Kashrut
Don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking . . Colossians 2:16 (The Complete Jewish Bible – David Stern)
Eating and Drinking – David Stern correctly notes that Paul is not talking about all eating and drinking. He is addressing the assembly in Colossae, an assembly consisting of Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, his message is about kashrut, that is, kosher food and drink. Stern notes, “here it appears that Gentile Judaizers . . . have set up arbitrary rules . . . about when and how to eat and drink,”[1] Stern argues that these added rules are rejected by Paul because they do not follow Torah. Paul is only interested in the observance of Torah in the community. Anything else is outside the bounds set by God.
But Stern introduces this remark with a claim that Paul teaches “Gentile believers are free to observe or not to observe rules about dining and Jewish holidays.” Stern claims Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 clearly support this view. I am not convinced. If Paul teaches that Gentiles are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel, that Israel is the root and the Gentiles are the wild branch, that he himself never deviated from Torah, and that those in Christ are equally children of the Father, then where is the teaching that the “adopted” Gentiles are not expected to live like the rest of God’s elect? God does have a special role for Israel. They are the chosen priests to the nations. They are the ones God uses to bring His message to the rest of the world. But how can it make sense to say that there are two classes of citizens in the Kingdom; those who follow Torah and those who are free not to follow Torah? How are the Gentiles supposed to provoke Jews to jealousy if they are free to ignore Torah? This is, unfortunately, precisely the problem in the Church today. Heschel once said that a Jew without Torah is obsolete. A Christian without Torah is irrelevant. Christians without Torah are exactly what Jews claim they are: converts to some new religion unrecognizable as Jewish. The idea of two Torahs, one for Jews and one for Gentiles (the optional one), lacks Scriptural basis. It doesn’t square with the theological or cultural position of Paul. It strains credulity to think that Yeshua didn’t mean “keep Torah” when He said, “teaching them to observe all the mitzvot I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20)
It seems to me that Stern has allowed the theology of the “replacement” Church to influence his interpretation of this verse. To make Torah observance optional removes any distinctiveness in Kingdom behavior, obliterating the purpose of the Kingdom on earth. Furthermore, how will Stern decide which of the Torah commandments are optional and which aren’t? It’s a problem, isn’t it?
To be Jewish is to be part of God’s revelation of Himself to the world. To be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel is to voluntarily decide to adopt the constitution God established at Sinai. In other words, to convert from paganism to Messianic Judaism is to be different, by choice, certainly, but not optionally.
Topical Index: kashrut, Torah, David Stern, Colossians 2:16
Skip,
How would you address Gentile believers concerning what Torah says about a woman and her time of seperation when she is Niddah(Leviticus 15)? I get this question all the time and would love your input on it. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks
The Greek worldview is principally motivated by the need (may I say “requirement”) for explanation. In other words, Greek thinking asks first “Why should I do this?” expecting a RATIONAL explanation BEFORE a commitment to action. But the Hebrew worldview is completely different. It is based on the single concept of God’s authority. I do what He says, period. I might wonder why I am required to do these things, but I am in no position to ask Him to explain it to me BEFORE I submit to His request. He is God. The fact that He says it is enough. This is a culture of obedience. Explanation has nothing to do with it.
Of course, this kind of worldview doesn’t resonate with those who have adopted (consciously or unconsciously) the Greek “explain it to me” view. They will reject whatever they cannot find reasonable grounds for believing. So they reject dietary regulations, sexual regulations, economic regulations – all on the basis that “it doesn’t make sense to me.” Eventually they will have to explain to God why they chose not to obey Him. That won’t be a pleasant day. But I think you can see that the issue is NOT what the regulation requires. The issue is the denial of revelation as authority. The Greek requirement for explanation is a form of idolatry.
In which of Heschel’s books did he say that a Jew without Torah is obsolete. A Christian without Torah is irrelevant?
Sorry, I do love it, but I can’t locate it.
Thanks
I don’t remember now where Heschel said “A Jew without Torah is obsolete.” I’ll look when I get a chance. I am the one who wrote “A Christian without Torah is irrelevant.”
Thanks for the reply…I completely agree, but most people I know do not like this answer. I will continue to pray that God’s revelation of Torah reaches the hearts of his children. Thanks again
“A Christian without Torah is irrelevant.” Amen!
The idea of the gentiles not being under obligation appears to have its origin with Justin Martyr in his Dialogue With Trypho. The idea, however, always raises its head when there is a defective view of sin. Man’s desire to be like God, determining for himself right and wrong, good and evil (Gen. 3:5), has a strong influence on the way all of us approach the Scripture. We will find almost any excuse to maintain our moral autonomy, even one that says only Jews have to obey God’s Torah, the rest of us can make up our own rules.
In one simple idea, the whole of Scripture is abandoned because gentiles who are not “under” the Torah, have no “definition” of sin, and they therefore have no need to be saved. If the Torah is only for the Jews, then the Messiah is only for the Jews, and the Goyim can go do their own thing.
Yet Acts 10 was about the necessity that the Goyim hear the news. They too needed to be rescued from their rebellion — rebellion against Torah. How can the Goyim be held accountable to Torah if they are not obligated to obey it?
Ian and Skip,
One thing has been missed in all this; Sha’ul was a student of Gamliel, who was the grandson of Hillel the Elder – the founder of one of the two great rabbinic schools of the 1st century or thereabouts. His rival was Shammai, who died around 10AD (if my memory is correct).
Shammai was vehemently racist against the gentiles. According to his theology, the gentiles had absolutely no place in the olam haba (the world to come) unless they converted and became fully Jewish. He wrote 18 edicts against the gentiles detailing why and how they had to become Jewish in order to have a hope of salvation and eternal life because, in his mind, salvation was for the Jew only and God had nothing to do with the gentiles. It was those of Beyt Shammai who are referred to as “the circumcision party” in Acts and Galatians. Peter was of this school, as evidenced in Acts 10 in his encounter with Cornelius (“You know that it is unlawful for a Yehudi to enter the house of a gentile…”; this is found nowhere in Torah – it was the teaching of Shammai).
Hillel, on the other hand, taught that God was the God of all nations, that He held the Jews to a higher standard of accountability than the gentiles and that in order to be considered righteous and have a place in the world to come a gentile need only keep the 7 Noahide laws; according to Hillel the Torah was given to the Jews only and gentiles were not obligated (however, they could choose to obey if they wished to). The only time circumcision was required for a gentile was if they wished to keep Passover or go up to the Temple.
Sha’ul was of the school of Hillel. Peter was of the school of Shammai (hence the conflict between them. It would be quite reasonable of Stern to assert that Sha’ul did not require full Torah observance of his gentile converts; after all, he did not require anyone to be circumcised other than Timothy, and only then because he took Timothy with him to Jerusalem and those in Jerusalem knew that Timothy’s father was a Greek (and would therefore have been unable to go up to the Temple unless he was first circumcised). Otherwise, Sha’ul was very vocal against those of Beyt Shammai who wanted to force the gentile believers to convert to Judaism through the rabbinic rites as prescribed by Shammai.
Having said that, I agree completely that Sha’ul was not anti-Torah in the least, that Torah was given to Israel for the whole world, not just the Jews (remembering that it was a mixed multitude that came out of Egypt and went to Mt Sinai) and that Sha’ul said that all believers are grafted in and become part of the Commonwealth of Israel. The Torah is the constitution of the Biblical Israel – all those who come into covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is the standard by which the world will be judged, and it is God’s instructions for the best way to live.
Rodney, thanks for the comment. It has helped me understand that Justin Martyr didn’t make up his idea; he probably got it from Jewish sources. Which does nothing to improve the statement. It just has a history that extends before the Messiah on earth.
Agreed. And thanks for the short history lesson. That said, I would propose that Sha’ul objected to the Judaizers claim that one must become Jewish in order to worship and have a right relationship with YHWH. Since Peter needed to be reminded by God Himself about the “clean” status of the Gentiles, it seems clear that God does not expect nor require anyone to become Jewish (to be circumcised, to be baptized, to follow a study pattern in Torah, etc.) IN ORDER TO enter into the Kingdom. hen (grace) is poured out on all. BUT, once we accept God’s gracious offer to enter (without strings attached), we experience hesed, and hesed requires reciprocity and transitivity. The Judaizers were wrong to refuse entry without ethnic conversion, but that does not mean that once we enter on the basis of grace, we are therefore free from obligation to faithful loyalty to God’s instructions. To be grafted into the Kingdom means to live under the constitution set by the King, and I see no provision whatsoever for a second constitution for those grafted in. There is one Torah, and once we decide to enter, that one Torah applies to all.
Of course, if we carefully review the 613, we find that some commandments are actually only for those of Jewish origin, some only for those living in Israel, some only for certain tribes, some only for women, etc. Some, obviously, cannot be fulfilled today because of change in circumstances. But none are invalid, and certainly not set aside as a result of the crucifixion. Thanks for clarification about Timothy’s circumcision. That helps. But I wonder if circumcision isn’t still an act of obedience, an expression of faithfulness to God and glorification of His sovereignty, today. One may not be COMPELLED to abstain from shrimp, but does that mean we should not do what God says just because He says it. Would we disgrace His name simply because we wish to assert our “freedom” to eat pork? Thus, I contend that Christians today, in general, have not understood the role that the Church and the early fathers played in their anti-Semitic attempt to distinguish the new religion of Christianity from Judaism, and that our current view of “freedom from the Law” is, in fact, the result of a deliberate historical move to separate Christianity from Judaism, not found in Scripture, but rather found in the record of the Fathers, probably beginning with Marcion. There is sufficient evidence now that Messianic Judaism continued to be Torah observant as late at the 4th century until they were finally driven out of existence by the CHURCH when it aligned itself with the power of the Empire.
I will have to write more about this, and include the relevant citations, when I get back from Israel. But this much is clear. The historical record shows without any doubt that the idea of the abrogation of the Law (Torah) was not present in the early Messianic community, nor was it a part of the Messianic community for some centuries following the close of the New Testament. It appears only much later. If this is true, then why is it so much a part of today’s Christian theology? What happened that pushed Christianity to assert a doctrine that was not part of its source? That is the question we must answer.
I completely agree, and that is completely consistent with the teachings of Hillel (but not those of Shammai).
Absolutely right! Moshe and Sha’ul would both agree with you on that! I was going to continue my remarks along those lines but I was not happy with how it read after about four edits, so I quit trying. 🙂
Skip,
“To make Torah observance optional removes any distinctiveness in Kingdom behavior, obliterating the purpose of the Kingdom on earth.” Me thinks this goes far too far. In Matthew 5 (and elsewhere) Jesus gives us plenty of examples of “distinctiveness in Kingdom behavior” that have nothing to do with eating habits or adornments to clothing.
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”
It may be easier for people to notice that someone leaves the pork roast untouched at a dinner than that they exhibit “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”, but I think those are Kingdom behavioral distinctives much more likely to draw followers. The Pharisees were good at the Kingdom distinctives of Torah observance but Jesus said “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Forget the bacon–in the immortal words (OK, maybe that goes far too far as well) of Clara Peller–“Where’s the beef!”
Love you Skip. Safe travels back from India.
‘These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.’
– Rav Yeshua MiNatzeret, Mt. 23:23, Lk. 11:42 (ESV)
Thanks for the travel concerns. I am in New Orleans now, heading home, and leaving for Israel on Tuesday.
Just one more thought after all the discussion on this subject. It is clearly obvious that God uses all of us for His purposes, even when we don’t understand the theological intricacies of the intention of the original authors. It is also apparent that God’s purposes are accomplished in the lives of men and women who even refuse to accept or are unaware of the theological conditions. After all, I came to this understanding out of a mistaken view of replacement theology, one that at one point in my life I embraced as the truth because it was taught to me by professors who also believed it to be true. Until I actually investigated the history and looked seriously at the “Jewishness” of Scripture, I would have also claimed that we are “free” from the Law. Now, after years of working on this, I see that I was mistaken. And I find great comfort in the fact that God brought me through all this for His purposes. But I also recognize and appreciate that not everyone will see it this way. My only concern is that no one shuts the door for reasons of TRADITION. If they decide that the Scripture doesn’t teach this, then well and good. Let every man be convinced. But if the reason they reject Torah observance is because “the Church doesn’t teach this,” then I will press them to show me WHY this is so until we either agree that Scripture isn’t clear or we reach that point where the paradigms are acknowledged as more powerful than the text.
I truly believe that most Christians believe what they are told, not what they discover for themselves. They are simply ignorant of the history and the culture that produced these doctrines. When I wrote by PhD thesis on the doctrine of omniscience, I showed without any doubt that the Christian idea of time and foreknowledge comes from Greek philosophy, not from Scripture. The record cannot be doubted, but that doesn’t mean the doctrinal TRADITION doesn’t continue to trump the text. So it is with many other Christian doctrines. It seems to me that we are called to be Berean about these things.
Skip, what does New Orleans look like now??? I agree with what you say in the above 3 paragraphs & your patience with us & our beliefs we have grown up with – you have compassion because you were once in our places… ♥
ms. jan
Hi Skip,
Isn’t it amazing that a different perspective/world-view gives a text the exact opposite meaning?
One question. I wonder why you wrote “commonwealth of Judaism”
Aren’t we part of the commonwealth of Israel?
We are grafted into our Messiah and become part of His Kingdom.
Thanks for noticing this. I meant “commonwealth of Israel” following Paul. I have corrected it.
A Christian who would let a Jew “do more” under Law than we do “under grace”- is a disgrace to grace!
What? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?- (and the answer is?…) G-d forbid!
There are no “converted” Jews, – the Messianic community are “completed” Jews and the rest of us “dogs” eat from the crumbs that fall from the Master’s table, but only remember- we all (whether Jew or non)- “after” we are “in Christ” are a new creation. I now do (not motivated by fear but by love)- all that He commands.
Did YHWH “command” our Father (Father of Isaac and forgotten and abandoned Ishmael) to sacrifice his son? Or was this a request born out of covenant relationship? -As Friend to friend?
We must also knowthis: for a certainty,- Christianity is not a religion,- it is a relationship. Salvation (Deliverance) is (and always will be) to the Jew first and also (Praise G-d!) to the (bad ol’ Greek).
Listen to these words and figure them out. Study them ferociously until a decision is reached..- “for all have sinned”. Is comment necessary? Do I need (ha!) to “spin” these words? (G-d’s words) “all have sinned?”
(I believe we have been here before..) This ground has already been covered. It’s “deja vu” -all over again.. “All have sinned..” Who is a sinner? Is it the hardened criminal? Or is it G-d’s chosen messenger, the Apostle Paul, Rabbi Saul, born into (lucky fella) the tribe of Benjamin, educated in the finest synagogues, erudite, studied, zealous-this was the Pharisee of Pharisees- climbing the ladder of success, only to find out, it was leaning against the wrong building.
Should we review his (ahem..) “experience?” What was his story in history? -How did G-d use him along the long line of messengers YHWH has used over the past centuries? Is Paul the only one who Christ has made new? What is the testimony of millions? Should we ignore all these witnesses and transformed lives? And why did Rabbi Sha’ul insist he was the “chief of sinners?”- and what was his cry?- “who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”
Paul, -whose very Name is “Salvation?”
What about The Master’s words in Matthew 23:15?
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”
Brett- this is my shallow response to this verse (Matthew23.14)..
There are none “so bad” they cannot be saved,
and there are none “so good” they must not be saved..
for “all” (myself included!) have sinned.. -and come short of the glory of G-d!
“All” need a Savior, A Redeemer, A Comforter, A Provider, A Shield, A Support, A Father and A Friend..
“All” these things (and much, much more!) have been given unto us through the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of the LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ.
Brett- this verse also speaks to me of the possibility of being having “religion” but no “relationship.” It is impossible to fill our need for a Savior, until we first come to the realization and recognition we need a Savior. The Pharisees did have it “half-right”.. – you do have to be born into the right family, but in the case of a Christian- we have discovered our need to be born from above into the family of G-d. I need a Savior. Daily, for “without Him, I can do nothing..”
Carl, it is tough work sorting through Scripture. My concerns with Dr. Moen’s comments were largely related to the idea that ALL Kashrut laws are universal for Gentiles rather than an invitation from HaShem to follow. The concern that I have is the potential for believers in Yeshua to become Jewish proselytes and leave Messiah. In my understanding, the core of Matthew 23:15 is largely based around the principle of law vs. love. I certainly need a savior on a daily basis because I’m too unrighteous to make righteous decisions without Him. I’m miles away from being a Tzadik :).
Don’t you think the context of this passage ought to be the guide for its exegesis? And what is that context? Yeshua is speaking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (the ones that he has in mind, not all of them) who demand a set of behaviors that they themselves do not keep. But notice the opening thought (verse 3). Yeshua never says that keeping the commandments given to Moses is not important. In fact, he says just the opposite. He instructs his disciples to KEEP them all, but not to be hypocrites about it. He instructs them to follow the teaching of Moses but do it from a humble heart, a sense of reverence, an absence of pride. His “woes” come with reference to the temptation to exalt ourselves because we are being so “righteous.” There is no suggestion here that love trumps law (another way of saying we are under grace, not law). Yeshua was torah observant (how else could he be proclaimed sinless in the first century Jewish context). We know that Paul claims that same. The issue is never about setting aside the Torah. It is about keeping the commandments in order to brag about our own righteousness. Matthew 23:15 is not based on the principle of law versus love. It is based not the idea that there is public merit in keeping Torah.
You might also consider Nehemia Gordon’s exegesis of this passage in the Shem Tov Hebrew gospel (The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus).
Not only is Yeshua the Author and Finisher of our faith, He is also the Author and Giver of the Torah to Moses! He is the ONE who wrote the first tablets of stone, and then promised that those same words would be “engraven” upon fleshly tablets of our hearts.
~ Clearly, you are a letter from Christ showing the result of our ministry among you. This “letter” is written not with pen and ink, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts ~ (2 Corinthians 3.3)
We, (who are His) now “want” to do His will, which is revealed in His Torah, His Law, His instructions to His followers. He, Himself, is the Living Torah, now living within those who are twice-born, through the indwelling of the Ruach HaKodesh, tHis Gift to all who belong to Him.
If we will “shema” His words, (remember and do) – if we keep His commandments, if we love Him (do we?) we will want to live according to the instructions of YHWH, written for “whosoever will” and contained within the pages of His book- the book G-d wrote.
James reminds G-d’s chosen ones, His family – “be doers of the Word and not hearers only”.. (shema the the word(s) of G-d!)
What more would any father want than “obedient children?”
~ for you are all children of G-d by the faith of Yeshua HaMashiach ~ (Galatians 3.26)
~ I pray that out of His glorious riches He may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and you may know the magnitude of the knowledge of the love of The Messiah and you may be filled in all the fullness of G-d ~ (Ephesians 3.16-19)
Thanks for the interaction Skip. I wanted make sure I understood your perpesective correctly. I do agree with you on Matthew 23:15. I brought it into the discussion because of the concern of looking at our interactions with HaShem as simply legal transactions. I think that this comes into the aspect of following Yeshua as a legal obligation based upon Torah rather than a love for Him. I do also feel that the current view within The Church of “pray this pray and invite Jesus into your heart…” is just as much if not more of a legal fallacy. Righteousness comes from a faith which moves from the ears to the heart and then into the hands. ALL obligation toward Torah should come from our love and dedication to HaShem and not a mode to “get some love because we are so righteous.” I will also check out Nehemiah’s book.
I agree. The purpose of Torah is the redirection of the heart and Torah is the expression of love for God. And you’re right, the Church is just as legalistic in its view of “grace” as any hypocritical Pharisee ever was.