer... didn't it have direct relation to the Torah of God and it's place in the heart of the Jewish people?
I think you are right that Christ Pantocrator looks Jewish in some ways. Yet even the earliest looks rather, well, like a Jew who became an orthodox priest. :).... He doesn't look like a Jewish Rabbi.
I'm glad you're discussing supercessionism... I think this is on the rise and will continue to be so. My own view is that replacing the Jews with the church has been a profound error. Jews and Christians today are 2000 years different... I can concede that, but only on the condition that Christians and Jesus may be 2000 years different as well. Even the Jews in Jesus own day were quite different in some respects from the Jews in Moses' day... and the temple Jews are different than rabbinic Jews. Regardless of the differences, we have to wrestle with the idea that God most frequently names himself the God of Israel and exclusively reveals himself in the Scripture through the lens of Jewishness (even through the pens of New Testament writers, who were all Jews... Luke being the only disputed one). My own desire is that when Jesus returns we may actually recognize him...
Thanks for stopping by and posting up!!
Will Kinchlea
· 7 months ago
On the phylactery comment: I would hazard a guess that Jesus would have interpreted the wearing of Torah on his person for prayer differently than most pharisees - phylacteries are a very material and public gesture of piety - one that would have emphasized a difference between Jews and Gentiles, and even Hellenistic Jews. I'm just thinking that Jesus would have been against barrier-making symbols (re: N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God)
Also, on the comments of Jesus looking like a rabbi - rabbis were predominantly pharisaical - in that they were pharisees - which was a group that ran counter to Jesus. I would contend that Jesus would not dress himself in the way of the pharisees.
re: supercessionism - you are right that replacing Jews with Church is error; I think, like Paul gets at in almost all his epistles, that we (both believing Jew and Gentile) are now Israel. Here's the thing - by stating that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that believing Israel, through being a light to the nations, subsumed the Gentiles into them (and those nations being more numerous than ethnic Israel), we have to be ok with saying that Israel became the church, and those Jews who didn't jump on board the Messiah train became a fundamentally different religion. Judaism after the 1st Century was Rabbinic Judaism, which stemmed from Pharisaic Judaism, which was openly anti-Christian in nature.
I want to try to catch you on your evolving Jew argument, if the Jews of the Patriarchs are different from the Jews of Moses, which are different from Temple Jews, which are different from Rabbinic Jews, why can't the church be the next difference?
I'm all for making sure our roots are straight and correct, but 2000 years of church history (minus the anti-semitism) shouldn't be thrown away because it doesn't look Jewish enough.
Thanks for stopping by and posting up!!
Dale Fincher
· 7 months ago
Will, I'll respond a paragraph at a time with a number, starting with paragraph 1 (e.g. @1).
@1: Let's say he did interpret that differently, the wearing of goes back to Deut, long before Pharisees existed. And I'm unsure how that would be a barrier-making gesture if it were Jewish and if the world was invited into the Jewish temple (a house of prayer for ALL THE NATIONS)... and according to Skarsaune, the Hellenistic Jews were still very Jewish (though that's not been the popular research for a long time).
@2: I'm unsure if the rabbis were predominantly pharisaical. Pharisees have been numbered at only 4,000 in Israel and then mostly in Jerusalem. The priests and Levites were the main teachers of Torah (espcially when off-duty) and carried the weight of teaching to Israel throughout Israel... they numbered 20,000. Also, it is now believed that Jesus could actually be identified as part of the Pharisee teaching... part of an intramural debate. Some scholars could piece together a lot of Jesus teaching from the Pharisees. Not all Pharisees were bad. Their emphasis on making laypeople into theologians with access to God was a trademark of both them and Jesus. Again, Skarsaune.
@3: Skarsaune would disagree that Pharisaic Judaism became Rabibinic Judaism, though he says the overwhelming opinion in the past has held to this. Since I'm newer to the historical aspect of the debate, I'll have to refer you my better. But theologically, I don't think Israel became the church. I don't see that in Scripture. I see in Romans 11 that believing Gentiles became Israel. And historically, the gentiles of the early church were all Jewishly trained and taught (they came out of the synagogues and continued to be part of them). It wasn't until Justin Martyr's misunderstandings do we see polemics against the Jews. In fact, the early church used almost entirely Jewish arguments to substantiate itself prior to Justin Martyr. Martyr's arguments essentially drove replacement theology and started the roots of anti-semitism in the church (in my understanding). The way I see it, it was the overwhelming number of gentiles choosing to follow Jesus that gave them the voice to push their misunderstandings and overwhelm the Jewishness of the movement of Jesus.
What is more, the "church" wasn't an organization in the New Testament. It was an assembly. Israel was the organization. But church history has made the church into an organization. Daniel Gruber points out that the "church" is closely akin to "synagogue" in the Septuigent translation. He argues that there is no "church." There is only the "house of Israel." All are invited into that house.
@4: I didn't say they were all different, though some case could be made, I'm sure. The first century Jews had a lot in common the Jews in Moses day: continuity of history, Torah, etc. They differed in the the different schools of thought and how that history had shaped their identities, even in light of having a Temple while being occupied by Rome. That creates a different texture. But the main difference between the evolution is that while all the other evolutions were deeply Jewish, the church became non-Jewish, not only in it's ethnicity but also in it's theology. I don't see how the "church," as we know it, could be next part of that evolution since tries to steal away the promises made to Israel, the teaching given to Israel, the lens of Israel upon the whole of the text.
The Rock that the church was built on was neither Peter nor his statement of faith. The Rock was the Jewish Messiah who will sit on David's throne and rule from Jerusalem. All of this is Jewish. If the church was a continuation of this, they wouldn't find this strangely outside their worldview or see it as a parallel history running along as mere signpost of the end times, etc.
@5: I don't think it should be thrown away either. Much good has come from the gentile church and a lot of great thinkers/doers. But as one Jewish woman told me, losing the picture of Israel at the center of God's ongoing redemption of the world until the end of all things is the major flaw in the diamond. The diamond is still beautiful, but at the center, there's a flaw that needs to be corrected. It will cause ripples in our self-understanding as a gentile church, but those will be good ripples that may erode certain church hierarchies and structures, but it will get closer and closer to the heart of our Messiah.
chasewarren
· 7 months ago
I agree with Skarsaune, when we, including myself, think of Jesus the image is a white man dressed in a white robe, with brown hair and a perfectly even beard. It's sad but I think if we saw what Christ's normal appearance once was many wouldn't believe it.
Dale Fincher
· 7 months ago
Chase, I'm with you!
Philip
· 7 months ago
I know I may have said this before but it bears repeating.
It is interesting that Christians, who want to know Jesus and God so well, never really try to understand the religion that he grew up in and followed his whole life.
It is interesting already to me that the term "phylactery" and not "tefillin" was used in this conversation. We are already seeing a de-Jewishness in this conversation. And the tefillin, from my understanding, is mostly worn in private during morning prayers (so a conservative Jew told me). I have never seen him wear tefillin in public, although he does wear prayer shawl, or tallith i think, underneath his clothes throughout the day.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard R. C. Sproul on there. He was talking about the nature of man and so on, and it sounded very greek in thought. Christianity grew up in Roman times, which was very similar to greek; but shouldn't we be more focused on the Jewish understanding of things? I think it is safe to say that their views would be more understanding towards God's views. Just a thought to throw out there.
Dale Fincher
· 7 months ago
Philip,
@1: It is interesting. It's almost so obvious a problem, I don't know how so many have seen it before (including myself)... why did/do we have these blinders? Is more going on in this world than meets the eye? ;)
@2: "phylactery" is from the quote from the Jewish rabbi. So we're just going with how that started the convo. Commited Jews do wear prayer shawls in public. I know several who do.
@3: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" :) I think we need both kinds of thinking. Even the early Jewish "church" found significance in how God gave truth even to unbelievers. AND I've even heard whisperings that some of Greek thought actually was acquired from the Hebrews through the trade routes, even several centuries before Jesus. So there may be overlap.
Yet, despite all this, today I think it wise to get a grasp of the Jewish thought of Scripture (in both Testaments) before seeing how the Greek helps inform it or help us understand it more.
What I find deeply interesting is that the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah is surrounded with Temple language. Jesus was the last sacrifice is a deeply Jewish idea. It doesn't even have context for gentiles unfamiliar with the temple. That is also why we don't see Paul using temple language when speaking to an all-Gentile audience who lacks Jewish context (Athens: Acts 17-- notice no temple talk in that speech--it's the only gospel sermon to Gentiles in the New Testament who do not have a Jewish background/knowledge).... I think that is very telling for how we share the gospel, even today.
Philip
· 7 months ago
I understand the need for differences in sharing the gospel as Paul did in Athens versus the synagogues. When it comes to our own understanding though, I feel that God has been in direct contact and relationship with the Hebrews from the very genesis of them to even now (if you would allow some speculation on my part for the "now" inclusion). With this understanding, I think it is safe to say that Christians should rely on Hebrew thought, way of thinking and actual works, before greek. My comment was based on hearing a Christian leader going off on the nature of man that sounded more like Plato than Judeo-Christian.
I get the phylacteries comment now. And yes, prayer shawls are worn in public, but phylacteries, from my experience, are more of a private matter - at least nowadays.
Finally, just to add to conversation, Pharisees were mainly laymen who were very pious and so on (according to John Stott and others I have read). While some scribes may have been in the school of the pharisees, the kind that Jesus would have encountered were mainly pious laymen I would assume based on the sermon on the mount where he clearly says that you must be more righteous than the scribes AND pharisees to enter the kingdom. The sadducees were the priestly order that really taught the law. I would assume though, that all schools had their fair share of rabbi's or teachers. The idea that Jesus was considered a rabbi may help us see the way Jews viewed Him. He was obviously still thinking Jewishly or they would have never ascribed that term to Him.
Renee
· 7 months ago
You know, I have generally been bothered by non-Jewish representations of Jesus, but I never really considered exactly what seeing Jesus as a first century Jew really entailed until I started reading New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Blivin. I'd never really thought about what Christ being completely Jewish and fulfilling all the Law would really mean in every day life. It's been a mind-opening train of thought.
Dale Fincher
· 7 months ago
Renee, you are right that we in the church have no idea of Jewishness in general so we wouldn't know how a Jewish Jesus changes things... I'm glad you're reading on it... it'll make you a brighter light, even to other believers! Thanks for posting up.
rachwolf
· 7 months ago
Dale, I’d like to make a couple of points responding to Will.
Will, I appreciate that you are seriously considering these things, when many are not. I, myself, am deeply invested in these issues so I am going to shoot from the hip. But please understand that I really respect your searching this out. Sorry, but i’m too lazy to locate the exact paragraphs I will be referencing. I’ll reference by topic.
First, before speaking to Will’s points I want to say that, true to your (Dale’s) gift for distilling the important thing you (Dale) say: “My own desire is that when Jesus returns we may actually recognize him…”
This is a profound point that bears highlighting (or, perhaps, shouting from a few rooftops, though I wouldn’t try it in the winter in Colorado). I think all Christians should meditate on this point: Who, actually, is Jesus? What is his identity?
Now to Will’s points: 1. Jesus the Pharisee Dale did a good job speaking to the issue of Pharisees from Skarsaune. In almost all Christian circles I’ve been in, the Pharisees are seen as flat two-dimensional bad guys. They have been represented for many Christian centuries (in Passion plays and the like) as the incarnation of the demonic in human society. This is a gross historical error and simplification. There are two books both titled “Jesus the Pharisee,” one by Harvey Falk and one by Hyam MacCoby that show how many of Jesus’ beliefs and statements coincide with those of the Pharisees. I do not agree with everything in either book, I think they both have different serious drawbacks but can offer a needed different view on this subject.
In a course I took with Dr., Mark Kinzer (of U. of Michigan) he gave very good evidence that, in fact, Yeshua’s (Jesus's) views included aspects of all major Jewish factions of his day, though predominantly Pharisaic. He shared many spiritual and eschatological views with the Essenes who I believe developed out of the group who wrote the Book of Jubilees. He shared the high view of the Temple with the Sadducees, and he shared with the Pharisees many views about honoring the Law and teaching all of the people in Torah.
2. Judaism, Israel, Church Will said: “Here's the thing - by stating that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that believing Israel, through being a light to the nations, subsumed the Gentiles into them (and those nations being more numerous than ethnic Israel), we have to be ok with saying that Israel became the church, and those Jews who didn't jump on board the Messiah train became a fundamentally different religion. Judaism after the 1st Century was Rabbinic Judaism, which stemmed from Pharisaic Judaism, which was openly anti-Christian in nature.”
First, Israel is called a light to the nations. Where does it say “Believing Israel” is a light to the nations? Second, I don’t think that “subsumed” is a good choice of words, though I think I see what you mean. In Ephesians 2: 11-22 Paul gives the closest thing to his ecclesiology of Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles that trust in and cleave to the Jewish Messiah are “brought near” through the blood of Messiah (v.13). To what are they brought near? In v. 12 it is made clear: at that time you were separate from Messiah, excluded [by God’s law] from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenant of promise, without hope and without God. Now, through trusting in the blood sacrifice of Yeshua (which can only be understood through the Torah and Jewish history) Gentiles are brought near to Israel, become citizens and joint heirs along with the Jewish people. They are not brought near to a new entity, but one that God has finely cultivated over centuries of real honest-to-goodness messy human history.
When you say that Jews who didn’t jump on ”the Messiah train became a fundamentally different religion” you are betraying your Christian worldview that blinds you to seeing the fundamental nature of Israel. Israel is not a religion. Perhaps we could say that Judaism is a religion, but still not in the same sense as today’s Christianity. But the promises were not given, even, to Judaism. The promises and the covenants were made with Israel--Jacob and his seed. Israel is fundamentally a family, and, in that, a special creation of God for his ongoing eschatological purposes in the earth.
Here is a quote from Doug Harink (Paul and Israel: an Apocalyptic Reading, Douglas Harink, The King’s University College, Edmonton, Alberta, Pauline Soteriology Group, Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, November 2005)
You won’t be able to fully understand it without the context but I just want you to try to see Israel as a special creation of God for a purpose:
"Where is Israel in this story of creation, slavery and apocalyptic deliverance? We discover in Rom. 9-11 that Israel is indeed there, not as a bit-player in Paul’s account of the gospel in Romans, but as the original and irreplaceable, yet most difficult, witness to the truth of the gospel. How and why is this so? It is so because Israel as the called, chosen and beloved people of God is numbered among the creatures which God has brought into being by his own act – Israel herself is nothing less than a creation by the word of God. ?"
I understand that there are many complicated scriptural and theological issues this brings up that are beyond the scope of this blog. You will want to bring up Romans 2: “A man is not a Jew if he is only a Jew outwardly” and other such verses, but these need to be understood in light of the whole scriptures and in light of Paul’s eschatological views--the “mystery” he alludes to in Romans 11: 25-26, that Israel has experienced a hardening in part for the sake of the nations whom God also loves (my words), but that all Israel will be saved. If all of [previously hardened] Israel will be saved, who are they, if the Jews who didn’t get on the train are not Israel?
The result of your thinking about Israel and the church is this: “We no longer need Jews to have Israel.” If that isn’t supersessionist I don’t know what is. Israel is a nation, anethnos, a family of people created by God for a special eternal purpose. Israel is not a concept that can be attached to whatever spiritual purpose fancies us.
Will Kinchlea
· 7 months ago
First things first. I'm really thankful for the collegiality of this debate. I know that I can't expect this level if I finally decide to join the academy, but one could hope.
Wow, ok, lots of things need a response. Let's do this one at a time - I'm going to apply @subject titles to various ideas, other than paragraphs, to both Dale and Rachel (I assume that's the Rach of Rachwolf, sorry if I'm wrongly assuming).
@Pharisees - I should make this clear right now - I'm certainly not trying to villify Pharisees into a demonically human force - they are historically charged with creating synagogue, a good thing, as well as demonstrating how Torah can be lived outside of Temple, without disparaging the Temple's importance. I am however sticking to my guns that Jesus thought they were wrong, as I'm sure he thought most of the teachers of Israel were wrong on this one point, which I think the Pharisees emphasized more than others: They stuck to their identity markers as to create barriers with unobservant jews and gentiles - they said, "we're Israel - and everything that comes with Israel - you aren't."
Also, my original point was that Jesus wouldn't have necessarily garbed himself like a pharisee. It is precisely his 'universality' of teaching with Jewish sects (especially the essenes/Qumran sects - read a great article about how John the Baptist was probably Qumranesque - I'll have to find it) that would have separated his dress from that of the Pharisees, despite his teachings aligning with both Shammai and Hillel at times. Great stuff from everyone though, on this account - people will definitely learn lots reading these comments.
In regards to Skarsaune's studies on Pharisaism in the 1st century, we'll have to disagree - I think the work of the Pharisees was far more at work within the countryside than for what he'll allow (nearly all knowledge of Pharisees come from Josephus, 3rd Century Rabbinic literature, and the NT - all of which have their limitations) Again, I refer to Wright, though this time in his book NT and the People of God.
@phylacteries/tefillin. Ok, final note on this one. First, I'm going to have to argue on the point that while Deut. writes about binding to the head and hand, this doesn't necessarily imply literal binding as the words are to be on their hears as well. Joseph Telushkin, in his book, Jewish Literacy, states that while the Sadducees most likely took this figuratively, as did the medieval Karaites, Pharisees took it literally, demonstrating a difference in 1st Century thought concerning tefllin.
@Church as Assembly, not organization. Dale, I don't think this works. The term ekklesia is used far more often than just in terms of gathering within the NT. Paul's reference to the group of believers is 'the church' as a universal. Also, it seems clear that John of Revelation uses Israel in fairly non-ethnic terms.
@Israel as Religion - Rachel, what I think my statement about Israel as religion betrays more is my work in History of Religions (Cross, Alt, Gottwald, Collins, and more theologically, Moberly) than my own Christianity - I'm going to argue, because I honestly believe that the evidence is there, (from Jewish, Christian, and Secular Scholarly sources) that Israel's inception was multi-ethnic in nature - it was a religion that became a nation by subsuming all those around it.
Mosaic Yahwish took on the religion of the Patriarchs into itself as the Revelation of God to a specific people (See R.W.L Moberly's the Old Testament of the Old Testament) - not necessarily a single ethnos - for his work in the world.
I understand that Israel then became a nation with which God worked. I understand that it is through this nation that God then revealed himself to every nation through the coming of the kingdom of God through Yeshua Ben Yosef, the Messiah. Here's where my difficulty lies:
If the Church isn't Israel, than what is it, and what are we missing? Israel served as God's ambassador to the world for 1200 years (depending on who you talk to) - during that time, we see within the oldest extant writings of Israel - the prophets - the idea of a holy remnant of believing Israel. Israel survived after the Exile until the time when the Messiah came to them. Those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah then went to the nations, spreading the Gospel to them, including every Jewish aspect that was to be retained, since Christ redefined the Temple unto himself; the Apostles, under the Holy Spirit, abolished circumcision as an identity marker, repealed dietary law and exempted Gentiles from having to convert as one 'under the law;' and the NT gave us a correct interpretation of the Old Testament and its teachings. The Jews who were part of the Jesus movement, along with their proselytes, were named Christians. They took the name unto themselves, and especially through the work of people like Paul, Peter, and John, saw themselves as a unified whole.
In the coming centuries, we see, regrettably, less Jews turning to Jesus as Messiah, and more gentiles joining the fray, who were then persecuted by both Jew and Gentile. By the time of Justin, they have a chip on their shoulder, and turn away from witnessing to the Jews, and they begin 2000 years of pogroms, inquisitions, and protocols of Zion. Atrocious move on our part, obviously, but what tenets of Israel did we lose?
Or is this all about trying to not be Anti-Semitic?
We can't help but take their claims in the modern era - because we both think we are Israel. Even if we think they need to be part of this, which I do, to be sure, they don't think the same way about us. I think Jews will terminably see all kinds of Christian talk of covenant (Which Jesus says - so we have to) as supercessionist.
I'm rambling now, so I'll stop. Despite, what I've said, if I'm wrong I want to know. I want to know what it means to be 'fix the imperfection' that Dale spoke of beforehand, without ditching 2000 years of church history. I don't know how to do it, or even what the imperfection is. What I'd really like is to be able to sit around a table, have a few beers, and hash this out - obviously this is impossible, so the internet will have to do.
rachwolf
· 7 months ago
Will, I hate beer but would love to sit around a table and talk this out. (I'm more the ginger tea type -- maybe a small glass of good red wine). I have no beef (another thing I don't generally ingest) with your treatments of Pharisees or tfilllin above. You are quite fair. These subjects are not of crucial significance to me. The concept of "organization" deserves more than a few beers (if I partook)--a very important discussion-- but i really got excited when i read this: "If the Church isn't Israel, than what is it, and what are we missing?"
This is a topnotch question. This is THE question. It has profound and necessary repercussions for Jewish and world history. It is the question you might say my theological life revolves around (well, various forms of this question and its inverse). However, I am not sure I have the energy to write a deserving answer, blog-style. I am certainly too tired right now, but will try to get to it--I will at least speak to the specific areas of incorrect interpretation that you mention. Hint: You are erring by assuming that Paul's instructions for Gentile believers also applied to Jewish believers, when it is clear from the Apostolic Decree and many other places that Jewish believers were expected to remain Jews and keep Jewish observances. I'll give you a reading list tomorrow if I can. -Rachel (maybe ginger beer?) (Dale, do you like beer?)
Will Kinchlea
· 7 months ago
I really like Ginger Beer.
a lot.
Like, a lot a lot.
rachwolf
· 7 months ago
Will, Okay, ginger beer it is!
There is a whole new school in Christian theology that you may not be familiar with. There are a number of scholars who are undertaking to understand Paul within his own historical context, particularly in relation to Jews and Jewish observance. It has been termed the “New Perspective on Paul.” Even this new perspective has a number of phases.
The traditional Christian view assumes pretty much the things you state:
“...the Apostles, under the Holy Spirit, abolished circumcision as an identity marker, repealed dietary law and exempted Gentiles from having to convert as one 'under the law;' and the NT gave us a correct interpretation of the Old Testament and its teachings. The Jews who were part of the Jesus movement, along with their proselytes, were named Christians. They took the name unto themselves, and especially through the work of people like Paul, Peter, and John, saw themselves as a unified whole.”
Instead, the “new perspective” scholars see much in this view that is contradictory with scripture. They are building from a base of understanding the Jewish world of Paul and the other apostles, rather than from church fathers and Christian writings. I am no scholar but the basic and crucial difference in this new scholarship is that most see Paul and the Jerusalem group as making a clear distinction between the obligations of Jewish and Gentile believers. And most do not understand the mission of the apostles as building a new body called “The Church.”
There was a basic assumption among all of the apostles that Jews were Jews and would ever remain so. The assumption that Jews participate in basic Jewish identity markers (such as circumcision and basic biblical kashrut) is so foundational to them that they do not even think to state it outright, but it is the underlying assumption of everything. It seems clear to me that Paul did see the structure of things having changed in some fundamental ways, but not in the ways the church has understood it.
The clearest place to see this "assumption of Jewish identity" is, perhaps, in the discussion in Acts 15. The whole discussion is about what the ritual obligations of the new Gentile believers should be. There is no discussion at all about changing the law of Moses for Jews. Verse 19: “It is my judgement therefore that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God…” Paul was at this meeting and approved. The whole meeting was called to solve the problem of Gentiles coming to faith. If the four obligations were specifically for Gentiles (as stated in the text) then logic necessitates that they were not specifically for Jews.
Paul objects to making Gentiles obligated to circumcision, not because he objects to circumcision per se, nor because he sees it as “outmoded by Christ” but because he understands God as being the “God of the Jews and Gentiles” not “the God of the Jews only.” He believes that Yeshua has opened the way (that was prophecied) for Gentiles to come in to the Jewish covenant as Gentiles. If all Gentile believers had to submit to circumcision they would be entering the covenant as Jews. Paul’s eschatological view requires a world of Jews and Gentiles.
This is too complex to detail here. But newer scholars have written on every question of yours that will come to mind: “What about Paul’s ranting about circumcision in Galations? What about his dispute with Peter in Antioch that is described in Gal. 2? What about the “weak” in Romans 15?”
By the way, nobody in the Bible called themselves Christians. There is even some debate among scholars as to whether anyone mentioned in the NT actually used the term "Christian" or whether it was a fellow named "Chrestian"--a known rabble-rouser. But in any case it was not a name the Yeshua sect self-identified with.
Here is a list of references for further study: Authors (all scholars) you should read (they have lots of published articles as well as books): E.P. Sanders Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel. or others) Markus Bockmuehl Pamela Eisenbaum Oscar Skarsaune: In the Shadow of the Temple (the book Dale referenced) Mark Kinzer: Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People
Daniel Gruber: Copernicus and the Jews I think this is only available on Gruber’s website: elijahnet.net But I think the website is offline now while it is being retooled. This book provides a frontal challenge to traditional Christian thinking and should be read.
Have fun!
Rachel
Dusty Chris
· 7 months ago
Are you familiar with Ray Vanderlaan? His work approaches Jesus and the disciples as Jews and places them in that culture, which is very different from our European influenced culture. He is at FollowtheRabbi.com. His DVDs and CDs are great.
Love your blog. I drop in often but first time to comment. Keep it up.
Dale Fincher
· 6 months ago
Thanks, Dusty. I'm not familiar with Ray Vanderlaan. A cursory glance at his site is intriguing. I enjoy see how others interact with this important idea. But I still wonder if Vanderlaan lacks some of the key components we've discussed through the thread of this topic, namely Jesus being a Jew not only helps us understand the "Hebrew" culture of the New Testament, but points us in a direction of the Jews themselves which redefines a lot of how we think about "church." That Vanderlaan is openly affililiated with 'reformed' theology makes me wonder what he thinks about the centrality of the Jews in the ongoing redemption of the Jews.
I appreciate your lurking.... and your posting! :)
All Comments
But I hear what you are saying - I've been in a Biblical Theology course this winter, and we've been talking a bit about supercessionism: what constitutes it, how guilty are we, etc. But ultimately, Jews and Christians today are 2000 years different. Sometimes I think we forget that.
irrelevant because of his teaching on prayer... didn't it have direct
relation to the Torah of God and it's place in the heart of the Jewish
people?
I think you are right that Christ Pantocrator looks Jewish in some
ways. Yet even the earliest looks rather, well, like a Jew who became
an orthodox priest. :).... He doesn't look like a Jewish Rabbi.
I'm glad you're discussing supercessionism... I think this is on the
rise and will continue to be so. My own view is that replacing the
Jews with the church has been a profound error. Jews and Christians
today are 2000 years different... I can concede that, but only on the
condition that Christians and Jesus may be 2000 years different as
well. Even the Jews in Jesus own day were quite different in some
respects from the Jews in Moses' day... and the temple Jews are
different than rabbinic Jews. Regardless of the differences, we have
to wrestle with the idea that God most frequently names himself the
God of Israel and exclusively reveals himself in the Scripture through
the lens of Jewishness (even through the pens of New Testament
writers, who were all Jews... Luke being the only disputed one). My
own desire is that when Jesus returns we may actually recognize him...
Thanks for stopping by and posting up!!
Also, on the comments of Jesus looking like a rabbi - rabbis were predominantly pharisaical - in that they were pharisees - which was a group that ran counter to Jesus. I would contend that Jesus would not dress himself in the way of the pharisees.
re: supercessionism - you are right that replacing Jews with Church is error; I think, like Paul gets at in almost all his epistles, that we (both believing Jew and Gentile) are now Israel. Here's the thing - by stating that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that believing Israel, through being a light to the nations, subsumed the Gentiles into them (and those nations being more numerous than ethnic Israel), we have to be ok with saying that Israel became the church, and those Jews who didn't jump on board the Messiah train became a fundamentally different religion. Judaism after the 1st Century was Rabbinic Judaism, which stemmed from Pharisaic Judaism, which was openly anti-Christian in nature.
I want to try to catch you on your evolving Jew argument, if the Jews of the Patriarchs are different from the Jews of Moses, which are different from Temple Jews, which are different from Rabbinic Jews, why can't the church be the next difference?
I'm all for making sure our roots are straight and correct, but 2000 years of church history (minus the anti-semitism) shouldn't be thrown away because it doesn't look Jewish enough.
Thanks for stopping by and posting up!!
paragraph 1 (e.g. @1).
@1: Let's say he did interpret that differently, the wearing of goes
back to Deut, long before Pharisees existed. And I'm unsure how that
would be a barrier-making gesture if it were Jewish and if the world
was invited into the Jewish temple (a house of prayer for ALL THE
NATIONS)... and according to Skarsaune, the Hellenistic Jews were
still very Jewish (though that's not been the popular research for a
long time).
@2: I'm unsure if the rabbis were predominantly pharisaical.
Pharisees have been numbered at only 4,000 in Israel and then mostly
in Jerusalem. The priests and Levites were the main teachers of Torah
(espcially when off-duty) and carried the weight of teaching to Israel
throughout Israel... they numbered 20,000. Also, it is now believed
that Jesus could actually be identified as part of the Pharisee
teaching... part of an intramural debate. Some scholars could piece
together a lot of Jesus teaching from the Pharisees. Not all
Pharisees were bad. Their emphasis on making laypeople into
theologians with access to God was a trademark of both them and Jesus.
Again, Skarsaune.
@3: Skarsaune would disagree that Pharisaic Judaism became Rabibinic
Judaism, though he says the overwhelming opinion in the past has held
to this. Since I'm newer to the historical aspect of the debate, I'll
have to refer you my better. But theologically, I don't think Israel
became the church. I don't see that in Scripture. I see in Romans 11
that believing Gentiles became Israel. And historically, the gentiles
of the early church were all Jewishly trained and taught (they came
out of the synagogues and continued to be part of them). It wasn't
until Justin Martyr's misunderstandings do we see polemics against the
Jews. In fact, the early church used almost entirely Jewish arguments
to substantiate itself prior to Justin Martyr. Martyr's arguments
essentially drove replacement theology and started the roots of
anti-semitism in the church (in my understanding). The way I see it,
it was the overwhelming number of gentiles choosing to follow Jesus
that gave them the voice to push their misunderstandings and overwhelm
the Jewishness of the movement of Jesus.
What is more, the "church" wasn't an organization in the New
Testament. It was an assembly. Israel was the organization. But
church history has made the church into an organization. Daniel
Gruber points out that the "church" is closely akin to "synagogue" in
the Septuigent translation. He argues that there is no "church."
There is only the "house of Israel." All are invited into that house.
@4: I didn't say they were all different, though some case could be
made, I'm sure. The first century Jews had a lot in common the Jews
in Moses day: continuity of history, Torah, etc. They differed in the
the different schools of thought and how that history had shaped their
identities, even in light of having a Temple while being occupied by
Rome. That creates a different texture. But the main difference
between the evolution is that while all the other evolutions were
deeply Jewish, the church became non-Jewish, not only in it's
ethnicity but also in it's theology. I don't see how the "church," as
we know it, could be next part of that evolution since tries to steal
away the promises made to Israel, the teaching given to Israel, the
lens of Israel upon the whole of the text.
The Rock that the church was built on was neither Peter nor his
statement of faith. The Rock was the Jewish Messiah who will sit on
David's throne and rule from Jerusalem. All of this is Jewish. If
the church was a continuation of this, they wouldn't find this
strangely outside their worldview or see it as a parallel history
running along as mere signpost of the end times, etc.
@5: I don't think it should be thrown away either. Much good has come
from the gentile church and a lot of great thinkers/doers. But as one
Jewish woman told me, losing the picture of Israel at the center of
God's ongoing redemption of the world until the end of all things is
the major flaw in the diamond. The diamond is still beautiful, but at
the center, there's a flaw that needs to be corrected. It will cause
ripples in our self-understanding as a gentile church, but those will
be good ripples that may erode certain church hierarchies and
structures, but it will get closer and closer to the heart of our
Messiah.
It is interesting that Christians, who want to know Jesus and God so well, never really try to understand the religion that he grew up in and followed his whole life.
It is interesting already to me that the term "phylactery" and not "tefillin" was used in this conversation. We are already seeing a de-Jewishness in this conversation. And the tefillin, from my understanding, is mostly worn in private during morning prayers (so a conservative Jew told me). I have never seen him wear tefillin in public, although he does wear prayer shawl, or tallith i think, underneath his clothes throughout the day.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard R. C. Sproul on there. He was talking about the nature of man and so on, and it sounded very greek in thought. Christianity grew up in Roman times, which was very similar to greek; but shouldn't we be more focused on the Jewish understanding of things? I think it is safe to say that their views would be more understanding towards God's views. Just a thought to throw out there.
@1: It is interesting. It's almost so obvious a problem, I don't
know how so many have seen it before (including myself)... why did/do
we have these blinders? Is more going on in this world than meets the
eye? ;)
@2: "phylactery" is from the quote from the Jewish rabbi. So we're
just going with how that started the convo. Commited Jews do wear
prayer shawls in public. I know several who do.
@3: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" :) I think we need both
kinds of thinking. Even the early Jewish "church" found significance
in how God gave truth even to unbelievers. AND I've even heard
whisperings that some of Greek thought actually was acquired from the
Hebrews through the trade routes, even several centuries before Jesus.
So there may be overlap.
Yet, despite all this, today I think it wise to get a grasp of the
Jewish thought of Scripture (in both Testaments) before seeing how the
Greek helps inform it or help us understand it more.
What I find deeply interesting is that the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah
is surrounded with Temple language. Jesus was the last sacrifice is a
deeply Jewish idea. It doesn't even have context for gentiles
unfamiliar with the temple. That is also why we don't see Paul using
temple language when speaking to an all-Gentile audience who lacks
Jewish context (Athens: Acts 17-- notice no temple talk in that
speech--it's the only gospel sermon to Gentiles in the New Testament
who do not have a Jewish background/knowledge).... I think that is
very telling for how we share the gospel, even today.
I get the phylacteries comment now. And yes, prayer shawls are worn in public, but phylacteries, from my experience, are more of a private matter - at least nowadays.
Finally, just to add to conversation, Pharisees were mainly laymen who were very pious and so on (according to John Stott and others I have read). While some scribes may have been in the school of the pharisees, the kind that Jesus would have encountered were mainly pious laymen I would assume based on the sermon on the mount where he clearly says that you must be more righteous than the scribes AND pharisees to enter the kingdom. The sadducees were the priestly order that really taught the law. I would assume though, that all schools had their fair share of rabbi's or teachers. The idea that Jesus was considered a rabbi may help us see the way Jews viewed Him. He was obviously still thinking Jewishly or they would have never ascribed that term to Him.
in general so we wouldn't know how a Jewish Jesus changes things...
I'm glad you're reading on it... it'll make you a brighter light, even
to other believers! Thanks for posting up.
I’d like to make a couple of points responding to Will.
Will, I appreciate that you are seriously considering these things, when many are not. I, myself, am deeply invested in these issues so I am going to shoot from the hip. But please understand that I really respect your searching this out. Sorry, but i’m too lazy to locate the exact paragraphs I will be referencing. I’ll reference by topic.
First, before speaking to Will’s points I want to say that, true to your (Dale’s) gift for distilling the important thing you (Dale) say:
“My own desire is that when Jesus returns we may actually recognize him…”
This is a profound point that bears highlighting (or, perhaps, shouting from a few rooftops, though I wouldn’t try it in the winter in Colorado). I think all Christians should meditate on this point: Who, actually, is Jesus? What is his identity?
Now to Will’s points:
1. Jesus the Pharisee
Dale did a good job speaking to the issue of Pharisees from Skarsaune. In almost all Christian circles I’ve been in, the Pharisees are seen as flat two-dimensional bad guys. They have been represented for many Christian centuries (in Passion plays and the like) as the incarnation of the demonic in human society. This is a gross historical error and simplification. There are two books both titled “Jesus the Pharisee,” one by Harvey Falk and one by Hyam MacCoby that show how many of Jesus’ beliefs and statements coincide with those of the Pharisees. I do not agree with everything in either book, I think they both have different serious drawbacks but can offer a needed different view on this subject.
In a course I took with Dr., Mark Kinzer (of U. of Michigan) he gave very good evidence that, in fact, Yeshua’s (Jesus's) views included aspects of all major Jewish factions of his day, though predominantly Pharisaic. He shared many spiritual and eschatological views with the Essenes who I believe developed out of the group who wrote the Book of Jubilees. He shared the high view of the Temple with the Sadducees, and he shared with the Pharisees many views about honoring the Law and teaching all of the people in Torah.
2. Judaism, Israel, Church
Will said:
“Here's the thing - by stating that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that believing Israel, through being a light to the nations, subsumed the Gentiles into them (and those nations being more numerous than ethnic Israel), we have to be ok with saying that Israel became the church, and those Jews who didn't jump on board the Messiah train became a fundamentally different religion. Judaism after the 1st Century was Rabbinic Judaism, which stemmed from Pharisaic Judaism, which was openly anti-Christian in nature.”
First, Israel is called a light to the nations. Where does it say “Believing Israel” is a light to the nations? Second, I don’t think that “subsumed” is a good choice of words, though I think I see what you mean. In Ephesians 2: 11-22 Paul gives the closest thing to his ecclesiology of Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles that trust in and cleave to the Jewish Messiah are “brought near” through the blood of Messiah (v.13). To what are they brought near? In v. 12 it is made clear: at that time you were separate from Messiah, excluded [by God’s law] from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenant of promise, without hope and without God. Now, through trusting in the blood sacrifice of Yeshua (which can only be understood through the Torah and Jewish history) Gentiles are brought near to Israel, become citizens and joint heirs along with the Jewish people. They are not brought near to a new entity, but one that God has finely cultivated over centuries of real honest-to-goodness messy human history.
When you say that Jews who didn’t jump on ”the Messiah train became a fundamentally different religion” you are betraying your Christian worldview that blinds you to seeing the fundamental nature of Israel. Israel is not a religion. Perhaps we could say that Judaism is a religion, but still not in the same sense as today’s Christianity. But the promises were not given, even, to Judaism. The promises and the covenants were made with Israel--Jacob and his seed. Israel is fundamentally a family, and, in that, a special creation of God for his ongoing eschatological purposes in the earth.
Here is a quote from Doug Harink (Paul and Israel: an Apocalyptic Reading, Douglas Harink, The King’s University College, Edmonton, Alberta, Pauline Soteriology Group, Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, November 2005)
You won’t be able to fully understand it without the context but I just want you to try to see Israel as a special creation of God for a purpose:
"Where is Israel in this story of creation, slavery and apocalyptic deliverance? We discover in Rom. 9-11 that Israel is indeed there, not as a bit-player in Paul’s account of the gospel in Romans, but as the original and irreplaceable, yet most difficult, witness to the truth of the gospel. How and why is this so? It is so because Israel as the called, chosen and beloved people of God is numbered among the creatures which God has brought into being by his own act – Israel herself is nothing less than a creation by the word of God. ?"
I understand that there are many complicated scriptural and theological issues this brings up that are beyond the scope of this blog. You will want to bring up Romans 2: “A man is not a Jew if he is only a Jew outwardly” and other such verses, but these need to be understood in light of the whole scriptures and in light of Paul’s eschatological views--the “mystery” he alludes to in Romans 11: 25-26, that Israel has experienced a hardening in part for the sake of the nations whom God also loves (my words), but that all Israel will be saved. If all of [previously hardened] Israel will be saved, who are they, if the Jews who didn’t get on the train are not Israel?
The result of your thinking about Israel and the church is this: “We no longer need Jews to have Israel.” If that isn’t supersessionist I don’t know what is. Israel is a nation, anethnos, a family of people created by God for a special eternal purpose. Israel is not a concept that can be attached to whatever spiritual purpose fancies us.
Wow, ok, lots of things need a response. Let's do this one at a time - I'm going to apply @subject titles to various ideas, other than paragraphs, to both Dale and Rachel (I assume that's the Rach of Rachwolf, sorry if I'm wrongly assuming).
@Pharisees - I should make this clear right now - I'm certainly not trying to villify Pharisees into a demonically human force - they are historically charged with creating synagogue, a good thing, as well as demonstrating how Torah can be lived outside of Temple, without disparaging the Temple's importance. I am however sticking to my guns that Jesus thought they were wrong, as I'm sure he thought most of the teachers of Israel were wrong on this one point, which I think the Pharisees emphasized more than others: They stuck to their identity markers as to create barriers with unobservant jews and gentiles - they said, "we're Israel - and everything that comes with Israel - you aren't."
Also, my original point was that Jesus wouldn't have necessarily garbed himself like a pharisee. It is precisely his 'universality' of teaching with Jewish sects (especially the essenes/Qumran sects - read a great article about how John the Baptist was probably Qumranesque - I'll have to find it) that would have separated his dress from that of the Pharisees, despite his teachings aligning with both Shammai and Hillel at times. Great stuff from everyone though, on this account - people will definitely learn lots reading these comments.
In regards to Skarsaune's studies on Pharisaism in the 1st century, we'll have to disagree - I think the work of the Pharisees was far more at work within the countryside than for what he'll allow (nearly all knowledge of Pharisees come from Josephus, 3rd Century Rabbinic literature, and the NT - all of which have their limitations) Again, I refer to Wright, though this time in his book NT and the People of God.
@phylacteries/tefillin. Ok, final note on this one. First, I'm going to have to argue on the point that while Deut. writes about binding to the head and hand, this doesn't necessarily imply literal binding as the words are to be on their hears as well. Joseph Telushkin, in his book, Jewish Literacy, states that while the Sadducees most likely took this figuratively, as did the medieval Karaites, Pharisees took it literally, demonstrating a difference in 1st Century thought concerning tefllin.
@Church as Assembly, not organization. Dale, I don't think this works. The term ekklesia is used far more often than just in terms of gathering within the NT. Paul's reference to the group of believers is 'the church' as a universal. Also, it seems clear that John of Revelation uses Israel in fairly non-ethnic terms.
@Israel as Religion - Rachel, what I think my statement about Israel as religion betrays more is my work in History of Religions (Cross, Alt, Gottwald, Collins, and more theologically, Moberly) than my own Christianity - I'm going to argue, because I honestly believe that the evidence is there, (from Jewish, Christian, and Secular Scholarly sources) that Israel's inception was multi-ethnic in nature - it was a religion that became a nation by subsuming all those around it.
Mosaic Yahwish took on the religion of the Patriarchs into itself as the Revelation of God to a specific people (See R.W.L Moberly's the Old Testament of the Old Testament) - not necessarily a single ethnos - for his work in the world.
I understand that Israel then became a nation with which God worked. I understand that it is through this nation that God then revealed himself to every nation through the coming of the kingdom of God through Yeshua Ben Yosef, the Messiah. Here's where my difficulty lies:
If the Church isn't Israel, than what is it, and what are we missing? Israel served as God's ambassador to the world for 1200 years (depending on who you talk to) - during that time, we see within the oldest extant writings of Israel - the prophets - the idea of a holy remnant of believing Israel. Israel survived after the Exile until the time when the Messiah came to them. Those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah then went to the nations, spreading the Gospel to them, including every Jewish aspect that was to be retained, since Christ redefined the Temple unto himself; the Apostles, under the Holy Spirit, abolished circumcision as an identity marker, repealed dietary law and exempted Gentiles from having to convert as one 'under the law;' and the NT gave us a correct interpretation of the Old Testament and its teachings. The Jews who were part of the Jesus movement, along with their proselytes, were named Christians. They took the name unto themselves, and especially through the work of people like Paul, Peter, and John, saw themselves as a unified whole.
In the coming centuries, we see, regrettably, less Jews turning to Jesus as Messiah, and more gentiles joining the fray, who were then persecuted by both Jew and Gentile. By the time of Justin, they have a chip on their shoulder, and turn away from witnessing to the Jews, and they begin 2000 years of pogroms, inquisitions, and protocols of Zion. Atrocious move on our part, obviously, but what tenets of Israel did we lose?
Or is this all about trying to not be Anti-Semitic?
We can't help but take their claims in the modern era - because we both think we are Israel. Even if we think they need to be part of this, which I do, to be sure, they don't think the same way about us. I think Jews will terminably see all kinds of Christian talk of covenant (Which Jesus says - so we have to) as supercessionist.
I'm rambling now, so I'll stop. Despite, what I've said, if I'm wrong I want to know. I want to know what it means to be 'fix the imperfection' that Dale spoke of beforehand, without ditching 2000 years of church history. I don't know how to do it, or even what the imperfection is. What I'd really like is to be able to sit around a table, have a few beers, and hash this out - obviously this is impossible, so the internet will have to do.
I hate beer but would love to sit around a table and talk this out. (I'm more the ginger tea type -- maybe a small glass of good red wine). I have no beef (another thing I don't generally ingest) with your treatments of Pharisees or tfilllin above. You are quite fair. These subjects are not of crucial significance to me. The concept of "organization" deserves more than a few beers (if I partook)--a very important discussion-- but i really got excited when i read this:
"If the Church isn't Israel, than what is it, and what are we missing?"
This is a topnotch question. This is THE question. It has profound and necessary repercussions for Jewish and world history. It is the question you might say my theological life revolves around (well, various forms of this question and its inverse). However, I am not sure I have the energy to write a deserving answer, blog-style. I am certainly too tired right now, but will try to get to it--I will at least speak to the specific areas of incorrect interpretation that you mention. Hint: You are erring by assuming that Paul's instructions for Gentile believers also applied to Jewish believers, when it is clear from the Apostolic Decree and many other places that Jewish believers were expected to remain Jews and keep Jewish observances. I'll give you a reading list tomorrow if I can.
-Rachel (maybe ginger beer?) (Dale, do you like beer?)
a lot.
Like, a lot a lot.
Okay, ginger beer it is!
There is a whole new school in Christian theology that you may not be familiar with. There are a number of scholars who are undertaking to understand Paul within his own historical context, particularly in relation to Jews and Jewish observance. It has been termed the “New Perspective on Paul.” Even this new perspective has a number of phases.
The traditional Christian view assumes pretty much the things you state:
“...the Apostles, under the Holy Spirit, abolished circumcision as an identity marker, repealed dietary law and exempted Gentiles from having to convert as one 'under the law;' and the NT gave us a correct interpretation of the Old Testament and its teachings. The Jews who were part of the Jesus movement, along with their proselytes, were named Christians. They took the name unto themselves, and especially through the work of people like Paul, Peter, and John, saw themselves as a unified whole.”
Instead, the “new perspective” scholars see much in this view that is contradictory with scripture. They are building from a base of understanding the Jewish world of Paul and the other apostles, rather than from church fathers and Christian writings. I am no scholar but the basic and crucial difference in this new scholarship is that most see Paul and the Jerusalem group as making a clear distinction between the obligations of Jewish and Gentile believers. And most do not understand the mission of the apostles as building a new body called “The Church.”
There was a basic assumption among all of the apostles that Jews were Jews and would ever remain so. The assumption that Jews participate in basic Jewish identity markers (such as circumcision and basic biblical kashrut) is so foundational to them that they do not even think to state it outright, but it is the underlying assumption of everything. It seems clear to me that Paul did see the structure of things having changed in some fundamental ways, but not in the ways the church has understood it.
The clearest place to see this "assumption of Jewish identity" is, perhaps, in the discussion in Acts 15. The whole discussion is about what the ritual obligations of the new Gentile believers should be. There is no discussion at all about changing the law of Moses for Jews. Verse 19: “It is my judgement therefore that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God…” Paul was at this meeting and approved. The whole meeting was called to solve the problem of Gentiles coming to faith. If the four obligations were specifically for Gentiles (as stated in the text) then logic necessitates that they were not specifically for Jews.
Paul objects to making Gentiles obligated to circumcision, not because he objects to circumcision per se, nor because he sees it as “outmoded by Christ” but because he understands God as being the “God of the Jews and Gentiles” not “the God of the Jews only.” He believes that Yeshua has opened the way (that was prophecied) for Gentiles to come in to the Jewish covenant as Gentiles. If all Gentile believers had to submit to circumcision they would be entering the covenant as Jews. Paul’s eschatological view requires a world of Jews and Gentiles.
This is too complex to detail here. But newer scholars have written on every question of yours that will come to mind: “What about Paul’s ranting about circumcision in Galations? What about his dispute with Peter in Antioch that is described in Gal. 2? What about the “weak” in Romans 15?”
By the way, nobody in the Bible called themselves Christians. There is even some debate among scholars as to whether anyone mentioned in the NT actually used the term "Christian" or whether it was a fellow named "Chrestian"--a known rabble-rouser. But in any case it was not a name the Yeshua sect self-identified with.
Here is a list of references for further study:
Authors (all scholars) you should read (they have lots of published articles as well as books):
E.P. Sanders
Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel. or others)
Markus Bockmuehl
Pamela Eisenbaum
Oscar Skarsaune: In the Shadow of the Temple (the book Dale referenced)
Mark Kinzer: Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People
Daniel Gruber: Copernicus and the Jews
I think this is only available on Gruber’s website: elijahnet.net
But I think the website is offline now while it is being retooled.
This book provides a frontal challenge to traditional Christian thinking and should be read.
Have fun!
Rachel
Love your blog. I drop in often but first time to comment. Keep it up.
glance at his site is intriguing. I enjoy see how others interact
with this important idea. But I still wonder if Vanderlaan lacks some
of the key components we've discussed through the thread of this
topic, namely Jesus being a Jew not only helps us understand the
"Hebrew" culture of the New Testament, but points us in a direction of
the Jews themselves which redefines a lot of how we think about
"church." That Vanderlaan is openly affililiated with 'reformed'
theology makes me wonder what he thinks about the centrality of the
Jews in the ongoing redemption of the Jews.
I appreciate your lurking.... and your posting! :)