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?
July 2, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Seth,
This is a subject I’ve pondered many times. I spent my teenage years under a dispensationalist pastor. I had adopted his position without thinking until, in the midst of his sermon series on Romans, I was confronted with the olive tree. Now, I was too timid at that time to confront him about his seemingly contradictory belief, but it changed my thinking forever.
While I still hold to some dispensationalist leanings, I am firmly in the olive-tree camp (however unformed my thinking on this). I look forward to your next post.
July 5, 2009 at 8:42 am
Seth – One of the main things to keep in mind in regard to this argument as to why the term “church” is truly problematic, and not merely an issue of semantics, as you suggest, is as follows: How many non-Christian, non-Messianic JEWISH assemblies are labeled as “church.” Was there ever a historical connection with the Latin term “church” to the Jewish people outside of a “Christian” context? Herein lies the problem. The term “church” is a loaded term intentionally created to distance believers in Yeshua from biblical Judaism. It was created as a contradistinction between Christianity and Judaism, which brings me to my second observation…
Your definition of Christianity is:
This is really the core issue for which I believe you struggle with understanding the basic arguments in this area. The reason is that you define Christianity as a new religion, apart from Judaism, as if they were separate religions. This is the core issue. And, although you did not allude to it at all, this implies a more superior religion, in that it was necessary to create a new religion called Christianity, since the older, biblical religion of Judaism is now obsolete. Both you and I know that the first ones called “Christians” were not members of a new religion, but merely a sect within biblical Judaism who had encountered the risen Messiah.
This is why these issues are so vehemently debated. I suggest we recognize that 1) Although today Christianity is a religion apart from Judaism, this is only because of the gentile rejection of the root of the olive tree – Judaism, and 2) We recognize that our use of “church” is only useful in further separating Christianity from Judaism. If that’s our intent, let’s continue on. If it’s not, let’s put start tearing down some barbed wire.
July 6, 2009 at 11:53 am
Good post.
It’s a great question, now, are we part of Israel or part of the Church? Both? It is very difficult for me to say, “We are part of the Church; we’re Christians!”, because the it is the Church that has persecuted Jews for thousands of years, and it is the Church’s own foundational doctrines that assert “we ought have nothing to do with the despicable Jew”. (A quote from the Nicaean Council’s rulings on the abolishment of Passover.)
On the other hand, reading the boldness of these early pioneers and their unashamed zeal for Messiah in plain sight of unbelieving Jews is something refreshing and different than we’re accustomed to in the Messianic movement, where Messiah is all but apologized for, and everyone is trying desperately to legitimize themselves as Jews and part of Judaism.
It is interesting to note that the early Hebrew Christian pioneers didn’t really have any other option; there was no Messianic Judaism or other Israel-based Messiah faith. There was only the Church. Naturally they saw themselves as part of it.
Perhaps a question we can ask now is, if these same Hebrew Christians were alive today, would they see themselves as Messianic Jews? And would they still see themselves as part of the Church?
July 6, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Darren –
I have no struggle with understanding these arguments. I really don’t think you’ve understood mine.
1. Can you prove that the word “church” was created to differentiate Christianity from Judaism? First, it is incorrect to say that “church” is a Latin word. It is not. It an Old English word that was likely derived from the Greek kyriakon, meaning “house of God.” See here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm. Certainly “church” is culturally associated with English-speaking Christianity. But the Church Fathers, Constantine, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Luther, or Calvin, never used the word “church.” Those who spoke Latin simply used a latinized form of ekklesia, the biblical Greek word for church/congregation/assembly/etc etc etc.
2. I’m even more confused by your second comment. Did you read my entire article when you accused me of saying “Judaism is obsolete” or that “Christianity is a new, superior religion”? I identified supersessionism as a doctrine I don’t agree with. I don’t know how I could have made it any clearer, so I’m not going to try here.
And yet, I also disagree with the notion that our faith was/is “merely” a sect of Judaism. Our faith was/is the culmination of the ages, the dawning of the great Day, the coming of the Kingdom. In a very profound way, there is much that is “new” to our faith, albeit in continuity with Judaism.
Also, it is important to note that we can’t ignore history. Christianity and Judaism have existed as “separate religions” at least from the 4th century, so we cannot pretend this isn’t the case.
3. It is grossly inaccurate to place the totality of the blame on Christians for their separation from Judaism. It cut both ways, and from early on, rabbinic Judaism dished out their fair share.
4. How does recognizing our unity with all believers (which was the point of my blog, not that we should change the names of our buildings), further separate Christianity from Judaism? Messianic Judaism will only alienate itself even further if it does not reach out to and embrace the support of greater Christianity.
5. Once again, I am struck by the continued use of “-isms” in this whole discussion, just as I alluded to in my blog.
All I am trying to say is that we must recognize that we are part of a world-wide community of believers. We are the body of Christ. And if Orthodox Jewish believers like Levertoff didn’t have a problem with it, why should we?
July 6, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Judah –
Though some who have called themselves followers of Christ have persecuted Jews, there have also been many true Christ followers who have strongly denounced these crimes throughout Church History, including Popes, Kings, theologians, priests, etc. This is a large part of my research into Jewish-Christian relations.
It is also incorrect to speak of the church’s “foundational doctrines” as containing that reference. Constantine’s words there were never canonized or added to any creed or official document. It appears nowhere in the 20 canons of the Council of Nicaea, nor does it appear in the Creed.
Furthermore, it cannot even be proven that such words were even uttered by Constantine, as they come from a second-hand source and none of the actual minutes from the Council of Nicaea have ever been found. So as far as these additional details go, we cannot state them with any certainty.
It is actually a much debated topic in church history whether the Passover issue was even settled at Nicea, as Orthodox Churches into the 9th century continued celebrating Pascha on a different day from other Orthodox Churches who followed the Nicene computation.
Of course, it is important to note as well that even during the 4th century, many churches in Asia minor continued celebrating Pascha/Passover on Nisan 14, thus necessitating the council’s computation. At least one major sector of the church in that day argued strongly for a Jewish reckoning of the date.
July 7, 2009 at 9:34 am
I think I am not alone in expressing that I am personally uncomfortable in using the term “church” to describe the worldwide Body of Messiah, and too often because many people think of “church” as a building rather than a community. Yet I cannot stand all of the anti-Christian rhetoric that we tend to see, best epistomized by rag publications like Fossilized Customs.
I applaud the efforts of Messianic Believers who want our focus with our Christian brothers and sisters to be Ephesians 4:1-6. Too often, we forget that our distinct Messianic movement has a spiritual heritage inherited from both the Synagogue *and* the Church. If we encouraged people to read the writings of people like John Wesley or contemporary theologians like Walter Kaiser, I think we would see that we can find significant common ground that would aid our cause.
The reasons that there is a great deal of hostility out there for Christianity are quite complicated. They relate to both bad spirituality and bad scholarship. In many ways, the Messianic world is going through a season not dissimilar than the Radical Reformation–a lot of fruits and nuts out there, as a direct consequence of it lacking a more systematized theology. Just look at the impact of someone like Michael Rood. This man should never be taken seriously for directions to the corner gas station–much less the Holy Scriptures! He is one of the biggest con artists out there with an agenda that has wreaked havoc on our collective credibility.
If we can be patient and stay the course, then more constructive ways of approaching the issues at hand can be developed. None of us like encountering Christian traditions that have streaks of anti-Semitism, but much of the Church today really has done its best to make amends. Likewise, interest in the Old Testament and Israel is at an absolute high point–more now than it ever has been. If we can learn how to show respect toward other people, and really recognize the good things that Christianity–as broad and diverse as it may be–has brought to us, then the Messianic movement may have a real shot at being a force of holiness and righteousness.
July 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Hi Seth,
Nice post!
Some questions:
In what way do you feel that our faith is the culmination of the ages? In its theological insights? Its redemptive power? What specifically is new to the faith?
Should I think in terms of Jesus adding and or revealing new aspects that were previously not known or not well understood? Or are you alluding more to things like the Resurrection?
Another question that popped up: Would it be an overreading to suggest that MJ is a subset of Christianity? Or at least more of Christianity than of Judaism? (I mean their developed forms)
Blessings,
Daniel
July 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Daniel –
Briefly speaking, when I say “culmination of the ages,” I am speaking of the realization of the promises spoken by Moses and the Prophets. Atonement, Resurrection, the ushering in of God’s Reign, the forgiveness of sin, the return from exile, etc. Now, it is obvious that this process of redemption is an on-going process, one that Messiah continues to accomplish through his Body empowered by the Holy Spirit. This is the primary idea I have in mind with this.
Theologically, I do think Messiah revealed to us a greater degree of God’s nature, as in John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God, the only God (or “Son”, depending on the textual variant), who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” Taking any of Messiah’s words to religious leaders at face value, whether to Pharisee or Sadducee, implies that Yeshua was correcting some misunderstandings about Scripture and the Kingdom of God. Yet as we see in his words on the road to Emmaus, these things were already written about in the Tanakh.
As for whether MJ is more Christianity than Judaism, or more Judaism than Christianity, I am just uncomfortable with the question and I think it obscures the point. (Besides the fact that many would define these terms differently). There are only a few times Scripture ever uses the words “religion” or “Judaism,” and obviously it never uses “Christianity.” But in terms of a community, a people, or a gathered Body, it speaks of these things frequently.