Some years back in his response to Tim Hegg's "Is the Torah for Jews?" Russ Resnik wrote:
"Finally, Hegg faults me for describing Messianic Judaism as a " Jewish people movement for Yeshua." I use this phrase to draw the contrast with believers' movement for Torah. Such a movement may be a LEGITIMATE AND BIBLICAL EXPRESSION, but reflects a different vision from Messianic Judaism as we understand it. (Emphasis mine).
Hammm...Is there anyone in BE/DI movement today who agrees with Mr. Resnik?
Resnik continued with this:
"Hegg seems to picture Messianic Judaism as a Jewish-Gentile believers movement for Torah or for Jewish roots. WE DO NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSE SUCH MOVEMENT, but are called to foster a Jewish movement for Messiah because Scripture gives the warrant for an ongoing Jewish identity." (Emphasis mine).
I do not think that Resnik consulted Gene Shlomovitch on the matter....LOL! But I have the feeling that now, as the rift has grown Resnik would have liked to take some of his words back? What do you think?
In his fine article " Paul's "rule in all the Churches...." David Rudolph writes his interpretation to 1 Cor. 7:19:
"What were the "commandments of God" for Gentile believers? Given that Luke portrays Paul as delivering the apostolic decree to Gentile believers, and the likelihood that Paul wrote 1 Cor. after the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council decision (Acts 18:1-18), it is reasonable to assume (from a canonical perspective) that keeping the commandments of God included the responsibility to "obey the regulations", the four "requirements" listed in the apostolic decree." ( See note 39 Pg. 10).
In his response to Baruch Maoz's " Is Judaism Jewish," a few years back Mark Kinzer commented on 1 Cor. 7:19:
"...But keeping the commandments of God." Paul acknowledges with these words that the Torah commands Jews to be circumcised and to keep the Mitzvot given to Israel, but expect non-Jews to keep only those commandments given to all human beings.
Two different opinions coming out from the MJTI?
Interesting that you should post this just now, Dan. I've been planning to try to comment on some of the statements from MJ about what Gentiles should and shouldn't respond to in the Torah by examining what traditional Judaism sees as "obligated" for righteous Gentiles. I think this is important because MJ/BE is modeled on Orthodox Judaism and, if the only significant operational difference between MJ/BE and Orthodox is faith in Yeshua as Messiah, then everything else should be the same. I'll compose a blog when I've pulled my sources together.
ReplyDeleteOh, please forgive my ignorance. I know what "BE" is since I've been immersed in it these past weeks, but what does "DI" stand for? (color me embarrassed)
James,
ReplyDeleteDivine invitation.
Thanks, Dan. Got to make a note to memorize all of the cool acronyms. ;-)
ReplyDeleteMuch of the leadership of UMJC et al seems to differ -- more gracious and patient and kinder -- than the vicious peanut gallery you find on the web.
ReplyDeleteWhile Resnik did not give a thumbs up to the broad Messianic movement (independent, One Law, Two House, or otherwise), it is nice to simply hear no name calling, no mean-spirited mudslinging, no "we're 100% right and you guys are the ones who need to change!", all the ugly things we are so accustomed to over the last few years. Kudos on Rabbi Resnik for that, at least.
I would ask that UMJC folks and their ilk would recognize, as Resnik seems to here, that these gentiles being drawn to Torah and the Messianic movement and the Jewishness of Yeshua is a move of God.
"it is nice to simply hear no name calling, no mean-spirited mudslinging, no "we're 100% right and you guys are the ones who need to change!", all the ugly things we are so accustomed to over the last few years."
ReplyDeleteJudah... you give Mr. Resnik far more credit for being nice-nice with you guys. Didn't Mr. Resnik coauthored a rebuttal of One-Law a few years back? He words were not mean spirit to people (and neither am I), but I don't think he was very gracious to your Theologies (unless you think being accused of practicing "replacement theology" is innocuous):
"This is the old replacement theology with a new twist. The new and true Israel is said to replace the old Israel of the flesh, but the new twist is that this new Israel is still to keep the Torah. The arguments are the same as in replacement theology but with the addition of all keeping the Torah."
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OneLawMovement.pdf
Maybe Resnik is as terrible as you say, LOL. I'm just speaking from my experience. Of course he doesn't agree, as I said above, Resnik did not give One Law the thumbs up.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I don't think there's a new Israel that replaces the old. I'm betting many One Law people don't see it that way, either. It's not about replacement. It's about being joint-heirs.