Shabbat Thoughts....
Friday, December 01, 2006
Wow, am I glad it is Shabbat. It has been one rollercoaster of a week in my life. I continue to be consumed by the events of the real world and, as a result, have grown increasingly frustrated at times that I do not have as much time as I'd like to devote to this blog. I've managed other blogs before, but this one is different in nature, requiring more time for research, study, prayer and preparation for nearly every post. Due to the sensitivity of the subject matter and the critical nature of the L-rd and Master of this blog, I want to make sure that I am being clear and I am staying on the mark with what I write. In other words, I am beginning to believe that this blog is being penned much more on G-d's timeclock than my own. It is a frustration, but it is also a joy to be functioning according to His clock, because I know the resulting words will be a blessing to all who read them.
The Believing Blogosphere
One of the thoughts that sparked my intellect this week came during my daily check-in with the believing blogosphere. I continue to be filled with joy when I read the musings of those dedicated to seeking out Yeshua in Torah and developing a Torah-filled halacha in their walk with Him. Yet, I have to question the stream of thought that seeks to "Orthodoxy-ize" our faith. I began noticing this a while back, when I clicked into a post over at Literary Joe titled Who Was Yeshua, in which author Nate writes, It brought up a couple questions for me. First of all, it has been quite a theme over at Brian’s blog that we ought to be following Yeshua as our Rebbe. I absolutely agree. However, who exactly was Yeshua? Was he a Pharisee? Was he an Essene? Was he something else all together?
My question is this: Why are we trying to define Yeshua in our own human terms? Torah never speaks of denominations. Torah doesn't preach Orthodox halacha. In human terms, when we think of religious Judaism, we think of the Orthodox, the P'rushim of our day. Yet, Yeshua instructed, "Don't do as they do," when it came to the P'rushim. So, why should our attitudes be any different? Why should we be trying so hard to understand Yeshua in a Pharasaic context when He clearly wasn't a Pharisee?
The human mind struggles to understand things and, in doing so, likes to categorize people, ideas, and concepts into groupings. Yet, how can we as mere humans and slaves of Yeshua, attempt to place our Master in a box of our own making? How can we define Adonai Echad in human terms? "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master" (Matthew 10:24). Pharisee, Essene, Orthodox... these are all human categories based on human interpretations of the Word. But we do not need a human to interpret Torah for us! For Torah became flesh and dwelt among us! He IS the halacha and He is in a self-defined category. But He is not in that category all by Himself; through His sacrifice, we have been invited in to join Him in His halacha. Why should we aspire to the traditions of men when we have been invited to live the halacha of HaShem?
We do not define Adonai Echad; He defines us. He will never fit into one of our little boxes, but we have been welcomed to come into His dwelling place, for He has made it our home and we have fit into it through our trust.
Current Events
Major things have been happening in the world this week! Nasrallah, the evil henchman of hizbullah, is gathering millions of Lebanese (Christians among them) to bring down the US-backed Siniora government. Should the government fall, this would only speed-up hizbullah's "Destroy Israel" timeclock.
If you've been following the news this week, you've been hearing a lot about Iraq. If you've been listening keenly enough, you've also been hearing blurbs about "peace in the Middle East" (read: Israel) being directly related to the Iraq issue. This should send up flares in the minds of believers. The world body, including the United States government, is impressing the minds of Americans that peace in Iraq (read: our troops coming home) will only happen when the Israelis and palestinians put down their weapons. Of course, the concurrent thought-process is that Israel must lay down their weapons and cede more territory for there to be peace. In other words, the United States government is insinuating that Israel must concede to the demands of terrorists if the United States is to claim victory over terrorism in Iraq. Orwell would even appreciate this level of Marxist doublespeak.
Israel's cessession began earlier this week with an agreed-upon ceasefire in the Gaza Strip (formerly known as Gush Katif). Despite the Israeli government's eviction of over 9,000 Jews from the tiny strip of land in 2005, the palestinians have yet to cease firing rockets (1200 so far) over the border into towns in Israel proper, most notably Sderot and Ashkelon. Finally listening to the cries of their people, the Israeli government sent troops into the Strip last week to weed out the terror cells. However, the operation didn't last long; thanks to the eagle-eyes at Israpundit, we now know that the U.S. Pressured Israel To Halt Missile Strikes On Palestinians. Shortly after the cease-fire was declared, the palestinians began firing Kassam rockets over the border into Israel again, and have continued to do so throughout the week. U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice is pleased to know that Israel has done nothing to respond to the attacks, and continues to encourage them to do nothing.
According to a confidential memo obtained by The New York Sun, Israel will continue to play the role of America's bargaining chip when it comes to Middle East "stability". Pray for modern-day Maccabees this Hanukkah season.
Mearsheimer and Walt's anti-Jewish broadside "The Israel Lobby" is gaining ground in international Christian circles. This week, Baroness Jenny Tonge stepped down as a trustee of the UK charity "Christian Aid" after making negative remarks about "the Israel Lobby" this past September. According to the JPost, Speaking last week at Edinburgh University, as reported in The Jerusalem Post, Tonge stood by her earlier comments, saying there had been "extensive" research in the US supporting her argument that the Israeli lobby has a disproportionate voice in Anglo-American foreign policy. Although Tonge submitted her resignation independently, the organization will not state whether or not any pressure was put on her to leave. The Post article continues, Following her comments, John Davison, a spokesman for Christian Aid, told the Jewish Chronicle, "Baroness Tonge was not speaking on behalf of Christian Aid nor had she consulted with the organization before making these comments. The areas on which she was speaking are outside the remit of a development organization which deals with issues of poverty and humanitarian relief." In other words, while her comments had nothing to do with Christian Aid, they did apparently have some relevance to arenas outside the sphere of the organization...? What a wonderful way to deny any involvement without decrying the attack itself.
These are only a few of the issues facing our people as we go into the Hanukkah season. I encourage all of you to keep abreast of current events and look upward with petitions as well as praise, trusting in His reputation and promises, which are forever.
Links of Interest
Dr. Joseph Shulam, a Messianic Rabbi from Israel who heads the Netivyah Bible Instruction Ministry in Jerusalem, is publishing prayer letters in English on the Netivyah USA website. Dr. Shulam travels around the world, from Asia to South America and all points in-between, preaching the Jewish message of Yeshua to Christian congregations. This is a wonderful way to keep up on the travels of an interesting and intelligent member of the body, who is doing much to bless the believing community world-wide. Please, remember him in your prayers!
The Caspari Center for Biblical and Jewish Studies in Jerusalem publishes a Media Review on their website: The Media Review is an English-language synopsis of articles that were originally published in the Israeli press. The articles, most of which were written in Hebrew, focus on Messianic Jews and Christianity. This synoptic translation is a Caspari Center exclusive. They publish weekly, and it's a great way to keep tabs on how Messianics are viewed in the land. Were it not for this resource, I never would have known that the Mayor of Arad stood by the Messianics in their struggles against Chasidic attacks, nor would I have understood the grave seriousness with which the ultra-Orthodox approach the name of "Yeshua" (a name which they consider forbidden).
In the words of my zayde, keep your eyes and ears open! Be aware of the world around you, but more importantly, be aware of what G-d thinks of this olam hazeh in order that you may be prepared for what He has called you to do for such a time as this.
Baruch haShem for His many blessings & Shabbat Shalom to you all,
~Shoshana
Shabbat Messianic Judaism Israel Yeshua Christianity
posted by Shoshana @ 9:03 AM
5 Comments:
-
At 9:57 AM,
said...
-
It's not so much a question of trying to define Yeshua (although that is definitely taking place). The point of the effort is to contextualize Yeshua. How are we to understand his halachic rulings? Because he doesn't address a large number of halachic issues we find ourselves with a need to place his halacha in context with the 2nd Temple period in order to try and accurately extrapolate his understanding of Torah to those halachic decisions we face on a daily basis, but he didn't specifically address.
It is difficult (if not impossible) to contextualize without categorizing. It is entirely possible that Yeshua was a category to himself (clearly he was in one sense). However, when we analyze Yeshua's halacha we find that it sometimes aligns with beit Hillel and sometimes with beit Shammai. Is this because he selectively picked how he would determine the proper way of walking? Or is it because he actually was extraordinarily similar in halacha to the Chassidim or Pious? (The Chassidim were itinerant, often wilderness-dwelling, mystic, miracle-working torah-teachers from the Galil; prominent examples are Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa)
Rabbinic Judaism is as much a separate offshoot from Apostolic Judaism as was/is Christianity. I stand against the rabbanization of Messianism. I'm for the contextualization of Yeshua. -
At 12:49 PM,
Shoshana said...
-
It is difficult (if not impossible) to contextualize without categorizing. It is entirely possible that Yeshua was a category to himself (clearly he was in one sense). However, when we analyze Yeshua's halacha we find that it sometimes aligns with beit Hillel and sometimes with beit Shammai.
I would argue that beit Hillel or beit Shammai's halacha sometimes align's with Yeshua's.
Consider this: If Yeshua is the Word made flesh, and if "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d. He was with G-d in the beginning," then why should we seek to contextualize Yeshua into a specific period of time? Yes, He walked the earth during a specific period, yet He is eternal, therefore, he is beyond contextualization.
Moreover, even contemporary sages attempt to contextualize Torah into this time period, to make the teachings appropriate to location and, in some cases, even contemporary beliefs or thought processes. Yet, how can you take a timeless text and try to apply it to time-restricted thinking? The same goes for Yeshua; just because He walked the earth for those 33 years does not mean His teachings can be defined by the thought-processes of that time period.
We were created in His image, not the reverse. Our thinking, our halacha and the halachaic teachings of the sages can, at times, align with His, not the reverse. It's like Richard Wurmbrand writes in his book The Oracles of G-d, human beings can have many truths and different truths at different times; there is but one eternal Truth, and that belongs to Yeshua.
I can understand the goal behind "contextualization" and believe that it is a valid and necessary study. I just disagree with the thought-process behind it. The Torah states that all the things we are to know have been given to us to know through the Book (Deut. 29:29); therefore, the Bible is the only and ultimate contextualization for understanding Yeshua. For what else can reflect perfection but something that is perfect? -
At 7:13 PM,
said...
-
If you agree with the goal and that it is valid and necessary how can you disagree with the thought process behind it? That seems contradictory.
Thinking that "the Bible is the only and ultimate contextualization for understanding Yeshua" is precisely the type of thinking which led generations of believers to egregiously misunderstand Yeshua's teaching. It has only been as Yeshua has been increasingly contextualized that we have come to grips with the fact that He did not abrogate Torah, that Paul did not teach against the keeping of the Law, etc.
I agree with you that Hillel or Shammai aligning with Yeshua is the proper way to phrase the comment. However, realizing that the teachings of Hillel and Shammai ought even to be compared with those of Yeshua is a massive step forward in contextualization.
The assumptions you bring to your reading of the Scriptural text today are a result of the efforts in contextualization that your mother labored over in The Unified Body. The Hebrew Roots Movement, an understanding of the Hebraic Roots of our Faith...that is contextualization--placing God's Words back in the historical context from which they sprung.
Perhaps you are reacting more against efforts to define Yeshua as a Pharisee or an Essene, etc.? I agree that it is a slippery slope to attempt to so categorize Him. -
At 9:10 AM,
Shoshana said...
-
It has only been as Yeshua has been increasingly contextualized that we have come to grips with the fact that He did not abrogate Torah, that Paul did not teach against the keeping of the Law, etc.
It was through the human contextualization of the Bible into a Greco-Roman mindset that the Christian Church came up with the idea that Yeshua did away with Torah. However, it is through a clear reading, unfettered by human opinion, of the entire book that one understands Yeshua fulfills the Law.
Wisdom has nothing to do with human contextualization, and everything to do with thinking according to HaShem's ways, which can only be done through the Ruach. This is why wisdom is poured out in the Spirit (Prov 1:23) and we are taught not to rely on our own understanding, but to trust in Adonai with all our hearts (Prov. 3:5-6).
Look at the teachings in the Brit Hadasha. When the talmidim write to each other or speak to each other, they do so through the words of Tanak, not the teachings of men. On the contrary, Pharisees and Rabbis quote what other Pharisees and Rabbis say about the Word--they never tap the Source. In fact, contemporary Rabbinical culture (whose roots are in first century Pharasaic culture, through whom some attempt to contextualize Yeshua) has reached such extremes that the Word of HaShem is valued LESS than the words of Rabbis in Talmud!
We are instructed in Torah that, "Things which are hidden belong to Adonai our G-d. But the things that have been revealed belong to us and our children forever, so that we can observe all the words of this Torah." (Deut. 29:28) The wisdom that has been revealed to us has been done through the Word, and again, through the Word made Flesh in Yeshua. Yeshua never raised any questions that the Torah could not answer, nor does Torah raise any questions Yeshua did not answer. The Author has given us the answers, therefore, we must understand the Author's context, not that of men. King David prays in Psalm 51 for HaShem to, "make me know wisdom in my inmost heart," therefore, "don't take Your Ruach haKodesh from me." And in Psalm 143, David prays, "Let Your Good Spirit guide me on ground that is level," a lesson that is repeated in Proverbs 3:5-6. The cries of a "man after G-d's own heart," illustrate to us that wisdom comes from the Ruach of HaShem. This is why I believe contextualization is valid and necessary-- the contextualization of the Ruach, that is.
You are correct in stating that it is a slippery slope to categorize Yeshua, I would add the qualifier "in any human way" to that statement. Einstein once said, "I want to know G-d's thoughts; the rest are details." If your contextualization doesn't come from the Word, then you're just talking in details. Sometimes those details can be helpful, but they don't ever come from the Source.
If you agree with the goal and that it is valid and necessary how can you disagree with the thought process behind it? That seems contradictory.
When the thought process behind contextualization is to rely on the words of men instead of HaShem's wisdom, I disagree with it, because that thought process contradicts the very nature of the Author, who has continually sought nothing more than our most intimate companionship with Him. -
At 6:36 PM,
Shoshana said...
-
I wanted to add another verse I just came across in reading that is quite relevant to the concept of a Ruach-led contextualization:
"As for you, the Messianic anointing you received from the Father remains in you, so that you have no need for anyone to teach you. On the contrary, as his Messianic anointing continues to teach you about all things, and is true, not a counterfeit, so, just as He taught you, remain united with Him." (I John 2:27)
