The Last Word on the Matter
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Romans 7:12 NASB
Holy– I wonder how long it will take before Christianity recognizes that its caricature of the Jewish Torah is a gross error. Oh, I can probably answer that. Forever! Why? Because the existence of Christianity depends on an implicit anti-Semitism. Lloyd Gaston made that perfectly clear when he wrote:
“It may be that the Church will survive if we fail to deal adequately with that question [“Is the New Testament anti-Semitic?”], but more serious is the question whether the Church should survive. A Christian Church with an antisemitic New Testament is abominable, but a Christian Church without a New Testament is inconceivable.”[1]
That was decades ago. Then Wyschogrod explained Christianity’s abhorrence to the Law:
“For Jews, the Torah is the expression of God’s will for the conduct of the Jewish people. It is not only that. It is the telling of the stories that collectively constitute the history and self-understanding of the Jewish people. Also, an essential part of the Torah comprises the commandments which Israel takes very seriously. They deal with all imaginable areas of life, from the spiritual to the most mundane, and Israel tries, to the best of its abilities, to obey them. Juxtaposed against this view is the Christian view—or what many consider the Christian view—of the Torah as a law of death. . . Instead of being a gift of love, the Torah is a trap, a Trojan horse, which appears at first sight as a divine gift but which really turns out to be a potent poison that causes the painful death of those who place their trust in it. . . Christians place their trust in Jesus and are saved because they know that faith saves and law condemns.”[2]
“Christianity’s critical attitude to the law is based on the conviction that the law results in guilt rather than salvation.”[3]
That was also decades ago.
Has anything really changed? Do Christians actually think that the Law (Torah) is holy and good and righteous? I can’t imagine that they could given the definition of what it means to be a Christian. Why? Because they would be aghast at Wyschogrod’s remark that Judaism is not about salvation, at least not as Christians define it.
“While punishments of various sorts, including some very severe ones, are not unknown in Judaism, the stark options of salvation or perdition in the otherworldly sense are not at the center of thinking. In that sense, Judaism is not a salvational religion.”[4]
In the end, it comes down to this:
“If the Christian view of the law as a law of death remains in force, then the estrangement between Christianity and Judaism will prevail.”[5]
“ . . . this means that there are no ‘general’ or ‘universal’ paths that lead to redemption. Without a relationship to the people of the election, no relationship to God’s redemptive purpose is possible.”[6]
“Thus God remains inaccessible to all those who wish to reach God while at the same time seeking to circumvent his people.”[7]
And there is no clearer separation from the elect people of God than rejection of His Torah.
Topical Index: Law, Torah, Israel, Gaston, Wyschogrod, Romans 7:12
[1]Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah, p. 48.
[2]Michael Wyschogrod, Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 161.
[6]R. Kendall Soulen, “An Introduction to Michael Wyschogrod,” in Michael Wyschogrod Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 12.
When the Jews and the followers of Yeshua agreed to reject each other (yes, it was mutual, and started by the Jews, who, I am of the opinion that, because they were supposed to have a better grasp of the truth about Messiah, have the more blame for that rejection) they split the baby: the Jews carted off the Law and the Christians carted off salvation. Y’all, we need both; but it appears, after two millennia, that we are not going to get both unless and until we get back together.
The Law did provide for “remission of sins” (which is what salvation is: “saved from your sins”) by means of the sacrificial system, which did point to Yeshua. When Yeshua came, the salvation from sin (as defined by that Law) did not change: it’s just that there was no more need for the sacrificial system (sorry, Jews). That system was part of the Law that was a picture of Christ, but (sorry, Christians) only part of the Law. The rest remains.
What is salvation? It separates us from sin that ties us to the “second death”. What does that do for us? It qualifies us for eternal life as per resurrection from the first death (called “sleep” in Old Testament and New). I think people knew all the way back to Adam that a way would be provided to return people back to life forever (which is how we were created in the first place). If Enoch knew about the Second Coming “with ten thousands of His saints”, then everybody was told that there was going to be a massive intervention. If they forgot, I suspect it may have been for the same reason that the disciples could not believe – ahead of time, anyway – about either the crucifixion or the resurrection, even though they were told plainly about those, too. I have seen that people tend to disbelieve what they don’t see can be done. Incidentally, I suspect that Yeshua came, not because GOD ‘needed’ Him to die and be resurrected, but because we needed to see it to believe it. In other words, I think Yeshua on a cross was given to us for the same reason the animal sacrifices were: not because God ‘needed’ sacrifice to enact salvation, but because we needed the correct picture of what salvation IS FOR US so that we would be able to know at what level we needed to repent and at what level God was meeting us at. Yeshua on the cross was a BETTER picture (“better sacrifices than these). I think that because that would fit how love works: love does whatever necessary to meet the beloved wherever they are at. The Lover does what the beloved needs: not what they ‘need’. We were met. In that meeting, nobody has any more excuses of ignorance: neither Jew or Christian.
I passed by a church marquee yesterday that read “those who sling mud lose ground”. Isn’t it time we quit slinging mud (with our left hand, of course) and started reaching out the right hand of fellowship? Nobody – neither Jew nor Christian – has gotten any closer to the Olam Haba, instigated by the triumphant return of Messiah that Enoch was describing, in over two thousand years. Isn’t anybody going to start noticing that and asking why?
You might want to reconsider your understanding of “sin” after reading Wyschogrod. And you might want to rethink the idea that Christians ever actually understood “salvation” in the Jewish/Hebrew Bible.
I have tried to find a way to read what he says about sin online but haven’t found good access or summary yet. Could someone (George?) simply summarize his definition of “sin” for me?
P.S. I don’t think anybody understands salvation from God’s point of view; Jew or Christian; but I think I understand perfectly well, from my point of view, anyway (experience), the shift for me from stuck (“dead”) to free to choose in those places again. I also remember what it was like to regard death as the ultimate tragedy vs. looking at it as the threshold for judgment (setting wrongs – including death – right). What else do I need to understand about salvation? Eternity probably won’t be enough time to do that! And that is a thought that makes me happy, too.
I will be writing about some of this in the near future.
But Laurita, your words are precisely the words I object to. “the Jews”……. as though all the Jews were acting in lockstep. Furthermore… “the followers of Yeshua………” were most likely 100% Jews. Of course it was started by the Jews. They were 100% of whom Yeshua preached to, only the Jews could understand his message. If you said “many Pharisees and scribes…………” instead of “the Jews” but “the Jews” have been a whipping boy for 2000 years of bigotry for as many reasons as you can think and still are. Economic downturns, crop failures, infanticides, host desecration, losses in warfare, money lending at supposedly usurious rates, you name it. “The Jews are responsible.”
My understanding of the first couple of centuries CE was that both parties had problems with the Romans but in 325 CE Constantine and the Pope changed everything and all bets were off as the power and the glory combined their resources with the Pope eventually gaining the upper hand. Cue the dark ages stage left for the next 1000 years.
And while you are at it kiss Asia goodbye as well although Christianity had made a great start in both China and India.
I hope your project is making headway, mine is but the hot weather is no fun is it.
George, you got my tongue in cheek point: individual Jews and individual Christians have wreaked havoc all along. It’s not useful to blame the group they are in; it is wicked, in fact, I think, not to insist that those individuals take responsibility for their actions. When we blame the group, we hand them free passes they did not deserve.
In other parts of the world, Christians are being blamed today for all the same things we used to blame the Jews for, and they are being killed left and right for it, too. There are tens of millions of widows and children in single African countries right now in refugee camps; their men killed simply because they were Christian: those are the widows and orphans who survived. Where is the outcry (and religious action) for this? Are either Christians or Jews concerned, or is it not even a blip on a screen? I will take the outcry for the Jews of yesteryear alongside the persecuted in all countries in all times, including today. It’s wrong no matter who it is.
You know you don’t get to talk to about heat up there: the heat down here is the real heat! Try scaffold work on the baking side of the barn about 3 pm. My pond is dry: do you have water to jump in or at least sail on? I think you have all the real water where you are at. Don’t hurt yourself.
If YHWH is our father and Yeshua our elder brother, then surely Israel is our mother. Abraham Joshua Heschel poignantly pointed this out when he wrote, “A Christian ought to ponder seriously the tremendous implications of a process begun in early Christian history. I mean the conscious or unconscious dejudaization of Christianity, affecting the Church’s way of thinking, its inner life as well as its relationship to the past and present reality of Israel—the father and mother of the very being of Christianity. The children did not arise to call the mother blessed; instead, they called the mother blind. Some theologians continue to act as if they did not know the meaning of “honor your father and mother”; others, anxious to prove the superiority of the church, speak as if they suffered from a spiritual Oedipus complex. A Christian ought to realize that a world without Israel will be a world without the God of Israel.” Sadly, we are rushing headlong toward that end now. Did we gentiles learn nothing from the nearly 2,000 year absence of Israel from her land? Apparently only that we could do better without her.
The 5th commandment has a promise that in addition to a prolonged life that “it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee”. Once we want the reward of the law without the keeping the law. We covet long life, health, wealth, prosperity AND the land promised to the Jew in the millennial kingdom. If there is one thing Christians certainly have appropriated and immortalized from the Jewish culture it is chutzpah.
In true Christianity there is no dichotomy between the Law and salvation. To illustrate this, in the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, 1996) is the following definition under antinomianism:
“(From Gr. anti,”against,” and nomos, “law”) The view that there is no need for the law of God in the Christian life (Rom. 3:8; 6:15). It has appeared periodically throughout church history.”
This does not mean some things are no longer applicable—as Laurita notes about the sacrificial system, e.g.
And in keeping with the Title of Today’s Word…….There’s nothing else to be said.
Thank you Skip, for this post. Being surrounded by “Christian” mentality and disdain for everything else really beats me down sometimes. I’m encouraged to struggle on by your words.
Wyschogrod’s book is essential reading for Jews and Christians alike. I have read it twice which I seldom do. There are only 8 reviews on Amazon but they all give it five stars, something I have never seen. You will come away with a new perspective on the issues he touches on and he is eminently readable for such an academic as he is.
I agree with you, a lot is misunderstood and misinterpreted. I’ve been searching a long time for better understanding. I don’t know if I’ve found it yet, but, it seems as though some are onto things that point to the right direction on it. One who I believe has some good direction on it is Dallas Willard. Here’s an article that embraces a lot of what I lean toward. God is giving us a new heart – one like Jeshua – that makes decisions in line with His. Discipleship is apprenticeship to Christ – learning to live life with Him as He would if He were us, which is definitely practices that are transformative. To be in line with God’s kingdom is working with Him in His writing of the law on our hearts.
(Link removed. Outside URL’s are not allowed)
Hold on.
God has been revealing Himself to man, one at a time,
since the beginning. To put identity labels on these people
is what we humans do. What does God say? “You did not
choose me, but I chose you to go and bear fruit — fruit that
will last.”
That One True God has always had one way of establishing
a relationship with each individual: leave the love of yourself,
learn about My love for you, and lovingly obey Me in all you
say and do. Then, you’ll love others like you love yourself.
Net Net: God’s Law trumps sin’s law. Yeshua put the personal
“finishing” touch on the truth and power of that Law. But no
matter when in time you lived, God’s view of the elect was
always the same: the Family of God.
No labels necessary.
From the TW, “[T]he existence of Christianity depends on an implicit anti-Semitism.” I challenge this. First, I don’t find the NT ‘anti-semitic.’ I’ve not read Gaston, but I’m curious where he gets this notion. Second, one must separate belief from person. The term anti-semitic is about the person. Believing in one religion over against another is not about rejecting the persons of the other religion. And third, while there certainly were some Christians throughout history who were anti-semitic, this is hardly a requirement to be Christian.
cf. John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism for starters.
I just now looked up this work on Amazon. The subtitle exhibits the very point I made above regarding separating the person from the religion: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan And Christian Antiquity (bold mine). By reading the review written by Rick J. Strassman, it appears Gager’s criticism of the NT is centered on Paul. The review writer illustrates some of the points the author made, showing that, yes indeed, this is speaking about Judaism–the religion. Yet Paul cannnot once can be considered anti-semitic, properly understood. Or am I missing something?
I think Laurita is exactly right, and she has often said it, both sides are wrong, whereas I think Skip is unbalanced. He is quick to make a caricature of the Christian but not the Jew. But shall I start with questioning the murder of Saint Stephan? Was this Jewish Christ follower, a Christian anti-Semitic?
To call every Christian in the world, anti-Semitic, “Because the existence of Christianity depends on” (it), is as ridiculous as stereotyping every Jew in the world with anti-Arabism.
There is no doubt MAINSTREAM Christianity has much of its doctrine twisted, and their denominations have been diabolic. Many “Christians” are Christians in name only, just as many Jews are strictly Jews by genetics. So slinging mud at each other, as Laurita mentioned, gets neither of us anywhere.
In contrast, I like how Wyschogrod tempers his remarks regarding, Christians. He writes (above), “. . . this view is the Christian view—or what many consider the Christian view – of the Torah . . . ”
He is not quite sure, for do Christians really believe the Law is done away with? It’s obvious to me they suffer from a split personality disorder. As an RC school raised child, one minute they told me I was saved by grace, the next minute I had the 10 Commandments drilled into me and had the command to confess all my sins at least once a month on pain of going to hell forever. Now, we didn’t have to sacrifice sheep but the RC sacraments replaced some of the Jewish rituals of the Law, so they did their best to keep the Law Keeping going in their own illegitimate way.
For sure, no mainstream Christian keeps all of the Torah but, as pointed out, what Paul was trying to get across, was that it was the RITUALS of the Law that have been done away with. Don’t we all agree that no one can keep the Law perfectly? And that is why we die, because the Law, holy and good as it is for our own benefit, when justly carried out, demands our death. Therefore, in this simple understanding, the “Law” kills, and who can argue with that?
When I say Christianity depends on an implicit anti-Semitism, I do NOT mean every one who claims to be Christian is anti-Semitic. I didn’t say that. You did. What I said is that CHRISTIANITY, that is, the institutional Church and its doctrines and teachings is implicitly anti-semitic. I didn’t say “Christians are anti-semitic,” although, of course, many of them are and many have been explicitly so in Christian history. But let’s be clear. A religion that claims to follow the God of Israel but disavows Torah obedience, replaces the Sabbath and modifies most central beliefs of Judaism is anti-semitic. How else could it be characterized? Christianity is, by the way, anti-Islamic for much the same reasons. Why is this so difficult to embrace? Christianity is NOT Judaism and goes to great pains to demonstrate that it isn’t. Several significant scholars argue that Christianity co-opted Jewish beliefs to make itself legitimate in the ancient world, including treating the New Testament as if it were a “Christian” book. Let’s not get confused about what the average believer thinks (if they think at all). Let’s focus on the tenets of the faith, its core teaching, its expected practices. Then the difference is obvious, as Gaston and many others point out.
But, again, you are conflating anti-semitism with anti-Judaism. There’s a huge difference between these two. Distinctions matter.
Ah, so if Christianity isn’t anti-semitic but only anti-Jewish, then it’s okay? And if Christianity isn’t anti-semitic, then it won’t have any issues with Allah either, right?
With all due respect, I didn’t say Christianity was/is anti-Judaism. I was attempting to show a proper distinction between the two terms. Rejecting some tenets of Judaism, or even rejecting Judaism altogether, is not anti-semitic, in the sense of rejecting persons as individuals, i.e.,it is not tantamount to rejecting those practicing Judaism. In the same way, rejecting Allah or the entirety of Islam does not make one either anti-semitic or anti-Muslim. In fact, one can become an adherent to either religion without having been born a Semite.
[edited 5:29 for much needed clarity.]
I want to ask why Judaism did not embrace Yeshua’s followers if ‘true’ religion is all about tolerance (implied). I mean, the establishment was strongly anti-Yeshua from the first day. The early chapters of Acts are full of apostles being dragged before the council and ordered not to do anything in His name. They killed Stephen for reciting their own history to them and Saul put them in prison and had them killed, too. I think that if we use the modern religion of “tolerance” as the fruit to inspect for, all religions – including Judaism as well as the current establishment religion of Tolerance – are intolerant and exclusive by their very nature. But I want to ask, should we really be judging according to this (worldly) criteria? What is the point?
So it would seem that, one might be OK to call himself a Christian, but not OK to practice Christianity (?)
I think we are getting caught up in our terms. But as it has been said, whoever gets to make the definitions, wins.
I know what you are saying, and I largely agree, but if you mean the “institutional Church” when you say, “Christianity”, then why not say exactly that? I won’t come to any Churches defense, but I will to the defense of what I believe is true Christianity, – the following of Jesus Christ. I don’t like the term being hijacked to mean only what you want it to mean any more than I like the Catholic Church hijacking it and teaching me that they are the one, only, true, catholic, and Christian church.
If you think the terms, Christian and/or Christianity are offensive to Jews, than what politically correct term should believers, such as yourself, call yourself? I know you don’t like labels but what should one say? Do the terms, Messianic Christian, or, Messianic Christianity, make it OK? Or, do we tell the inquirer to read a certain book?
Here’s the issue, from my perspective. If I claim to be Christian, the label implies that I follow at least some of the major tenets of Christianity. Those would include, I imagine, the Trinity, single baptism, salvation only by grace alone, the abrogation of Jewish dietary regulations, the replacement of Shabbat and a revisionist interpretation of the “Old Testament.” I would add the idea that the Church replaced the nation of Israel, as this seems to be a well-documented historical position, but I suppose one could argue that it is possible to be a Christian and not believe national Israel has been replaced by the Church. So, whether I understand all this or not, my claim to be Christian associates me with at least most of these doctrines, historically and theologically. Of course, none of these are acceptable to Jewish orthodoxy, and, I would argue, none are consistent with the Hebrew Bible or with the apostolic writings. (I am NOT going to enter into another fruitless debate about the Trinity here). Thus, the label, whether correctly applied to an INDIVIDUAL or not, entails an association with ideas that I believe have little or no biblical support. It’s hard to imagine someone claiming to be a Christian and, at the same time, denying these doctrines. What would the label mean in that case?
This means, for me, that the text of the apostolic writers is NOT Christian. These men were Jewish believers in the Messiah, and it seems quite evident that they continued to follow Jewish Torah practices and did not reinterpret the Tanakh as support for abandoning these practices. Even Paul explicitly declares that he has always followed both the written and oral Torah. Since the Jewish Torah stands in contradiction to Christian reinterpretation of these practices, I don’t see how anyone can claim that Paul is a “Christian.” (There are, by the way, plenty of scholars who come to the same conclusion). Paul identifies the Messianic movement as a variation of Jewish practice (“the way”), not as a repudiation of Jewish practice. Please remember that there was no monolithic Judaism in these days.
It seems to me that if we want to choose any label, it would be the one Paul chooses – “the way, a sect of Jewish practice.” Clearly, anyone claiming to be Christian today would have a difficult time explaining how they could be Christian and still follow Jewish practices.
Of course, when “Christian” meant only “followers of the Jewish Messiah,” the issue wasn’t nearly as complicated as it is now.
There are very good reasons why orthodox Jews reject Christianity, not least of which is the treatment of Jews by those claiming the manifest destiny of the Church. But from my point of view, the real separating doctrine is the distinctive doctrine of Christianity, i.e, the Trinity, which seems to make a mockery out of the contemporaneous claim of monotheism. Both Islam and Judaism recognize this contradiction in terms.
If you mean “follower of Yeshua the Jewish Messiah” by the term “Christian,” then I would ask you to define what your term means doctrinally. If you find that you can’t embrace Jewish practice IN THE FIRST CENTURY and still make sense of the term, then maybe we both agree that the term has lost any sense of its original meaning as found in the few places where it is used in Scripture. Frankly, I would just as soon avoid the confusion entirely and say, “I am not a Christian in any sense of the meaning of the term today, but I do believe Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah and he is my Messiah.”
I agree with your position Skip and your last sentence which is why I do not subscribe to the self description of “Christian”. When asked in a polite discussion of an ethical issue a few years ago I was asked if I was a Christian (expecting my support for the issue which I did). I replied, probably not one you might recognize. Anytime I am pressed further I reply, I am a Messianic Believer and follower.
Too much baggage for my liking.
The followers did not name themselves: others called them “Christians”. It is descriptive: not self-prescriptive. If others look at us today, and extrapolate backwards at our history, and say “so that’s what a Christian is” who are we to argue? People look back at the history of the Jews and say similar things: they can’t sidestep their history of killing their own Messiah and persecuting His followers, either. So what? Do they then hold their noses and say “I am not really a Jew”? Of course they are still a Jew, even though they don’t like the term (which many of them don’t), because it is how OTHERS call (see) them. “Christian” may now be a historically loaded pejorative that we may not like, but does that mean that we insist that OTHERS call us something else? Jews have this same problem (for different reasons, of course).
It’s funny that the world insists upon using Christianity’s own claims (beliefs and way of practice) to judge a Christian. (Isn’t it curious that they don’t use their own?) Most of us fail most of the time; but, are they wrong to do that? If somebody holds their nose around so-called “Christians” are they wrong to do so? I do it to myself! I stink even to me! I agree! I don’t live up to that moral code very well, either! But, should I duck that responsibility, or repent? If I belong to a group with a horrible history do I, like Peter, say “I don’t know Christ”? Or do I repent to others for what Christians have done? Which is more responsible, as well as more honest?
Why not be honest and say, “You know, that label ‘Christian,’ is so loaded with misunderstandings and historical baggage and it really doesn’t express what I believe about Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, so, if you don’t mind, I won’t use it for me anymore. You can feel free to use it if you wish, but I have some serious doubts that if you knew all the heritage involved, you might elect to choose another word too.”
Unfortunately, the followers were “Christ” “way” followers. “Christian” means what the Acts ecclesia claims to be to the world. We don’t get to pick what the world calls us, after all. The title chose us: we didn’t choose it. Neither did we choose the history. What we see doesn’t matter: what matters is what the world sees. We define (by our life) the term: the terms do not define us. If we want to get Christ’s name back out of the mud, the world is owed an apology for what was done in His name, further: I think the term needs folks who live up to it: not pick another term. Many, many of those Christians did keep Torah and the Sabbath and went to the stake and oblivion, with records erased. The WORLD sees Christians killing Christians. Who cares what they chose to call themselves? Nobody! Somebody needs to redefine the term that the WORLD SEES. Nobody cares how we choose to see ourselves. Why should they?
I have not used the term ‘christian’ in reference to myself or what i believe in over a decade. Don’t miss it and don’t explain it.
i am a believer, first and foremost in Messiah and the cross.
So many things in my life culminate at the foot of the cross. There is no healing, no hope, no health outside of that spot.
And when you walk away from most folks after telling them that, what will they very likely be saying to themselves behind your back? “Does Skip claim to be a follower of Christ?” Check. “Yep, he’s a Christian.”
We’re probably on the same page. Thanks for the reply.
Thanks Skip, for the full explanation. I understand your position not to carry 1700 years of bad baggage but, as you have often admitted, there is an awful lot of good baggage during that time as well. What to call oneself is, by definition, a personal decision. (And, what others call us is their choice.)
True enough, it is an extreme uphill battle to keep using the term Christian and not be identified with the corrupt past and present but, I refuse to yield the term. BTW I notice that neither do the Jehovah Witnesses on their website. As many of us may know, they don’t believe in a Trinity, an immortal soul, burning in hell forever, or going to heaven, yet they call themselves Christian while other Christian denominations firmly deny they are Christian because they don’t fit their definition.
Enough said.
Christians do or do not live up to their own standards. We are being judged by the world on our own standards – not the standards of the world, mind you – and found wanting. Changing the name so as not to be associated with the failures is so much hubris in the eyes of that world who are STILL going to judge us by our own standards! Being called a Christian is what I am proudest of when I am really following Christ or when I am being associated with others the world calls Christians who are being hounded and tortured and killed as we speak in that Name. I am the most embarrassed when I fail that standard that Yeshua gave us, or when others who also call themselves His followers do or have done so. Families include, by their very genetics, the good, the bad and the ugly. (Only persecution has ever proved efficacious in cleaning up the family mess, by the way.) Changing the name does nothing: either we are following or not. This is not about our name, after all: it is about His. May I not be ashamed of that Name, and may He or my brothers and sisters not be ashamed of me, is my earnest prayer.
[I’m reposting this (amended a bit), which is in response to Skip @ July 29, 2019 5:05 pm, since it is not appearing on the site.]
With all due respect, I didn’t say Christianity was/is anti-Judaism. I was attempting to show a proper distinction between the two terms. Rejecting some tenets of Judaism, or even rejecting Judaism altogether, is not anti-semitic; it is not tantamount to rejecting those practicing Judaism. In the same way, rejecting Allah or the entirety of Islam does not make one either anti-semitic or anti-Muslim. In fact, one can become an adherent to either religion without having been born a Semite. And, all religions are mutually exclusive, with some tenets differing from all the others.
Craig and others a lot being said here…
I am left wondering as this discussion seems to flow from the Who Died discussion. The seed of Abraham. Was it literally the child Isaac or was it the fact that God orchestrated the conception and birth for a specific reason as the rest of the scripture implies the anointing by God before being conceived and brought into life. If this is the implied then we all seem to be stuck with the question.
Are we God’s children because we believe and proclaim Judaism or Christianity? Or are we God’s children because he called and anointed us personally?
That was Yeshua message. It is also reiterated by Paul and yes it is the life thread found in the patriarchs recorded in the scriptures…
Maybe the history and translations have created the paradigm to proclaim some entity to follow instead of us understanding only trust and wait on God. Those gone before played a vital role in furthering this message. We eons later may be understanding the message cognitively and not as God intended.
And yes I am acquainted with Jews who live by the law and those who tolerate because they are to forgive and guide but do not live by the law. The same from the Christian community. Strict church goers versus individuals making life changing contributions by also forgiving others but do not go to church…
May I add take a mustard seed and every time confronted with something ask if your faith is the size of the seed. God’s anointing is so simple in our lives that we just need to do it and the results will manifest his will. But playing the blaming game we keep creating the dried out fig tree or as was also recorded… We gather water in cracked vessels that hold no water because we have turned away from the living stream God (I understand his anointing).
May His kingdom prevail.
And Skip may your example of helping and aiding others inspire us to reveal this true religion… While we learn to understand the truth not the history… Through these discussions.
Given the ongoing issues presently with nested comments, I will here respond to Skip’s comment (@ July 30, 2019 3:32 am) regarding Christian doctrine, specifically a revisionist interpretation of the “Old Testament.” This is where I think both the Jewish side and the Christian side (for the most part) miss the mark. This is only a recent discovery of mine, which I posted about, and provided a link in reference to, in my most recent comment on the “Who Died?” TW. I’m referring to a proper understanding of ‘midrashic exegesis’ (I borrow the term from Martin Pickup), which clarifies this issue.
A reading of Genesis Rabba (B’reshith Rabba) 3.5, e.g., illustrates the method (sefaria dot org/Bereishit_Rabbah.3.5?lang=bi). Rabbi Simon takes the five instances of “light” in Genesis 1:3-5 and applies them midrashically, with each one individually assigned, in order, to a book of Torah/Pentateuch. (This seems even further afield from the methods employed by the NT writers when quoting the Tanakh.) Yet, according to Hebraic thought, R. Simon’s interpretation does no violence to the original text in its original context, i.e., the ‘grammatical-historical’ (G-H). In other words, the G-H, the ‘plain sense’ meaning remains, while the Midrash (I shall capitalize this term when referring to the specific corpus of the Jewish Midrash) is a separate interpretation. Neither negates the other.
In addition, the Qumran pesharim (pl. for pesher) use a somewhat similar method, though more circumscribed. The difference is that the pesharim re-contextualize passages from the Tanakh to reflect their eschatological views. Isn’t this very close to what the NT writers had done? Sure it is. Thus, in keeping with the thoroughly Hebraic method of the Qumran community’s ‘exegesis’ of the pesharim, and just like the (later) Jewish Midrash, from the Christian perspective the ‘OT’ remains in its usual G-H context, while the NT re-contextualizations of these passages stand alongside them.
I posted a link on the other thread, but I’ll post it here, as well, for convenience: NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE OF MIDRASHIC EXEGESIS (etsjets dot org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-2/JETS%2051-2%20353-381%20Pickup.pdf).
There is still an issue with the web site. When I click on THE LAST WORD ON THE MATTER TWO DIFFERENT ways I get two different results, one has 29 responses and the other has 36 responses (so I am told) but no matter what I do I cant read the 36 responses TW.
Hmmmm. Dont you just love technology George? NO!
I’m sorry about this. We are trying to update various parts of the web site and this might be part of the problem, but I don’t know for sure. It’s a big job and Mark is doing it just to be of service, so be thankful for him.
THANK YOU Mark! Hopefully your job will become much easier in 30 days. You deserve a long Sabbath rest and a sumptuous reward for your hard work and diligent efforts. Kudos and blessings both.