It has been three months since I last blogged (sounds like I'm back in the confessional!)
Many things have happened during these past three months; but for the most part, the reason for my delay in continuing to post had more to do with studying scripture in depth than distractions of any other sort. I found myself very intrigued by the purpose of Paul's letter to the church at Rome which can be fairly well summed up his words in Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself…"
It seems the Jewish believers were judging the Gentile believers and the Gentile believers were judging the Jewish believers…probably something similar to what happens still today. Folks judging other folks based on what they "do" or "don't do." The problem is that they were judging each other's "righteousness" according to what they did or didn't do; when the truth is that they couldn't possibly have "earned" righteousness anyway. After all, all Christians know that it isn't about what you do, so much as about what you believe.
But that isn't entirely true either.
And I realized that while we all have read the book of James and know that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17), I think we might still be missing something else here. And my concern deepened when I realized that while it is easy to understand why some Jews are distrustful of Christians (the conflict there being about who Jesus is: rabbi or Messiah), still there is the troubling fact that even Jewish believers in Christ tend to keep to themselves, for the most part; even labeling themselves Messianic Jews rather than Christians. And for quite some time I wondered why? Was this just another form of denominationalism? But why? Why couldn't Jewish believers and Gentile believers easily co-exist in the same church?
And I realized it is because we Gentile Christians believe that the law and grace are polar opposites. But do Messianic Jews believe that way, too?
After a good deal of research, I no longer believe that the law and grace are polar opposites. But let me approach it from a different angle, one that I consider to have as its source a tradition of bias on the part of us Gentile Christians. So here goes.
There are Christians and there are Jews. But if a Jew comes to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah (his Savior), then that Jew is now a Christian, right? He is no longer a Jew is he? And, of course, we welcome Jews into our churches in the hope that they will become Christians….
….leaving behind their Jewishness, of course. Or at least keeping it in moderation, i.e., without the law.
Well, obviously, if they were born a Jew, like others are born Italian, or Mexican, or German, or Irish, they can't really undo that Jewishness now can they? The difference is that in the case of the Jews, their religion IS their culture. It is what set them apart in the first place. But once they become believers in Jesus Christ, we Gentile Christians expect them to set aside their Jewishness, especially when it comes to observing the law, which is what their entire lives have always been about (a practice that has actually diminished quite a bit in secular Judaism today). After all, it has been said, we are ALL in the dispensation of "grace" now.
I have found at least three camps of Christian thought concerning this issue of Jewish believers and their Jewishness in terms of continuing to observe the Law. I think the issue is worthy of deeper investigation because I believe getting the proper understanding will affect not only Jewish believers, but Gentile believers as well. And it is an understanding that none of us can afford to get wrong.
What must be avoided, some Christians believe (camp #1), is ANY observing of the Law, aside from the two great commandments that Jesus gave us in Mark 12:29-31; anything more would be contrary to "grace." [Read this verse in the KJV and tell me if we are told to ignore all other laws in favor of observing these two alone, or if He was just listing the two greatest ones as per the question He had been asked.]
Thus, Christians in camp # 1 say, it would be best if the Jewish believers became more like their younger brethren, the Gentile Christians, and thus, less like a Jew, albeit a "Christ-believing" Jew. After all, Paul instructs us to "lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him : where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:9-11) Is Paul really telling the Jewish believers to "put off" or "do away" with anything Jewish? Many Gentile Christians think so, but I am not convinced.
Other Christians believe that it is ok for a Jewish believer to observe SOME of the law, as long as they do not become too "legalistic" about it; for example, if they don't want to eat pork and shellfish, that's their choice. But thankfully, Gentile Christians believe, the Law has absolutely nothing to do with Gentile believers having to observe any part of the Law, so Gentiles are still free to eat all the pork, known for its great nutritional value (???), that we desire…and we can eat all the high-in-cholesterol shellfish that we want as well! We are under "grace" after all…not the "law." And no man can tell us what we should eat or not eat! Wasn't Paul clear enough on that point in the 14th chapter of Romans? [A chapter we have not arrived at yet, but when we get there, I expect your understanding might be a bit different than it is now.]
And so we Gentile Christians breathe a sigh of relief, having narrowly escaped….as the Law is SO BURDENSOME!
Hmm…then I wonder why John told us that the commandments of God are NOT burdensome? (1 John 5:3) That doesn't quite make sense considering that Peter told the Jerusalem council that they should not put "a yoke on the neck" of the Gentile converts. A yoke "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10) were Peter's exact words. He was talking about observing the Law, wasn't he? He was saying (contrary to John?) that the Law was burdensome, wasn't he; so burdensome in fact, that neither he nor his father nor his father's father, etc., had ever been able to keep it? [Actually, no he wasn't…but we will get into that later as well.]
Then we have the third camp of Christians, whose understanding I am leaning towards, I must admit, who believe that both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers were to, respectively, continue to observe or learn to observe the Law, and that "grace" is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, given to us to remove the "burden" of "death" (and the fear of it) that intentional sin (intentional or knowing disobedience to God's commandments) brings (unintentional sin was covered by animal sacrifices...if you read the Bible again, you will find that it was "intentional" sin that brought the penalty of death...and that was what Jesus died for). That would make John's statement fit in that the burden is not in being "obedient" to the law; the burden is in the curse that sin brought (death) when we were disobedient to God's law, which burden Jesus has now removed for our sakes.
What brought me to investigate the third camp of Christian theology is that I could never find biblical examples of Jewish believers living in anti-Jewish ways, even after Pentecost. I don't see the Jewish believers losing their Jewish identity and trading it in for a Gentile form of Christianity.
But I think this is enough for today's posting, and we should pick it up from here tomorrow. We will begin tomorrow by looking at many of the examples of the Jewish disciples maintaining their Jewish observances, even after Pentecost.
Many things have happened during these past three months; but for the most part, the reason for my delay in continuing to post had more to do with studying scripture in depth than distractions of any other sort. I found myself very intrigued by the purpose of Paul's letter to the church at Rome which can be fairly well summed up his words in Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself…"
It seems the Jewish believers were judging the Gentile believers and the Gentile believers were judging the Jewish believers…probably something similar to what happens still today. Folks judging other folks based on what they "do" or "don't do." The problem is that they were judging each other's "righteousness" according to what they did or didn't do; when the truth is that they couldn't possibly have "earned" righteousness anyway. After all, all Christians know that it isn't about what you do, so much as about what you believe.
But that isn't entirely true either.
And I realized that while we all have read the book of James and know that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17), I think we might still be missing something else here. And my concern deepened when I realized that while it is easy to understand why some Jews are distrustful of Christians (the conflict there being about who Jesus is: rabbi or Messiah), still there is the troubling fact that even Jewish believers in Christ tend to keep to themselves, for the most part; even labeling themselves Messianic Jews rather than Christians. And for quite some time I wondered why? Was this just another form of denominationalism? But why? Why couldn't Jewish believers and Gentile believers easily co-exist in the same church?
And I realized it is because we Gentile Christians believe that the law and grace are polar opposites. But do Messianic Jews believe that way, too?
After a good deal of research, I no longer believe that the law and grace are polar opposites. But let me approach it from a different angle, one that I consider to have as its source a tradition of bias on the part of us Gentile Christians. So here goes.
There are Christians and there are Jews. But if a Jew comes to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah (his Savior), then that Jew is now a Christian, right? He is no longer a Jew is he? And, of course, we welcome Jews into our churches in the hope that they will become Christians….
….leaving behind their Jewishness, of course. Or at least keeping it in moderation, i.e., without the law.
Well, obviously, if they were born a Jew, like others are born Italian, or Mexican, or German, or Irish, they can't really undo that Jewishness now can they? The difference is that in the case of the Jews, their religion IS their culture. It is what set them apart in the first place. But once they become believers in Jesus Christ, we Gentile Christians expect them to set aside their Jewishness, especially when it comes to observing the law, which is what their entire lives have always been about (a practice that has actually diminished quite a bit in secular Judaism today). After all, it has been said, we are ALL in the dispensation of "grace" now.
I have found at least three camps of Christian thought concerning this issue of Jewish believers and their Jewishness in terms of continuing to observe the Law. I think the issue is worthy of deeper investigation because I believe getting the proper understanding will affect not only Jewish believers, but Gentile believers as well. And it is an understanding that none of us can afford to get wrong.
What must be avoided, some Christians believe (camp #1), is ANY observing of the Law, aside from the two great commandments that Jesus gave us in Mark 12:29-31; anything more would be contrary to "grace." [Read this verse in the KJV and tell me if we are told to ignore all other laws in favor of observing these two alone, or if He was just listing the two greatest ones as per the question He had been asked.]
Thus, Christians in camp # 1 say, it would be best if the Jewish believers became more like their younger brethren, the Gentile Christians, and thus, less like a Jew, albeit a "Christ-believing" Jew. After all, Paul instructs us to "lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him : where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:9-11) Is Paul really telling the Jewish believers to "put off" or "do away" with anything Jewish? Many Gentile Christians think so, but I am not convinced.
Other Christians believe that it is ok for a Jewish believer to observe SOME of the law, as long as they do not become too "legalistic" about it; for example, if they don't want to eat pork and shellfish, that's their choice. But thankfully, Gentile Christians believe, the Law has absolutely nothing to do with Gentile believers having to observe any part of the Law, so Gentiles are still free to eat all the pork, known for its great nutritional value (???), that we desire…and we can eat all the high-in-cholesterol shellfish that we want as well! We are under "grace" after all…not the "law." And no man can tell us what we should eat or not eat! Wasn't Paul clear enough on that point in the 14th chapter of Romans? [A chapter we have not arrived at yet, but when we get there, I expect your understanding might be a bit different than it is now.]
And so we Gentile Christians breathe a sigh of relief, having narrowly escaped….as the Law is SO BURDENSOME!
Hmm…then I wonder why John told us that the commandments of God are NOT burdensome? (1 John 5:3) That doesn't quite make sense considering that Peter told the Jerusalem council that they should not put "a yoke on the neck" of the Gentile converts. A yoke "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10) were Peter's exact words. He was talking about observing the Law, wasn't he? He was saying (contrary to John?) that the Law was burdensome, wasn't he; so burdensome in fact, that neither he nor his father nor his father's father, etc., had ever been able to keep it? [Actually, no he wasn't…but we will get into that later as well.]
Then we have the third camp of Christians, whose understanding I am leaning towards, I must admit, who believe that both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers were to, respectively, continue to observe or learn to observe the Law, and that "grace" is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, given to us to remove the "burden" of "death" (and the fear of it) that intentional sin (intentional or knowing disobedience to God's commandments) brings (unintentional sin was covered by animal sacrifices...if you read the Bible again, you will find that it was "intentional" sin that brought the penalty of death...and that was what Jesus died for). That would make John's statement fit in that the burden is not in being "obedient" to the law; the burden is in the curse that sin brought (death) when we were disobedient to God's law, which burden Jesus has now removed for our sakes.
What brought me to investigate the third camp of Christian theology is that I could never find biblical examples of Jewish believers living in anti-Jewish ways, even after Pentecost. I don't see the Jewish believers losing their Jewish identity and trading it in for a Gentile form of Christianity.
But I think this is enough for today's posting, and we should pick it up from here tomorrow. We will begin tomorrow by looking at many of the examples of the Jewish disciples maintaining their Jewish observances, even after Pentecost.
2 comments:
Good to see a posting again. I am so glad you are back and have missed my study with you!
I took your advice and looked up Mark 12:29-31in the King James Version and several other versions as well. Under KJV, it states "The first of all the commandments is....And the second is...There is none other commandment greater than these." In the NIV and NLT, the begin similarly stating "The most important one..." and end as the KJV, "There is no commandment greater than these." Having read the verses, I would have to agree with you; Mark is not saying that we are to ignore all other laws, only remembering these two commandments as being "greater" than the others.
I too lean towards the third camp...believing we can learner through the law and that it is through "grace" (God's gift to us) and not our work in following the law that spares us from death and separation from God. If we were not to follow the law, then why would Christ say in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." If Christ is the fulfillment of the law, then to know Christ would be also to know the law.
I think the law was handed down from God as a way to keep his people healthy (refraining from certain foods, etc), keep order within his people (the "Thou shall not -- kill, steal, commit adultery..." laws), encourage selflessness (focusing on others - honor parents, not bear false witness again neighbor...) and finally that God, being jealous, does not want us to worship or fall prey to other gods by having graven images before us. I believe, as our Creator, God knows are makeup better than anyone, and He knows how short minded we are. If Christ is a fulfillment of these laws, then it would be wrong to ignore them.
Not sure if my logic is correct in all the areas above, I base this on nothing more than what knowledge I have gleaned from the bible and my understanding of it through the Holy Spirit. Would be interested in your thoughts and if I am on the right path.
So glad you are back....GW
You are right on in every point! So happy to see that you read that scripture and gleaned from it exactly what seems to be missing from modern-day theology...namely that Jesus named those laws as the "greatest" to observe...not the "only" ones to observe thereby neglecting the others! Great job! There is much more for us to glean from scripture, as this study continues...so wait for it! (And I am glad to back as well! Thanks for still being there to encourage me!)
Post a Comment