THE ROLE OF THE GENTILE WITHIN THE MESSIANIC JEWISH COMMUNITY (Maintaining the Distinction)

The following is a paper I wrote for a theology class.  It concerns (obviously) the role of the Gentile within the contemporary Church.  Please feel free to attempt to disagree.  "Iron sharpens Iron".

The Role of The Gentile at K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim

When Rabbi Jones assigned this task to me of writing a policy statement defining the role of Gentiles at K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim (The Congregation of Fish out of Water) my wife suggested to me that “Gentiles should turn on the lights”. Now some of you may have thought that funny. Others among you may not have gotten the joke. The joke is to underscore the truth that Jewish culture is and has been, ever since the time of the first diaspora, an evolution of change resulting from the impact of the culture of the people among whom the Jewish community find itself as it interplays with synagogue as well as explicit rejection of synagogue life. (Actually Biblically speaking, Ha-goyim were always having some sort of cultural impact upon ha-Bnay Yisrael even prior to the diaspora.) I referred to the “explicit rejection of synagogue life” because some Jews have actually found the synagogue distasteful or the rules and regulations associated with frumer observance to be too burdensome to practice. Consequently, some Jews, 'though educated in the Y'shoov's of Lithuania, Poland and Russia went on, not to be religious, but reactionary Communists or secular Zionists. Others intermarried and attempted to get lost within the culture in which they found themselves. Hitler demonstrated that that was far more difficult to accomplish than was first anticipated.¹

Jewish identity has even withstood utter rejection of Torah observance. The Infamous “Trefa Banquet of 1883 put on by the more radical elements of the Reformed Jewish Theological Seminary to shock more observant Jews by presenting them with shrimp cocktail for dinner, highlights this point.²

Getting back to my wife's joke... still others among you may have thought it offensive. That's because observant non-Y'shua believing Jews have at times in history employed “Shabbos Goyim” to perform necessary services deemed, nevertheless, to be “work” and thus, activities that are forbidden according to Rabbinic halacha for a Jew to be engaged in on the Sabbath. Although the notion of a “Shabbos Goy” is a contemporary inside joke among Jews of today, to illustrate the point that culture evolves, the Jews of Russia at the dawn of the 20^th century, by virtue of their poverty and constant confrontation with anti-Semitism wouldn't have even dreamed of the concept of a “Shabbos Goy”. In this context The term “goy” as the one who performs servile work on the Sabbath, has been and could be interpreted to be pejorative. Yet it is the product of the outworking of what might be regarded as a nit-picky Rabbinic halacha as it manifests itself in culture. Truly it has served to keep the Jew distinct but not necessarily in an admirable sort of way. But lest I digress, Rabbinic halacha is not the topic of this policy statement but certainly a worthy of a topic for discussion at another time.

The pejorative attitude referred to however, must be forbidden in our fellowship. Within the confines of K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim, Gentiles must be held in high esteem . In fact, according to Rav Shaul's admonition each of us is to regard one another as more important than him(her)self³. That rule must hold regardless of our skills, ethnicity, knowledge or background. In G-ds economy Jews are incomplete without Gentiles and visa-verse. Arguably one of the greatest Jews who ever lived, David HaMelech, who is unanimously regarded as a Jew if there ever was one, nevertheless, happened to be the descendent of a number of Gentile women. Ruth was adopted into Ha Mishpacha Yisrael in spite of the fact that her ethnicity, that of being a Moabite, was recorded as one of the most despised in Torah⁴. Another Gentile ancestor of David HaMelech, by the name of Rahab was instrumental in helping Yisrael, under the leadership of Yehoshua, to defeat Jericho. Going back even further, in the ancestry of David HaMelech, Tamar, a Canaanite, gave birth to Perez. David HaMelech, of course, was declared by HaShem, Himself, to be the ancestral father of HaMoshiach Y'shua. Clearly our righteous Messiah has a significant amount of Gentile blood in Him!

Our people were not alone in the wilderness after they'd left Egypt. They were accompanied by a “mixed multitude”. Who knows the number of mixed marriages that may have taken place during the ensuing 40 years?

Once in the land of promise, HaEretz, there were always Gerim (strangers or sojourners) living among the people. Moses had laid down certain laws concerning them. They were required to observe Yom HaKippurim⁵. The burnt offerings they performed were specifically to be conducted at the doorway of ha-Mikdal (Presumably as a deterrent to idolatry)⁶. They were to abstain from the consumption of blood⁷. They were to abstain from sexual immorality⁸. They were to abstain from consumption of meat that died of itself⁹. Despite these particular rules and prohibitions, the needs of the ger dwelling in Eretz Yisrael were to be met. Furthermore HaShem specifically expresses a passionate love for ha-Ger¹⁰. A Yisraeli can, if poor, sell himself to a ger however, if possible, it is preferable that he be redeemed from the ger by his family. This implies that ha-ger was able to acquire wealth while in haEretz¹¹. The children of gerim can be bought from their parents as slaves and, rather than receiving freedom at the time of jubilee which was required to be the case among the legitimate b'nai Yisrael, be kept as slaves from one generation to the next¹². The alien or ger could offer sacrifice in the same manner as any Yisraeli¹³. In essence, the same chukah that applies to the Yisraeli applies to the ger¹⁴. He was to observe HaShabbos.¹⁵ He was to observe Shavuoth and Sukkoth and to rid his home of chametz during Pesach.¹⁶

The rights and privileges of ha-ger differed from those of haYisraeli in at least two specific ways worth mentioning here. The first way was that unlike haYisraeli, his children could be sold into slavery throughout generations in perpetuity. The second way was that he was not free to observe Pesach. If he wanted to observe Pesach he had to submit to circumcision. This would, in effect, make him Ben Yisrael¹⁷.

The reason for this unequal treatment of ha-ger as opposed to the indigent Yisraeli, as far as slavery is concerned, is because haYisraeli had once been a slave in Egypt but had now been brought out of Egypt so that he can be a servant of HaShem. Such was not the case with ha-ger¹⁸. Does this rule apply to ha-ger today? Putting aside the obvious reality that enslavement is not relevant in a culture where slavery is not permissible, It ought not even be an issue in any Y'shua believing environment even in countries where slavery is practiced. Paul addressed this in his letter to Philemon, not commanding but pleading with Philemon to treat his runaway slave, Onesimus, as a brother in Messiah¹⁹. What may have been the case specifically for the relationship between Onesimus and Philemon, however, can easily be generalized to slavery as an institution. If indeed, Yisrael's redemption from Egyptian slavery by means of the blood of the lamb on the entrance to the home, was a foreshadowing of Messiah's blood shed as an atonement for anyone who was to apply that blood to his heart, than the Gentile (or ger) too, has now been bought with a price to serve the Living G-d²⁰. As was the case with haYisraeli being exonerated from slavery by virtue of HaShem's redemption on his behalf, so also should the Gentile who has been bought with the price of the blood of the Messiah.

Concerning the need for ha-ger to be circumcised in order to celebrate Pesach... does this apply to the Gentile member of K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim? In other words, should a Gentile, therefore, be circumcised in order to be allowed access to this rite and privilege and thus enjoy full fellowship with Jews as well as HaShem? The answer is definitively “NO”... certainly not as a result of thinking that by doing so they are fulfilling a commandment given to them by HaShem! Shaul warned adamantly against this. In Galatians 5:2-3 he said

“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”²¹

Circumcision actually predates Mosaic law. The rite of circumcision was actually given to Avraham Avinu in Genesis 17.

This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.  And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.  A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.²²

The rite of circumcision was to be conducted exclusively by males who were descended from Avraham Avinu upon themselves and upon all the males in their households whether they were natural born heirs or slaves. From the text it is clear that this rite is not limited strictly to Jews but to Arabs as well. However, it is clearly not to be conducted by Gentiles who are specifically non-Semites.

The death and resurrection of Messiah Y'shua, just as it freed ha-ger from perpetual slavery within the context of the Jewish boundary (case in point ha-eretz, the land), by virtue of His having purchased the Gentile, has likewise eliminated the need for the Gentile to be circumcised in order to observe ha-Pesach and inherit equal status in the kingdom of Ha-Shem as Jews.²³

This places the new ger... the Gentile, on a totally equal footing with the Jew. Both are free from slavery to sin²⁴. Both are free to enjoy unfettered fellowship with one another and with HaShem. And all of this was accomplished by Messiah having purchased both Jew and Gentile with His blood.

This, however, created a new dynamic among those who might be defined as HaK'hilat HaAm HaShem (The assembly of the people of God, or the ekklesia). As a result of this phenomenon debate has arisen over the next two millenia. Is HaShem through with the Jews? Are Jews and Gentiles supposed to become one “new man” and form some sort of amalgam called the Church?

When Judaizers came to Antioch demanding that Gentiles who had come to believe in Y'shua be circumcised, they were arguing that Gentiles, in order to fulfill their new found faith, had to become Jews. Yaakov and the rest of the ziknay b'Y'rushalayim, after pouring over the scriptures and hearing the testimonies of Shaul and Cephas with regard to their experiences with Gentiles receiving faith in Y'shua, concluded that the only things required of Gentiles was that they “abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood”²⁵. These four stipulations were included among the demands upon ha-gerim in Yisrael that we'd already looked at in Vayik'ra.

In order to emphasize the reality of this equality before HaShem, Shaul makes a number of assertions which can and have been historically misunderstood. For example, he says “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing but obeying the commandments of God is everything”.²⁶ He also says “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.” ²⁷ Elsewhere he says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Y'shua”.²⁸ Such texts are used by supersessionists to support their presumption that Jewishness is no longer necessary and the church is now one giant amalgam of the people of God. Dr. David Rudolph, in his dissertation “A Jew to the Jews”Contours in Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23”, argues that Shaul's writing style must be considered. He argues that Paul uses hyperbole. In other words saying “circumcision is nothing” is not to be taken literally but is language common to Shaul when he compares one thing to another It also happens to be a very Jewish means for communicating. In other words, compared to salvation in Y'shua, circumcision is nothing. However that doesn't mean that it is to literally imply that it is nothing.²⁹ Dr. Rudolph also argues that Shaul's use of the word for “one” in Galatians 3:28 can also have a definition similar to the Hebrew equivalent of echod.³⁰ Also, although Dr. Rudolph refers to Shaul's mentioning “male and female” in the same breath as “Jew or Gentile”³¹ in Galatians 3:28 such a phraseology, at face value, renders the assumption that the common interpretation, namely that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, utterly preposterous for drawing any definitive conclusions. It is important to note that what Shaul is saying in these texts is that before HaShem, all are equal before Him. We are saved by the same means. HaShem's love for us is so boundless that while each of us individually was yet a sinner, Messiah died for us.³² The rewards and privileges that we have before G-d are all the same.

A paradox seems to exist with regard to 1 Corinthians 7:19. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of HaShem”. This text in particular bears mentioning. Obviously circumcision is most definitely a command of G-d given specifically to physical descendants of Avraham and it was to be conducted in perpetuity³³. To the Jew it is an important command. Shaul's audience, here, however, is primarily Gentiles and he is continuously trying to dissuade them from the temptation of being circumcised. Why is it so important that Gentiles not be circumcised if Shaul strongly identified, himself, as a Jew? Furthermore why did he circumcise Timothy in Acts 16 if he wanted to discourage circumcision?

Yet, if Shaul is to be taken at face value at least one commandment of G-d is “nothing”...irrelevant. To the Jew how can it be nothing on the one hand, and yet Yaakov in the Book of Acts insists that Gentiles not be required to practice circumcision unlike the Jew who is required to do so? And if Jews are required to do so, does that not follow, according to traditional supersessionist exegesis that Cepha and Shaul and Timothy and all the other Sh'lichim were, in fact, not Christians? Nothing could be more preposterous.

It must be understood that to the Jew, nothing is more important than his identity as a Jew. Most Gentiles have no identity to give up in order to establish a relationship with G-d through Y'shua. A Muslim may give up being a Muslim but he still has a nationality to fall back on. He might still be a Persian or an Arab. On the other hand, many Jews are of the opinion that if they were to come to believe in Messiah Y'shua they would give up their identity. Church history has not failed at communicating this canard to the Jewish people. From the 1^st Counsel of Nicea where Easter was officially established as the replacement for Passover, to the 2^nd Counsel of Nicea where Jews who wanted to identify with their Messiah were required to utterly denude themselves of any trappings of their tradition or identity³⁴ the church has blatantly insisted upon taking stances that have served to rebuild the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile as well as Jew and his own Messiah.

Despite the apparent fact that being a Jew or being a Gentile “is nothing” Paul still identified himself in more than one instance as a Jew.³⁵ Furthermore why did he circumcise Timothy³⁶ and not Titus?³⁷ There was a noticeable distinct difference between the two. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus was Greek. He had no Jewish blood in him. Paul, while discussing the issue of marriage to illustrate a point that those who are married should stay married makes an aside statement that “those who are uncircumcised should remain uncircumcised and those who are circumcised should remain circumcised”³⁸.

It is evident that despite the reality that the body of Moshiach is “one new man” there is, nevertheless, an imperative to maintain a distinction between Jew and Gentile. However the existence of this distinction is becoming less and less obvious within the Messianic-Jewish community. Jacob Fronczak, in his essay entitled “Jew and Gentile – Blurring the Distinction” notes that Gentiles, in their process of attempting to live a frumer life-style prove to be offensive to many Jewish believers by “treading on their turf” so to speak.³⁹ Fronczak points to two schools of thought concerning this problem. One is held by Mark Kinzer who, based upon Matthew 23:1-3a argues that the Am Haaretz are to adhere to the teachings of the Rabbis who are the official interpreters of Torah.⁴⁰ Fronczak opines that if, as advocated by Kinzer, Jews establish a separate wing of the ekklesia in which they are free to carry out their covanental obligations as a uniquely Jewish body this would solve the problem of distinguishing between Jew and Gentile”⁴¹ However, this would not be beneficial at all if Gentiles were not allowed to continue to attend such congregations. Furthermore, what is or should be acceptable rabbinically halachic practices are still an issue fo debate.

On the other end of this spectrum is Michael Brown who argues that “if we listen and learn well [to Rabbinic Judaism], we will no longer have our faith!” Both scholars have a point. It is our opinion that Rabbinic dictates have played an invaluable role in the survival and culture of the Jewish people throughout the Millenia. Nevertheless, they are not haBisurah. They must be held onto loosely and especially Gentiles who might wish to indulge to excess be discouraged.

The ekklesiology of K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim therefore begins with a line in the sand. A Jew is by definition, someone with at least one Jewish parent who was accordingly raised by at least one Jewish guardian or parent. Anyone else, by this definition, is a Gentile. One might boast of having Jewish ancestry. One might be entirely Jewish but may have been adopted by Gentiles. Sadly, one might yearn to thus be identified as a Jew. A point that must be driven home at K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim is what Rav Shaul said... “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing but obeying the commandments of God is everything.” Giving heed to this admonition requires humility. Being Jewish, therefore, is no status to which one ought to aspire. By so aspiring, the Gentile places this as an idol before Moshiach. Furthermore, there is a utilitarian reason for this which will soon be addressed.

Earlier we made reference to ha-ger. Even as there was ha-ger in Eretz-Yisrael at the time of Y'hoshua, HaMishpotim v HaMalachim, there are gerim today in the Ekklesia. They are the Messianic Jews who, repelled by excessively frumer activities particularly of Gentiles, avoid the Messianic Synagogue in deference to the “Church” or the synagogue where halacha may or may not be encouraged to varying degrees (depending upon denomination) but where belief in Y'shua is discouraged. In most Messianic Synagogues one sees Gentiles trying to educate Jews concerning what it means to be Jewish. Hence, a Messianic Jew walking into a Messianic Synagogue for the first time or perhaps occasionally perceives that effort is being made for him to feel like a guest. He is not a guest. The Messianic Synagogue should be his home!

Now, exactly why was this specific line in the sand chosen? First of all, the need for the definition of the line has changed. Ezra and Nehemiah had a line in the sand. It was based solely on lineage irregardless of faith or relationship to HaShem. At the time of the return from exile Ezra commanded the “sending away of non-Jewish wives. ⁴² As a result of Hellenism, changes were made to Judaism so as to enable it to adapt it to the new world view posited by the cultural renaissance of the time. Techniques of exegesis were employed so as to harmonize scripture with a Hellenistic world view as much as was possible.⁴³ Consequently even as Hellenism sought converts, Jewishness had now become a religion which sought it's own converts whom Ha B'rit hadasha calls “Proselytes”. Many early Proselytes probably became Jews simply adopting a Jewish life-style.⁴⁴ Although the definition of a Jew was still relatively distinct, Hellenism had converted it into a religion and the lines of definition between Jew and Gentile had grown significantly less defined. After the destruction of Beit HaMikdosh in 70 CE, the definition of a Jew changed again. One's Jewish identity now had become a function of one's maternal parentage. Jews stayed married primarily within the community for the next 1500 years or so. Persecution as well as the door being shut to the “Christian” alternative helped to encourage this pattern. With prosperity and religious freedom, particularly in America, came intermarriage. Various denominations and schools of thought treated this growing phenomenon of intermarriage in different ways. All, however, have relied on some sort of a “conversion” in order to provide legitimacy to the marriage as being Jewish. On the other hand, there also is the phenomenon of the utterly secular Jew who marries a Gentile outside of one of the accepted religious communities. By definition, that individual is a Jew. He would probably be universally accepted as such by every branch of Judaism. Even if he allegedly became a Buddhist, he would still be a Jew... perhaps a “bad Jew”, but a Jew nonetheless. Hence, apart from Hassidism, most of the rest of the Jewish world is growing more and more hazy as far a definition is concerned. This phenomenon might play well into Mark Kinzer's line of thought which calls upon the more frumer and separated lifestyle as the means by which Jewish cohesiveness can be maintained.

Secondly, Conversion is not an option for the Messianic community. Contrary to the opinions of some “Messianic Rabbis”⁴⁵ an individual has already done as much converting as needed when He or she came to faith in Messiah. Furthermore, Jewishness and Judaism is treated as if it were some sort of honor. Being Jewish is no accomplishment. It just is. The derivation of the concept of conversion is t'shuva which does not mean changing one's religion. It implies repentance and turning one's life from attempting to live as one desires to seeking to live as G-d desires. Furthermore, just as taking on Jewish halachic practice became a fruit of Proselytizing during the Hellenistic period, Gentiles at K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim face the danger of exchanging their faith in Y'shua for Judaism and it's traditions which cannot save. Also, if Y'shua's declaration in Matthew 23:1-3a is, in fact, relevant today (It could have been relevant only for those in Y'shua's time) that declaration was given to Jews not to Gentiles.

Thirdly, the choice of this definition for a line in the sand is based on history and scripture. As we've already noted, King David was descended from Gentile women yet he was identified strongly as a Jew. Coincidentally, even as the definition of a Jew changed with Hellenization and the definition was to become a genealogical tie through the mother, Shaul recognized Timothy to be a Jew by virtue of the fact that he had a Jewish mother. Perhaps Timothy's parents had not acknowledged this reality or thought it to be important. Nevertheless, Shaul thought it important enough to have Timothy circumcised. He also saw this as a witness “on account of the Jews in the region.⁴⁶ Strictly by virtue of his birth, Timothy could rightly be circumcised whereas Titus could not.

Finally, as alluded to in Acts 16:2, “on account of the Jews in the area”, Timothy was circumcised. By virtue of the fact that Judaism changes and Jewishness changes with the ebb and flow of culture, politics, economy and the like through history, most Jews who no longer comprise the strictly religious community, and in fact, may have only a vague understanding that there might be a God, cannot be rigorously defined by Rabbinically ordained halacha. This halacha has, indeed impacted the culture of all Jews in one way or another whether we are cognizant of it or not. Indeed it has helped the Jew to survive history. Nevertheless, it is not rabbinic halacha that defines the Jew. Above all, it is his genes. Subsequently the Gentile will have a tendency to assume to the contrary that it is Rabbinic halacha that is decisively Jewish by definition, have little or no empathy for authentic Jewish life and attempt to teach the Jew what it means to be Jewish as Jacob Fronczak so accommodatingly pointed out. This is offensive to most Jews. On the other hand, the Jew according to our definition, has his pulse in one way or another upon the ever-evolving Jewish culture around him by virtue of his experience. Either he grew up in it or has at least one parent who grew up in it who influenced him by living it. It is this Jew who would better understand how to make liturgy palatable for the Jew who might attend K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim as well as the culture of the congregation as a whole. There is great debate within the Messianic Jewish community concerning what liturgy and observances are appropriate. This debate is liable to continue for a long time. However, it is this Jew who is best suited for determining that. Shaul warned Timothy about the dangers of enlisting a “new convert” for a position of leadership.⁴⁷ Nevertheless, such a one should be listened to. He or she is the most likely to have their finger on the cultural pulse of the local Jewish community. Gentiles should be willing to relinquish high profile roles for Jews who are qualified. That doesn't mean that a Gentile can't be an elder or preach and teach on occasion. Undoubtedly such a one has a whole lot to contribute. But deference should be given to Jews in those capacities. What K'hilah Dagim Michkutz LaMayim needs is Gentiles who have the attitude of Jonathan who knew that it was not he but David who was HaShem's anointed.

A biblical note to support the notion of primacy of Jewish leadership and high-profile roles, again can be found in Torah. The role of the Kohen was determined strictly by birth. It was a desirable role because it could be lucrative especially if one corrupted it such as was the case with the sons of Eli.⁴⁸ No one could play that role except a Kohen. Likewise the high-profile roles within the Messianic congregation should, if at all possible be held by Jews and Jews should determine the relevance of specific liturgical practices. It must also be noted that liturgy can easily be mistaken for piety and righteousness. The new believer or the unbelieving Jewish visitor can, accordingly get the wrong impression of what it means to have a genuine halacha with Y'shua, mistaking religious observance for genuine mitzvotai and ts'dakah.

As implied earlier, it is dangerous for Gentiles to engage excessively in traditional liturgy and practice. It is incumbent upon the leadership of the congregation to prayerfully discern, with the feedback of the other Jews in the congregation, what is of value and what is far-fetched. Undoubtedly this will serve as a platform for lively debate but with prayer and a spirit of accommodation, after the dust settles, agreement can be reached. The final product should be modeled by the Gentile elders as examples for the Gentiles to follow and it should take the path of a less frumer practice not more frumer. The vision described in the next paragraph should be able to serve as motivation for the Gentile to maintain his distinctiveness because he need to know the importance of his distinctiveness as a Gentile.

There's an interesting and certainly controversial but noteworthy outcome that results from the line in the sand proposed in this policy statement. It more adequately falls in line with what it seems Shaul meant by the “body of Messiah” consisting of many parts.⁴⁹ Imagine, if you will, two different arteries a Jewish artery and a Gentile artery each flowing towards a juncture in a main artery called marriage where some unite as Jew and Gentile, having Jewish offspring (according to our definition which has been determined Biblically). Others unite as two Jews, likewise having Jewish offspring. Others unite as Gentiles whose offspring remains as such. Eventually, according to this paradigm, anyone and everyone has an opportunity for his or her offspring to be Jewish. The identity of the body is maintained as new Jews, with each generation assume high-profile positions and sustenance is given to the body as Jews, by the grace of HaShem join the fold by receiving Y'shua. Even Gentiles will have an opportunity to kvell as they proudly look upon their son and declare “My son the Jew”.

Pamela Eisenbaum made an interesting point in her essay “Is Paul the father of Mysogeny or Anti-Semitsm? She wrote:

Just as in marriage, where people come together ritually in order to create a new family. Christ's sacrifice inaugurated the unity of Jew and Greek. “No longer Jew or Greek” does not, however, mean that Jew and Greek are no longer distinct from one another, so long as the paradigm of “male and female” operates in our reading of this text. The enactment of marriage does not deny the essential difference between woman and man; on the contrary, their complementarity has traditionally been viewed as essential to the creation of the family. Marriage binds the man and woman in a new kind of relationship that entails a reprioritizing of loyalties so that they can build a common life.

Similarly, Jew and Gentile coming together in harmony while remaining distinct is the goal of Paul's mission.⁵⁰

She noted that perhaps Shaul saw his role as facilitating G-d's desire to turn mankind into a family by which peace could be established.

While Judaism has historically attempted to maintain purity of the Jewish identity through essentially intra-marriage, perhaps Messianic-Judaism, by maintaining a line in the sand concerning our definition of the Jew, can hold onto it's unique identity which more approximately resembles the culture of the evolving non-believing Jewish community while including all members of its “body” as family, literally. It is interesting to speculate that this may, in fact, be the dynamic during the millennium. After all, Hosea said:

Yet the number of Ha B'nay Yisrael will be like the sand of the sea,
which cannot be measured or numbered; and in the place where it is said to them,
“You are not My people,” it will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.” and the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together, and they will appoint for themselves one leader,and they will go up from the land,
For great will be the day of Jezreel.⁵¹

When one is a part of a group of people that he does not merely reckon but knows to be family, he is most certainly less likely to feel like a fish out of water.

1. “The Dawn of the Century 1900 – 1910” Faith & Fate film series, Berel Wein Destiny Series
2. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Reform_Judaism_(North_America)
3. Philippians 2:3
4. Deuteronomy 23:3
5. Vayik'ra 16:29
6. Vayik'ra 17:9 The theme of abstinence from idolatry is also stipulated in Lev. 20:2
7. Vayik'ra 17:10
8. Vayik'ra 18
9. Vayik'ra 17:15
10. D'varim 10:18
11. Vayik'ra 25:47 ff
12. Ibid
13. BaMid'bar 15:14
14. BaMid'bar 15:15
15. Sh'mos 20:10, 23:12
16. D'varim 16:1-22
17. Sh'mot 12:48
18. Vayik'ra 25:42
19. Philemon 10-16
20. 1 Corinthians 6:20. 7:23
21. Galatians 5:2-3
22. B'reyshis 17:10-13
23. Galatians 3:28
24. Romans 6:17
25. Acts 15:20
26. 1 Corinthians 7:19
27. Galatians 5:6
28. Galatians 3:28
29. Rudolph, David “A Jew to the Jews – Contours in Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23”, p.29.
30. Ibid p. 31.
31. Ibid p. 31.
32. Romans 5:8
33. B'reyshis 17:10-13
34. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0430/_P8.HTM
35. e.g. Romans 9:2, Gal 2:15, Philippeans 3:4-6
36. Acts 16:2
37. Galatians 2:3
38. 1 Corinthians 7:18-20
39. http://www.hopeabbey.com/?p=532#comment-758801
40. Ibid
41. Ibid
42. Skarsaune, Oskar; In the Shadow of the Temple – Jewish Influences on Early Christianity, Intervarsity Press; Downers Grove, IL ; 2002. p. 39
43. Ibid p. 36
44. Ibid p. 40
45. http://www.ourrabbis.org/main/articles/on-conversion-mainmenu-32
46. Acts 16:2
47. 1 Tiimothy 3:6
48. 1 Samuel 2:5-8
49. Ephesians 2:11-16
50. Eisenbaum, Pamela; Is Paul the father of Mysogeny or Anti-Semitsm?; Cross Currents Winter 2000 – 2001 p. 521
51. Hosea 1:10-11

A Kosher Church Picnic

I

In Acts chapter 10, something incredibly monumental has taken place. The Apostle Peter has gone to the home of a Centurion by the name of Cornelius and shared the Gospel with he and his household who come to believe. As evidence of their faith, they begin speaking in tongues. It is now official. Gentiles can believe in Y'shua too! Peter had also brought an entourage of Jewish believers in Y'shua with him, who testified to the veracity of these events.

Acts chapter 11 begins with the reality that word of this small, seemingly insignificant occurrence had spread throughout Judea. This was not particularly appreciated by the Jewish believers who'd gotten wind of it. The notion that Peter would even so much as eat with uncircumcised Gentiles was anathema. Breaking bread, as it were, implied fellowship... commonality. Now that Jews and Gentiles both found commonality in Y'shua, the “wall of partition” between the two had been knocked down. It was now, not only permissible to eat but desirable to eat together.

But this notion did not sit well with the Jewish believers. In fact, it did not initially sit well with Peter either. And so Peter has to set up his defense to justify this new form of conduct. What led Peter to bring the Gospel to Cornelius and his family? Was his defense air-tight? Furthermore, an even more vexing question arose from this. Part and parcel to Peter's defense was the issue of kashrut. Is it now, lawful for a Jew to eat what Moses had previously forbidden? I'm still not sure that I have a truly Biblical answer to this question as I wrestle with it in the course of this paper, but as I do wrestle with it, perhaps I'll come up with a satisfactory answer. If not, I believe that I may impart in my Gentile brother or sister, the vexing nature of this problem and an appreciation for some of the struggles of his Jewish brother in Y'shua.

II

So, in Acts chapter 11 verse 2, Peter proceeds to give a defense for his having preached the Gospel to a Gentile. He begins by essentially recounting the series of events that led up to Cornelius' “conversion”¹.

He recalls how, while in a trance, he saw a vision of a sheet coming down from heaven, to where he was. In the sheet he saw all sorts of animals which, from their description, implied that they were unclean.

What was an unclean animal? Leviticus 11 gives the key to this question by defining what a clean animal is. It is any animal that has a divided hoof and chews the cud. Hence, any animal that chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean and was not to be eaten. Likewise, any animal that parts the hoof but does not chew the cud is also unclean and not to be eaten. Certainly, any animal that neither chews the cud nor parts the hoof, is unclean and not to be eaten. This is why it is common knowledge that orthodox Jews don't eat bacon or pork.

Leviticus 11 goes on to list specific birds that are unclean and may not be eaten. From the list, in summary, one can conclude that unclean birds are essentially birds of prey and carrion eaters. This may be what accounts for the reality that the Jewish mother is the most adept of individuals at cooking almost every part of a chicken.

Flying insects with jointed legs for hopping such as locusts, katydids, crickets or grasshoppers are regarded as clean. All other flying insects are unclean. This undoubtedly is why one doesn't read of the Prophet, Elijah or John the Baptist having a diet consisting of chocolate covered flying ants but they did, however, eat locusts along with honey.

Fish with fins and scales are clean and may be eaten. Any other sea creature is unclean. Catfish are unclean. Lobster, crab and shrimp are unclean.

Creatures that move on the ground on their bellies are unclean. Of particular note are snakes. Presumably because the serpent was cursed by God back in the garden and made to crawl on his belly, a particularly harsh warning is given against Jewish consumption of that sort of creature.

You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground.²

Condemnation for the consumption of these unclean animals was so great that if a cooking utensil had even the slightest contact with an unclean animal or the carcass of an unclean animal, the utensil was to be broken.

In light of this backdrop, with its utter and complete prohibition of the consumption of unclean animals, Peter recounts his vision. He sees the sheet with the unclean animals swarming all over it. Interestingly enough, it seems that, excluded from the list of creatures Peter saw were the creatures that moved along the ground on their bellies. Nevertheless, prohibition against their consumption was quite clear to Peter. Then he hears a voice telling him “Get up Peter. Kill and eat.”

This command which was given to Peter was sure to cause cognitive dissonance. He replied

… 'Surely not, LORD! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'

A retort came from the LORD...

'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'

This exchange between Peter and the LORD occurred three times before Peter was willing to acquiesce.

Even then, he still needed further evidence. Peter had seen a vision. No one else had seen his vision. Peter could very easily have been lying or hallucinating. Mohammed also claimed to have had visions. Yet no one else had been present to hear Muhammad’s conversations with the alleged angel, “Gebriel”. The test for Biblical veracity is much more stringent than that of Islam. Therefore who is to believe that this vision seen by only one man, Peter, has any manner of credibility? How can one man's vision possibly abrogate a set of laws whose authority had been attributed to God and whose traditions had endured for over one and one-half millennia prior to then?

The accounts in Acts lend some credibility to the conclusions drawn from Peter's vision. Scripture, for one thing, argues that a matter can only be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses³. Hence, Peters vision required at least one other witness in order to be verified. That witness, was Cornelius, the Roman centurion.

Prior to Peters seeing of his vision, Cornelius had had a vision. He saw an angel of God who told him to send men to Joppa to get Peter to come to his home. As Peter was thinking about the vision that he'd seen, the Spirit of God told him that three men had come to take him to the home of Cornelius the Centurion and that he was to, without any hesitancy go with them. Peter went with the three men along with other believers from Joppa who were also to serve as witnesses for what was yet to take place.

So, now we have two major witnesses... Peter and Cornelius. The resulting series of events, namely God's mentioning to Peter that men were coming to get him, along with the men showing up at the behest of Cornelius, serve as a further witness.

There is yet, a fourth witness... Peter actually showing up at the home of Cornelius. This was something that was utterly contrary to Peters nature. If Peters vision had not been real and Cornelius' vision had not been real the ensuing events would never have occurred. Peter attests to a prior aversion he had towards Gentiles when, in Acts 10:28, he says

“You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”

So, we know that Peter had a vision. But what was his interpretation of that vision?

It is apparent that at least one of the messages of the vision is what we'd already heard Peter say in verse 10:28. “But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.” Peter clearly took the vision of the unclean animals to be symbolic of Gentiles. This is clearly a Biblical understanding of this vision. According to the prophets of the Old Testament, the Messiah was destined to be a light to the Gentiles (e.g. Isa. 42:6). And in light of that, the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was also destined to fall. It seems, however, that it took this particular vision and the ensuing events to reveal this fact to Peter. That begs yet another question. From the scriptures, why hadn't Peter known that the Messiah was supposed to bridge the gap between Jew and Gentile in the first place? I can only surmise that Peter did not intuitively accept this because of the many biases that he carried with him into the kingdom of God.

III

The other issue, however, that sorely needs to be dealt with and to which I've already alluded is that of kashrut, or food. What may or may not be eaten? We know that Peter took the vision to mean that God's redemption through Y'shua was now available to the Gentile. The implication is that, along with this redemption, comes fellowship. As Paul put it,

For He (Messiah) is our peace, who has made the two groups (Jews and Gentiles) one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in Himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which He put to death their hostility. (Eph. 2:14-16)

The last verse of Acts 10 says that Cornelius asked Peter to stay with him for a few days. The chapter ends leaving one with a question. We know that Peter was asked, but did he, in fact stay? In essence, did he do as Cornelius had implored him, via invitation, to do? And along with that comes another question. If, indeed, Peter stayed, what did they eat? Did they eat vegetables? Did they eat lamb or brisket? Maybe they had bacon and eggs for breakfast. We really don't know.

Chances are highly likely that, in fact, Peter did stay with Cornelius and did eat with him. Peter doesn't say so, but he is accused of having done so by the Jewish believers back in Jerusalem. Verses 11:2-3 tell us...

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

The notion that this happened was very troubling to the Jewish believers. Rules against having fellowship with Gentiles were not without precedent. God, for instance, forbade fellowship with Moabites and Ammonites. In Dt. 23:3, He says, through Moses,

No Ammonites or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.

Clearly, this law was circumvented in the case of the marriage of Ruth, the Moabites to Boaz who surely lived less than 10 generations after the writing down of this Mosaic decree. A question arises here, as well. How does one reconcile the breaking of this Mosaic mandate? A number of factors came into play with the marriage between Ruth and Boaz. Without discussing all of these variables at great length, however, one factor does seem to stand out above the rest. Ruth was not like any of the other Moabites. God forbade association with Moabites because as Dt. 23:4 put it,

...they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you.

The Moabites had been cruel toward Israel as the people were about to enter the land of Canaan. Their cruelty actually extended to seeking Israel's demise. In stark contrast to this, Ruth displayed a kindness towards her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi, that we know to be legendary. The statement that she made concerning her faithfulness to Naomi is almost colloquial. When told by Naomi to return to Moab after the death of Ruth's husband to find another husband, her daughter-in-law's response was...

“Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Ruth became a model of faithfulness to God and of a Gentile's love for the Jewish people. She had literally given up her future because of her faithfulness to Israel's God and her mother-in-law. But this sacrifice on her part turned into a privilege because the resulting marriage she had with her deceased husbands next of kin, Boaz, made her into the ancestor of King David who was destined to be the ancestor of the Messiah, Y'shua. Hence, she became one of the great Old Testament women of faith. Key to this Gentile Woman's entering the assembly of Israel was her love for God and love for the Jewish people.

So with Ruth as our Biblical precedent, we see our centurion friend, Cornelius, inviting the Jewish fisherman, Peter, into his home to show him hospitality and “stay for a while”. What characterized Cornelius? One excellent description of him is in Acts 10:22.

“… He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people.”

What made Cornelius God-fearing? Why was he respected by the Jews? I couldn't verify that this was the same centurion or centurions who was or were in the Gospel accounts, but I think it's safe to say that he had the same traits about him. He was Roman in origin. Romans were reputed idolaters. Caesar was the God of the Romans. Romans knew nothing about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This Centurion knew nothing about the Gospel but he was God-fearing. He could only have learned about God from the Jews whom he'd been commissioned by Rome to govern. This centurion was not only God-fearing, but he was devout and prayed daily.

Having learned about Israel's God from the people whom he'd been sent to govern, as given to disputations as these people were, nevertheless, undoubtedly, the centurion had grown to love and respect them, if anything, for the impact that this God had had on their lives. One of the centurion accounts in the gospels described the centurion as having “built their synagogue”. Again, we do not know if Cornelius was that centurion, but we do know that he had won the respect of the Jewish people who knew him.

So now this God Fearing, respectable centurion invites Peter into his home. He and his family come to faith in Y'shua and are baptized. He invites Peter to stay and, of course, provides him with all of the hospitality that is at his disposal. So they sit down to dinner. Again, I ask the question,,, what did they eat? As I've gone through this exercise, I've still not answered the question concerning whether Peters vision specifically referred to legalizing the consumption of unclean foods. We know for a fact that it did refer to the entering of Gentiles into the family of God. That's how Peter had interpreted it. This, however, had a biblical (Old Testament) precedent. We saw it with Ruth. We saw it as the fulfillment of prophecy (e.g. Isa. 42:6) we also saw it with the mixed multitude as they'd left Egypt along with the Hebrews after the first Passover (Ex. 14-15). In fact Old Testament history is replete with evidence of a foreshadowing of the inclusion of Gentiles into the family of God.

There is no such evidence, however, that I can find, which foreshadows the abrogation of the laws of kashrut for the Jew. Y'shua in Mark 7:19, at face value, seems to call for the abrogation of kashrut. but that was likely a common misinterpretation of the editorial concerning Y'shua' comment, “In saying this, Y'shua declared all foods clean”. The interlinear Greek source that I used as a reference does not say “thus he declared”. Some have argued that that phrase was an editorial insertion The Greek text that I used reads...

Hoti ouk eisporeuetak autou eis tEn kardian all eiEn koilian kai eis ton aphedrOna ekporeuetai katharizon panta ta brOmata.

That NOT it-is-INTO-GOING OF him INTO THE HEART but INTO THE CAVITY (bowel) AND INTO THE FROM-SETTLE (latrine) it-IS-OUT_GOING cleansING ALL THE FOODS¹

"In saying this, Y'shua declared..." is absent from the text. And some have argued that Y'shua was commenting that the natural digestive process makes all foods, whether they'd been inserted into the mouth with washed or unwashed hands, clean.

Y'shua, here, is not addressing the issue of Kashrut but of a rabbinically imposed law laid down only a generation before Him, which stated that washing of hands was necessary to keep ritual uncleanliness from transferring onto the food that one was eating². Bowels, 'though objectionable, as a topic of conversation, were nevertheless deemed as ceremonially clean because they were the product of a normal bodily function and represented a significant and normal part of life³. Hence, Y'shua was saying that food which enters the body is clean because it comes out the same way as does all food. Even if the food is ceremonially unclean because one's hands had not been washed in advance, it is not that which defiles the man, but what is in his heart. Clearly the Greek text to which I referred excludes the insertion “Y'shua declared all foods clean”. The name, "Y'shua" is not even found anywhere in the sentence. There could be other manuscripts that would indicate otherwise but at this juncture I could only say that the phrase was probably inserted by the bias of Gentile translators. Hence, the laws of kashrut are not abrogated certainly by this text. If they had been, they would have been an admission of a gross inconsistency in the Bible because, unlike the promise of the Gentiles entering the kingdom of God through the Messiah, there is no Older Testament precedent for the abrogation of Kashrut, none that I've recognized, anyway. The argument that “Y'shua said it, therefore it must be taken by faith” is a poor one. It still requires an Older Testament precedent. Furthermore, clearly from the Greek, Y'shua did not say those words!

Another text which could be used for presenting a case that the laws of Kashrut had been abrogated can be found in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 which says...

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Romans 14:13-15

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Y'shua, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom messiah died.

IV

So what did Cornelius serve Peter for dinner?

To reiterate, he was a devout, God-fearing man. We also know that he was highly respected by the Jews who knew him. I would bet that he was a man who knew how to demonstrate good and tasteful hospitality.

I think that Romans 14 may be a key concerning the choice of foods that Cornelius used to entertain his guests. Of course, Romans had not been written yet, but the same Spirit that inspired Paul when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans was undoubtedly present in Peter and Cornelius. So let's take a brief look at Romans 14.

1. Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Y'shua, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom messiah died.16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves messiah in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean,but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I left out some verses because they dealt with things other than food, but in a sense, the whole chapter deals with issues of personal legality before God. In essence, it's a call for each individual to be perfectly persuaded concerning what lines he personally feels may or may not be crossed before he were to sin. Some people are vegetarians. They feel that killing animals for the sake of food is wrong. Others feel that eating chicken or beef or venison is perfectly OK. Paul would define the former individual as the “weaker” brother and the latter individual as the “stronger” brother. The weaker brother is weak because he feels that should he eat meat, he would lack the faith to believe that God would not condemn him for doing so. Hence, he would be engaging in sin. The stronger brother, on the other hand, is strong because he's more conscious of the liberty that God has given him through the Messiah.

According to this passage of scripture, The stronger brother is neither to flaunt his behavior before the weaker brother nor is he to attempt to coax the weaker brother into conducting behavior that the latter deems wrong or sinful. This, Paul argues, results in causing of the weaker brother to stumble. Likewise, should the weaker brother get wind that the stronger brother engages in what the weaker brother would regard as sinful behavior, the weaker brother is not to condemn the stronger brother for it. These respective attitudes call all of the members of the family of God to peace. We have mutual respect ultimately because the Messiah died for each of us.

So how would Cornelius have applied Romans 14 in his hospitality towards Peter?

Undoubtedly, he was sensitive to the fact that Peter had gone way out of his comfort zone to enter the house of a Roman centurion, a Gentile, no less. Having gained the respect of the Jews who knew him, undoubtedly he was aware of the laws of kashrut. In fact, he probably would have inquired of Peter what foods he liked or was used to eating. He probably knew that Peter still felt, at the very least, queezy about eating anything that was not kosher. In fact, to show good will, the centurion probably served him kosher food prepared from Peter's favorite butcher shop or delicatessen.

Actually, I have an even better idea. Cornelius was a Roman centurion. Rome is in Italy. So I'm convinced that Cornelius served Peter spaghetti.

V

So why do I write this long essay only to draw the somewhat dubious conclusion that Cornelius served spaghetti to Peter?

Allow me to emphasize... NEITHER JEWS NOR GENTILES ARE SAVED BY EATING KOSHER FOOD. Nor are Gentiles condemned for eating traif (food that's not kosher). I'm still not entirely convinced that these laws don't apply to Jewish believers, however... especially when one is seeking to assert his identity as a Jew. Yes, Paul does say, in Romans 14 that “All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble”. Paul could be including himself in this statement on the one hand, but on the other hand, he could be talking to an almost if not entirely Gentile ekklessia in Rome and using the words “all food” from the perspective of his audience.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm not entirely convinced that the Gentile believer understands the depth of the step of faith that the Jewish believer has to take to come to Y'shua. Immediately the Jewish believer is bombarded by the enemy with all sorts of accusations foremost of which is “You're no longer a Jew”. This particular accusation eats inexorably into the soul of the Jewish believer. And then the Gentile (the stronger brother) who knows that “All food is clean” seeks to unwittingly tempt the Jewish believer into conducting behavior (eating pork, etc.) that is literally an affirmation of that accusation (that he's no longer Jewish). Hence, by eating that ham sandwich, the Jewish believer may not be condemned but he is, in fact, providing evidence (erroneously interpreted or otherwise) that he is no longer a Jew.

I dare say, that such an invitation on the part of my Gentile brother, is in fact a violation of Romans

14 where Paul says 'If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom messiah died. (vs. 15).

As for me, I am obligated to guard myself against judging my Gentile brother for eating traif in my presence. I will however, be critical of an attitude in which he has not bothered to attempt to enter into my shoes and consider how I might feel about it especially when this attitude has prevailed in the church over the past two millenia (Case in point... the second counsel of Nicea declared that if a Jew chose to come to 'Christ', he had to give up his identity, his traditions and every last vestige of his Jewishness).

So how does all of this play out? Allow me, if you will, to propose two contrasting dialogues...

Dialogue 1

Gentile – “I hope you like ham. That's what we're having.”

Me – “If you have potato chips I'll have those.”

Dialogue 2

Gentile – “Do you eat ham? If not, I've prepared some corned beef for you.”

Me – “Thank you so much for your consideration. It was very kind of you to think of me. I hope it wasn't too much work for you to prepare the corned beef.”

Gentile – “Well, it was a little extra work. But you're worth it.”

Me – “No... God is worth it.”

It is commonly assumed that the opposite of Love is Hate.

On the contrary... the opposite of Love is Indifference.

As I've tried to wrestle with the issue of kashrut for the Jewish believer, I find it difficult to believe that the New Testament, out of the blue, abrogates it without any Old Testament precedent. Personally, I don't feel that I'm authoritative enough to say that Jewish believers should not eat pork. If one doesn't have love, not eating pork is of no value. Nor do I really think it's anyone's business to establish a doctrine on such an issue. After all, as Paul put it,

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves messiah in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

(Rom. 14:17-18)

Furthermore, I confess. I've done worse things in my life than eating ham sandwiches.

I do think, however, that the issue of kashrut carries with it a deeper dimension... namely an exciting way by which the church can demonstrate love and know that it is doing so. It is by overcoming these barriers that the church demonstrates that it is, indeed, one new man in messiah... Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:15). Hence, even with ham sandwiches, or pork present, the breaking of bread can genuinely be built around a foundation that will invariably make their fellowship into a truly kosher church picnic.

1. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar7.pdf

2. http://www.totheends.com/hands.html

3. http://www.totheends.com/hands.html

GOD'S LOVE AND HUMILITY - A Justification for the Deity of Jesus

The Bible makes all sorts of preposterous statements and claims.
It is filled with all sorts of verses such as the following...

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

1 John 1:1-2

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made... The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:1-3,14

Those verses imply that the authors claimed that Jesus was God. To make such a statement, however, was anathema to the Jews of His day. It gave rise to justification for their wanting to put Him to death. The following verse illustrates that.

So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:16-18

Claiming to be God or making oneself to be equal with God, was, indeed blasphemy and punishable by death. Indeed Islam, which came 600 years after the compilation of the New Testament, calls this "shirk"... idolatry, also punishable by death.

Nevertheless the Apostle Paul who'd been educated by the great Rabbi Gamalael, of his day, had the audacity to make the following statement.

For in Messiah all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Messiah you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.             

Colossians 2:9-10

Such seemingly preposterous New Testament claims about a man being God, or a plurality of God's nature, or God having a "Son" did not just pop up out of nowhere. A veritable plethora of verses hinting at this sort of claim pervade the pages of the Old Testament as well. The possibility of a plurality in the nature of the one true God is hinted at in the following where God speaks to Himself in the first person plural:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Genesis 1:26

Even the Sh'ma of Deuteronomy 6:4, the watchword of the faith of Judaism which declares the oneness of God, in its declaration of the oneness of God, uses the adjective "echod"... which implies a unity which is potentially made of many parts much as one hand is made of a palm, a thumb, fingers, skin, muscles, bones, connective tissue, etc.

Interestingly the Rabbi, Maimonodes of the middle ages, in his contention for the "oneness"of God, in his 13 Articles of Faith, used a different adjective "Yachid" which implies an absolute ONE. In so doing, he resorted to using a term other than the one used by scripture. Hence, one might rightfully ask the question "whom did Maimonodes regard as more authoritative, Torah or Himself"?  And there is one of a number of very important principals in hermeneutics (interpretation)... let the scripture speak for itself.  Don't infuse your interpretation upon the scriptures.

Such verses as the following, imply that God has a "Son"...

“I am weary, God, but I can prevail. Surely I am only a brute, not a man; I do not have human understanding. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I attained to the knowledge of the Holy One. Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know! Proverbs 30:1-4

Passages such as the following add leverage to the notion that there exists an individual that can manifest Himself as both exalted and yet humanoid...

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. Daniel 7:13

This particular individual, in fact, approached into the presence of the very Ancient of Days (a synonym for God) without even so much as prostrating Himself.

Indeed, the following verse hints of a "Trinity".

16 “Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there.” And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me, endowed with his Spirit. Isaiah 48:16

So, the notion that God could reveal Himself as a man, did not just come out of nowhere. There is Old Testament precedent for it. However such a notion seems to defy logic. It is no wonder that Muslims might question the veracity of the Bible. Judaism, itself, seeks to interpret Tanaach (Old Testament) through Rabbinic eyes and by so doing, avoid, like the plague, the possibility that God could manifest Himself as a man. I would argue that anyone, as the scripture says, "who has eyes to see and ears to hear" can read the text for himself and determine clearly what it has to say.

But even so, maybe this Book that we call the Bible is, in fact, nothing but good (or bad, depending upon one's taste) literature. Maybe it's not divinely inspired at all!

Despite the fact that the Bible has withstood all sorts of tests from scientific to archeological to historical, through well over two millenia, I would like to pursue a line of thought, which, to this day, I don't think has been adequately approached. Somewhat ironically, it is built around the question "What does it mean to be truly human?"

Let's put the Bible to the test. We've already seen the Bible verse Genesis 1:26 which begins with "Let us make man in our image..." According to this text, in some fashion, if the Bible is, in fact, veracious, man was made in such a way that he is like God. If that's the case, how is He presumed to be like God?

The three major monotheistic religions would argue that there are certain things about God upon which they can all agree...

God is omniscient - There's nothing He doesn't know.

God is omnipresent - He's everywhere at the same time.

God is omnipotent - He's all powerful... There's nothing He can't do.

God is self existing - He always was, He is and He always will be forever on into eternity.

God made and created things ex-nihilo, out of nothing.

Such assumed facts about the nature of God (to which I also subscribe) are certainly beyond human capability. No human knows everything, is everywhere at the same time, is self-existent or is all powerful ('though there are many humans who think they are).

This creates a definite conundrum for someone like me who argues that a God of that nature can actually manifest Himself as a baby and later as a man. How can the God who fills the infinite universe take up just 4 liters of space? How could an all powerful God have difficulty bearing the weight of a 30 km. execution stake? How can an all knowing God "Learn obedience" through suffering? (Hebrews 5:8).

My answer may not suffice to convince you. I can't do that anyway, only God can. I can only present my case. And as I've already intimated, it is wrapped up in the question of what it means to be human. Because according to Genesis 1:26 being fully human is, in some way, being like, or in the image of God.

So we humans can't be any of those absolute things that we know characterize God's nature but what about those absolute things that characterize human nature? I think that if we were to look at people today, or throughout history, for that matter, they are decidedly schizophrenic. "How?" you might ask. People are universally inconsistent.

Sometimes they Love. Sometimes they hate. Most of the time they're ambivalent.

Sometimes they're humble. Sometimes they're arrogant.

This "Yin-Yang" human response to what we commonly call virtue pervades all of our human nature... Sometimes we're patient. Sometimes we're impatient. Sometimes we're generous. Sometimes we're stingy. The list of virtues coupled with their associate vices is quite extensive!

I think it's safe to discern between the virtue and its associated vice as well. For instance...

Clearly Love is preferable to hate or indifference.

Likewise, we can easily discern that humility is preferable to arrogance.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I think that an objective poll would yield almost unanimous consensus that people would instinctively discern what the virtues are as opposed to their corresponding vices. Yet, in spite of our ability to make such judgments it's, nevertheless, apparently impossible to imagine that anyone could possibly be perfectly humble or loving all the time throughout one's entire life without just a little bit of vice sneaking in somewhere along the way. Such conduct, humanly speaking, would seem impossible to do yet not impossible to conceptualize.

We've looked at omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence etc. and we've seen that these traits of God are absolute. Omnipotence, possibly might be the easiest to illustrate. The physicist defines power as the ability to do work divided by time. Work by definition, is the mass of an object times the distance it is made to travel. Put mathematically...

Power = Mass X Distance

        Time

A rule of mathematics is that as the denominator (time) approaches 0, the value of the equation (Power) approaches infinity.  Hence, if God is able to accomplish any task in no time at all, He is demonstrating absolute power, or omnipotence.

But what if humility, for instance, were measured in absolutes? We pass judgment on individuals and say "this man is humble." This man is not humble". But by what standard can we make that judgment? What is absolute humility? Could an individual's humility be graded according to that standard?

One dictionary definition of humility is "Modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc." It seems from this definition that one must have importance or rank in the first place in order to be modest about it.

So what would be an absolute definition of humility? Allow me to posit a suggestion. You're free to accept it or reject it.

Absolute Humility - God (certainly the zenith of importance or rank) willing to give up all the rights, privileges and accolades that are associate with being God in order to become a perfect servant (the utter expression of modesty) on behalf of His entire creation.

Put into mathematical terms (as was the case with our definition of Power)

Humility = One's actual rank or stature

The importance that one holds onto that rank or stature

Therefore, how would we define Absolute Humility?

Absolute Humility = God (The highest of any possible rank or stature or importance)

God's willingness to relinquish "God-ness" to become a perfect servant

Again, as the importance of one's rank (that of being God) approaches zero, Humility approaches infinity.

This is entirely consistent with what Paul said referring to Jesus...

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, He made Himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:6-11

In reality, God is both our God or Lord and servant anyway? "Such blasphemy" you might say! But, think about it. Is it not God who gives us life? Is it not God who gives us breath and the food we put on our table? By doing so, is He not serving us?  Without Him serving us, we could not live.

Yes, we can declare the power, might, glory majesty and sovereignty of God. But part of that glory and majesty is caught up in the reality that He is THE perfect servant of His creation. If we lose sight of His servant-hood towards us, we can't even begin to scratch the surface of what it means to worship Him!

In both science and philosophy there exists a phenomenon called an "antinomy". An antinomy is a clash between two totally opposing rules which are derived rationally or even experimentally. In essence, two irrefutable laws are mutually incompatible. Emanuel Kant, for instance was able to rationally argue that time had no beginning. On the other hand, he rationally contested that time had to have a beginning. Both assertions are true, yet they both contradict one another and are mutually incompatible.

If we can't understand Time, therefore, how can we even begin to understand God?

If there's one thing that I know for sure... it's that I am not God. How could God, who governs the infinite vast universe, who's power, wisdom and knowledge is limitless, at the same time, take the form of a baby taking up 4 liters of space? How could this eternal God endure death and still govern the universe? I do not know the answers to such questions. I'm not God.

Yet, I know, for instance that God desires for each and every person that He's created to demonstrate the virtues that make up our humanness... humility being one of them. Furthermore, when we fail at manifesting this virtue, we are without excuse because God, Himself, showed us that it can be done. If Genesis 1:26 is true, therefore, by virtue of the fact that we were made in God's image, we are required to reflect that image perfectly. Hence, in light of our failure, we are deserving of nothing but eternal condemnation.

But God, as has already been alluded to, possesses absolute virtues that we humans inadequately display as part of our humanity which are really poor reflections of God's nature. And another one of the most prominent of these virtues is love. And for us, as we shall see, it is necessary for our well-being.

Hence, I ask... "What would be the definition of perfect love? Does God manifest this virtue perfectly as well?"

Might I suggest that perfect love be defined, not just as love for one's friends or family but for all people, including complete strangers and even the bitterest of enemies. This love has total empathy for the condition of even these enemies and is so self-less and concerned about the well-being of the "other" that it's willing to absorb the punishment that is rightfully due the objects of that love for whatever wrong actions and attitudes of which they might be guilty.

Put another way (according to our mathematical method of communication)...

Absolute Love = Willing enduring of punishment deserved by the one loved (times) Everyone

(since everyone is loved)

NOTE: As the number of objects of love grows larger, love grows larger.  In light of that I would say that "everyone" is a pretty large number!

Put another way... God manifested absolute love by being willing to endure the punishment deserved by everyone. And what is this punishment? From our discussion of humility we've concluded that lack of humility deserves condemnation. Now take that virtue and multiply it by all the other virtues and I think it's safe to say that our ineptness at practicing the virtues we were created and supposed to demonstrate leaves us deserving of eternal condemnation.

But Jesus, having taken on this condemnation Himself, rescues us from its consequences.

Paul alluded to this when he said...

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now He has reconciled you by Messiah's physical body through death to present you holy in His sight, without blemish and free from accusation

Colossians 1:21-22

So what are we to conclude, having said all this? God is ONE (Echod). This remains a constant, goes without saying, and is irrefutable. However, If GOD had not manifested Himself as an entirely human individual, capable of and, in actuality, perfectly practicing the virtues that inherently are part of our humanity, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH HIS NATURE.

It is commonly said that "to love someone is to know that someone". In Deuteronomy, we've been commanded to "love God with all our heart, with all our soul and with all our strength". But how can we love God if we don't know Him? Jesus said to one of His disciples "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father". Conversely, if you don't know Jesus there is no way that you can know God.

Furthermore, if we willfully choose not to know Jesus, we've willfully chosen not to love God and our eternal condemnation remains on us.

It is my hope that you would choose to know Jesus.

Abortion and making the right Choice

When carrying on a somewhat stinted and abrupt dialogue via twitter with one Andrea, with whom it was apparent that we disagreed on the issue concerning abortion, I posited the question, which according to twitter speak came off as the following...

@Andrea... Hmm Clinton wanted abortions “safe, legal & rare”

Since RvW, they're safeER (4 woman), legal. What's going 2

make them rare?

Concerning safety, the latest conviction of Kermit Gosnell for the untimely deaths of two patrons of his abortion clinic, as well as his intentional murder of at least two babies who were born alive at his facility surely bears witness to the fact that abortions remain unsafe. Objectively speaking, they may be safer than when they were illegal, but they are still, nevertheless, unsafe. I would also venture to guess that what was going on at the presumably legal abortion clinic of Kermit Gosnell, is merely the tip of the iceberg of atrocities committed in the U.S. Abortion clinics despite their presumed legality.

But I ask rhetorically, what will make these abortion clinics safer? Tighter regulatory controls? Stricter enforcement? Perhaps. But what about less business? Boy, if women just stopped patronizing these abortion clinics, the mortality rate would surely go down. Kind of like how abstinence would lower the possibility of pregnancy to zero. Happens almost every time. There was one exception when a virgin got pregnant about 2000 years ago.

What about legality? Obviously abortion is legal and abortion clinics are legal as well, presumably as long as they operate within specific guidelines. Does that mean that not going to an abortion clinic is illegal? Of course not! But what determines whether something is legal or not? I think it's safe to say that it is the result of the decision made by human beings.

But why do we need laws? Presumably they're to maintain order, and order is necessary for the maintenance of a civilized society. But in reality, what would happen if people just innately, instinctively did the right thing? Would there be a need for laws?

The Prophet Jeremiah addressed this issue, when speaking of a future time, he wrote

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”                                                 Jeremiah 31:33-34

Invariably people in that future time would do the right thing because they'd all have the law written on their hearts and minds.

But, I guess, in the meantime, we have laws... man made laws such as one which gives the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Actually, I prefer to call it “an opportunity to choose between doing what's right and doing what's wrong.

But what contributes toward this issue of rarity? Bill Clinton allegedly wanted abortions to be rare. So what will make them rare? Andrea sent me a Huffington Post link to an article that indicated that making abortions illegal raises their cost. The laws of economics indicate that lowering the cost of abortions would only make them more frequent. Hence, keeping them legal, it seems, only helps to make them more frequent (the antithesis of rare) because they'd be more affordable.  It seems almost as if legality and rarity are two mutually incompatible phenomena.

Another link that Andrea sent me was this link of an irate father to be whose wife was pregnant with a child who had a rare disease which was going to result in a serious deformity even in the unlikely event  that the child would survive.  I can empathize with the angst of this father, and undoubtedly, my wife could empathize with his wife as well, nevertheless, I sent her a link to a Nick Vujicic video. Nick is a well-known inspirational speaker, real estate investor, husband and father who was born without any arms or legs.

Nick Vujicic, although, he'd gone through his share of depressing moments, would never, in a million years, have chosen to be aborted. On the other hand, Aaron Gouveia, the father in the other video, wanted to abort his child, never allowing her the chance to make that choice for herself. Now, a number of scenarios could have happened from not aborting baby Gouveia. The baby could have died in the womb, a very likely event, eliminating the need for an abortion. Rather than an abortion, the baby would have been "extracted".  The baby could have been born and died soon thereafter, nevertheless, providing time with the child, giving the Gouveia's a time of sobriety concerning the issues of life, or the child could have grown to adulthood with a severe handicap, but with the potentiality of becoming the next Nick Vujicic. How amazingly wonderful that would be!

But the preemptive murder of this tiny child would eliminate all the variable possibilities that would happen with simply letting time take its course. And the notion that this preemptive murder is a viable alternative certainly would not help to contribute toward making abortions rare.  I don't want to appear sarcastic, but it is true that, given the possible scenarios, two of them could have resulted in what was the desired result... namely the death of this child.

And how many other abortions occur in this country in which the unborn child is accurately, I repeat... accurately diagnosed to be of a comparable condition as the Gouveia baby? I would bet that it's easy to say less than 1%.

So what about those other 99+ percent? Even with the extenuating circumstances such as rape or incest, the choice to murder the baby remains, nevertheless, a choice. And the remaining vast majority can very simply be relegated to being “abortions of convenience”.

So it seems that no one in the pro-abortion camp knows, or really even desires Bill Clinton’s alleged desire to make abortions rare. And let's face it Bill Clinton’s comments are decidedly disingenuous.

But let's take a look at some things that our culture is NOT doing to make abortions rare. 

It's taken the ten commandments off of classroom walls... including that pesky one that says something about not committing adultery. 

It's created a culture that scorns Christianity and scorns Jesus. It ridicules abstinence (which works every time it's tried) and encourages lasciviousness. 

Furthermore, it has abandoned virtue and those elements that build character in individuals and replaced it with the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain with disregard for the reality that this hedonism will, in the end, result in the magnification of a pain it could have otherwise avoided.

Hence, 'though the "Supreme Court of the United States" has declared abortion legal according to the Constitution, the resulting need for choice, as was determined by this decision, engages the individual to choose to make either the right choice or the wrong choice.  And the true or absolute legality of that choice has already been determined by the administrator of a divine court whose authority, in the end, trumps that of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Allow me to say, at this juncture, however.  If you've made the wrong choice, this supreme authority loves you, sent His Son to die so as to endure that pain that you and I've deserved.  However, He expects you to repent and seek to relinquish your will and values to Him.

Thanks for reading my blog and may God bless you.