Featured Messianic Jews and the law.

If destruct of the temple was the end of “Bi local Judaism” then that standard would have to be applied to Solomon’s Temple. And therefore the thinking puts the birth of Christ in jeopardy if there was no “Biblical Judaism.”

Judaism never has been determined upon the existence of a temple.

Also, there is a line of priesthood stretching from Levi to the present day, in which the apostle Paul must be included.

There are “dispensations” granted to the Jewish people that serve them to this day when various obligations cannot be met because of circumstances.

Does the op actually present a conflict with the Scriptures?

I didn’r read anything, but certainly may have missed something.

 

And again, there is no historical rational for such thinking.

If such were true, the destruction of the Solomon's Temple would have ended all matters.

If such were true, there would no longer be a descendants of Levi to this day.

Anyone remember Zola Levitt? (https://www.levitt.com)

"Biblical Judaism" is not dependent upon either a temple or serving priests at a temple.

That is the history of both the Bible and the record of humanity.


Hank,
On a more personal level, I am most uncertain why this is grievous to you?
I would that it wasn't, for in no way was this thread meant but to be other than a discussion over the aspects of what was offered in the OP.

I have looked back over the posts looking for something that would be offensive to anyone, and I am just too obtuse to ferret out the cause for alarm or hurt.

My apologies!

 

From the article in the OP:

In other words: Christians have sought to convert Jews to Christianity, asking them to leave behind the commandments God gave to Israel. Presented with this false requirement, no wonder most Jews have not taken Jesus seriously. This conversion gospel makes no sense and it divides God. But this is not to say we believe in the continuing covenantal obligation of Jewish people to Torah because it is pragmatic. We believe in commandedness, the sacred obligation of all people to obey God in that which he commands them. His commandments are not burdensome, the apostles tell us, but are filled with love.​

Again, from the article:

Circumcision, dietary law, Sabbath, the wearing of fringes, and a few more commandments are not universal matters of righteousness, but identity markers for the chosen nation....the Torah itself evidences a distinction in God’s requirement for Israel and the nations (Exod 31:13; Gen 17:10; Lev 12:3; Deut 14:21; Num 15:38). These commandments were never given to the righteous of the nations.​

In the next section:

The Jerusalem congregation prayed at the Temple, kept Sabbath, and was characterized by zeal for the Torah according to Acts. The congregations in the diaspora (outside Israel) looked to the Jerusalem congregation as the mother. James, not Peter, presided over the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 because James was the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. The Jewish Yeshua-followers remained a part of synagogue life in the diaspora and at first the Gentile Yeshua-believers did as well.​

Though not Ashkenazi, my wife and I both have heritage that can be considered historically of Jewish roots. Some of her relatives were dispensed in the camps of Hitler.

 

Statement from the article in the OP:

Messianic Jews are both “the Church in Israel” and “Israel in the Church.”This form of expression is found in Karl Barth, a theologian whose works I do not read but who has coined some useful terminology here (Church Dogmatics II.2, 235, 273; see Kinzer p. 176). As the “Church in Israel,” Messianic Jews represent Yeshua and the renewal only he can bring to the Jewish people. Messianic Jews are Messiah’s leaven amongst the chosen people. As “Israel in the Church,” Messianic Jews represent the link between Christians and Jews. The very existence of Messianic Jews is vital to the Church’s claim that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The relationship between Messianic Jews and Israel is of one character and between Messianic Jews and the Church is of another character. There is solidarity with both. Messianic Jews must not remove themselves from Judaism and the Jewish people. But Messianic Jews must also maintain relations with Christianity as brothers and sisters in Messiah. A Messianic Judaism that is anti-Judaism is false and in danger of denying God’s work amongst the chosen people not only in the past and future, but also in the present. A Messianic Judaism that is anti-Christianity is equally false and in danger of denying God’s work amongst the nations. There is a lack of holiness and health in all forms of Judaism and Christianity, but God does not reject either and so we must not reject what God loves.
​

(Note: I long ago rejected Karl Barth because (Imo) his embracing of a fallen nature in Christ that had to combat sin of the flesh, the eyes, and pride of life were not consistent with what I considered Scripturally supported)

 

The view of Acts 15 in the article of the OP.

The Torah includes sign commandments that distinguish Israel as the priestly nation. Circumcision, dietary law, Sabbath, the wearing of fringes, and a few more commandments are not universal matters of righteousness, but identity markers for the chosen nation. Noah was not commanded to circumcise and neither was his diet restricted (except for eating blood and meat strangled to preserve the blood in it). Rather, Noah was uncircumcised (in spite of a midrashic tradition to the contrary) and allowed to eat all living things (even pigs). Neither did the apostles mandate circumcision for non-Jews in Messiah or restrict their diet beyond the blood prohibition. Acts 15 indicates that the sign commandments of Torah do not obligate non-Jews. Some interpreters try to use Acts 15:21 as a text to reverse the meaning of Acts 15 (as if the non-Jews in Messiah would slowly start keeping Torah), but this reading of Acts 15 is only a way of controverting the apostles. Further, the Torah itself evidences a distinction in God’s requirement for Israel and the nations (Exod 31:13; Gen 17:10; Lev 12:3; Deut 14:21; Num 15:38). These commandments were never given to the righteous of the nations.
​

As one reads Acts 15, the statements are concerning the gentile believers as far as not being burdened by the keeping the Torah, however the reading indicates that no such release was ever given by James and the Jerusalem church to the Jewish believers. Rather, because there is the absence of such, there was no reprieve for the Jewish believers.

This is why when Paul had to confront the issue in the letters, he addressed both those Judaizers who (as gentiles) were into becoming Jews thinking that was a more righteous way, and those Jews who demanded gentiles had to adopt Jewishness in order to believe. Both were wrong. But Paul never states that Jews were not to keep Torah, and in fact he observed Torah teaching, himself.

 

The article presents that the Scriptures do not state that the Jews were no longer to keep the Torah, that was specific instructions to gentile believers not to Jews.

It further presents that the Torah is a significant document which gives the identifications of Jewishness as compared to other national documents of the gentiles.

Hebrews 8 is perhaps the best argument about covenants. Exactly what was obsolete and disappeared? Was it not the atonement sacrifice having to be offered by a high priest and that Christ was a better high priest?

Yet, not anywhere is the Scripture indicating the Torah was done away, but that Christ specifically stated that it was not done away.

The article takes the view that because the Torah was not done away, then those national indicators are still in effect.

...the Torah itself evidences a distinction in God’s requirement for Israel and the nations (Exod 31:13; Gen 17:10; Lev 12:3; Deut 14:21; Num 15:38). These commandments were never given to the righteous of the nations.
​

 

Salvation is not the issue of the article.

 

Not certain that I have a position of approval or disapproval.

Hence the presentation of the thread and why I refer back to the article for statements rather than making much of my own writing in the posts.

Though some posts do not contain quotes from the article, I trust I remained faithful to posting what the author of the article would agree was his own thinking.

 

We shall be saved, even as they, is a statement meaning that all salvation is by the unmerited favor of God by faith.

Salvation was never a matter of keeping the Torah, but of realizing (as Paul states in Romans) that the Torah pointed to the need of Salvation only found in Christ.

But, the Torah is far more informational document then that pertaining to salvation.

Not all that the Torah contained was about salvation. The greater amount was about being identified as a peculiar people called by the name of God.

 

And if I have read correctly, the article doesn't present a contrary view.

Jewish believers integrating the identification markers found in the Torah that establish them as Jewish believers would be consistent with Galatians 5:6

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.​

However, again these are statements concerning salvation, which actually is not the contention the article is making.

The article seems to place the emphasis that Jewish believers should demonstrate their heritage as Jews (as the apostles did) yet as believers. That (according to the author) the outreach program to the Jewish community has been the gentiles pushing the Jews to relinquish heritage and become gentile believers (a reverse of what Paul faced with the early Jewish believers) in contrast to what the apostles presented as "to the Jews first," type view in which the message was faith only, but in the context of the heritage.

According to the article, when the message is presented from the gentile perspective, a certain disconnect in the conceptualization of God being singular (the Lord your God is one...) is a hinderance to evangelization.