Figuring out Ecclesiology (or, pruning our Elaiology)

As I surf the Messianic Jewish blogosphere, one issue seems to be a constant topic of heated discussion. This topic, I think, has been raised due to the recent attention Vine of David has put on early Hebrew Christians. These Jewish men and women contributed to the development of the modern Messianic Jewish movement (MJM). Yet, unlike modern Messianic Jews (MJ’s) and Gentiles (MG’s), some of these Jewish believers seemed to have had no qualms about being identified with Christianity. I cannot speak for Messianic Jews, but the Messianic Gentile experience has largely been motivated by a desire to leave Christianity and the alleged “paganized” customs therein. These early Jewish believers challenge our paradigm. Though they have long passed on, their lifestyle challenges us to face the questions, “What is our relationship to Christianity? Are we a part of it? Are we a reform movement within it? Or are we another religion altogether?” We face anew the question of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church (capital C).

Even using the Ch-word makes many Messianics (MJ & MG) uneasy (though for different reasons). Here lies our first problem. We are far too hung up over terminology and semantics in the MJM. Church, assembly, congregation, synagogue, fellowship – these are all legitimate translations of the Hebrew kahal/kehilah/adah/keneset and the Greek ekklesia/sunagoge. All these words mean an assembly of people gathered for a common purpose.

The same seminatical issues come into play when we use the word “Christianity.” When we cut through the emotional baggage, one has to acknowledge that Christianity is simply defined as a religion founded on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. That’s it.

We use these terms “the Church” and “Christianity” and even “religion” to turn our rejection of it into an abstraction. We forget that “the Church” and “Christianity” are compromised of people. People who are created in God’s image. And more than that, but people who love and have faith in the Messiah. As Paul says,

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ Romans 10:9-11

And again,

No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit…For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3, 12-13.

Therefore, we are left with this unmistakable fact, that we are united in Messiah with all those who believe and confess Messiah to be Lord and Messiah. We are part of one Body. A holy, apostolic, and dare I say…catholic Body :0 (just to be clear, this is not an endorsement of the Roman Catholicism, but an affirmation of the unity of all believers everywhere). Whether you acknowledge it or not, as a believer in Messiah, you are a part of the “Universal Congregation.”

So then, this naturally leads us to the next major discussion intimately related to this subject, what is the relationship between Israel and the Church? (Or, as Arnold Fruchtenbaum dubbed it, “Israelogy.”)

Different theological positions have answered this question in many different ways. For example, many theologians, beginning in the some of the Apostolic Fathers, but gaining definition and dominance with Augustine of Hippo, saw the Church as a distinct community separate from Israel. Many theologians during his time went to great lengths in explaining away the plain meaning of the grafted-in theology of Romans 11. Today, perhaps one of the best representations of this theology (called supersessionist or replacement theology) is Reformed Theology (which should come as no surprise, since Calvin was deeply influenced by Augustine of Hippo). The relationship of the Church and Israel is simply of one superseding the other.

On the other end of the spectrum is dispensationalism. This theological system divides salvation history into distinct periods that are governed by distinct administrations. Therefore, according to most dispensationalists, Israel, under the Mosaic dispensation, is a distinct dispensation from the Church, under the dispensation of grace. Typically, most dispensationalists believe that after the rapture of the Church, Israel will resume as the final dispensation before the Great Judgment.

Elements of both theologies can be found within the MJM. Yet, the MJM has posed serious challenges to these points of view (MJ’s specifically). Is was relatively easy to hold either view prior to the 18th/19th century for the simple reason that Jewish believers were a fraction of a percent of the church. But when numbers and numbers of MJ’s came on the scene, it begged the question (especially for dispensationalists), “Which group do these MJ’s belong to: Israel or the Church?” This was also a time period before the tragedy of the Holocaust, the miracle of the State of Israel, and the Vatican II Council, all of which radically altered Jewish-Christian relations in the 20th century.

Generally, most MJ’s and MG’s speak of “grafted-in theology” (or, egkentrizology to coin a theological term) or “Olive tree theology” (or, elaiology, to coin another). But what exactly does this mean? Despite this oft-used common lingo in the MJM, there are many different opinions as to what it means, and the implications of it. From bi-lateral ecclesiology, to two-house, to one law, dual covenant theology, and everything in between. Does this grafting-in require complete submission to rabbinic authority? A rejection of rabbinic authority? License to “do our own halacha”? Is this grafting-in tantamount to “conversion to Judaism,” with Gentiles becoming Jews? Or is it a more abstract “grafting-in,” with the Gentile church operating in one sphere and MJ’s operating in another?

There are many questions here to consider, and far more rabbit trails than I care to chase after. But in part 2, I will layout my considerations for a “elaiology” based upon Romans 11, Ephesians 2, and other relavent passages that deal with ecclesiology, concluding with the answer to our original question, how do we relate to the Church and the Synagogue?

 

The Sixth Day

Insightful words from the always brilliant R’ Abraham Joshua Heschel…

Six days a week the spirit is alone, disregarded, forsaken, forgotten. Working under strain, beset with worries, enmeshed in anxieties, man has no mind for ethereal beauty. But the spirit is waiting for man to join it.

Then comes the sixth day. Anxiety and tension give place to the excitement that precedes a great event. The Sabbath is still away but the thought of it’s imminent arrival stirs in the heart a passionate eagerness to be ready and worthy to receive it. (The Sabbath: It’s Meaning for Modern Man; chapter 7, Eternity Utters a day)

Have a Blessed Shabbat.

 

NT Wright: Resurrection vs. Modernity (i.e. It Can’t Be Both)

Here is a great video Ben Witherington posted on his blog. NT Wright comments on how our faith stands in distinction to the modernist spirit. I think he is quite right.

My favorite point from the interview is where NT Wright equates modernist enlightenment with Gnosticism. Considering the fact that Jesus Seminar types favor Gnostic Gospels like those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, that’s really not too far of a stretch.

 

The Meal of the Holy King, part 2

Judaism knows of the three traditional sabbath meals as times when the various manifestations of the Shekinah are present. Within the mystical circles each of these meals is described by the following names (with each proceeding from Friday night to the final third meal of Saturday evening): Chakal Tapuchin (Field of Apples), Atika Kadisha (Holy Ancient One), and Z’eir Anpin (Little Face). See the Zohar II, 88a-b (vol. 3, p. 268-272 in the Soncino edition) for an elaboration on the various manifestations and their presence at the three sabbath meals.

The Rev. Paul P. Levertoff’s liturgy is titled “Meal of the Holy King”. We find in the Zohar II, 88b the following: “R. Simeon used always to say when the time of the Sabbath meal arrived: ‘Prepare ye the meal of the supernal Faith! Make ready the meal of the King!’” (trans. Levertoff, Soncino ed.). Evoking the symbolism found with the kabbalistic doctrine of the Shekinah and noting the similarities found within the New Testament, Rev. Levertoff has progressed one step further in establishing what his daughter Olga wrote saying ‘a Hebrew Christian branch of the Catholic Church’.

Rev. Levertoff’s usage of terminology from the mystical circles within Judaism afford us a glimpse into his own understanding of the New Testament’s doctrine of the Shekinah. According to the Gospel of St. Matthew we read in 18.20 ”For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”; compare this with the text from Pirke Avot 3.3 which says, “but if two sit together and interchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence [lit. Shekinah] abides among them” (trans. Gorfinkle; Bloch Publishing, 1913. p. 52-53).

Also, the Presence of the Shekinah is said to reside among all of Israel while she is in exile. Compare with this the words from our Lord in the concluding lines of St. Matthew’s gospel in 28.20 which says “and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” On this last verse Levertoff states, “Christ is the Shekinah, i.e., the visible Presence of God. His Presence is the Presence of God.”

Rev. Levertoff notes in issues of The Church and Jews that we owe to the Jews among several other things the Holy Communion. He says “The Holy Communion was instituted at the Paschal Supper, and parts of that ritual of that meal have been continued in the Service.” Levertoff goes on to quote the commentary ”The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Cambridge: 1899) by John James Lias which says in the comments to 1 Cor. 5.8, “In truth it (the Last Supper) was a real Passover, though not the Passover of the old, but of the new Law” (p. 60). Lias goes on to say that this is “a standing witness to the fact that Christ has become our continual food. In conclusion, Levertoff quotes two verses that display the practice of the Eucharist within the early Christian community: 1 Corinthians 5.7 and Acts 2.42.

*A special thanks to my colleague Jorge Quinonez for making the file of Rev. Levertoff’s “Meal of the Holy King” available.

 

The Meal of the Holy King, part 1

On the recently announced “Vine of David” website from First Fruits of Zion, one can find a repository of works from Jewish believers of the last century. One of those works, The Meal of the Holy King, by Paul Philip Levertoff has struck my particular interest.

The Meal of the Holy King is a Hebrew-Christian Liturgy that Levertoff created for use during the celebration of the Eucharist at his congregation, Holy Trinity Church. Levertoff was known for his thorough knowledge and appreciation of the  mysticism of his Orthodox Jewish roots. Meal of the Holy King is a prime example of how Levertoff integrated his mystical Jewish upbringing with his faith in Yeshua. While this liturgy incorporates liturgy from many parts of the siddur, I’d like to focus here on the influence Levertoff took from the traditional meals of Shabbat.

The title “Meal of the Holy King” is not just fancy church-speak, but is highly evokative of Jewish mysticism. Its Aramaic title is diseudata d’malka kadisha. These very words are based on the Zohar, and are a part of the meal liturgy for the Sabbath. Here are the opening words of this prayer from the the ArtScroll siddur,

I shall prepare the feast of perfect faith, the joy of the Holy King. I shall prepare the feast of the King. This is the feast of the Miniature Presence.

Just as in Levertoff’s title, this prayer is composed entirely in Aramaic, not the Hebrew characteristic throughout most of the siddur.

As one reads through Levertoff’s liturgy, one finds many references and allusions to the meal of the Sabbath. In preparation for the Eucharist, Levertoff’s liturgy instructs the congregation to sing Yedid Nefesh, another component of the traditional meal liturgy.

Another parallel can be found on pg. 17 of the liturgy. Just after the Words of Institution (this is my body, this is my blood), Levertoff then has the priest announce to the congregation, “This is Meal of perfect Faith, the Joy of the Holy King,” again, taken from the liturgy referenced above.

Lastly, after the Absolution (pg. 21), and just prior to taking the elements, the priest chants Psalm 23. While obviously this is not a uniquely Jewish liturgy (as it is a popular piece in the Christian psalter), its placement here is clearly influenced by its use in the Third Meal liturgy. One, it does not appear there in the Book of Common Prayer. And two, this is the only liturgical use of this Psalm in the weekly Jewish liturgy, and to my knowledge, even throughout the entire Jewish liturgical year.

Through these references, Levertoff clearly sees a a close relation between the themes of the Sabbath meals and the Eucharist. But what?

In part 2, we’ll take a look at the signficance Levertoff saw between the Sabbath meals and the Eucharist.

*UPDATE* My esteemed colleague, Brian Reed, pointed out to me that most of these texts are used for every Sabbath meal by Hasidim (the both the Arizal and Sepharic texts). In my Ashkenaz ArtScroll siddur, they only have it for Third Meal. Oh well, only minor edits were needed. Nonetheless, we still see that Levertoff saw a thematic link between these meals as practiced by the Hasidim and the celebration of the Eucharist. More to come…

 

Patronizing Terminology

In my current readings I am beginning the process of working through the Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright’s series called “Christian Origins and the Question of God.” Last night I began the first of a projected six voume series (three of the six volumes being already published) and came across a most interesting thought in the preface. The following comes from the book titled “The New Testament and the People of God”, p. xv. Please excuse me for posting nearly the entire paragrapah but to omit anything contained therein would detract from Wright’s main point. He says,

[...] some people get cross if they see the usage BC and AD in reference to dates before and after the birth of Jesus, since they take it as a sign of Christian imperialism. Others are irritated if they see Christians using the increasingly popular ‘neutral’ alternatives BCE (’Before the Common Era’) and CE (’Common Era’), because it seems either patronizing or spineless. Similar debates rage as to whether the Hebrew Bible should be called ‘Tanach’ or ‘Old Testament’, or perhaps even ‘The Older Testament’ (in my view, this last is the most patronizing of all); or whether ‘First Testament’ and ‘Second Testament’ are more appropriate. It is strange that it seems to be scholars within the broad Christian tradition who are afflicted with these problems. Jewish writers do not affect ‘Christian’ ways of referring to dates and books, nor would I wish them to. In all these cases there is, I fear, a malaise among us, which consitsts of the desire to present a ‘neutral’ of ‘objective’ view as though we were all merely disinterested historians looking down from an uninvolved Olympian height. As I shall be arguing in Part II of the present volume, such an epistemology is inappropriate and indeed impossible.

 

Holy Trinity Church

Rev. Dr. Paul Phillip Levertoff was a Jewish believer who late in life became an ordained Anglican priest. He became the parish priest of Holy Trinity Church in Shoreditch in 1923. Here is what is thought to be a picture of the sanctuary of Holy Trinity…

It was located on Old Nichols St.

What I’ve found surprising is that this area was previously one of the worst slums in late 1800’s in London.

During this time, the then priest of Holy Trinity, Rev. A.O.M. Jay, used part of the church for a boxing ring!

Christian boxing!

 

The Franciscans

First, allow me to extend warm greetings to all today in the celebration of Ascension Day. A collection of prayers for the day may be found at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/dailyprayer with links on the right of the page for morning, evening and night prayers.

Second, if I may, allow me to share a brief thought that I came across from Denise Levertov, daughter of the Rev. Paul P. Levertoff (1878-1954). She states the following:

The Hasidim were a lot like the Franciscans.

As noted by John Felstiner, if the Rev. Levertoff were to make this same statement he might have said it thus:

“The Franciscans were a lot like the Hasidim.”

According to Denise, in both the Hasidim and the Franciscans, “there was a recognition and joy, in the physical world. And a sense of wonder at creation…” (from Sutton, A Conversation with Denise Levertov, 1965).

 

Random thoughts about Ascension Day

Based on one’s reckoning of the Crucifixion of Yeshua, your determination of Ascension Day will be different. Some, such as the teachers at FFOZ, are celebrating it today (May 19, 40 of the Omer) based on a Erev Pesach (14 Nisan) Crucifixion. Myself, I hold to a 15 Nisan crucifixion, and so Ascension Day for me will be tomorrow, May 20. According to Christian tradition, which counts Ascension Day from Easter Sunday, Ascension Day this year will be on May 21. Regardless of the actual date, however, the important thing is that Ascension Day is observed and the importance of this event is realized by believers.

Though new to some, the Feast of the Ascension has a long history of observance in Christian tradition. The earliest reference to its observance is the fifth century, though in those documents it is believed to be of apostolic origin. In the Eastern church, it is sometimes referred to as analepsis, the taking up or episozomene, the salvation, due to the fact that the ascension completed the work of redemption. It is considered as important as Pascha and Pentecost. (For more, see the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry here)

Here is a prayer from The Book of Common Prayer for Ascension Day:

Almighty God, whose blessed Son our Savior Jesus Christ ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things: Mercifully give us faith to perceive that, according to his promise, he abides with his Church on earth, even to the end of the ages; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, on God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

I went to Mars Hill a few weeks ago and heard Rob Bell speak on the Holy Spirit. Mars Hill right now has been preaching a Pentecost series. But one point Rob made really struck me, and I think it appropriate for Ascension Day. The disciples asked the question, “Where are you going that we cannot follow?” Why did Christ have to leave us and return to the Father? Why is it so significant that when he left, the Holy Spirit came? Rob’s answer: Presence prevents empowerment.

Christ left so that we might continue the work in a way that we could not if he were here among us. Christ ascends so that we can become the disciples we are made to be. He told his disciples, “You will be my witnesses.” They had seen the Risen Christ and very likely were overflowing with excitement about the coming of the Kingdom and the End of the Age. Yet, they probably didn’t see themselves as the keys to its fulfillment. Afterall, Yeshua is here, he’ll take care of it. But Christ did not choose to do things that way. Instead, he has given the task of proclaiming the Kingdom to us, albeit strengthened and renewed through his Spirit among us.

This Ascension Day, remember that empowerment has been given you from above to continue the work begun by our Master Yeshua. Be his witness.

 

New Author on JudeoXian Blog

With my recent efforts to upgrade the frequency of content on the blog, I have asked my good friend and brother Brian Reed “canterburytrail” to be a co-contributor to the JudeoXian blog.

Brian and I were able to get to know one another quite well as co-workers in the FFOZ backroom and as neighbors in Missouri. We share a love for good coffee, dark ales, and dry humor. I appreciate Brian for his balanced perspectives on biblical studies as well as theology, and his almost tireless ability to read and research.

It is my hope that you will come to appreciate Brian’s perspectives as well.

To those of my few readers out there, please welcome Brian to the blog.