The 22nd May 1966, has long been a red-letter day in our diaries, for it marks the Centenary of the oldest of the Hebrew Christian Alliances that are now found in all parts of the world, that in Great Britain. It goes without saying that this special anniversary will be kept with great rejoicing by members of our Alliance. Its significance, though, will not go unmarked in other lands, for out of its work their Alliances grew. It will be a day on which we shall all unite in thanksgiving to God and for His blessing during one hundred years, and dedicate ourselves to Him afresh for whatever the next century may bring.

    The Alliance came into existence in answer to a need that had been felt by converted Jews for quite a long time. They knew that the baptism that brought them into the Christian Church had banished them from their own people, but they refused to accept that banishment; they were convinced they became true Israelites when they put their faith in Christ and were born again of His Spirit.

    Whilst in many instances they felt completely at home in the churches they joined, they realized the necessity of emphasing their oneness with their people, that it might clearly be seen that in Christ is both Jew and Gentile and they have been made one. They felt, too, that by standing together their corporate witness would make a greater impression on their Jewish brothers and sisters than any of them, scattered throughout churches, could make alone.

National Alliances

    Efforts to meet this need had been made before 1866. As far back as 1813, a group of forty-one Hebrew Christians formed an association to which they gave the name of Beni Abraham. This was at the Jews‘ Chapel in Palestine Place, the institution founded by the London Jews‘ Society (now known as the Church‘s Ministry to the Jews), to help converts by teaching printing and bookbinding. Its members promised to attend Divine Worship at the Chapel and to meet for prayer twice in the week, as well as to visit each other in times of sickness. Twenty-two years later, this association merged into the Episcopal Jews’ Chapel Abrahamic Society, which is still in existence, though in a very attenuated form, and it extends help as is possible to Jewish converts in need.

    In 1855, an American Hebrew Christian Association was formed in New York; we have a record of the inaugural meeting and the terms of the founding resolution, though we know nothing of its subsequent history. We note with interest the object of the Association:

…the promotion of the spiritual interest of its members, the relief of those of their brethren, who for confessing Christ are suffering want and distress, the stirring up of the dry bones of the house of Israel, and the rousing of the Christian Church to more earnest prayer and increased effort for the salvation of Judah.

    The members promised to know nothing among themselves save Jesus, their common Redeemer, and to cherish love to all that bear His image, by whatever name they may be called. Our object in the International Hebrew Christian Alliance could not be better expressed, and this true ecumenicity is our earnest desire as well.

    In Britain, the need for such a fellowship continued to be felt. What was wanted was something wider than the Episcopal Jews’ Chapel Abrahamic Society could possibly be. In 1865, Dr. Carl Schwartz, Minister of Trinity Chapel, Edgware Road, London – founded by another Hebrew Christian, the Rev. Ridley Herschell – formed the Hebrew Christian Union, and commenced to edit the first Hebrew Christian magazine, The Scattered Nation. He chose the motto that has been our watchword ever since, ― Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psa. 133:1).

    Next year came the great step forward: Dr. Schwartz and seven other Hebrew Christians issued a circular letter inviting ― as many Israelites who believe in Jesus as can be brought together, ‖ to meet in London. Eighty met on the appointed day, and unanimously resolved that a Hebrew Christian Alliance be formed.

    They explained the choice of the term ― Alliance‖ quite simply: ―As there exists an Evangelical (World’s Evangelical Alliance) and a Jewish (Alliance Israelite Universelle) a Hebrew Christian Alliance might also be formed.‖ Two things they emphasized: first, their identity with their people:

When we profess Christ we do not cease to be Jews. Paul, after his conversion did not cease to be a Jew; not only Saul was, but even Paul remained, a Hebrew of the Hebrews . . . As Hebrews, as Christians, we feel tied together, and as Hebrew Christians, we desire to be allied more closely to one another.

    Secondly, a fellowship that leaped over denominational boundaries:

Though the members of the Alliance belong to different churches, they all feel united in Christ, and they declare before their Jewish brethren that they have found in Jesus the Messiah, to Whom the Law and the Prophets bear testimony, that they have peace in His blood, and look for His coming in glory as the Hope of Israel.

    Small wonder that so soundly based a fellowship has endured and reached its centenary when more narrowly based associations have passed away.

    Yet another Hebrew Christian organisation came into existence in 1882. Dr. H. A. Stern, who had rendered great service as a missionary to the Jews in Bagdad and Constantinople, and had spent four-and-a-half years in prison in Abyssinia, founded the Hebrew Christian Prayer Union. The members promised to join in a bond of private prayer each Saturday, and to join in general prayer meetings from time to time. It grew quickly, but after a time amalgamated with the Hebrew Christian Alliance which thereafter was known as the Hebrew Christian Alliance and Prayer Union.

    At the turn of the century, the desire began to be felt for a similar Alliance on the American Continent, and a committee was formed in May 1901, the thirty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Hebrew Christian Alliance in Britain.

    Its labours bore fruit in a great Conference, the first Hebrew Christian Conference in the United States, at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland from the 28th to the 30th July, 1903. The British representative at this Conference was the Rev. E. Bendor Samuel, the father of the present writer. The decision was taken to organize a Hebrew Christian Alliance of America. Over the next twelve years, some preliminary conferences were held, but not till April 1915 did it come into existence. It, too, has flourished, and its Golden Jubilee was celebrated last year.

The International Alliance

    After this, the formation of an International Hebrew Christian Alliance was inevitable. The American Alliance conceived the idea, but felt that the proper place for the inaugural conference was London. Its members commissioned the Rev. Mark John Levy, a Londoner by birth, but an American citizen by naturalization, to journey to London and lay the project before the Hebrew Christian Alliance and Prayer Union. The suggestion was taken up with enthusiasm.

    It was widely felt that the time was ripe. The First World War of 1914-1918 had wrought tremendous changes in Jewry: it abolished the Pale of Settlement within which some 6,000,000 Jews were virtually confined, and it opened the doors of the ghettos.

    There followed a great turning from traditional thought and ways: some turned to Communism, some to a nominal Christianity, some found true faith in Christ. There were stories of ― seekers after God‖ in Russia, and ― Christ-believing Jews‖ in Hungary, which had come into existence quite apart from the witness of the churches and missionary organizations. Palestine had been snatched from under the heel of the Turks, and the Balfour Declaration had promised the Jewish people a national home in the land of their fathers.

    The call to the first International Hebrew Christian Conference, signed by Samuel Schor, J. J. Lowe, and E. Bendor Samuel, expressed the faith that faced that stirring hour:

We believe that the times of the Gentiles are being fulfilled and that the God of our fathers, according to His gracious promise, is about to restore Israel to her ancient heritage. We also believe that as Hebrew Christians, though a remnant weak and small, we have a share in the building up of “the Tabernacle of David that is fallen down.”

    Very gladly did the Alliance in Britain take on the tremendous task of organising this conference without having any machinery in hand, and its members rejoiced wholeheartedly when the conference met on the 5th September, 1925, and when the International Hebrew Christian Alliance was born. The choice of London for the headquarters of the new Alliance followed naturally. To avoid confusion, the Hebrew Christian Alliance and Prayer Union changed its name again and became, as now, the Hebrew Christian Alliance of Great Britain.

    The two affiliated Alliances (Britain and America) quickly grew to fifteen, but the upheaval of the Second World War (1939-1945), and the coming of the Iron Curtain reduced the number to five; more have since been added and there are ten today, spread over all five continents. These look to the Alliance founded in London in 1866 as the mother of them all; all have sent messages to mark the centenary day.

    It is not easy to review the work and witness of a hundred years within the compass of a short article, specially when by its very nature much has been done quietly and unobtrusively. It must suffice to contrast the world of 1866 with the world of today: how much has befallen the Jewish people in this century, how much they have endured, how different their circumstances now.

    Through all these changes the Alliance has held quietly on its way, its ranks constantly increased by men and women who have come to know Jesus as their Savior and Messiah, and who acknowledge two great loyalties, to Him as their Lord, and to their people, His and theirs. Its objects are unchanged; its ministry continues in deepening the spiritual lives of its members, in encouraging them to bear their witness bravely, in caring for them in times of special need. When so much has altered, it is something to have survived and maintained the testimony. Humbly we would say with the great apostle, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day.”

Founders and Presidents

    If we cannot say more about the long years of steady labour we may, perhaps, recall the honoured names of some whose leadership was a means of grace within the Alliance and to the Church as a whole. Amongst the founders were Moses Margoliouth and C. D. Ginsburg, both of whom were members of the Revision Committee responsible for the English Revised Version of the Old Testament issued in 1885, and Adolph Saphir, Minister of St. Mark‘s Presbyterian Church, Greenwich, and gifted writer and Bible teacher.

    The roll of presidents includes Maxwell Ben Oliel, well known on both sides of the Atlantic; Isaac Levinson, secretary of the British Jews Society; and David Baron and C. A. Schonberger, founders of the Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel.

    The list continues with Samuel Schor, also remembered for his Palestine exhibitions that brought a knowledge of the Holy Land to many before it was possible to visit the country as easily as it is today. Serving as well, were E. Bendor Samuel, who had previously served for many years as secretary; I. E. Davidson of the Barbican mission to the Jews; and H. C. Carpenter, who before his retirement had been president of the Polish Hebrew Christian Alliance. Dr. Arnold Frank was a loved vice- president.

    The recital of these names gives some idea of the caliber of those who created and maintained the Alliance, as well as of the breadth of the knowledge and experience they brought to it. They are an inspiration to us today.

Looking Ahead

    And what of the future? The aims of 1866 remain those of 1966. The years ahead may bring greater changes even than those behind, but until the glad day comes when all Israel shall be saved, those aims will remain.

    Neither a church nor a missionary society, neither a congregation nor a sect, we are a fellowship in Christ, ready to help one another spiritually, and if needs be, materially too, the better to bear our God-given witness towards our Jewish brethren, and within the Christian Church.

    To the former, we confess ― “we have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the prophets did write, Jesus”; to the latter we offer visible proof that ― “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew,”1 that ― “at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”2 We celebrate the Centenary with humble gratitude and with a renewed consecration, and we joice that in that gratitude and consecration so many Christian friends throughout the country share.

___________
1 Romans 11:2

2 Romans 11:5

    The Balfour Declaration is considered by many to be the seminal milestone in the creation of the modern nation of Israel. This assumption is widely accepted by Jews, Christians and even Arabs. Do the facts support the conclusion that Britain made a magnanimous, selfless show of support for the persecuted and oppressed Jewish masses, with every intention of assisting in the creation of a modern Jewish state?

    On November 2, 1917, the foreign secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour, proclaimed on behalf of the British government the nation’s commitment and intention to support and facilitate a homeland in Palestine for the 2,000-year, stateless Jewish people. At the time of Lord Balfour’s public proclamation, Britain was involved in the very bloody Great War, World War I. The United States, still a fledgling nation in historic, European terms, avoided entry into this war for years, considering it a purely European matter. The predominant personal opinion of the majority of British officials, including the War Department, Colonial Office, and Foreign Office, was almost, if not completely, hostile to the Jewish people. They were intensely opposed to the creation of a modern Jewish state, especially in Palestine.

    In light of such hostility in the key compartments of the British government, why did they ever permit the proclamation to be issued? In short, the negative voices were silenced. For one thing, the case was made among key British dignitaries that such a promise to world Jewry, as given in the Balfour Declaration, would create support in the American Jewish community. The “powerful American Jews,” it was argued, would pressure their government to get involved in the European conflict. In fact, within six months of the public Balfour proclamation, the United States did enter World War I. Secondly, British officials obstinately opposed to assisting the Jewish people in any way, were also persuaded there would be many opportunities to obstruct, delay and even block the fulfillment of the stated intent of the proclamation. This would be accomplished through the time-honored tradition of “bureaucracy.”

    Upon the conclusion of the war, the victorious allies – primarily the British and the French – began to chop up the spoils of war. This included the vast land holdings of the Ottoman Turks, who had made the imprudent decision of siding with the losing Germans. The French coveted the land of Palestine, but the British cited the Balfour Declaration as the motivation and justification for Britain receiving this vast area. Besides, the French especially desired the area that was to become Syria. The parties agreed.

    Thereupon, the British presented their case to the newly formed League of Nations, requesting the League to grant the Mandate (an International trusteeship), so Britain could implement the goals of the previously issued Balfour promise. Based upon this British commitment to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the League of Nations granted the “Mandate of Palestine,” on July 24, 1922.

    Meanwhile back in Palestine, General Allenby and his British War Department staff had already begun to neutralize, dilute, and in every way possible, countermand the Balfour policy. Official communications sent from Palestine attempted to persuade the Home Office government to withdraw the Declaration. As the logic went, the war was over, the British were in control of Palestine, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and there was no longer a reason to follow through with the ill-advised Balfour promise.

    Once the League of Nations granted the Mandate to Britain, all legal authority over Palestine passed to the anti-Jewish voices within the War Department, Colonial Office, and Foreign Office. This legal authority was used almost immediately to successfully obstruct and prevent any meaningful immigration of the millions of persecuted, and politically harassed, European Jews from entering Palestine.

    In 1939, on the very eve of WWII, and what was to become Hitler’s “final solution to the Jewish problem,” the British government strictly exercised its Mandate authority. Britain set unbending limits upon Jewish immigration to Palestine of scarcely 10,000 persons per year for the upcoming, five-year period from 1940-45. This was the same period of time when over six-million European Jews would suffer slaughter at Hitler’s hand. Even when confronted with proof of the mass exterminations, Britain adamantly refused to relax the barriers to entry for Jewish refugees.

 Conclusion

• The British Balfour Declaration promised a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.

• Britain requested, and was granted, a legal Mandate from the League of Nations in July 1922, over vast lands of the Middle East and Palestine. Its professed purpose was to fulfill the promise of the Balfour Declaration. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Mandate was granted by the League.

• The Mandate’s authority was used instead as legal cover to obstruct, prevent and neutralize Jewish immigration to Palestine, and to delay indefinitely the implementation of the promised modern Jewish state. This ensured the designated Promised Land could not become a haven for refugees of Hitler’s Holocaust.

• During the entire Mandate period, at no time did Great Britain ever set a date, time, or conditions for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

• It took the British abandonment of the Mandate, and evacuation from Palestine, for the Jewish Nation to become a reality. Within hours of the final British evacuation, on May 14, 1948, the modern state of Israel was at last, realized.

• Britain’s immigration policy prevented Jewish refugees from escaping Hitler to Palestine.

• At the time the League of Nations granted the Mandate, the sun never set upon the British Empire.

• Hitler relentlessly bombarded the British mainland, reducing London to rubble. Following the war, London had to be almost entirely rebuilt.

• By the time of the British evacuation from Palestine, its worldwide Empire had been reduced to a mere shadow of its former colonial self.

    Nations make promises and break promises as it suits them. This stands in contrast to the Living and Eternal God, Who makes promises and keeps promises to the 10,000th generation.

“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? “Behold, I have received a command to bless; When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it.” Numbers 23:19-20 (NASB)

    God made a promise to Abraham.

“And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” Genesis 12:2-3 (NASB)

    This promise is a two-edged sword: a blessing and a curse.

————

For further reading:

Katz, Shmel. Lone Wolf: A Biography of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky. New York, New York: Barricade Books, Inc. 1996. 2 volumes 1,792 pages.

Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre. O Jerusalem! New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. 1972. 566 pages.

    “Germany’s population has been growing alongside a tremendous increase of Messianic congregations and groups—from none in 1994 to at least 40 today,” announced Messianic Jewish Rabbi Vladimir Pikman.

    Vladimir was addressing those who gathered in Berlin for the 22nd Conference of the International Messianic Jewish Alliance (IMJA). Delegates and observers represented 14 countries: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Columbia, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, Uruguay and the USA. The delegates, who meet every three to five years, gathered from September 12-15, 2011—for the first time since the last conference in Israel in 2007.

    The group convened at Beit Sar Shalom, a Russian Messianic Jewish fellowship located in a modest brick building nestled in the city. As the congregational host and German delegate, Vladimir shared that despite the horrors of the Holocaust, the Berlin site was “significant as a place to open this new page for the IMJA.  Ashkenazi (Eastern-European) Jews have their roots here. Germany has been a foundational country for Judaism.”

    Hearing each other’s national reports created a sense of unity and a shared sense of purpose for those in attendance. “The Jewish community in the Republic of South Africa is sparse,” admitted Messianic leader Hershel Raysman. “Capetown has a small Jewish population of 7,800. Yet, being small, it has become very strong and active.”

    South Africa’s Messianic Alliance has been challenged,” Hershel elaborated. “Many of the elderly “Hebrew Christians” have passed away. It’s an extremely difficult harvest field.  Moreover, a lot of Jewish people have assimilated into the Christian churches.” Spurred by these factors, Hershel “saw a need for the alliance to be reenergized.” Additional challenges outlined included the news that his nation’s government is about 60% Muslim. “The Jewish community is threatened on all sides. I’m hoping we can start again, as a safe venue for Jewish people.” Regarding his vision for a Messianic revival, “We’ve been fasting and praying for a breakthrough for 18 years. I believe it will come.”

    While some of the nations boast large Jewish communities, others struggle in lands with little connection to the faith—and even less understanding of the Jewish roots of Christianity.

    “Our situation is a lot like South Africa,” commiserated Simon Stollznow, Australia’s IMJA delegate. “There is quite a small Jewish population in Australia. Further, in this country most follow the Church of England and Lutheranism, so they’re quite strong in supersessionism,” referring to a heresy that claims the Church has replaced the Jewish people as those chosen of God.

    A devoted Messianic Jewish believer, husband and father of three young boys, Stollznow remarked that fellow leaders “are inspired to commence an Australian alliance to raise our children and grandchildren in the context of community.” Armed with this goal of renewal, “We hope to see our numbers grow from the 18 nations we had in the past.”

    Stephen Gutmann reported, “The oldest alliance—that of Great Britain—is coming alive and is punching above its weight.” However, Richard Harvey, its vice president, assessed, “Eighty percent of the Anglican Church is supersessionist. Most Britons have never met a Jewish believer in Yeshua.”

    Yet, efforts to initiate productive discourse have arisen on several fronts. “Messianic Jewish scholars are interfacing with Christian and Jewish theologians,” proclaimed Joshua Brumbach, President of the Union of Messianic Believers (UMB). “This includes the Toward Jerusalem Council II, which is in direct communication with the Vatican. Really amazing things are happening in those discussions. The Pope himself is briefed regularly about Messianic Jewish-Catholic dialogue!

    “The Messianic Jewish Theological Institute is also breaking new ground,” Joshua continued. “Along with sponsoring lectures with preeminent Jewish scholars from the wider Jewish community, they hosted last year’s Helsinki Conference, which was the first ecumenical conference of Jewish believers in modern times. It was truly unique how they have drawn diverse Jewish believers from throughout the Christian world—including from the Messianic, Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic communities.

    “Political relations with the Israeli government have also been built,” Joshua enthused. “This includes having Israeli political figures speak at Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA) and UMB conferences. Influential Messianic Jews, like Calev Meyers, of the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, have also impacted Israeli policy.”

    Referring specifically to the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC), Joshua introduced the Kehilah 2020 initiative. Also known as the K2020 Project, the new 10-year program focuses on future leadership. “K2020 seeks to not only birth new congregations, but to disciple upcoming leaders, and to further scholarship within the Messianic world.”

    As to the continued relevancy of the nationals—and having the IMJA as their connecting point—Vladimir asserted, “We understand we belong together, as believing Jews.” Joel Chernoff, General Secretary of the MJAA, declared, “I see the need to build an army to stand with our community represented through the IMJA. It’s our time.”

    Putting action to words, delegates approved resolutions to form exploratory committees to further develop the ideas discussed at the conference. The group took inspiration from the pioneers who preceded them. “The IMJA presents an unbroken timeline for the Messianic Jewish movement,” announced Joel Liberman, IMJA Executive Director. “It is vital to present our story and create our stamp on our history.”

    An entire volume of annual, quarterly-review journals, collected since the organization’s inception in 1925, is being posted online through the IMJA History Project. As Joel pointed out, “These journals represent one of the most comprehensive historical reviews that exist in the modern Messianic Jewish movement.”

    First known as the International Hebrew Christian Alliance (IHCA), the name was later changed to the IMJA, as the concept of modern Messianic Judaism matured.

    Quoting the words of Sir Leon Levison, the first President, at its historic inaugural assembling, Joel read, “As an international body, they could stand up before the world and do things which individual groups and societies could not do.”

    Eighty-six years later, Joel Chernoff confirmed to those present at this year’s conference, “We can connect with the Christian world in a way the traditional Jewish world cannot.”

    It was noticed that a strong commonality of spirit is increasingly being realized through IMJA members. “The 51 year-old Argentinean alliance hosts outreaches,” said its delegate Juan Carlos Krauthamer. “They build unity between believing Jews and Gentiles from various Christian denominations. In 2010, two meetings were held in Buenos Aires; the first of which attracted 900 people, and at the second one, 1,300 attended.”

    Ironically, the activities open doors for evangelism in Argentina to its Jewish population of 300,000. Juan Carlos recollects, “Our events are usually attended by Jews who are specifically invited.”

    A growing presence and expanding influence does not come without resistance. More than one group testified to persecution both within and outside of their Jewish communities. An Israeli couple, who joined the conference as observers, recounted all too-familiar stories of Messianic believers in their city being hounded by ultra-religious Jews. Juan Carlos told of indiscriminate attacks occurring against Argentina’s Jewish community in general, adding that national instability “led to a decrease in attendance at our gatherings.”

    Buoyed by positive reports and promising proposals, the delegates heartily reelected the IMJA’s officers: John Fischer as President; Joel Liberman as Executive Director and Paul Liberman as Treasurer. In the Vice-Presidential category, Richard Harvey joined Joel Chernoff, Myriam Levy and Vladimir Pikman.

    Yolanda Guzik, President of the Mexican alliance, presented a fitting summation: “Circumstances have been very hard in every sense. We long for the day in which salvation through Yeshua HaMashiach will manifest in the Jewish people in our country. Much remains to be done.”

Between Church and Synagogue: The Dilemma of Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews

    It is only within the past two centuries that Jews who embraced New Testament faith could – or would – begin to struggle to reaffirm the original New Testament view of a Jewish distinctive as valid within the Church. In apostolic times and briefly afterward, the Jewish believer in Yeshua, while subject to sometimes fierce opposition within the mainstream Jewish community, could also still live within the Jewish community; as the New Testament and early Church history demonstrate.’

    For the entire Medieval era, however, and until the period of Jewish Emancipation (roughly beginning 1790), both Church and Synagogue, and Jewish and Gentile establishments, collaborated to make it physically and socially impossible for Jewish believers to remain in any practical sense within the Jewish community, or to maintain ties with it.

    By the 19th century, the power of religious establishments was broken, or seriously weakened, by reformation, disestablishment and secular revolution. It was inevitable that sincere Yeshua-believing Jews and their Gentile friends would seek to restore the ancient truths concerning Jewish identity; namely, that it is bound up with a Divine program of vital importance to the Church, and to the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. ‘They asserted that the unity of all members of the Messianic body does not require Jewish believers in Yeshua to sacrifice their distinctiveness, but rather to be a vital Jewish remnant within the life of Israel and the Church.

“So too, at this present time there is a remnant chosen by grace…” (Romans 11:5)

    It was on the basis of the “Elijah remnant” (w.2-4) that the apostle had affirmed Jewish continuity within the Church and within Israel. During the 19th century and after, these Gentile friends, predominantly from West Europe and North America, also foresaw the imminent restoration of Jewish national life and the return of Israel’s exiles to the national homeland.’ Indeed, modem Jewish national restoration has been the womb for the development of various schemes for Jewish spiritual renewal, among them modern Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism. This essay will deal with these last two developments, which in the writer’s view are but the forerunners of the restored remnant which had existed in the days of the Apostle Paul. Just as the national restoration of Israel has involved an amazing complex of religious and secular ideologies, as well as various practical endeavors, and often violent cross-currents within the movement, the struggle for a New Covenant restoration has not been lacking in complexity and crosscurrents.

The Great Divide

    The great divide within it has been the relationship between its two major components: Jewish and Messianic (or Christian). In principle, there should be no division between the two. Certainly, the disciples of Yeshua and the apostles and writers of the New Testament (as distinct from their later interpreters) saw no contradiction between the two. They did not see themselves as “former Jews”. The concept of ”completed Jews” is a modern term, but it was inherent in their thinking.

    “For the hope of Israel am I bound in this chain” (Acts 28:20). This was Paul’s declaration to the Roman Jewish leadership he had invited to meet with him upon his arrival in Rome as a prisoner. Some 19 centuries of Jewish and Christian history, however, now stand between the New Testament principle and Hebrew Christian renewal. Aside from a few dating attempts to create distinctly Jewish fellowships in the Diaspora and Israel, until recently the main impetus has been to try to transmit Western Evangelical currents into Jewish cultural and religious frameworks.

    During this period the secularization of Jewish life, with its tendency towards pluralism and an often tolerant indifference to religious issues, has impelled most Hebrew Christians to assimilate into Christian churches.    Well-meaning Jewish and Gentile Christians may whitewash the problem by simplistic pronouncements that “Christianity is Jewish.” They ignore the things which have happened in the life of both communities which have polarized them. The Jewish world of today, like its Christian counterpart, is more than a mere extension in time of the New Testament era with only minor cultural and technological changes.   Only a small minority have opted for a loose affiliation with interdenominational Hebrew Christian alliances and similar fellowships. The fact remains that today most Diaspora Hebrew Christians are as unaffiliated to existing Hebrew Christian organizations as most secular Jews are unaffiliated to existing Jewish mainstream frameworks. There have been ongoing massive national and religions losses to the forces of assimilation in both frameworks.

    It is true that Christianity was born within the Jewish people and within a stream of ancient Judaism. Even when it went out among Gentile proselytes, Godfearers and pagans, it affirmed its Jewish roots in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the contemporary first-century Judaism conveyed by its Jewish founders. The watershed decision of the strongly Judaistic Jerusalem leadership, as recorded in the Book of Acts (chapter 15), freed Gentile Christians from the demand by the “circumcision party” for Gentile conversion to mainstream Judaism as a condition for admission to the new movement. Jacob (James) counseled: “We should not trouble those of the gentiles who turn to God” (Acts 1 5; 19-2 1) With the consent of the council, a few restrictions were added to accommodate Jewish sensitivities. Significantly, the apostle noted that “Moses has in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the Synagogue.” It is intimated that Jewish followers of Yeshua were hearing Moses every Sabbath and were expected to continue to hear him, as indeed Paul and his companions repeatedly did.6

    Meanwhile, Gentiles were finding ways of relating their Christian experience to very different situations and problems. Some of these are dealt with in the Pauline and other epistles, such as sexual and marital relations, congregational Order, attendance at pagan feasts, philosophical controversy, idolatry, and other aspects of non-Jewish lifestyles.’ By the middle of the second century the Jewish believers had experienced with other Jews the consequences of two failed Zealot revolts against Rome, the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and the monopolization of Judaism by the Pharasaic-rabbinic party, with its claim to be the sole heir of Mosaic Judaism. It was that Judaism which was to become the stream that would shape Jewish life and religion almost exclusively until the 19th century.

    At the same time, the Church was making powerful inroads into Gentile societies throughout the ancient world, and especially within the framework of the Roman Empire. New forms of Christianity were developing, often violently antagonistic to mainstream Judaism, Nazarene Judeo-Christianity, and most things Jewish. Christianity was becoming as distant as possible from everything Jewish. The Marcionite heresy, the logical extreme of this tendency, attempted to sever all ties between the Church and its Jewish roots (including the Hebrew Scriptures and whatever reflected them in the New Testament), but was formally rc3ected. A back-door Marcionism, however, re-entered the Church, and still prevails in many Christian circles, whereby the Church as the “true Israel” appropriates to itself everything positive about Israel in the Scriptures, and nothing but condemnation is left for the Jews themselves. or total assimilation into the Gentile Church. Similarly, the monophysite heresy – that there is only one divine nature in Christ, and his humanity is of no consequence – was rejected by most of the Church it too crept back into the Church, with the Jewish humanity of Yeshua all but submerged in theological dogmas in Orthodox, conservative Catholic and Evangelical circles. He often appears as merely God in disguise as a man, and the very human conflict in his mission is all but concealed from view. While the mystery if the Incarnation of the Son of God both in its literary and physical aspects, is not easy to hold in, balance, Hebrew Christians and many Messianic Jews often lean theologically to the traditional Christian tendency to emphasize Messiah’s divinity at the expense of his humanity.

    This tendency may be understandable in view of modernist attempt to conform Christian faith to modern secularism with its abhorrence of divinity. At the same time there is a collaboration with the long-standing Christian avoidance of confronting the earthly life and teachings of Yeshua, which are relevant not only for Jews but for all people.

Evangelical Movements and Jewish Life

    It is often claimed that the Reformed Church, especially the Evangelical movement within it, has restored the Church to its New Testament purity. Without minimizing the significance of reformation and renewal in the post-medieval Church, including some of the unreformed churches much remains in Christianity which is alien to New Covenant Judaism.

    Evangelical Christianity for good reason and bad, is not a uniformly positive factor for Jewish life, whether in a Hebrew Christian or a Messianic Jewish phase. First of all, it expresses the historical experiences, the culture, the theological emphases of on-Jewish peoples, mainly from Western Europe and North America.

    Indeed, it was the above-mentioned Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and the inspired work of the Pauline party, which paved the way for a truly diverse international Chuicl, freed from the narrow vision of the Judaizers who saw only the Jewish aspect of the prophesied end-time. it was therefore inevitable that non-Jewish Christians would experience their faith, and the struggle to express it, within a variety of contexts outside Jewish life and experience.

    We can even see beyond the serious theological issues in the Great Schism between Eastern and Western churches, as well as in the 1Bth century Reformation dividing Protestant Noab Europe from Latinited South Europe, Which was to a large extent an expression of diverse peoples seeking to experience their Christian faith in harmony with their ethnic cultures “rather than being forced into alien Latin frameworks.

    Ideally, a strong Jewish body within the Church would have continued to provide, like the Jerusalem Church described in Acts, the checks and balances Out of the Jewish experience to help the newer Gentile churches avoid the pitfalls of paganism, and continue in good rapport with the mother Church. For it was out of their Jewish national and religious experience that the Jewish apostles and teachers of New Testament times disseminated a universal message. Their sources were found in the Hebrew Scriptures, contemporary Jewish ways of handling them, and a Jewish lifestyle, which was an essential part of their being. This ideal was not to be realized, and The Jewish Christian component within the Church and the Synagogue was eventually extinguished. By the time the Church became a truly international presence and force in the world, there was no Jerusalem Church, nor any other vital Jewish entity within it, to inform, exhort, warn, counteract pagan inroads, and no less important, to combat the blatant rejection of the apostle Paul’s appeal to the Church “to provoke Israel to jealousy (Romans 10:19; 11:11,14), and to avoid boasting against the Jewish people: “God has not rejected his people whom He foreknew…Boast not against the (Jewish) branches…for the gifts and call of God are irrevocable…” (Romans 11:1,17,29)

    Unfortunately, there have also been bad reasons, which have persisted within Evangelicalism to make it a negative factor in the struggle for Jewish spiritual restoration from a New Covenant perspective. Evangelicalism retains within it remnants of medieval negatives towards the Jewish people which date back to the early Church Fathers. They may not necessarily be derived from conscious Anti-Semitism, but reflect ancient unbiblical theological attitudes towards the Jewish people and its place in the divine program. In 1974, for example, at a major conference of committed Evangelicals in Lausanne, Switzerland a wide range of issues, including evangelism, civil liberties, and cultural respect, ignored any reference to Jews in its comprehensive “Lausanne Covenant.” This, despite attempts by several participants to include a totally biblical paragraph respecting the special relationship between the Church and the Jews. In 1989 at Lausanne Ii in Manila, the conference again ignored an earlier call to include a reference to the Jewish people in its initial draft of a Manifesto, but finally yielded to a call for Jewish evangelism and a denunciation of two-covenant theology only.

Why Not Evangelical Protestant Jews?

    As in the medieval era, Jews who enter the mainstream churches today must for the most part accommodate themselves to a basically non-Jewish experience of Christian faith. For assimilated Jews not deeply involved in Jewish life this may not be critical. We may think of the millions of Jews since the Emancipation, beginning in the late 18th century, who have entered into non-Jewish secular societies mid accommodated themselves to worldviews completely alien to Jewish tradition, such as Marxism, liberal agnosticism, religiously indifferent nationalism.

    Many modern Jews have created within these frameworks novel forms of Jewish identity with or without Jewish religious affiliation. Logically, there was no reason for Hebrew Christians to be denied their patch in this age of Jewish pluralism, and to create acceptable novel forms of Hebrew Christian Evangelical identity. Most traditional Jews have, after ail, accepted the reality of secular and non-Orthodox Jews. Logic, however, has not prevailed in the case of Jewish mainstream attitudes toward Hebrew Christians. In any case, could Hebrew Christians who believe that their Judaism or Jewishness is only completed in a spiritual experience focused on Yeshua be content with mutual tolerance usually based on religious Indifference?

  Modem Hebrew Christians have more often chosen either full assimilation into a Gentile church and eventual surrender of their Jewish identity or have become engaged in a stressful conflict in sharing their basically non-Jewish forms of Evangelical faith. Theoretically, the possibility has existed that, just as masses of Emancipated Jews developed new forms of unorthodox Jewish life, so masses of Evangelical Protestant Jews would succeed in creating a vital Evangelical Jewish life.

Is the Recovery of New Covenant Judaism Possible?

    What then are the factors that inhibit the recovery of New Covenant Judaism by means of adapting a Gentilized Christian movement? Why is there a need to seriously rethink the relationship of die Hebrew Christian and the Messianic Jew to both the Church and the Jewish community? Is anything developing which, by God’s grace, may help sincere Yeshua-believing Jews relate to Gods purpose for the Jewish people and the Church in an era of Jewish national renewal and change?

    The first question is, answered by history. The hardening of part of Israel toward the new covenant, to which the apostle referred (Romans 11:25), with a small remnant remaining within Israel and the Church (11:1-5), became the totality of Israel. Once the Rabbinic party represented all Israel in the Jewish struggle for survive), no dissident element could survive within Jewry. While two centuries of Emancipation hen made it possible for Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews to re-form on the fringes of Jewish community life, it has not gained them acceptance. The fact that their faith has been shaped by non-Jewish Christian experiences has only reinforced Jewish anxieties national and religious survival. Even in a sovereign Jewish homeland, they are able to function because of modern concepts of pluralism and religious indifference, but are still refused recognition as a legitimate Jewish stream except by a radical few. Thus, the decisions of Israel’s High Court to reject the applications of Hebrew Christians, Messianic Jews, and Catholic Jews, for immigrant rights under the Law of Return Return has been widely accepted. The fact that a public opinion poll indicated a willingness by a large proportion of a sampling of about 1,000 Israeli Jews to accept such Jews as new immigrants does not prove that they would be recognized as legitimately Jewish, nor that a majority would stand up for their rights in a public campaign.

    Why is there a need to rethink the relationship between Jews and Gentiles within the universal body of believers for those who do accept the Pauline teaching that “God has not east off his people,” and that “the gifts and call of God are irrevocable.” (Rom.ll: 2,29)?

The Debt to the Gentiles

    First of all, it must be repeatedly emphasized: All Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews owe a tremendous debt to the Gentile church for their knowledge and experience of New Testament faith. If Paul reminded his Gentile brethren that “to begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom.3: 2) and “to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants…and the promises,” (Rom. 9:4), surely a similar debt is owed to the Gentiles for the preservation of the oracles of the New Covenant. Whatever the extent of Jewish participation in the creation of these oracles, it was primarily Gentiles who preserved them, and in good ways and bad made them, and the earlier Hebrew oracles, known from one end of the earth to the other.

    Having acknowledged this debt, and continuing to acknowledge it, it must also be recognized that certain ways of handling these oracles have created imbalances, referred to earlier, and contributed to the widening of the gap between Israel and the Church rather than “provoking Israel to jealousy” and narrowing the gap. The post-Holocaust churches have been making significant efforts to remove classical anti-Semitic uses of Scripture. There still remain strong pockets of Replacement theology in both the Evangelical and Reformed world, and indifference to scriptural teaching concerning the destiny of the Jewish people nationally and spiritually.” It may be granted that such positions are not always motivated by a vulgar anti-Semitism, and that vast numbers of secular Jews today have also abandoned belief in Israel’s election, desiring rather to be, like their spiritual ancestors, “like all the nations.” (I Samuel 8:5; Ezekiel 20:32) There remains, however, a strong core of committed Jews, who have not abandoned these basic biblical beliefs, even if maintaining them in unenlightened ways. Ultimately, it will be committed Jews who will constitute the New Covenant remnant; and if at present they are alienated from Gentile forms of Christianity, whether believers in the New Covenant or still hardened against it, no unbiblical obstacles should be placed in their path.

Free and Equal Jewish Membership

    Aside from the issue of distinctive Jewish survival within the Church and within their own people, no more difficult issue remains for Jewish believers in Yeshua than the unity of all believers in the messianic body. Jewish believers are often almost assaulted with tendentious use of Scripture, which sometimes seems motivated by the desire to uproot their Jewish identity totally.

    Passages such as “IN CHRIST THERE IS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK” (Ga1.3: 28),”FOR HE IS OUR PEACE WHO HAS MADE US BOTH ONE…” (Eph.2: 14) are taken out of context, ignoring the fact of an apostolic battle to affirm free and equal gentile membership in an originally Jewish movement Jewish movement still rooted in its Jewish milieu. The fact is ignored that contemporary Messianic Jews are now engaged in a struggle to affirm their FREE AND EQUAL JEWISH MEMBERSHIP in what has become an almost totally Gentile movement rooted in a non-Jewish milieu.

    For those who believe that Jewish survival within the Church has so theological meaning, the difference of context is irrelevant. For those who believe otherwise, the struggle for a balance between Jewish paticularism and Christian unity is no simpler than restoring the New Covenant Jewish distinctive within Israel and the Church. It calls for candor and good will on both sides of the unity.

    There are unities, which require dissolution of the separate components into one another, such as denominational mergers. The unity referred to in Ephesians, however, is analogous to the primal unity described in Genesis (2:24) where the man and the woman become one but retain their social and biological distinctives. The Church has suffered because of the lack of a vital Jewish distinctive, as it existed in apostolic times. The Messianic movement would also suffer if it lost touch with the existing non-Jewish distinctives prevalent in the Church. Both components must learn to relate critically and lovingly to one another.

Creed and Deed

    I would also refer to several other areas in which Evangelicalism has impacted on Jewish believers to compromise the New Covenant spirit and inhibit due development of a genuine New Covenant Jewish movement. Jewish critics have often remarked how creed rather than deed is central to Christian faith. This is of course an oversimplification of the faith and works controversy already reflected and resolved in the epistles of Paul and James. The obsession of ancient and medieval Hellenism with definitions and creeds has been carried over into modern evangelism, so that it often appears that a simple declaration affirming a theological statement about Yeshua is a guarantee of salvation for all eternity. Yet in the Gospels, Yeshua is constantly talking about the way of the kingdom of heaven (‘malkhut shamayim”), which is a Hebrew (10) term for the reign of God on earth, and the Church in Acts is referred to as “the Way”, a term similar to “halakha” (“the Walk”) in Judaism whose central focus is not necessarily life after death.

    It is true that creeds and statements of faith developed to meet felt needs to summarize Christian faith; but to make them the major focus of evangelism and salvation is unbalanced scripturally and alien to the Jewish experience it often reduces evangelism to a cheap form of grace.

    In the Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua warned that “NOT’ EVERYONE WHO SAYS TO ME ZORD, LORD’ WILLl ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.” (Matt.7: 21) And in the picture of the Last Judgment, he portrays many who will be surprised at the verdict: “insomuch as you have done it (or not done it) to the least of these my brethren, you have done it (or not done it) unto me.” (Matt.25: 31-46) 25:31-46)

Creed and Community

    There is a kind of Jewish evangelism that only focuses on individual affirmation detached from community. Sometimes it offers an alternative community that is totally alien to the new believer’s natural community. This is another aspect of Evangelicalism particularly threatening to the Jewish development of believers within the New Covenant. This Fact has been one of the strongest incentives for the formation of Messianic Jewish congregations and fellowships. It has also been one of the encouraging aspects of the modern Messianic Jewish movement. It addresses, practically, a major concern of Jewish believers who see the importance of a viable community for the restoration of die biblical vision of a dynamic and visible Jewish remnant within the Church and as far as possible within the Jewish people. Such a community must tackle the theological and practical issues of Jewish life in its New Covenant phase in the light of Jewish and Christian teaching and experience. One major issue is the relevance of the Torah. What is its significance in a New Covenant framework to the people to whom the Torah was committed?

    The apostolic teaching concerning salvation apart from the works of Torah remains crucial for Jew and Gentile alike. Nevertheless, it remained a major reference point for the New Covenant community, especially its Jewish component. In his last recorded encounter with a Jewish community, in Rome, Paul stated: “Brethren …I have done nothing against the People or the customs of our fathers…” (Acts 28:17)  Again and again he cited the Torah and other Hebrew Scriptures for confirmation of his teaching and for the walk of all believers.  The Torah was not a moulting skin which, like the chrysalis of the caterpillar, was discarded in order for the butterfly to come forth. The apostle, in his reference to the Messiah as the END of the Torah (Rom.l0: 4), used a word -“Telos”- which may imply either finality or aim. A check of this use in other texts indicates that in his first letter to Timothy it clearly means “end” in the sense of “aim”. Both James and Peter use the Greek word in a similar sense, and are now translated as “aim” or “purpose.” Three out of four Hebrew translations of the text in Romans 10:4 use a word which conveys the thought perfectly -“takhlit”- whose root (“kaleh”) is consummation in the sense of purpose or aim.

    In his remarks to the Roman-Jewish leadership, the apostle affirmed his loyalty to the “ethos” – usually translated “customs” -“of our fathers”. Earlier he bad proclaimed before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees.” (Acts 23:6) We know that at that time the concept of the so-called Oral Law was still a subject of debate within Judaism (including divisions among the Pharisees about interpretation, as between the disciples of Hill and Shammai), and those like the Sadducees and Essence outside the framework of the Pharisees. Yeshua himself was extremely critical of the Pharisees, although some would argue that this was directed at the Shammai party.” Despite his harsh criticism of the misuse of their authority, he affirmed it as divinely derived “THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES SIT ON MOSES’ SEAT; THEREFORE PRACTISE AND OBSERVE: WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU BUT NOT WHIAT THEY DO; FOR THEY DO NOT PRACTISE WHAT THEY PREACH.” (Matt.23: 2-4)

Messianic Jews and Rabbinic Tradition

    To what extent should this statement bind Messianic Jews to Rabbinic tradition today? The parable concerning the vineyard let out to tenants who prove unfaithful to the terms of the lease comes to mind. Found in each of the synoptic Gospels, the parable concludes with the observation: 12 “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard it, they perceived that he was speaking of them, but ‘when they tried to arrest him, they feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet.” (Mat.21: 33-46; Mk. 12. 1-12; lk.20: 9-19) Replacement theology has concluded that the landlord who would turn over the vineyard to other tenants refers to the Gentile Church, with Israel dispossessed from its election. Yet all the Gospels state that the parable was directed against the religious establishment while the Jewish multitude acted as a defense for Yeshua against them.

    It would be more logical to conclude that the Jewish followers of Yeshua were in view as the new tenants of the vineyard who would have the authority to act as the ones to be the spiritual heirs of the kingdom in replacing the chief priests and Pharisees.

    This indeed was what occurred when the Church in Acts sat to choose a successor to Judas Iscariot among the Twelve (1:1:15-26), proclaimed Yeshua as “both Lord and Messiah” on Pentecost (2:1-41), gathered those who responded to the proclamation into an apostolic communal fellowship (2:42-4’1), challenged the Sanhedrin concerning their right to proclaim the good news (4:1-22; 5:17-32), settled the dispute over the distribution of welfare between the Greek-speaking and Hebrew-speaking Jews in the fellowship by the appointment of deacons (6:1-6), decided on the conditions of admission of Gentiles 115:1-21), and approved the ministry of the apostle Paul and its relationship to the ministry to Jews. (15:22-35; 21:17-26; also Gal. 2:7-10)

Can a Jewish Component with Authority Rise Again?

    As noted earlier, this authority was eventually lost to the Jerusalem Church as Indeed was the very existence of a Jewish component within the Church. Is there any likelihood that in this age of prophetic changes in the Church, in the Jewish People, and in the nations, an authoritative Jewish component can rise again within the Church? If only to deal with the peculiarly Jewish issues facing believers from among Jews and Gentiles, touching areas such as Jewish evangelism, the relation to Torah, Rabbinic tradition, Christian tradition within a Jewish context, fellowship, eschatology, the need for an authoritative grappling with these issues is evident.

    This is not to suggest that nothing has been done along these lines, but the impact of both Jewish and Gentile cross-currents within the Church and within the diversity of contemporary Jewish life impacting on believers makes it realistically unlikely that such an authoritative body could rise in the foreseeable future. Perhaps to borrow a rabbinic phrase it must wait until Elijah comes! Nevertheless, the need for serious prayer, thinking and discussion is manifest.  If this essay has done anything to stimulate prayer, thought and serious discussion, it will have been a worthwhile enterprise.

————

References:

1. Acts 2: 14; 3:1; 4: 1-4, 32-35; 5:12-16, 33-42; 13:2-5, 14-43; 16:19-21, etc.
2. Crombie, Kelvin; FOR THE LOVE OF ZION, Hodder & Stoughton, 1992.
   (Now Available at Jerusalem Book Shop, POB 14037, Jerusalem 91140.)
3. Joseph Rabinowitz, founder of “lsraelites of the New Covenant” (1885 to
   1899) in Tsarist Russia; S. B. Rohold, founder of First Hebrew Christian
   Synagogue (1913), Toronto, Canada; Rabbi Yellezkiel Lichtenstein Br Haim
   Lucky in East Europe remained within the mainstream Orthodox synagogue
   despite opposition. John Mark Levy, an Episcopalian priest in the early 20th
   century, tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Hebrew Christian Alliance
   movement to adopt Jewish rites. (B.Z. Sobol, KEBREW CHRISTIAN[TY: 77IE
   THIRTEENTH Tribe 1970(OUT OF Print
4. Schaeffer, Mith; CHRISTIANITY IS JEWISH.
5. It is widely believed that these were part of the so-called Noahide Laws
   ordained for Gentiles to obtain salvation apart frotn Totah. (See Baby)onian
   Talmud. Tractate Sanhedrin, 56a.)
6. Compare Matthew 4:23; Luke 14: 16-21; Acts 13:14-16; 17:1-4; 28:17.
7. For example, I Cor 3:1-9; 5:1-5; 6:1-8; 8:1-13; Col 2:8; 3:5-8; Titus 1:5-14.
8. This is not to belittle the fact that large numbers of Evangelicals have, often
   out of eschatological beliefs, long been staunch supporters of Zionism and the
   State of Israel. (See Note 2 above)
9. Acts 22: 12, 28:17,23; Rom 3:31; 7:12, 14, 16, 1 Cor 9:8-10.
10. 1 Tim 1.5, James 5:11; 1 Peter 1:9:14
11. Falk,Harvey, Jesus the Pharisee, Paulist Press, Mahwah, N.J.

(Menahem Benhayim is former Israel Secretary of the International Messianic Jewish Alliance and of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of Israel. A son of ultra-orthodox East European Jewish parents, he first became interested in Yeshua while in high school and later while serving with die U.S. Army in England. He and his wife IIaya also a Messianic Jew, emigrated to Israel in 1963 where thev lived in Haifa and briefly in a kibbutz. followed by 11 years in Eilat. They have lived in Jerusalem since 1977.)

    The primary focus in the struggle to keep the Jewish traditions alive has always been the family. Each Jewish family sees itself as the repository of Jewish knowledge and values, to be passed on through the years. This may seem strange to Christians who see the church as ultimately responsible for keeping the Christian faith alive, but Jews have traditionally viewed themselves as the keepers of their traditions.

    It is possible to celebrate each and every major holiday within Judaism in the home (especially since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in ad70). There are no biblical commandments given to force synagogue attendance. Even in Hebrews 10:25, where it says, “Do not forsake the gathering (literally: the ‘synagogue-ing’) of yourselves together”, it is couched as a negative admonition, a “don’t forget…” rather than a “you must…”

    So when we want to examine the heart of the issues involved in keeping our Jewish lifestyles alive, it is to the nuclear (and extended) family we should look, not to a religious institution. The synagogue can assist through its role of being one of a group of teachers involved in the process, but perhaps not the central teacher.

    Additionally, Jewish understanding of human behavior is based in part on the concept that what you do is more important, or holds more weight, than what you believe. Therefore, your actions form the real expression of your faith. It is not enough to merely intellectually assent to religious truths; you must act on those truths. If you can label yourself as a member of a group, your life must show that you are a member of that group. In the Jewish worldview, indeed, ‘talk is cheap!’

    To apply this knowledge of Jewish values means that we as Messianic Jews must take a deep, hard look at ourselves and what we are handing on to our children. It has been stated recently in a variety of forums that your success in understanding and teaching Jewish ways to your children really rests in your answer to one deep question: Will your grandchildren be Jewish? Unless you can say with confidence that this is so, you have not truly finished your work within your own family.

    Unfortunately, in the past, the Jewish community has seen, almost without exception, that the children of Jews who have made commitments to Yeshua exhibit little or nothing of a Jewish lifestyle after their commitment. Many have disappeared into churches; feeling that Jewishness is something involved with what their “parent(s) used to be”. In the worst case scenarios, those children of Jewish believers during earlier times have been among the worst anti-Semites of all (read a biography of Felix Mendelssohn, the great composer, for a slice of this shameful history).

    In the past several decades (since about 1970) there has been a “push” among Jewish believers to retain their Jewish practices while still being committed followers of Yeshua. At first, many churches were shocked by this idea. After all, churches proclaimed, weren’t the “new people of God” found in the church supposed to be made up of Jew and Gentile together? Didn’t Yeshua “do away with” the ceremonial practices of the Old Testament Law? Wasn’t everyone who believed in Yeshua supposed to be a member of a church?

    Messianic believers worked out a new way to live—or perhaps, better stated, returned to the ancient ways. In reconsidering their relationship to the Jewish holidays and guidelines for living found in the Tenach (the Jewish term for Old Testament), Jewish and Gentile believers interested in worshipping in a more Jewish way saw that historically the Christian Church had oftentimes “thrown the baby out with the bath water”. In the Church’s haste to leave what they considered “archaic Jewish laws” behind, they had also left behind the holidays and traditions from the Tenach that were vital in imparting God’s ways of living to His people. Rather than seeing the celebration of the Jewish holidays as inappropriate for worship, after almost 30 years, we can now see that the holidays, as commanded by God, are great teachers of scripture and an inspiration to follow the God of Abraham more closely.

    Thirty years ago, this was not a popular message to hear, especially in America. But at the same time, many in America began to understand that dissolving your heritage into the “melting pot” of America was perhaps not a great idea. In the early 70’s there were many groups who started to see that we should value the diverse cultures within our nation, rather than necessarily seeking a “one-size-fits-all” American citizenry. As boatloads of refugees and other immigrants came to settle in America, they set up their own congregations. Laotians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Cubans, and many others founded congregations where they could speak their own language and celebrate the unique heritage and culture of their homeland. Thus, the concept of “unity” of various believers in Yeshua, not necessarily  “uniformity” of congregational practice was highlighted through the establishment of these various congregations.

    Unfortunately, there are some Christians that, through a lack of real understanding, question the validity and practice of messianic congregations. To them the New Testament seems to have quite a few negative things to say about Jewish practices. Questions about the validity and biblical truth of Jewish practices in the light of New Testament teaching have been answered in dozens of books, papers, and articles in the past 20 years of the Messianic movement. The bulk of these objections to the appropriateness of Jewish practices are based in fear and ignorance.  It is our hope that through knowledge and understanding the Christian community will become more comfortable with its Jewish roots.

    So, if we assume that a Jewish lifestyle is appropriate and perhaps beneficial for believers in Yeshua today, how do we guarantee its survival? As God says in Deuteronomy 6: “Impress them [these commandments] on your children.” Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up”… In other words, the ‘commandments’ (not just the 10 ‘big ones’ but also the hundreds of others) are to be always on your hearts and on your lips-an intricate part of daily life. They are not for discussion just once a week at a set time. They involve your whole life cycle as parents. This can be a heavy task, and is an awesome responsibility, speaking as a parent of two.

    What kind of practical outworking does this kind of commitment involve? Children learn by example. We must show them that “our way” is part of who and what they are. “Brainwashing” has a bad connotation, but in a certain sense it is an accurate description of the process of parenting. We wish our children to be guided by the precepts that we think are the best. But the process is different from brainwashing, because we want the child to be an active, negotiating participant in the process. In the end, we do not desire a puppet who moves only when we pull the strings, but an independent person who sees the various choices in life, and chooses God’s ways.

    Very well—where are we now? In the ~30 years since the beginnings of the (modern) Messianic movement, what have we learned about teaching our children about their Jewish roots? What is necessary for the Jewishness of the Messianic Movement to survive and even grow? These are important concerns that require much more discussion. But certain questions can help us evaluate our lives.

1. If I claim that my child is Jewish, how is being Jewish part of our daily lives? Talk is cheap, especially on this point. What do we do that is uniquely Jewish? Eat bagels? (Enjoying bagels is not uniquely Jewish anymore, I’m afraid!) Make a list to show yourself and your children that there are some things that are distinctively Jewish about your home. Here are some suggestions: Worshipping on the Sabbath, celebrating the Jewish holidays, learning Hebrew, supporting emotionally and/or financially the state of Israel, reading Jewish periodicals, contributing money to Jewish charities, having Shabbat dinner together, keeping Passover, learning about great Jewish heroes, having a bar/bat mitzvah. This list can go on and on. Simply put, we should not call ourselves Jews if all our activities are “Christian”, merely because we have Jewish DNA.
2. What is our attitude toward the Jewish people in general as portrayed in our home? Do we talk about the Jewish community as “them” rather than as “us”? Do we differentiate between “good Jews” (Messianic Jews) and “those Jews” (non-believers)? Do we have any non-believing Jewish friends, or have we driven them away?
3. Are our children equipped to explain how they believe to various people at school or in the community? Can they explain their beliefs both to Jewish and Gentile friends? Do they understand that being Jewish is an important part of their lives, or are they embarrassed about it for any reason?

    As we pass on our Messianic Jewish heritage from this generation to the next, we must realize it is a daunting task that cannot be taken for granted. It requires work, wisdom, dedication, and a considerable sense of humor.But our goal is the same as the rest of the Jewish community—we are striving to have Jewish grandchildren to carry on our faith. In this day and age there is no higher calling.

————

Patrice Fischer—who says she doesn’t have any grandchildren of her own as yet, but whose children are third generation Messianic Jews, are the grandchildren of George and Marianne Fischer, survivors of the Holocaust in Hungary as Messianic Jews, now living in Willow Grove, PA.

Lifting the veil of an archaeological “mystery”: a review of Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Hershel Shanks

    The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been one of the greatest events in Biblical archaeology. No other similar event has helped us to better understand the Bible against the backdrop of time and history. Although the subject has been discussed at length by scholars and common folk, the truth is that few people fully understand what are commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).  Many visitors to Israel  have had the opportunity to see these scrolls in the Jerusalem Museum’s Shrine of the Book, the wing where they are housed. It is truly awe inspiring to see fragments of the collection of parchments and replicas of the full scrolls when considering the archeological treasure exhibited there.

    But what are the DSS?  What new truths are revealed in them? Do they contradict or support our basic understanding of the Bible?  Is there an “earth-shattering” discovery that hasn’t been made public for fear of creating a doctrinal debacle? Are Jesus, John the Baptist, or other disciples mentioned in these writings?

    My quest for a better understanding of the meaning of the DSS was revived after my last visit to Jerusalem. I began to reassess the value of the scrolls for my own understanding of the Bible. I realized that as a theologian, I needed to know more on the meaning of the DSS. In my search for knowledge, I found that much has been written on the subject, but one of the best sources of information is the book edited by Hershel Shanks, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls.  His credentials as founder and editor of The Biblical Archeological Review and Biblical Review, give him sufficient credibility to edit such a book.

    This article is a review of some of the issues in Dr. Shanks’ book, with the purpose of shedding some light on the many enigmas surrounding the DSS. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Hershel Shanks, 1993, Random House: New York.

The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls

    The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient writings that were found by accident one winter morning in 1947, when three Bedouin shepherds led their flock on the steep cliffs just south of an old ruin on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, on the Wadi Qumran. One of them, Jum’a Muhammed, saw two openings on the top of a cliff. When he threw a stone inside the small, dark opening he heard the sound of breaking pottery. On the following day they returned, and upon entering the cave they made one of history’s greatest discoveries.

    The first chapter of  Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Harry Thomas Frank, bears the title, “Discovering the Scrolls,”  and reads like a mystery novel. It’s hard to imagine that such a finding should have encountered so many obstacles and skeptics until the real value of these scrolls was understood. It was during Israel’s war of independence in 1947-48, that the scrolls found their way to trained eyes of John Trever and William Brownlee, of the American School in Jerusalem. Under the dim light of kerosene lamps they looked at what appeared to be a strange and old form of Hebrew and Aramaic. What they saw before them convinced them that this text was older than the Nash Papyrus, the oldest manuscript of a passage of the Bible in Hebrew, dating back to the second century AD.

    Because of many past attempts at fabrications of ancient texts, there was skepticism and even doubt whether these ancients segments of the books of Isaiah and Habbakuk were genuine, or just well-done forgeries.  It was only after consulting with Johns Hopkins University’s W. F. Albright, the most eminent scholar on ancient forms of writings, that the authenticity and value of the ancients scrolls was finally realized.  Albright wrote his opinion to Trevor saying: “My heartiest congratulations on the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times!  There is no doubt in my mind that the script is more archaic than that of the Nash Papyrus. …  I should prefer a date around 100 BC! What an absolute incredible find!  And there can happily not be the slightest doubt in the world about the genuineness of the manuscript.”

    How the first set of scrolls finally reached the Antiquities Department of the Israel Museum reads like a thriller!  Finally, it was under the disguise of a Middle-East businessman that the State of Israel was able to purchase the main scrolls that are now in their custody in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem.

The Scrolls

    The term “scrolls” hardly defines the material found in the Qumran caves, since most of the documents that remain today are either parchments, pieces of former scrolls, or inscriptions on pieces of pottery.  The first cave discovered by the Bedouin shepherd held seven rather well-preserved scrolls, and other fragmented material.  Subsequent archeological searches between 1952 to1956, led to the discovery of ten more caves, consequently numbered 1 to 11. The findings in the other 10 caves revealed hundreds of fragments, but only five rather-complete scrolls.  The rest are thousands of fragments, some as small as a fingernails, of what were once complete written records. By far, the largest amount on material — albeit in terrible condition — was found in Qumran cave 4.

    The documents found in the Qumran caves can be divided into two groups:  the biblical and  the non-biblical texts.  Of all the writings that emerged from the 11 Qumran caves, only one fourth are biblical texts. Nevertheless, there is reference to every book of the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of the book of Esther — the only book of the Bible that does not mention the name of God.

    Understandably, it was easier for scholars to analyze the biblical documents, since the Bible served as a mold or template for the fragments found: “But many of the non-biblical texts were entirely unknown to us before they were found in the Qumran caves, and it is often difficult to arrange the fragments of these texts in some meaningful order.”  The non-biblical texts include hymns and psalms, biblical commentaries, wisdom literature, legal texts, and some Bible-like text, often ascribed to a well-known character from the Bible, such as Enoch or Noah.

    There is also extensive documentation pertaining to the Qumran community itself: its government, leaders, worship, life-style, et cetera.   The discovery of the DSS pushed back the date of the most ancient biblical documents by several centuries, which, as I said before, adds credibility to the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. With few exceptions, and none of radical importance since they are spelling, syntax or scribal errors, there is no difference between the biblical texts found in the Qumran caves, and the Bible as it has been handed down to us.

    The scrolls were hidden by a community of Jews that lived in the nearby town of Qumran, a settlement destroyed by the Romans just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 69-70 AD. The people that lived in this settlement were of a Jewish sect called “Essenes.” Although smaller in number than other Jewish sects of the time, such as the Pharisees or the Saducees, the Essenes are described in detail by the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Pliny the Elder (23-70 AD), and Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD).  The Essenes are discussed in  chapter 4 by James C. VanderKam, and chapter 6, of Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Suffice it to say, it seems the Qumran people that hid the scrolls in the caves were part of the community of the Essenes, who according to Nelson’s Bible  Dictionary (1986), were “ a religious community that existed in Palestine from about the middle of the second century B. C., until the Jewish war with Rome (A. D. 66-70).” The Essenes were noted for their strict discipline and their isolation from others who did not observe their way of life. They were governed by a tight organization whose lives were dedicated to strict observance of the law.

    The first cave where the scrolls were found was identified in by Captain Philppe Lippens in 1948, a Belgian officer of the United Nations Armistice Observer Corps, with the help of the Jordan’s Arab Legion.  The investigation was then continued by G. Lancaster Harding, The English Director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, and the French Catholic archaeologist and biblical scholar, Father Roland de Vaux.  They retrieved the seven main scrolls and hundreds of leather fragments.  Three of the rolls, preserved inside large size clay jars, (see replica in our cover picture) were found to be an incomplete section of the Book of Isaiah, a scroll of Hymns, and one describing The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.  These were ultimately purchased by  the Hebrew University’ Professor of Jewish Archaeology, E. L. Susenik.  Soon thereafter, Professor Susenik published the three manuscripts entrusted to him.  The other four manuscripts found in the first cave had been purchased by the Arab metropolitan archbishop Mara Athanasius, head of Syrian Orthodox Monastery of Saint Mark in what was then East Jerusalem.   He entrusted the analysis of these four scrolls to Millar Borrowsn W. H. Brownlee and J. C. Trever, all of them of the American School for Oriental Research in Jerusalem.  They worked on the complete Isaiah manuscript, the Commentary on Habakkuk and the Manual of Discipline, later known as the Community Rule. The editing of their work was then entrusted to Father Roland de Vaux and to two young biblical scholars at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jordanian Jerusalem.  Together with Dominique Barthelemy and Jozef Tadeusz Milik, they made public and published the main seven scrolls in a rather short period of time.

Lifting the veil of secrecy and mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls

     While the seven scrolls found in cave 1 were quickly edited and published, the findings in other caves contained many more manuscripts than those found in the first cave.   In the following years a total of 11 caves were found within a short distance from the enclave that was once a settlement in Qumran by the Dead Sea (see map with location of the settlement and the caves).  These other caves revealed as many as eight hundred additional findings, but regrettably, most of the documents were mere fragments of what once had been manuscripts.  A total of 15,000 pieces were collected, some in large sections and others in small fragments.  With the exception of parts of biblical texts that were easier to identify, over 80% of the remaining fragments had no point of reference for identification.  The richest caved proved to be Cave 4.  The task of analyzing the fragments from Cave 4 was given to a group of young scholars by the Jordanian authorities, since then both East Jerusalem and Qumran were under Jordanian control.  The group assembled to work on these documents had no Jews in it and worked under the direction of the Catholic Father de Vaux. The original group was made up of seven scholars, but soon after the German member of the group, Clauss Hunzinger resigned because he felt it was too much controlled by the Catholic Church.  The remaining six members were mostly Catholic clerics who were left with the tantalizing task of putting these pieces together.  It wasn’t as if it was a giant puzzle, but rather many giant puzzles each formed with hundreds of fragments.

    In order to organize the work this first group of scholars arranged the fragments into documents the best way they could.  They ended up with over five hundred documents that needed to be pieced together.  In the words of Shanks, “They clearly took on more work than they could complete in a lifetime ” .   The only member of the original team to complete their work was John M. Allegro of England who published his entire assignment.  Although Allegro’s publication of his assignment contained so many errors that he himself made another version to correct the work he had previously written.  Four other scholars were given the job of creating a concordance of the non-biblical texts.  This concordance would  later serve as tool of immense value.  For the next thirty years the team published less than 20% of their assignment.  It is this fact that has led many to believe that there is something hidden that, if revealed, would have an earth-shattering effect on Christian and Jewish beliefs.

    What followed was an act of academic selfishness and greed that has tarnished the work done on the DSS and has brought ill repute to the original team members.   The problem arose because the original team of scholars agreed among themselves, although it is not documented, that a scholar who is assigned to publish a given amount of texts has absolute control over those documents. Nobody else is allowed to see, print, study or publish the text.  Since many of the original members died before their work was published, before their death they “bequeathed” their publication rights to whomever they wanted.  This secrecy concerning the texts that remain to be edited has given room to all type of fantasies on their content.   It was this mystery and control that caused scholars to demand that what remains unpublished be made available at some near date.  Because John Strangle, then editor of the DSS, would not reveal any new information “That marked the beginning of a six years campaign by Herschel Shanks and the Biblical Archaeology Review to free the Dead Sea scrolls.”

    In spite of the efforts of the team, much of the secrecy has now been revealed, partly as result of the coming of the computer age.  Professor Ben Zion Wacholder of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati was exasperated by the lack of published material coming from the editorial team.  With the help of one of his students, Martin Abegg, who was a computer expert they made a plan to crack the “code”.  Through an incredible chain of events Wacholder acquired the negatives of pictures taken of some of the unpublished scroll text and recreated the whole document assisted by the computer that developed a program based on the concordance made from the non-biblical documents. N  ow the contents of the remaining documents was made accessible to all.  The New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as other major newspapers in the world reported on their front pages the computer generated transcriptions and hailed the work of Wacholder and Abegg as restoring to all mankind something that should have never been withheld in secrecy by a group of scholars.

The Importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Our Understanding of the Bible

    What makes the DSS so valuable is that they shed light into a period of time of which we have no written historical evidence.  It is a well known archaeological and historical fact that the closer any given document is to the time to which it refers, the more reliable it becomes. Until the discovery of the DSS, the oldest piece of biblical writing was the Nash Papyrus, a fragment from the second century AD.  Now there were over eight hundred documents found in the Qumran caves dating from 250 BC to 68 AD!   The uniqueness of the DSS is that there was no written Jewish text in either Hebrew or Aramaic, with the exception of the Nash Papyrus mentioned, prior to 895 AD.  This manuscript is the whole Book of Isaiah.  Against this, we now have the complete Isaiah scroll found in Qumran that is one thousand years older!

    Dr. Geza Vermes, the renown director of the Forum for Qumran Research at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish studies and author of THE COMPLETE DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN ENGLISH says that “The Qumran finds have also substantially altered our views concerning the text and cannon of the Bible…..In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text; others resemble the Hebrew underlying the Greek Septuagint; yet others recall  the Samaritan Torah or Pentateuch,  the only part of the Bible which the Jews of Samaria accepted as Scripture……It should be noted, however, that none of these variations affects the spiritual message itself.  In short, while largely echoing the contents of the biblical books, Qumran has opened an entirely new era in the textual history of the Hebrew Scriptures.”

    Although some scholars argue that the scrolls were written or copied by the Essenes themselves, others believe that they were part of a major Jewish library that was removed from Jerusalem and hidden in caves in the event of the destruction of the city by the Roman legions. In either case, Hershel Shanks points to the fact that the year 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, “has functioned as a kind of impenetrable wall to students of rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity:  It has been extremely difficult to get behind it .”  Before the destruction of the Temple there were innumerable sects and religious parties jockeying for influence and power in Jerusalem.  The better known groups were the Pharisees, whose teachings and writings influenced what has become modern day Judaism, and the Sadducees, who usually represented the aristocracy and the Temple priests.  Smaller groups were the Essenes, the Hasidim, the Zealots, the Herodians, the Sicarii, etc.    With the destruction of the Temple, only two forms of Judaism survived: normative Judaism that derived from rabbinical teachings, and Messianic Judaism, that was later transformed into Christianity.   The earliest collective writing of rabbinical Judaism is the Mishnah, that became part of the Talmud, and was compiled about the second century AD.

    As for Messianic Judaism, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Mark, the Pauline Epistles in the New Testament are the only documents written before the destruction of the Temple.  But, the nature of these letters does not reveal much about the social milieu of Messianic Judaism in Jerusalem and Judea.   Hershel Shanks says that “This is why it has been difficult for scholars to understand how these two major movements—rabbinic Judaism and Christianity—emerged out of the extraordinary varieties of pre-70 Judaism.  How did rabbinical Judaism and Christianity develop from the soil, the same soil, of pre-70 Judaism?  Suddenly, in our time, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide scholars with a vast library of eight hundred volumes that sheds a direct light – undistorted by later editors with their own ideologies and biases—on pre-70 Judaism.  The promise—by no means yet fully realized—is a clear understanding of how these two major religious movements developed in their formative stages.”

    The time period covered by the DSS—250 BC to 68 AD—was a time of instability, power struggles and revolt, which ultimately ended with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.  The destruction of the Temple changed Judaism forever, since Judaism was based on a ritualistic sacrificial system centered on the Temple worship.  In a previous article I wrote for THE HEBREW CHRISTIAN   with the title “When Messianic Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism went on their separate ways” I pointed out that the destruction of the Temple forced Israel to take a different religious approach, it either followed a cultic form of Judaism based on Oral Law and the teachings of the rabbis, or it followed Messianic Judaism, which was based on the fact that Yeshua was the promised Messiah and that in him the former Temple rituals are fulfilled.   In essence the DSS scrolls are the only direct documents from the time when Messianic Judaism and rabbinical Judaism went on their separate ways. While the scrolls have shed light on a time previously undocumented, the question is, where is the “mystery” and why the secrecy surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The Dead Sea Scroll and Their Relationship to the New Testament

    There has been much speculation regarding the relationship between the DSS and early Christianity, or more precisely, the relationship between the Essenes and the early Christians.  Professor James C. VanderKam makes the most comprehensive analysis of the subject in the 14th Chapter of the book Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This article appeared first as an independent work in Bible Review, December, 1991 and February 1992. ”There are indeed many similarities between the members of the community of Qumran and the early Christians.  There is also similar terminology to express religious concepts, terminology notoriously absent from the Old Testament but present both in the writings of the early followers of Jesus and the writings of Essenes”.

    The French scholar Andre Dupont-Sommer argued as early as 1950 that the “Teacher of Righteousness” that is mentioned in the DSS as the founder and first leader of the Qumran group, parallels that of Jesus of Nazareth . Others followed arguing for an even closer relationship between the community of believers that settled in Qumran and the early Messianic Jewish community.  A very popular view was proposed by Edmund Wilson, who wrote a famous article in the New Yorker later printed as a book with the tittle The Scrolls from the Dead Sea.  Wilson goes as far as saying that, “This monastery, this structure of stone that endures, between the bitter waters and precipitous cliffs, with its ovens and inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellation of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity”

    A more scholarly approach was undertaken by Harvard professor Krister Stendahl, who collected thirteen studies on the subject from eleven different scholars to pinpoint the similarities between the Qumran sect and the early Christians.  This major work was edited under the tittle The Scrolls and the New Testament.  VanderKam quotes Stendahl’s introduction to his essay where he arrives to the following conclusion: “It is true to say that the Scrolls add to the background of Christianity, but they add so much that we arrive at a point where the significance of similarities definitely rescues Christianity from false claims of originality in the popular sense and leads us back to a new grasp of its true foundation in the person and events of its Messiah,” a conclusion with which VanderKam agrees.

    In other words, the DSS help us to focus more on the person of the Messiah than on the religious body that his followers developed in time.  Another Harvard scholar, Frank M. Cross, produced one of the most widely known and influential books on the subject entitled The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies.  Cross’s analysis reaches the conclusion that there are three areas in which we find similarities between the New Testament and the Qumran community that produced and preserved the scrolls.    The first common theme is in the theological language, especially in John’s writings.  Second, there are similarities in eschatological themes, that is, on events to come at the end-time, and finally, in their liturgy and community institutions.  Cross finds similar forms in baptism, communal meals, leadership roles, et cetera.  One may safely conclude that the discovery of the DSS does not change the basic principles of the Christian faith, nevertheless, it sheds light on the period, the theological language and the environment in which the followers of Yeshua the Messiah expanded their faith.  Millar Burrows of Yale emphasized this by saying “There is no danger, however, that our understanding of the New Testament will be so revolutionized by the Dead Sea Scrolls as to require a revision of any basic article of the Christian faith.  All the scholars who have worked on the texts will agree that this has not happened and will not happen.”

    In his analysis of the similarities between the DSS and the New Testament, professor VanderKam points out to two facts that must be considered. One of them is that, different from Christianity, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic literature from that period that speaks of the Jewish faith.  Rabbinical writings did not begin to take shape until many centuries after the Hebrew Bible was written. With the discovery of the DSS we now have something to compare the early Christian writings with Hebrew and Aramaic literature.  Therefore, the question arises:  are the similarities between Christian writings and the Essene literature from the DSS due to the fact that they both reflect the same period, or is there direct influence of one upon the other?  Are both sets of documents, namely the DSS and the New Testament writings, similar because that was the language and terminology of the day or because they were written by people who had contact with each other?   Something that must be understood is that because the New Testament and the Qumran scrolls share terminology, places and cultural milieu, it does not means that they must have borrowed from each other.  The fact is that we have no other original literature in Hebrew or Aramaic from the time of the New Testament writings.

    How has the unveiling of the DSS influenced our understanding of the New Testament?  According to professor VanderKam, one of the major areas of biblical research that has benefited tremendously from the DSS has been in the understanding of the language and textual formulas.  As most Bible students know, the earliest New Testament writings were in Greek, but neither Yeshua nor his disciples spoke Greek.  Most likely, they spoke Aramaic or a similar Galilean dialect (Remember that they could tell that Peter had been with Jesus because of his Galilean accent?).  It is inconceivable that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic or another Hebraic form and that there would have been a simultaneous and literal translation into Greek!  The question then arises, what did Yeshua actually say? What were the original words he used?  This is where the DSS shed light.  Now we have contemporary verbal expressions in the DSS.  Now we can understand more of the language of Yeshua, the Gospels and even the Epistles, because we can see what they mean because we now know how these words and phrases were used.

    Just to point to few examples, VanderKam shows a few words whose Hebrew origin we can now understand because of the way in which they are used in the DSS.  Our New Testament uses the Greek word toón pleiónon that is usually translated as “many” or “majority” which eventually came to represent all of Jesus’ followers (2 Cor. 2: 5-6). But we now know from one of the scrolls, the “Manual of Discipline” what was the name used for a gathering of many.  We are told  what were the rules for group meetings, who could speak, when, and so forth.  The Hebrew word used in the scroll for congregation is hrbym which when vocalized with vowels is harabbim.  The text reads “And in an Assembly of the Congregation no man shall speak without the consent of the congregation, nor indeed of the Guardian of the Congregation” (Manual of Discipline 6:11-12).  This was a Hebrew word for congregation that Jesus and his Hebrew speaking followers used, a word that we did not know until the surfacing of the DSS.  Another example of the DSS shedding light into the original Hebrew words used in the New Testament is the word that we have translated as overseer or bishop.  The Greek word is episkepos, but the Hebrew word used for similar function is “guardian” hmbqr.  Here again, the DSS text illuminates words for which we had no knowledge of their original usage.

    According to VanderKam, we can even venture further by asking whether there were actual Qumran texts that found their way into the New Testament literature.  There is strong evidence that in addition to most Epistles, the Gospel of Mark may have been written before the destruction of the Temple.  If this is so, then it is possible that parts of the New Testament may have drawn from Essene sources.  There are strong similarities in several passages of the New Testament with the literature of Qumran.

    VanderKam points out to 2 Corinthians 2: 14-15 “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?”  Compare this with Qumran literature that makes reference to the contrast between light and darkness and we see the similarity.   Furthermore, this passage of Paul is the only reference we have in the New Testament of “Belial” while the Qumran texts, mainly the Hymns Scroll, make several references to this name.  We cannot say that Paul borrowed this idea from the Essene literature of the DSS but he certainly had knowledge of their terminology and phraseology.

    This leads to the next question.  Were the early believers members of the Essene community?  The theories once held that James the brother of Jesus or the apostle Paul must have been part of the Essene community have all but been disqualified.  There is nevertheless a strong candidate for associating with the Qumran community, that is John the Baptist.  There are more than simple coincidences that would link John the Baptist to the Qumran Essenes. To mention just a few, the teachings of John and those of the Essenes are strikingly similar.   The tone of John’s preaching echoes that of the Essenes: repentance, baptism, and a sense of urgency.  In addition, the Wilderness of Judea is mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels as the place where John preached and baptized.  It is precisely the same region where the Essene settlement of Qumran was found.  It is also curious that both the message of the Qumran community and that of John the Baptist is supported by the passage of Isaiah 40:3,  “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God’.”  The Essene community believed that they were fulfilling the words spoken by the prophet Isaiah when they retreated to the wilderness to “prepare the way of the Lord.”  But as VanderKam states “…if John was a member of the Qumran community, he must have later separated from it to pursue his independent, solitary ministry.”

    There are many other similarities, such as the Book of Acts telling that the early believers sold their properties and brought the money from the sale to the apostles, a tradition that was also part of the Essene community.  Although with some differences, the ritual of baptism was practiced by both Christians and Essenes.  The Lord’s Supper has many things in common with the meal that was partaken by all members of the Qumran community.  Indeed there are many similarities between what we find in the Qumran texts and the New Testament literature, but they do not diminish the validity of one or the other, they rather reinforce their credibility by pointing out that Christianity did not develop in a vacuum neither was it a totally strange message.  The validity of the New Testament is reaffirmed by what we have seen in the DSS.  I am a firm believer that both, archaeology and history validate the biblical literature and affirm it as the solid foundation of our faith.

————

“Discovering the Scrolls” pg. 17
Shanks, H. , pg. xxi
Ibid, pg. 7
Ibid, pg. xxvii
Ibid, pg. xxvii
Vernes, Giza, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English,  The Penguin Press, New York: 1997, pg. 16
Shanks, H. , pg. xiv
Ibid, pg. xvi
Sedaca, D. The Hebrew Christian. Quarterly Magazine of the International Hebrew Christian Alliance:
Ramsgate, England: Summer 1992.
Dupont-Summer, Andre, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952
Wilson, Edmund;  The Scrolls from the Dead Sea, London, Collings, 1955
Stendhal, Krister, Ed. The Scrolls and the New Testament. New York, Harper and Row: 1957
Cross, Frank M., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical  Studies.  Grand Rapids,: Baker Book House, reprint 1980; pg. 203
Michigan
Burrows, Millar., The Dead Sea Scrolls.  New York: Viking, 1955
Shanks, H. pg. 187
Ibid, pg. 190

By Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Professor of Judaism, University of Wales.

    For thousands of years, the Jewish people have longed for messianic deliverance. Sustained by this belief the community has endured persecution and suffering, confident they will ultimately be rescued from earthly travail. Such expectations began with the Hebrew Bible. Scripture foretells a future redemption of the Jewish people that will be accomplished by the Messiah, an anointed agent of the Lord. For the prophets, such a figure will be a descendant of David who will restore the nation to its former glory. In explaining God’s purposes, the prophets linked the punishment of the nation with the promise of a future redemption – continually they reassured the people they would undergo future glory.

    The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha amplify these Scriptural themes, bearing witness to the longing of the Jewish people for deliverance and redemption. Once the Jews were exiled from the ancient homeland, they were bereft of a country of their own. In their despair, they longed for a divinely appointed deliverer who would reunite them in Zion. In early Rabbinic literature, the messianic ideas found in the Hebrew Bible, and the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, were further developed into a chain of eschatological events including: the birth pangs of the Messiah, the emergence of Messiah ben Joseph, the coming of the King Messiah, the messianic Age, final judgment, and the world to come.

    During the Second Temple period and the years of unrest following Herod’s death in 4 BCE (Before the Common Era), Jewish followers of Jesus emerged. In consonance with messianic hopes, these believers expected Jesus as the Messiah to bring about the fulfillment of human history.   According to the New Testament, Jesus spent most of His life in Galilee where He acted as a healer, exorcist and itinerant preacher who proclaimed the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. After He was put to death during the time of Pontius Pilate, His followers believed He had risen from the dead, appeared to them, and promised to return to usher in the period of messianic rule. The majority of the Jewish population, however, refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah; in their view He failed to fulfill the messianic role as portrayed in Scripture and post-exilic sources.

    As the years passed, and after the Temple had been destroyed, messianic longing intensified. There had been much speculation and many disappointments for the faithful Jews awaiting their Messiah. Perhaps the beginning was in l32 CE, when the military leader Simeon bar Kochba was viewed by many Jews as the long-awaited Messiah. However, when his rebellion against Rome was crushed, Jews moved forward the year of redemption. In the middle of the fifth century, another messianic figure, Moses from Crete, stated that he would lead Jewish inhabitants of the island back to the Holy Land. After his plan failed, Jews continued to long for a future messianic return. These aspirations are recorded in various midrashic collections. Subsequently, in anxious anticipation of the Messiah, Jewish scholars attempted to ascertain the date of the final redemption on the basis of Biblical texts. In addition, during this period various pseudo-Messiahs appeared, and the traveler Eldad Ha-Dani brought news of the Ten Lost Tribes.

    Later, during the time of the Crusades, messianic expectation increased as Jews faced persecution and death. In the following two centuries, various Jewish writers attempted to predict the date of final redemption on the basis of the Book of Daniel. Also, during these years a number of false Messiahs appeared on the Jewish scene. As time passed, other writers began to speculate about the coming of the Messiah. Prominent among the mystical works of this period was the Zohar, which contains numerous calculations about the coming of the messianic age. Again, in the thirteenth century, another messianic figure, Abraham Abulafia, attracted a wide following from Jews who longed for a return to Zion. These medieval Jews – like their ancestors – yearned for a release from the bondage of exile, and looked to the advent of the Messiah as a means of deliverance.

    The early modern period witnessed this same aspiration for redemption. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries various messianic tracts were written, and in the sixteenth century various Jewish sages continued the tradition of messianic calculation. There were also a number of pseudo-Messiahs who appeared and claimed to bring about a new era. Undaunted by past failures, messianic calculators of the seventeenth century persisted in their computations. Prominent among these messianic speculators was Manasseh ben Israel, who believed that the hour of deliverance was near.

    The Cossack Rebellion that began in l648, and devastated Polish Jewry, heightened the belief that the coming of the messianic age was near at hand. In this milieu, a disciple, Nathan of Gaza, announced the arrival of the self-proclaimed messianic king, Shabbetai Tzevi.  Throughout the world, Jews were persuaded the Messiah had come, and flocked to his court. Yet, when Shabbetai converted to Islam rather than face death, his apostasy evoked dismay among his followers. Nonetheless, a number of Shabbetai disciples, including Nathan of Gaza, continued to believe in his messiahship. Subsequently, a schismatic group of them broke away from mainstream Judaism. Later, this Shabbatean movement was led by Jacob Frank, whose followers subscribed to a heretical version of the Shabbatean tradition.

    With the conversion of Shabbetai Tzevi, the Jewish hope of messianic deliverance ceased to preoccupy the nation. Nonetheless, a number of religious Zionists maintained it was necessary to rebuild the Holy Land in anticipation of the advent of the Messiah. Opposed to such a reinterpretation of Jewish messianism, Orthodox critics argued that the quest to create a Jewish settlement in Palestine was a usurpation of God’s will. Distancing themselves from such religious preoccupations, secular Zionists maintained the creation of a Jewish homeland as the only solution to the problem of anti-Semitism. Unconvinced by all these arguments, liberal Jews contended that Jewish prejudice could be overcome if the Jewish population assimilated into the countries in which they lived.

    In modern society, most Jews have found it increasingly difficult to accept the traditional scheme of messianic redemption. Supernatural ideas about the advent of the Messiah, and the unfolding of a Divine providential plan, have seemed increasingly implausible in the light of scientific knowledge and the growth of secularism. The strictly orthodox as well as the Hasidim, however, continue to remain firmly committed to the traditional doctrine of messianic redemption.

    A dramatic illustration of the enduring character of this messianic hope has recently become manifest within one of the major sects of Hasidim.  Over the last few years, a significant number of Lubavicher Hasidim have proclaimed that their Rebbe — Menachem Mendel Schneerson — is the long-awaited Messiah, even though he died in l994.

    During his lifetime, the Rebbe established a worldwide empire of disciples, spread Torah Judaism to places where it had never been known, energized Jewish education, and led numerous irreligious Jews to observance of Jewish law. On this basis, a growing number of Hasidim became convinced that the period of messianic deliverance was imminent.

    When the Rebbe suffered a stroke, his followers were not deterred; indeed, the Rebbe’s incapacity fueled the flames of messianic enthusiasm. His illness was invested with redemptive significance: the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 was perceived as being a reference to the Rebbe’s debilitated state. According to a number of his disciples, the Rebbe would not die, despite his stroke; and they prayed for his recovery daily.

    Even the Rebbe’s death did not daunt those who were convinced of his Messiahship. He would return! In the view of one Israeli newspaper, those who had lost faith in the Rebbe were like the worshippers of the golden calf who had given up hope of Moses’ return from Mount Sinai. Eventually, a number of messianists became convinced that the Rebbe had not in fact died; in their view he remains alive but concealed. Hence, what happened on 3 Tammuz 5754 was an illusion. The Rebbe’s corpse, they argued, was a test for carnal eyes; but in truth there was no passing away or leave-taking. Some followers of the Rebbe have even gone so far as to use incarnational terminology in describing his mission.

    This, then, is the most recent manifestation of the continuation of the heart-felt longing of the Jewish nation. Menahem Mendel Schneerson is the last link in a long chain of messianic pretenders stretching back over twenty centuries of Jewish history. From ancient times to the present, believers have prayed for the coming of messianic deliverance; a hope that has sustained the Jewish people through centuries of suffering and destruction.

————

Professor Dan Cohn-Sherbok, was born in Denver, Colorado, educated at Williams College, and ordained a Reform rabbi at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. He has received a Doctorate in Divinity from the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and a Doctorate in philosophy from Cambridge University in England. From l975, he taught Jewish theology at the University of Kent at Canterbury, England. He is currently the first Professor of Judaism in the University of Wales. He is the author and editor of over 50 books, including The Jewish Faith, Atlas of Jewish History, Modern Judaism, and Understanding the Holocaust.

    The Messianic movement is a revitalization of Jewish ethnicity, as well as certain aspects of first-century Judaism, based on the belief that Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth) is the Messiah promised to Israel. The movement includes both Jews (openly defined) and non-Jews. Messianic Judaism holds that Torah observance (the laws of Moses) is normative for Messianic Jews. Messianic congregations also include non-Jewish (Gentile) participants. In many cases, the role of Gentiles in Messianic congregations and the larger Messianic movement is unclear.  This article will attempt to address the need for clarification of the role that Gentiles can play in the Messianic movement.

Types of Gentile Involvement

    Gentile participants in the Messianic congregations fall into several categories that are described as follows:

1. Some Gentiles are what have been described as “wanna-be Jews.” These Gentiles have come to the conclusion that God has “called” them to be Jewish. They often wear kippahs, and are sometimes unwilling to be totally honest about their Gentile identity.
2. A second group includes Gentiles who find Jewish ethnicity attractive. They encounter meaning and fulfillment in Messianic styles of worship. By copying Jewish ethnicity, these Gentiles seek to demonstrate their love of the Jewish people, and the Jewish roots of Christianity.
3. A third group of Gentiles has come to the theological position that the Torah is equally binding on Jews and Gentiles. The result is a loss of Jewish-Gentile distinction.
4. A fourth group is composed of Gentiles married to Jewish spouses. These Gentiles engage in some forms of Torah observance and Jewish practices, in an attempt to raise their children in homes that reflect the children’s Jewish heritage.
5. Finally, there are Gentiles who have joined the Messianic movement out of a desire to minister faith in Yeshua as contextually relevant to Jews.

The Problem

    The problem of the Messianic movement with regard to the issue of Torah observance is complicated by the presence of these Gentile groups in the congregations. This problem gives the non-Messianic Jewish community a picture of the movement as made up of few actual Jews.

Jews and Gentiles in the Early Faith Community

    The original disciples of Yeshua were Jewish. They were Jewish by birth and religion. Their belief that Yeshua was the Messiah did not stop their Torah observance. It did, however, alter their way of observance in some areas.

    Within a short time Gentiles called “God-fearers” were included in the Body of the Messiah. The Book of Acts explains how, as the faith spread into the pagan, Gentile community, some among the Jewish believers began to teach that the Gentiles must become Jewish in order to be saved. The apostles and the Jerusalem congregation discussed the issue, and determined that these pagan Gentiles did not need to become Jewish to be saved. But some observance of the Torah was placed upon them, namely, abstinence from items identified with idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood (Acts 15).

One Lord, One Faith, Two Expressions

    The brief history of the two groups (Jews and Gentiles) living in the unity of the Spirit was to give way to a split that the first-century congregation could not have imagined. As the Messianic Jews became alienated from their fellow Jews because of theological and historical events, they also began to be outnumbered by their Gentile counterparts in the Church. As primitive Christianity gave way to Roman Christianity, the place of Jews, and things Jewish (including Torah observance), became increasingly small. The result was a loss of the distinctive roles of Jew and Gentile in the Body. This led to a historical Christian Church where Jews had to abandon both ethnicity (family) and Torah observance (religion), to believe in the Messiah. As the Church entered the Dark Ages, little remained of the Jewish roots of Christianity.

A Flicker of Hope

    With the Reformation, there was a flicker of hope when Martin Luther realized the purpose of God to place Jew as Jew, and Gentile as Gentile, into a Messianic community of faith. His attempt to open dialog with the Jewish community was understandably rejected. His resulting wrath at the Jews from that point guaranteed that Jew and Gentile would not find unity in the Messiah for several centuries.

    In the 1800s, the modern Hebrew-Christian movement slowly attempted to restore Jewish identity to Hebrew-Christians, and once again declare a Jewish Gospel to Jewish people. This movement gave rise and opportunity to the current Messianic movement with its congregational emphasis.

The Present Task

    Today, Messianic Jews struggle with the question of religious expression. Are they Israelites? Do they identify with Israel by observance of the Torah covenant? How do they observe Torah? To what extent can the history of Rabbinic Judaism inform that observance? And how do primitive Gentile Christians and Messianic Gentiles participate in that process without confusing the issues? How can the five groups of Gentiles in the Messianic movement play a productive role? The Book of Ephesians declares that God has made Jews and Gentiles into one new man in the Messiah. This new man is neither Jew nor Gentile. This must be understood. The major error that must be avoided is to make Jews into Gentiles, and Gentiles into Jews. Jews and Gentiles must remain authentic in their own identities, or the unity of the Body of the Messiah cannot be seen. The Body of the Messiah must show a unity: Jew and Gentile united by one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

The Gentile Role

    Gentile believers have been grafted into the root of Israel. They are no longer strangers or aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints (Eph. 2:19). But they are not Jews. Paul gives a clear and significant guideline when he tells those called in circumcision to “not seek to be uncircumcised, and those who were called in uncircumcision to not become circumcised” (I Cor. 7:18). The Gentiles in the movement have at least two Biblical roles to play in the Body of the Messiah. One is to identify with Israel. Another is to provoke unbelieving Israel to envy.

Identifying With Israel

    The primary role of Gentiles in the Body of the Messiah is to identify with Israel. To identify with Israel is different from identifying as Israel. As Gentiles, our struggle must be to show that we have been brought into a relationship with the God of Abraham without being a replacement of Israel. But there is a danger here. If Gentiles lose our own identity and become copy-cat Jews, or if the differences become hidden, the purpose for the Body to be both Jew and Gentile in one new man will be lost.

Provoking Israel

    A second, significant role for Gentiles is to provoke unbelieving Israel to envy. Indeed, this role is used as an explanation for God’s bringing Gentiles to salvation (Rom. 11:11). This role involves an authenticity in obedience to the commands of God that makes unbelieving Israel envious that she is not participating in what is rightfully hers. Too often, Christians and Messianic Gentiles provoke Israel to apathy (by not having significance in what we do) or to anger (by preaching replacement theology or acting like Jews). The role of the Gentile in the body must include an attractiveness in obedience that provokes unbelieving Jews to envy. Therefore, I believe that we can best fulfill this role by Torah observance that is consistent with the Torah commands, but is distinctive with regard to Jews and Gentiles.

    For example, the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 makes it clear that Gentiles are to abstain from blood. This command was not an option for Gentiles.  It was an essential item. As a Gentile, when I observe this command in the presence of unbelieving Jews, or discuss my observance in their presence, I am often engaged in conversations regarding Judaism, Messiah, and other related topics.

    Another example is the Sabbath. In our home, we celebrate the Sabbath in a manner similar, but not identical, to the traditions of Judaism. All of the Torah’s commands and elements of Judaism are present. But the form is distinct. Our Jewish neighbors who know of our observance sometimes express a desire to have what is rightfully theirs. They see an authenticity in what we do that reminds them of childhood Sabbaths at home. We are often asked why we observe the Sabbath. We respond with the text from Isaiah 56:6-8, which tells of the Gentiles who keep the Sabbath.

    Jewish and Gentile believers must work together to protect our separate identities while becoming one new man in the Body of the Messiah.

One Additional Role

    One additional role is incumbent upon us, because of the present lack of Messianic understanding within the historic Church. Messianic Gentiles must make the movement understandable to Christians who have no idea of the Jewish roots of their faith. If Gentiles are absorbed into the movement and lose their Gentile distinctions, the historical Church, like unbelieving Israel, will ignore us, or become angered. There is a great need for authentic Gentile believers to identify with Messianic Jews, and to assist the remnant of Israel in being a light unto the Gentiles.

Getting Started

    So what are we to do? I believe the first step is a recognition that Jews and Gentiles each have a role to play n the Body of the Messiah and the Messianic movement. The roles are distinct as we are distinct. We need authentic Jewish believers who observe the Torah in a manner that fulfills their role to identify as Israel, and to be a light unto the Gentiles. Also, we need authentic Gentiles who understand their distinctive role to identify with Israel, and to provoke unbelieving Israel to envy.

    We must also address the groups of Gentiles already participating in the movement who fall into the five categories of involvement described earlier. How do they grow from their present participation into the role as described here?

    The “wanna-be” problem must be addressed with sensitivity and candor. While it may be the smallest group, it is the one that has the most potential to cause serious damage. The problem is either a misunderstanding of what being Jewish means in the plan of God, or an identity conflict within the person. It is not a Biblical doctrine that God calls some Gentiles to be Jewish believers.

    The group of Gentiles who enjoy the Jewish flavor of the Messianic worship style must be careful to not confuse ethnicity with Torah commandments. The Torah addresses the Jew to be a light to the Gentiles. This is accomplished by observance of the Torah commands. There is nothing wrong with the Hebrew dancing and singing, but this is not the essence of what God is doing in reviving Judah. I would suggest a serious attempt to learn as much as possible about Jewish expression, but make the focus of your study the Torah commands related to Gentiles.

    To those who believe that the commands of God are identical to the Jew and the Gentile, the danger of Judaizing becomes a real concern. This group must find a way to establish a form of non-Jewish religiosity that embodies the essence of the Torah commands, without simply copying everything that Jews do.

    The Gentile married to a Messianic Jew is in an unique situation that must be addressed with great care. In the case of a Gentile man married to a Jewish woman, it is clear that maintaining the identity of the children is a significant goal. There is also a Biblical precedent for a woman married to a Jewish man to be absorbed into the community of Israel (Ruth). While conversion of these individuals is a possibility, and I am open on this question, it adds to the problem of acceptance by the larger Jewish community. Regardless of the disposition of the Gentile spouse, if the children are raised in an authentic observant manner, their identity will be questioned less by themselves and the larger Jewish community.

    For those who, like myself, have been involved in the Messianic movement because of a desire to see an authentic Messianic Judaism that can be presented to the Jewish community with integrity, there is a need to be informed in the content and observance of Torah, so that Messianic Judaism is encouraged to grow in authentic observance. We also need to maintain our obedience to Torah commands in a manner that is clearly Biblical – but distinct from Jewish – so that we identify with Israel, but not as Israel.

    In addition, we must reintroduce the Torah basis for the New Covenant among our Gentile brethren, so they will embrace observant Messianic Jews as their brethren, and move toward the unity that God intended.

————

1996 H. Bruce Stokes. All rights reserved. H. Bruce Stokes, Ph.D., is Professor of Anthropology and Behavioral Sciences at California Baptist College in Riverside, California. He has been pastor/teacher at First Baptist Church, Westminster, since 1984, and is vice-president of the Union of Messianic Believers. This article is a revision of a paper presented to the International Messianic Jewish Alliance meeting in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, in 1997.

    The second half of the 20th century has witnessed the rise of Messianic Judaism, a  movement that has finally found its niche in the religious world. Today, Messianic Judaism is rapidly growing in different parts of the globe: Israel, North and South America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Because of its history and the impact of such a movement in the light of Biblical interpretation, it cannot be dismissed as an experiment to be tested or a fad to be tried out. Any conscious analysis of Messianic Judaism has to be performed against its own historical and Biblical backdrop.

What is Messianic Judaism?

    Messianic Judaism is the term used to define a form of lifestyle and worship that fully identifies with Jewish customs and traditions, while believing that Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth is the promised Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures. At the same time, Messianic Judaism holds most emphatically that it is part of the universal body of Messiah, the Church, but claims the right to express itself – both in its daily life and worship style – in a way that agrees with its Jewish heritage.

    Messianic Jews believe in maintaining a Jewish expression of their faith.  Therefore, they celebrate all Biblical holidays (Passover, Succoth, Shavuot, etc.), which the people of Israel were commanded to observe for all generations. Another characteristic of this movement is its love and support to the nation of Israel. Additionally, Messianic Jews usually establish congregations for their worship, even though there are many cases in which Jewish believers in the Messiah adhere to a Messianic Jewish lifestyle while remaining formally affiliated with traditional churches. These Messianic congregations are fashioned after the early Church of the “Brit Hadashah” (New Testament). Messianic Jewish congregations, which are sometimes called Messianic Jewish synagogues, have certain characteristics: worship on the Sabbath, Davidic music and dance, and many other Jewish traditions that are consistent with Biblical teachings. It should be noted that, in full agreement with the New Testament, membership is open to both Jew and Gentile.

Looking back through the years

    The Messianic Judaism of today did not develop in a vacuum. Rather, it is the logical outcome of a process that began 2,000 years ago, when a young Jewish man began to preach that the Messianic hopes proclaimed by the prophets of Israel were fulfilled in Him. Most scholars agree that this man, Yeshua, lived a lifestyle consistent with first-century Judaism. Further, from Jewish records and church historians, we know that, even after the first century, when Messianic Jews ceased to be the leaders of the Church, there were individual Jews who believed in Jesus.

    Messianic Judaism of today is the latest expression of a process that is over one hundred years old. The resurgence of this movement can be traced to Great Britain, around the year 1850. At that time, there were thousands of Jewish people who converted to Christianity. The result, though, of most of these conversions was the loss of their Jewish identity. By the middle of the 19th century, many outstanding Jewish believers in Jesus began questioning the then prevailing corollary that accepting Jesus meant the forfeiture of one’s Jewish heritage. Contacts in England between these Jewish believers ultimately led to the formation, in 1813, of the first body of believers who recognized both their Jewish ancestry, and their faith in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. The name of this association was Beni Abraham (Children of Abraham).

    It was only with the formation of an national, umbrella organization, however, that Jewish believers were united in bonds of heritage, witnessing and relief. This organization was the Hebrew Christian Alliance. The idea was first promoted by Dr. C. Schwartz, of Trinity Chapel. Finally, on May 14, 1867, a resolution was passed to unite all Jewish believers under the umbrella of the Hebrew Christian Alliance and Prayer Union of Great Britain. The organization of this first national Alliance led to the founding of similar Alliances in different parts of the world. With the appearance of the first Hebrew Christian Alliance, many Jewish believers in the churches came into the open by declaring their Jewish ancestry. This phenomenon spread like bush fire and, before the turn of the century, there were national alliances of Jewish believers instituted in many European countries.

    Another organization founded in England in 1883, to unite Jewish believers in prayer support and spiritual bonds, was the Hebrew Christian Prayer Union. The concept was so well received, that in less than seven years after its formation, membership rose from 147 to 600, with branches established in Germany, Norway, Romania, Russia, Israel (then called Palestine), and the United States. These national alliances, although closely related with each other, lacked the international structure that would further unite them in their purposes. This need was finally met when, in 1925, all the Hebrew Christian Alliances formed the International Hebrew Christian Alliance (IHCA). Before the outbreak of World War II, 20 national alliances became affiliates of the IHCA. In the words of Hugh Schonfield, “Since 1925, the history of Jewish Christianity becomes in effect the history of the IHCA.”

    Once Jewish believers tested their strength, they realized this was just the beginning of an important movement. Sir Leon Levison, first president of the IHCA, wrote in a 1927 report in The Hebrew Christian Quarterly, the official IHCA organ, that there were 97,000 Jewish believers, roughly distributed as follows: in Vienna 17,000 accepted Jesus; in Poland 35,000; in Russia 60,000; in America and Canada over 30,000, and in Great Britain 5,000.

    The next step was to establish churches composed of Jewish believers, where their Judaism could be emphasized. There were several successful experiences in this regard. One was the Hebrew Christian movement in Kischineff, led by Joseph Rabinowitz, a lawyer, who in 1882 founded the first Hebrew Christian community. Rabinowitz ushered Hebrew Christian believers out of the boundaries of existing churches, and kept them within the realms of the synagogue. A similar success occurred under the leadership of Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein in Tapio- Szele, of Hungary. The first Hebrew Christian Church in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was established in 1936, and similar churches were formed in different European countries.

    These and similar stories led to the question of whether the time had arrived to “rebuild David’s tabernacle that is fallen down,” by planting independent Jewish congregations. A committee was formed to study the viability of Hebrew Christian churches. This landmark event took place at the Budapest Conference of the IHCA, the last conference before the Holocaust. By then, there were several Hebrew Christian churches in Europe, and North and South America. However, the tragedy of the Holocaust necessitated that Jewish believers shift gears from establishing indigenous congregations to escaping Hitler’s camps, and assisting refugees.

    After Judaism was back on its feet, Jewish believers continued developing their spiritual quest. Thus, the Hebrew Christian movement began slowly to transform itself into Messianic Judaism, as we know it today. In some places, it caused a sharp breakaway from the Gentile Church, while in others the process was much smoother. Out of the ashes of the Holocaust, and with the founding of the modern State of Israel, a new Jewish identity began to emerge, and the Hebrew Christian movement was not immune to these changes. The term “Hebrew Christian” no longer properly defined Jewish believers in Yeshua. Therefore, a more adequate form of expressing their Jewish identity and beliefs was found in the term “Messianic Jew.”

Unity within diversity

    Today, there are as many forms of Messianic Judaism around the worlds as there are Jewish people. In most instances, Messianic Jewish congregations were molded after the milieu in which they took part. In the United States, where the largest number of Messianic Jews reside, congregations tended to adopt more aspects of the traditional Jewish synagogue service, with their own Siddurim, Torah Scrolls, etc. On the other hand, in Great Britain, where the Hebrew Christian movement was stronger, Messianic Judaism did not rapidly adopt traditional Jewish elements. Argentina, with a European, evangelical tradition was slow to change, but even though the largest number of Jewish believers belong to traditional, Evangelical churches, Messianic Jewish congregations have become well grounded. In Holland, most Jewish believers adopted the New Testament name given to the early followers of Yeshua, HaDerech, the Way. One of the hardest issues that continues to confront Messianic Judaism is the rejection suffered from mainline Judaism that for the most part, argues that Jews who believes in Jesus have given up their Jewishness.

    Therefore, an issue that engages Messianic Judaism is the need to prove that even though it accepts Yeshua as the Messiah, it does not reject Judaism as a lifestyle, a people, and a culture. This is not the case of Jewish believers in Israel, where their Jewishness is taken as a fact. In the State of Israel, their struggle is to gain the same full rights under the Law of Return as all the other Jews.

    In Russia and the former Soviet republics, there is a true awakening of Judaism and Messianic Judaism. Under the Communist regime, Judaism was suppressed, and millions were alienated from their rightful heritage. Now, with a new openness, not only are Jewish people re-discovering their lineage, but hundreds of them have come to accept the fact that Yeshua is the promised Messiah. Presently, there are Messianic Jewish congregations in St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev, and the testimony is being carried to other former Soviet republics.

    By the end of 1993, there were 165 independent Messianic Jewish congregations worldwide, and a similar number of ministries and fellowships. Most Messianic Jewish congregations are affiliated with larger associations including the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, the international Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues, the Fellowship of Messianic Jewish Congregations, The Canadian Fellowship of Messianic Congregations and Ministries, the Southern Baptist Messianic Fellowship, etc. In spite of the different backgrounds, the Messianic Jewish movement is quite cohesive. The fundamental fact is not what makes these groups different, but rather, the bond that holds them together in spite of all: the belief that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, and that this belief does not make them forfeit their Jewishness.

Building bridges or building walls?

    While many in traditional Judaism have put their trust in a modern messiah who poorly meets the Biblical requirements, Messianic Jews have accepted that the promised Messiah already came, and it was Yeshua of Nazareth.  Messianic Jews are in a unique position to build a bridge of understanding between traditional Judaism and the Christian Church, by pointing out to the Church the need to reconsider their Jewish origin, and at the same time, pointing Judaism to the Jewishness of Jesus, and His message.  There are more commonalities that bring Judaism and Christianity together than that pull them apart; Messianic Judaism provides an example of both being brought together.  This was an accomplishment of the early Church, and it would be helpful for both religious groups to look back to their own history.

    A question was posed to a rabbi, “Teacher, who is a Jew?” Not being able to give a definitive answer, the teacher finally replied, “I cannot give you a precise description of a Jew, but I can tell you for sure who is not a Jew.” One of the most difficult of queries has been, “Who is a Jew?” The apparent, simple answer has eluded even the most inquisitive of Jewish minds, with the search for a Jewish identity being the goal of many sages, rabbis and teachers.

    Today, Messianic Judaism has erupted onto the religious scene. And, if trying to define who is a Jew has been elusive, it is even harder to try to define who is a Messianic Jew. I believe that oftentimes, we – like the Jewish teacher – can only characterize Messianic Judaism for what it is not. There is hardly a unifying concept of what is Messianic Judaism, or who is a Messianic Jew. Due to the fast growth of the Messianic Jewish movement, however, there is a need to find a genuine Messianic Jewish identity.

    It is agreed that Messianic Judaism has found its niche in the religious world, but whether it will be effective will depend to a large extent on the genuineness of the movement. The question of who is a Messianic Jew necessitates some kind of answer to determine what is genuine, and what is not. It is generally accepted that Messianic Judaism is the belief that Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth is the Messiah of Israel, and that belief does not cut off someone who is already part of the people of the Land. Therefore, a Messianic Jew, although a member of the larger Body of Messiah, will keep certain Jewish customs and traditions.

    Looking back at the almost two decades of modern-day, Messianic Judaism, one comes to the conclusion there are elements that are genuine, while others are questionable. Although I am far from declaring that I can define who is a Messianic Jew, I can safely arrive at some conclusions. Let us consider factors that will either help us to define a Messianic Jew, or will, at least, give us some tools with which to carve out an answer:

• Messianic Judaism is defined by the words used to identify itself. It is generally accepted that words are vehicles by which we convey ideas. This being the case, what, then, is the idea conveyed by the words “Messianic Jew”? Following these criterion we can reach certain conclusions:

(a)A “Messianic Jew” is not somebody who has chosen to worship in a certain way or uses certain Jewish elements, but it is a Jew who believes in the Messiah. It is the belief in Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah that determines a Messianic Jewish identity.

(b)Judaism is a movement composed of Jewish people. A Messianic Jew is not someone who has a “Jewish heart,” or loves the Jewish people: we know quite well that we need more people like this. A feeling or an attitude, no matter how deep and genuine is, does not make someone a Jew. This does not elevate the Jews, nor disparage the non-Jews. The Messianic Jewish movement is enriched by the friendship and participation of the non-Jewish people, but it must make clear that it does not make Jews of people who have Jewish hearts, or who love the Jewish people.  Dr. Bruce Stokes, pastor of Westminster Baptist Church and vice-president of the Association of Messianic Believers of America, has expressed this very well when he explains there is a role for non-Jews in the Messianic Jewish movement; and this role is best expressed when they participate in Messianic Judaism as non-Jews.

(c)Messianic Jews and Messianic Jewish Congregations. It must be made clear that Messianic Jewish Congregations, although an integral expression of Messianic Judaism, are ruled by a different set of standards. This has to be the case, as they are composed of gatherings of believers who follow the New Testament teachings. In consequence, in a Messianic Jewish Congregation there can be no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Belonging to a Messianic Jewish congregation does not make of a Jew a Gentile; neither does it make of a Gentile a Jew.

• A Messianic Jewish identity will be determined by its beliefs – not by its external expressions. During its first decade of existence, Messianic Judaism lacked the theological and doctrinal foundation that would give validity to this movement. Since then there have been serious attempts to rectify this; most noticeably, David Stern’sMessianic Jewish Manifesto, and Daniel Juster’s Jewish Roots.Messianic Judaism is known for its music, worship style and dance, which is roughly defined as “Davidic praise.” If “Davidic worship” is one of the characteristics used to define Messianic Judaism, one is faced with an additional problem, as the Bible is mute on this whole concept. Another characteristic used to define Messianic Judaism is the use of Jewish elements in the service, e.g. “Kippa,” “Tallit,” “Messianic Siddur,” etceteras. All these elements, while genuinely Jewish in their nature, hardly help to define who is a Messianic Jew. At best, they help to express ones’ beliefs, but they hardly convey what these beliefs are. This is precisely why the Lord Jesus rebuked those Jewish leaders of His day who adhered to the letter of the Torah, to the tiniest detail, while forgetting the Spirit in which the Torah was given (Matthew 23).

  It reminds me of the time when I was a college student and I took part in a debate with traditional Jews. After growing tired of hearing that I wasn’t a good Jew, I finally asked, “Well, then tell me what do I have to do to be good Jew”? They replied, “Well, if you are a good Jew, you light the Shabbat candles.” I then responded, “Is that what Judaism is all about?”

  Messianic Judaism is more than “Davidic worship,” wearing “Kippa” or keeping the Shabbat; these are outward expressions, but they convey little of that in which I believe . There is a need to know why we choose to wear “Kippa,” and what beliefs move us to keep Shabbat. In the quest for an identifiable Messianic Jewish identity, one must show the beliefs that give form to ones’ spiritual self. It is only against this backdrop that it becomes possible to be genuine in the use of Jewish symbols and traditions.

• Messianic Judaism is to be defined by Messianic Jews. For the past few decades, Messianic Jews have allowed the non-Jewish followers of Messiah, or the non-believing Jews, to determine who is a Messianic Jew. Court rulings and Christian apologists have made their voices heard, while Messianic Judaism has been slow to respond. One of the reasons for this is the lack of identity that characterizes Messianic Judaism today.

  One of the tasks Messianic Judaism needs to face, is to finally determine who is a Messianic Jew. While the answer will not please everyone, it will preserve the integrity of the movement. There will be some who will not fit the criteria; others will call Messianic Jews exclusive; and still others will raise the accusation that we are again building the “middle wall of partition” that Messiah tore down. While not every one will be satisfied, at least there can be a degree of satisfaction that this is how Messianic Judaism defines itself; not what others perceive Messianic Judaism to be.

    I believe that Messianic Judaism is the fulfillment of Messianic hopes for the Jewish people. It is of God, and as such, it will prosper. Nevertheless, as the vine needs trimming and care if it is to bear fruit (John 15:8), so those involved in Messianic Judaism should care for this movement if it is to fulfill God’s plan for the redemption of Israel.