On the subject of a "unique calling"

" 4 Although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eight day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecuter of the Church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as a loss for the sake of Messiah. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Yeshua Hamashiach my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Messiah. (Philip. 3:5-8, NASB).

Allowing Scriptures to interpret Scriptures the text speaks for itself. Paul is proud of his heritage and pedegree, but count it all rubbish for the sake of Messiah. What things were gain to Paul? Can we include Rom. 9:4-5 in the list? One does not need a special long commentary to understand what the plain meaning of the text say: Paul does not consider one's "original calling" as something "unique."

Let's look at other passage in the same context:

"17 Only as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called." (1 Cor. 17-20, NASB).

Again, allowing Scriptures to interpret themselves without performing all kind of theological gymnastics V. 19 is clear: circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing. Once again we can see that for Paul one's "unique calling" does not have any meaning.

Messianic Judaism UMJC style affirm Paul's admonition to remain In one's original calling, but then they fall in the mud of "do what we say, but don't do what we do."
By sunctionig Conversions for Gentiles they openly show their disregard for Paul's "rule for the Churches." How can they convert people and still teach that one should remain in his/her "original calling?" Their answer, the way I see it is, anytime some sticky issue arises, the Three organizations who are all under the UMJC Umbrella (MJTI, Hashivenue, and the MJRC)are divesting themselves from each other. Of course it does not solve problems. It is obvious that something in their theology smells.

Derek Leman says that the term "rule" means "generally" and that David Rudolph who is a friend is supporting his decision. then, maybe I did not quite understand Rudolph's question in the 1st page of his article? "Should a teaching that Paul considered IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BE UNIVERSAL RULE be almost universally neglected by contemporary Christians?" (Emphsize mine).

So there we have it (or maybe I should say "I have it"). Having said all this, I just want to join others in commanding David Rudolph for writing an article that provoks us to think.