Messianic Judaism

[Harpazo]

Recently, I chatted with someone who was a Messianic Jew. When he started to describe the beliefs, it didn’t sound overtly Jewish, but it didn’t sound like Traditional Christianity (I figured it wouldn’t even be close). It actually resembled Protestantism, more than anything, with a mix of Jewish ceremonial holy days.

The more I researched, Messianic Jews claimed much of what some Baptists claim: they were the original group, but were persecuted by those “mean Roman Catholics.”

Can anyone here point me in a direction of what they really believe, and how it came about? Is anyone here a former Messianic Jew or a current one?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[manualman]

The label is fairly new and not rigidly defined. In centuries past, if a Jewish person converted to christianity, he simplied identified himself by his new faith (catholic, etc.).

I suspect that the beliefs of the ‘messianic jew’ you met probably fairly closely mirror those of the person or group that had the most influence on evangelizing him in the first place.

I knew a woman in college who used the term. Other than celebrating tradional Jewish holidays and knowing a smidge of Hebrew, her beliefs were identical to those of the evangelical protestant group she hung out with.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

In my part of the world, they’re little different from evangelical or charismatic Protestants–although perhaps in regions where mainline Protestant churches are common, they more resemble them. Regardless, they’re ethnically Jewish Christians who simply retain bits of Hebrew nomenclature with their Christian worship, observe Passover, and such externals. This is a crude comparison, I know, but you could think of them in relation to Protestantism as Maronite, Ukrainian, and other ethnically distinctive congregations stand in relation to Catholicism.

 

[Harpazo]

The one I’ve been chatting with is studying Catholicism, but with no intention of conversion. He watches EWTN though!

Anyways, he’s a very rigid person in terms of the Sabbath. He makes all these claims that Constantine changed the Sabbath. Then he tries to say Jesus wasn’t resurrected on Sunday. Very odd beliefs. Does anyone know how to counter such claims?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The one I’ve been chatting with is studying Catholicism, but with no intention of conversion. He watches EWTN though!

Anyways, he’s a very rigid person in terms of the Sabbath. He makes all these claims that Constantine changed the Sabbath. Then he tries to say Jesus wasn’t resurrected on Sunday. Very odd beliefs. Does anyone know how to counter such claims?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Ew–sounds as if there’s been some Seventh-Day Adventist cross-pollination (and we all know how painful that can be). The Messianic Jews that I’ve known sometimes had an attachment to the traditional Jewish Sabbath, and might have held Sabbath church services, but they didn’t shortchange Sunday on that account, or indulge in Constantinian conspiracy theories. I’d start with apologetic resources that deal with SDA claims.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

A few responses from a Messianic Rabbi to various points made:

Messianics are not of a piece. A lot of them are basically “Christians in Kippahs” (yarmulkes), as we call them. Torah Observant Messianic Judaism, however, is a whole different story. This goes back to the original followers of Messiah (until about the mid 100s CE… and many held on until much later), who were all Torah Observant Jews and even non-Jews. The anti-nomian apostacy took hold after the time of the Apostles.

As far as being persecuted by the Roman Catholics, there is outright statements of such in the writings of the post 100s CE church leadership… but we got persecuted by everybody, not just the Catholics!

Answering a few specific points:

“He makes all these claims that Constantine changed the Sabbath.”

Per se, no. The shift to Sunday before then. Constantine, however, was the guy who persecuted people in the Roman Territories who kept the Sabbath.

“Then he tries to say Jesus wasn’t resurrected on Sunday.”

Well, strictly speaking, He wasn’t. If you read Matthew 28, most translations say something like, “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” If you know anything about Biblical law and custom, you should smell a rat already with this translation.

As made clear in Genesis 1, days begin and end (Biblically) at sundown, not midnight or sunup. So “in the end of the Sabbath” is nowhere near dawn. Tradition, as practiced since long before this point in history, puts the end of Sabbath after sundown, anytime up to 72 minutes past sundown (depending on which sect you belonged to). This period would be “in the end of the Sabbath.”

Now, the word normally translated there as “dawn” in the Greek manuscripts is “Epiphosko,” which doesn’t really mean “dawn” but “on” or “begin.” So, we can see that the Mary duo was heading towards the tomb as the sun is going down.

Now, reading on, we find Yeshua has already risen by the time they’ve gotten to there! Therefore, the resurrection HAS to have been before Sunday. In fact, I teach that the resurrection itself happened about 3PM (the ninth hour) Sabbath afternoon, exactly 72 hours after His death (which, BTW, puts the Crucifixion on Wednesday, not Friday), and that the stone rolled away from the tomb exactly 72 hours after it was rolled closed, which would be 3 hours later or about 6PM, just as the sun is setting, meaning He set foot outside the tomb just as the First Day of the Week was beginning. This is why there were two different three-day prophecies about His resurrection, one that he would be “raised in” three days and one that he would be “in the ground” three days.

If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also visit my congregation’s website at beit-tefillah.com or the website of our parent organization, the Coalition of Torah Observant Messianic Congregations, at ctomc.org

 

[Le_Cracquere]

A few responses from a Messianic Rabbi to various points made:

Messianics are not of a piece. A lot of them are basically “Christians in Kippahs” (yarmulkes), as we call them. Torah Observant Messianic Judaism, however, is a whole different story. This goes back to the original followers of Messiah (until about the mid 100s CE… and many held on until much later), who were all Torah Observant Jews and even non-Jews. The anti-nomian apostacy took hold after the time of the Apostles.
[snip]

Welcome to the list, Rabbi. I’ve sort of been trying to hold up the MJs’ end here, but the ones I know and agree with wouldn’t consider being a “whole other story” from a Christian as any sort of compliment And they wouldn’t consider “Christian in a Kippah” anything but a compliment. It’s them I mean to defend here.

No offence meant, though. I hope you’ll stay to discuss your beliefs, but also hope you can bear a touch of skepticism. When one hears the “goes back to the original followers…” argument, for the umpteenth different time, it’s tempting just to point you to the long line of True Heirs of the Original Church, over there in the corner. (You’ll be waiting behind the Missourian Church of Christer and the Trail of Blood Landmarckian Baptist, I’m afraid, so I hope you don’t have any alcohol or cards on you.)

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

Welcome to the list, Rabbi.
…
No offence meant, though. I hope you’ll stay to discuss your beliefs, but also hope you can bear a touch of skepticism. When one hears the “goes back to the original followers…” argument, for the umpteenth different time, it’s tempting just to point you to the long line of True Heirs of the Original Church, over there in the corner. (You’ll be waiting behind the Missourian Church of Christer and the Trail of Blood Landmarckian Baptist, I’m afraid, so I hope you don’t have any alcohol or cards on you.)

I’m glad to be here. As for others who claim to be the True Heirs of the Original Church, I can actually show you in Scripture where we see that all of the followers of Yeshua were Jews (and later some non-Jews) and they were all “zealous for the Torah” (Acts 21:20). Historically, we see that the teacher who first said that there was an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament” and that the “Old Testament” was invalid was Marcion, who wasn’t even BORN until 110 C.E. No matter what, you cannot get around that the first followers of Yeshua were all Jews (and a few non-Jews) who were “zealous for the Torah.” That’s a perfect description of our beliefs… like it says in Revelation, we have the Commandments of God and the Testimony of Yeshua!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also visit my congregation’s website at beit-tefillah.com or the website of our parent organization, the Coalition of Torah Observant Messianic Congregations, at ctomc.org

I have talked with MJ’s in the past but never really looked at a “Messianic statement of faith”, I followed your link:
beit-tefillah.com/beliefs/index
and it appeared to be along the same line of thinking as Seventh Day Adventists and apart from any “faith alone” claims is not far off from mainline protestant denominations.

Anyway one MJ I talked to was telling me how the book of Hebrews was not part of the Bible, is this a common MJ belief?

 

[rtconstant]

I used to know some MJ’s when I lived in Louisville. Really though only a few of the members of their church were actually Jews. The rest were gentile charismatics. I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad, but it wasn’t what I expected. It seemed like a most of their push was from non-Jewish christians who wanted to have some sort of historical belief system. In terms of the belief of the church it seemed like a flavor of pentecostalism with a more structured worship formate.

Anyway, the actual MJ’s that attended there were observant in terms of holidays and diet and such. In some ways they were kind of a paradox to me in that they seemed more “Jewish” than most of the Reformed Jews that I knew.

Anyway, my experiences with them led me to some interesting conversations with more traditional Jews (for lack of a better term). I was told by other Jews that the MJ’s weren’t Jews anymore but were christians. Obviously I could understand their logic but was thrown off by the fact that many of the Jews I talked too seemed to have no problem accepting that a Jew could be an atheist, neo-pagan, buddhist or really anything else and retain their “Jewishness” yet if they accepted Jesus as the messiah they lost all claim to their Jewish ancestry. That didn’t really make any sense to me.

Anyway, from what I’ve seen of the MJ movement as a whole it doesn’t look like there is any historical line in the modern movement but is seems more to simply be a name given to those of Jewish background who convert but desire to retain their ancestral traditions.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Anyway, my experiences with them led me to some interesting conversations with more traditional Jews (for lack of a better term). I was told by other Jews that the MJ’s weren’t Jews anymore but were christians. Obviously I could understand their logic but was thrown off by the fact that many of the Jews I talked too seemed to have no problem accepting that a Jew could be an atheist, neo-pagan, buddhist or really anything else and retain their “Jewishness” yet if they accepted Jesus as the messiah they lost all claim to their Jewish ancestry. That didn’t really make any sense to me.

Yeah, that touches on a tricky distinction. Properly speaking, “Jewishness” refers to an ethnicity; “Judaism” refers to a religion. You can be either one and not the other, but there’s such an extremely high degree of overlap that the ethnicity and religion are often treated as coterminous, and “Jewish” is used to refer to the religion as well as the ethnic group. Sometimes, you’ll hear a follower of Judaism say that a “Jewish Christian” is a contradiction in terms, but this is a verbal game, an arrant conflation of the word’s two definitions.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

I have talked with MJ’s in the past but never really looked at a “Messianic statement of faith”, I followed your link:
beit-tefillah.com/beliefs/index
and it appeared to be along the same line of thinking as Seventh Day Adventists and apart from any “faith alone” claims is not far off from mainline protestant denominations.

Unfortunately, when you simplify them down to a few lines, it seems that way. There’s a major difference in HOW we believe them. Your comment reminded me… I’ve been wanting to upload the sermons we’ve been giving lately, in-depth explanations of each of the articles. I’ve updated the site with them (and bumped up the size of the font on the Statement of Faiths, it was a bit small). Have a look and comment!

Anyway one MJ I talked to was telling me how the book of Hebrews was not part of the Bible, is this a common MJ belief?

No, at least not in the branch(es) I associate with. In fact, Dr. James Trimm, a briliant Messianic scholar, has published a translation and commentary on an ancient Hebrew manuscript of the Book of Hebrews.

 

[inJESUS]

Rabbi, do you think “gentiles” must abide by the Torah too or is it a choice?

i read the idea that God “rested” on the Sabbath and Jesus fulfilled His mission on the Sabbath also (resurrected)…nice idea i think. However i read that early Christians used to keep both Sabath and the Lord’s Day, but it was Jews who persecuted them in synagogues so they dropped the Sabbath and kept the Lord’s day. Any idea? thx.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

I used to know some MJ’s when I lived in Louisville. Really though only a few of the members of their church were actually Jews. The rest were gentile charismatics. I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad, but it wasn’t what I expected. It seemed like a most of their push was from non-Jewish christians who wanted to have some sort of historical belief system. In terms of the belief of the church it seemed like a flavor of pentecostalism with a more structured worship formate.

Anyway, the actual MJ’s that attended there were observant in terms of holidays and diet and such. In some ways they were kind of a paradox to me in that they seemed more “Jewish” than most of the Reformed Jews that I knew.

I don’t know who you knew in Louisville, but it doesn’t sound like they were, strictly speaking, a part of the Torah Observant branch of Messianic Judaism… or maybe you didn’t get into the depth on why they believe certain things. If you reduce beliefs down to a few lines, most of us will sound similar. The angel is in the details.

Anyway, from what I’ve seen of the MJ movement as a whole it doesn’t look like there is any historical line in the modern movement but is seems more to simply be a name given to those of Jewish background who convert but desire to retain their ancestral traditions.

A direct historical line back to the Apostles, no. God says there will be a remnant in each generation, but not that they will be directly linked to the previous remnant. But we’ve not converted, we have accepted the Messiah. The whole Messiah idea is Jewish. How can accepting the Messiah be a conversion?

As for a “desire to retain” our “ancestral traditions,” for some, yes. More those of us in the Torah Observant branch of Messianic Judaism, it’s not about traditions, it’s about keeping God’s commandments, because we love Him (John 14:15-21, John 15:10).

For more info on this, check out:
messianic.com/articles/nt-law.htm

 

[JohnPaul0]

“Then he tries to say Jesus wasn’t resurrected on Sunday.”

Well, strictly speaking, He wasn’t. If you read Matthew 28, most translations say something like, “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” If you know anything about Biblical law and custom, you should smell a rat already with this translation.

As made clear in Genesis 1, days begin and end (Biblically) at sundown, not midnight or sunup. So “in the end of the Sabbath” is nowhere near dawn. Tradition, as practiced since long before this point in history, puts the end of Sabbath after sundown, anytime up to 72 minutes past sundown (depending on which sect you belonged to). This period would be “in the end of the Sabbath.”

Now, the word normally translated there as “dawn” in the Greek manuscripts is “Epiphosko,” which doesn’t really mean “dawn” but “on” or “begin.” So, we can see that the Mary duo was heading towards the tomb as the sun is going down.

Now, reading on, we find Yeshua has already risen by the time they’ve gotten to there! Therefore, the resurrection HAS to have been before Sunday. In fact, I teach that the resurrection itself happened about 3PM (the ninth hour) Sabbath afternoon, exactly 72 hours after His death (which, BTW, puts the Crucifixion on Wednesday, not Friday), and that the stone rolled away from the tomb exactly 72 hours after it was rolled closed, which would be 3 hours later or about 6PM, just as the sun is setting, meaning He set foot outside the tomb just as the First Day of the Week was beginning. This is why there were two different three-day prophecies about His resurrection, one that he would be “raised in” three days and one that he would be “in the ground” three days.

Rabbi, welcome. As you are a man of God, I offer you my sincere respect.

I read Matthew 28. A very interesting footnote on Mt 28:1 in my New American Bible supports your statement. It says that, yes, “after the Sabbath” could mean that the women came to the tomb during the evening. To my suprise, even the use of “dawn” in that passage could sometimes refer to the rising of the evening star.

However, your interpretation is not necessarily the only one. The same note points out that it could be referring to the dawn of the sun on the day after the Sabbath --Sunday morning.

Then you have to look at Mark 16:2 and it explicitely states that the women came “Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week” (emphasis added).

So, I am afraid that your interpretation is not consistent with all of Scripture.

Peace,
JohnPaul

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

Rabbi, welcome. As you are a man of God, I offer you my sincere respect.

I read Matthew 28. A very interesting footnote on Mt 28:1 in my New American Bible supports your statement. It says that, yes, “after the Sabbath” could mean that the women came to the tomb during the evening. To my suprise, even the use of “dawn” in that passage could sometimes refer to the rising of the evening star.

However, your interpretation is not necessarily the only one. The same note points out that it could be referring to the dawn of the sun on the day after the Sabbath --Sunday morning.

Then you have to look at Mark 16:2 and it explicitely states that the women came “Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week” (emphasis added).

So, I am afraid that your interpretation is not consistent with all of Scripture.

That’s very interesting. The problem is that it makes no sense that way, for the reasons I mentioned. Now, the word translated “sun” there, in the Greek manuscript, is “helios,” which can mean “east” as well as “sun.” Does the moon rise in the east too?

Now, I know there are problems with the Greek text. We need to go look at copies of the Hebrew originals and see what they say. (Yes, I am an Aramaic Primacist).

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

Rabbi, do you think “gentiles” must abide by the Torah too or is it a choice?

Interesting that you ask. I’ve been writing a book about this subject. First off, let’s define the term “must.” If you mean for salvation, I don’t even believe Jews “must” abide by Torah. We keep Torah not to be saved, we keep Torah BECAUSE we are saved. Torah is how God asks His Redeemed People to live – both Jews and non-Jews. Not to be redeemed. Redemption must come first, or Torah is a trap leading to eternal death. Only by being Redeemed does Torah stop being a trap and become sanctification (being ready to be used by God).

i read the idea that God “rested” on the Sabbath and Jesus fulfilled His mission on the Sabbath also (resurrected)…nice idea i think. However i read that early Christians used to keep both Sabath and the Lord’s Day, but it was Jews who persecuted them in synagogues so they dropped the Sabbath and kept the Lord’s day. Any idea? thx.

The original Believers, I maintain, met not on what we call “Sunday” but got together for the final Sabbath meal (“breaking of bread”), Havdallah (the ceremony that ends the Sabbath), and study and fellowship afterwords. I wrote a teaching on this, one I need to put up on our website. But I need to add a section for it. Keep checking back on the Resources page of beit-tefillah.com for links to more of my teachings.

The historical records, however, do not support the notion that it was JEWISH persecution that caused them to drop the Sabbath. It was pressure from Rome, culminating in the Council of Nicea, which ordered persecution of Sabbath-keepers.

 

[JohnPaul0]

That’s very interesting. The problem is that it makes no sense that way, for the reasons I mentioned. Now, the word translated “sun” there, in the Greek manuscript, is “helios,” which can mean “east” as well as “sun.” Does the moon rise in the east too?

Now, I know there are problems with the Greek text. We need to go look at copies of the Hebrew originals and see what they say. (Yes, I am an Aramaic Primacist).

I’m puzzled. Mk 16:2 says that the sun had risen, so if the word for “sun” could be translated as “east,” how could the east rise?

Also, Mark exactly says that the women came when the sun rose on the first day of the week. Does the east rise at sunset?

 

[inJESUS]

Thank oyu Rabbi one more question please : when you talk about keeping the Torah, what do you mean? is being circumcized for example included in keeping the Torah? or is it feast days or what? thx again.

 

[JohnPaul0]

I’m glad to be here. As for others who claim to be the True Heirs of the Original Church, I can actually show you in Scripture where we see that all of the followers of Yeshua were Jews (and later some non-Jews) and they were all “zealous for the Torah” (Acts 21:20).

Rabbi, again I salute you and hope that you will bear with my question and comment.

First, a question: if “all of the followers of Yeshua were Jews” where does that leave me, a Gentile son of a Gentile?

Second, Acts 21 does state that the Jewish followers of Jesus (please pardon my use of the name that is most familiar to me) continued to follow the Law (v 24). However, the chapter goes on to reference the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem (v. 25) concerning the Gentiles who had come to believe.

Right there, we can see that all the followers of Yeshua were not Jewish, for there were enough Gentile believers to have caused this question to be raised. Indeed, Acts 21:20 does not claim that ALL of the believers were Jews, only that there were many thousands of such believers.

Anyway, we go back to 15:28-29 and we read that the Gentiles are told specifically that they do NOT have to follow the Law.

-JohnPaul