|
If Yeshua (Jesus) intended to create a new religion, he went about it all wrong. He aroused the suspicion, and then the hostility, of the religious establishment. He picked an oddball assortment of disciples, deliberately allowed himself to fall into harm’s way, left no writings of his own (an essential if you ever want to start your own religion!), and after making a good start, generally resisted performing further signs and wonders that were convincing the crowds to follow him.
Yeshua’s key message was not revolutionary, but simply the cry of the prophets before him: “Make teshuvah [repent], for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” (Matthew 4:17). His apparent aims were parochial “I have only come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). His followers generally had no idea of his Messianic claims.
Nevertheless, it is indisputable: Out of his teachings and life, a new religion was born. Christianity and Judaism are indeed different religions. Judaism the mother, Christianity a child. Is this what Yeshua intended? Did Yeshua intend to start Christianity? The witness of those who heard him teach, and of those who taught his teachings and concerning his significance to the world, is also conclusive.
No, Yeshua did not intend to start a new religion. Yeshua intended to bring people back to God. He intended to draw ‘all peoples’ to himself (John 12:32). John Lennon wistfully sang ‘Imagine’ there’s no religion. Was Yeshua all that more enamoured with it? What really matters is that we make teshuvah, turn to God, and lift HIM up.
Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, by Mark Kinzer,
Not since David Stern’s Messianic Manifesto has a book caused such a stir in the Messianic world. However, Kinzer is not even writing for a Messianic audience! Maybe that’s why more book reviews have been devoted to ‘PMJ’ than I have ever witnessed before. Love it, hate it, but don’t ignore it, has been the motto. No one has dismissed ‘PMJ’ out of hand. Not that his title invites an off-hand dismissal.
Once in a generation, it seems, a book comes along that challenges the existing paradigms of debate, and lifts conversation to a new level. Kinzer has done that. Let me describe in my own words what Kinzer says. First, he says that we need to look again at the role that Jewish believers play in the Church. He then argues that Jewish believers in Yeshua must retain their Jewish identity in order to be ‘Israel in the Church, and the Church in Israel’ (as he quotes Barth). As we maintain our identity, then the Church is served, because we link the church to its roots.
You might wonder - how is this controversial? It becomes just that as Kinzer contends that Yeshua’s disciples, the early Jewish believers, and the New Testament taught that Jewish believers are obliged to keep basic Jewish practice (circumcision, Sabbath, etc.). He makes a strong, although not airtight, case to this end. Ultimately, he encourages Jewish believers today to follow the example of our early church predecessors.
It gets even more interesting as Kinzer asserts that the Church is composed of both a Jewish and a Gentile Church. They are united, but distinct in character. What has raised the most eyebrows, however, is the statement he makes that the Jewish ‘no’ to Yeshua is actually a ‘yes’ to God! Part of his reasoning in this regard is that the Jewish ‘no’ to Yeshua, is not ‘no’ to the Yeshua that you and I know. Rather, it is (in my own words) a ‘no’ to the Jesus historically seen on crucifixes held by priests at the head of ravaging mobs on Easter Friday. That, of course, opens another can of worms – is the ‘no’ really a ‘yes’ to God?
Now that you’ve decided not to buy the book – let me recommend that you do. It is a powerful renunciation of ‘replacement’ theology, and gives much food for thought regarding the place of Jewish believers in Yeshua in the Church. In my opinion, we are finally beginning to see Messianic scholarship of the quality that existed before the Shoah, which annihilated Europe’s thriving Hebrew Christianity. Messianic writers are once again making a serious theological contribution to the Church as a whole. It’s time to sit up and take notice.
What about missions then? Is Messianic Judaism really Postmissionary? Maybe it is time for those of us involved in ‘Jewish’ missions to rethink our role in regards to the movement we have fostered. For all of us as Jewish believers, Kinzer gives us reason to think about what our Jewish identity really means to us.
PMJ is published by Brazos Press, 2005, 320 pages, softcover.
‘Totally unacceptable!’ That was the basic response of a respected friend in Seattle, upon considering the claims of scholars that everything Yeshua taught can be paralleled in ancient Jewish literature.
I can understand my friend’s sentiment. After all, we who believe he is the Messiah want to honour Yeshua (Jesus) in every way conceivable. It seems abhorrent to lower him in any way to the level of a common, itinerant, Galilean teacher. We agreed, he was so, so much more than that.
So why does the issue exist? It is undeniable that the verbal parallels can be found. In reality, we should consider that such parallels are unavoidable. Whenever people are speaking Truth, that which is right and correct, their message will be the same. The universe is governed by one set of principles, and that set of principles is the same for all of us.
In fact, it would be a surprise if parallels did not exist. Both Yeshua and his contemporaries were teaching from the same books. They taught from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, the same books upon which virtually all Jewish religious thought is based upon even today. Certainly, they both quoted the same Scriptures and both interpreted the same.
In addition, the era in which Yeshua lived was one of the most crucial in formation of what would later come to be known as Judaism. Many of Yeshua’s contemporaries are key figures in the Mishnah and Talmud. Not only did they teach from the same Scriptures, but they also taught the same people, in the same culture, in the same locations, in the same language(s), in the same time. Is it surprising that they might express the same truths in the same way?
Truth is universal. Yeshua was a particular man – even more than a regular man. It is in his Person, more than anything that his uniqueness resides. There never was nor will be again anyone like him. He taught with authority. That amazed his followers. Something about the way in which he taught was distinctly different from that of anyone else they had ever heard. Maybe it was a bit like hearing an author read his own poetry aloud – it is quite different from having a friend read it to you!
Yeshua had a moral authority. Some of the parallels between his teachings and that of the rabbis of his day are quite subtle yet revolutionary. Hillel said “”What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour” (Shabbat 31a). Yeshua said, “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). The difference is subtle yet profound. Think about it.
In the end, it was only a deliberately misconstrued teaching of Yeshua’s that resulted in his condemnation by the High Priest and the hastily convened Sanhedrin. In fact, his fate had already been decided beforehand, not because of his teachings, but because ‘everyone’ was liable to follow him (John 11:48). The issue, as always, was who he was.
Here is a quote from Hugh Schonfield, published in 1936 (The History of Jewish Christianity, p. 120).
'It could not be expected of the Jewish people that they would in any way countenance either the object or methods of the Christian propaganda, which to them, and not without reason, represented a disruptive force aiming at the piecemeal destruction of their racial integrity. We say, not without reason, because the "All one in Christ" partisans in the Church continued to use the beautiful Pauline conception as an axe to sever the Jewish Christian wholly and completely from his former co-religionists.
'The Jewish Christians themselves, especially the missionaries, partly inspired by zeal for their new faith and partly by fear that their sincerity would be called in question, as a rule have been outspoken#ken in denunciations of Judaism, so that they have become strangers to their brethren and have ceased to be associated with any Jewish interests even of a non-religious character. When not disowned through Jewish prejudice they have disowned themselves through Christian prejudice.'
So I put it to you... how far have we come in two millennia?
. |
