FFOZ.Conclude

Boaz Michael, head of First Fruits of Zion, made a public statement last week.

The statement appeared to paint many good Messianic folks as supersessionist enemies of Israel.

Ouch.

Here is the entire quote again:

Excellent. I’ve read a lot in this area lately (I’m in the process of reading through, “Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged.”) Your going in the right direction with this–please continue to develop your thoughts on this.

Supresessionism is really a DNA level problem within Christianity–it is going to take some very bold leaders to address it and fix it. Supresessionism is really a DNA level problem with One Law and Two House thinkers–it is going to take some bold leaders to address it and fix it.

The greater grievance is that of the One Law and Two House message–because it gives the impression of support for Israel and the Jewish people when in reality, the sad reality, it is another attempt to diminish it. The worst kind of friend is the one who you really think is your friend and over time turns out to be your enemy. [emphasis mine]

-Boaz Michael

I wrote Boaz Michael on Messianics to draw attention to Boaz’ statements.

And when I wrote that, lots of people got angry. That post now has just under 100 comments, with the follow-up post having just under 90. That’s almost 200 comments of pissy piss piss.

Stirring the pot wasn’t my intent. In reality, I just wanted clarity. Clarity is good. “Clarity over agreement”, as one fine Jew is fond of saying. Does one of our leaders really believe [ugly thing X]? I wanted to know. I wanted clarity. For myself and my community.

I had a phone conversation with Boaz Michael. Twice. For a good hour or two. And several emails. I wish I could report, “Boaz and FFOZ really do not believe this!”, but the reality isn’t so rosy. See below.

Through the phone conversations and comments and emails, Boaz and I have established some clarity about where FFOZ really stands.

Behold, the Boaz Michael-Approved® “here’s what FFOZ really believes”:

---

1. FFOZ doesn't believe all gentiles who keep Torah are supersessionist.
2. FFOZ doesn't believe One Law and Two House communities are enemies of Israel.
3. FFOZ believes One Law and Two House communities are demonstrating supersessionism and harming Israel when they define observance outside of traditional Jewish interpretation.

---

That’s what Boaz Michael and FFOZ really believe.

Ok.

Now, what you’re about to read below is Judah playing umpire.

That is, I’m gonna calls ‘em like I sees ‘em.

The following is not Boaz Michael-Approved®. If you don’t like reality, you might want to stop reading now, and go shopping or something.

Ok.

Is what Boaz Michael and FFOZ believe any different than what I had speculated? After all, I twice asked,

Fine blog reader, am I misinterpreting Boaz’s statements?

And boy, you fine blog readers sure thought so.

Gulp.

One person told me I wasn’t controlling my animalistic soul. Another told me I was unwilling to believe any interpretation of Boaz’s words other than my own. Yet another told me I was deliberately choosing blog traffic over Yeshua’s commandments.

So, did I misinterpret? Was I practicing Teh Evilz?

Umm. Let’s see here.

I was wrong about one thing.

The one thing I was wrong about was that I implied that FFOZ thinks all gentiles who keep Torah are supersessionists.

My bad. They don’t. (Praise God.)

FFOZ encourages gentiles to keep the Torah, Boaz tells me. Even the so-called “Jewish identity markers”, such as fringes, wrapping tefillin, etc. so long as they’re doing it according to Jewish traditional halakha. (That last part is important, see below.)

I believe him. I was wrong.

Ok. What else?

I was right about two things.

1. I said, “Man, it sounds like Boaz is saying we’re supersessionists. Man, that sucks.”

That’s basically accurate. He believes that we are are supersessionists because we keep Torah outside of Jewish tradition.

2. I said, “Man, it sounds like Boaz is saying we’re enemies of Israel. Man, that sucks.”

That’s basically accurate. More precisely, he believes we’re harming Israel by one of the things we do. When I spoke to him on the phone, he did use the term enemy, but when I asked permission to post that on the blog for clarity, he said we’re harming Israel. A meaningless distinction? Perhaps, but hey, read it. (Weep?)

For what it’s worth, I talked to a few other FFOZers who were quite open about it, saying plainly that yeah, they look at us as enemies of Israel.

The Bottom Line

A lot of commenters were saying I totally misinterpreted Boaz Michael. Said I was doing this just to pick a fight, get blog traffic, failing to harness my animal soul, unwilling to listen to reason and logic, and instead was influenced by my already-made-up mind.

You know what I think? I think all that talk was worth doodly-squat.

If that describes you, here, have a washcloth. I think there’s some egg your face. Bottom line is Boaz meant the things he said.

Where are you goin’?

Well, I love Boaz Michael. I love First Fruits of Zion. They’ve done much good for the Messianic movement. Much good for the Lord. More than I’ve done, or will ever do. God bless ‘em.

They’re in error. Actually, worse. They’ve deluded themselves when it comes to regular folk in the Messianic movement. And they don’t see it. They have been so busy building the religion of Messianic Judaism, a noble goal perhaps, but they’ve moved away from the sheep a bit, lost a few here and there. They pay more mind now to what the big religious organizations have to say about the sheep.

They’ve enlightened themselves with theologies and intellectualism, but neglected the regular people. Forgot why regular people keep God’s commandments in the first place. They’ve aligned themselves with big religious organizations in order to do the religion building thing better, but in the meantime lost track of, you know, the people.

It should be obvious by now that I can no longer recommend FFOZ materials to my congregation, or to my community, or to the greater Messianic communities. Seeing what they think of Messianic folk like myself, I can’t, in good conscience, stump for them.

I don’t think FFOZ people are ugly. They’re smart. They’re engaged with scholarship and tradition. Informed of the latest doctrines, connoisseurs of the best things of God, trail-blazers in God’s revelation! They’ve just lost touch with the base, their core, the regular folks of the Messianic movement who are trying their best to live a holy life by the commandments. It is the reason so many have left. It is the reason for their decline.

I wish FFOZ the best. I don’t wish them any harm. I wish them, pray them, restorative change.

Until that change comes to fruition, adieu, First Fruits.

“One Law” as a foundation for civilization

This injunction [of One Law] undoubtedly has helped lay the foundation of Western civilization and democracy. The principle of there being the same law for people within a society to follow would mean there would not be one standard for the king or aristocracy to be loosely held
to (who in the Ancient Near East were often considered divine or semi-divine), and then another standard for the general populous (or peasantry) to be rigidly held to.

-J.K. McKee

I’m reading through Messianic apologist J.K. McKee’s paper on “one law”. It’s a deep paper. It’s long. Fortunately, its language is not too difficult or too intellectual for my simple mind. I’m writing here to record my initial reactions and to amplify parts that deserve a spotlight.

One Law, for the uninitiated, is the idea that God’s commandments are applicable to both Jews and gentiles. A single law for all. It’s taken from a phrase repeated in the Torah itself: torah achat, one law.

McKee’s paper intends to answer whether there are multiple standards for God’s people, who comprises God’s people, and whether humanity’s approach to God’s law changes with the arrival of Messiah.
 

One Law: foundational for civilization and human rights

McKee highlights how the “one law” issue isn’t just a theological debate. He shows “one law” to be a precedent for, lack of a better term, human rights: a single law for the native and for the sojourner means foreigners cannot be mistreated. The majority cannot mistreat the minority. Natives cannot mistreat immigrants – there’s a single law governing them both, after all. God’s commandments are clear on this point, repeated multiple times in the Bible:

The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

-Lev. 19

McKee believes this “one law” idea is a foundation stone for western democracies, even to the extent of positively influencing American civilization.

McKee isn’t alone here. I remember back to just a few months ago, Rabbi Russ Resnik of the UMJC suggesting we Americans ought to treat Mexican immigrants with the same respect the Torah demands of the stranger in Israel. (See Cinco De Mayo and the Jews.)

God’s command of a single law for native and stranger, combined with God’s command of treating the stranger “as one born among you” has big implications for modern civilization, and has been applied in the United States and other western democracies, positively affecting those civilizations.

Is the Torah universal?

It’s one thing to say “God’s one law applies to native and stranger”, but it’s another to say “God’s one law applies to the whole world.” Another way to ask is, is God’s one law for Jews and strangers in Israel, whereas non-Jews have something else?

God’s law wasn’t given to the nations, after all. Although one tradition holds the Torah went out in 70 languages from Sinai, the Biblical text records only Israel and the multitude with her receiving the commandments, with many commandments meant to exclude non-Israelites.

For example, no foreigner is to eat the Passover. (Ex. 12)

That’s straight Torah, yo.

Doesn’t this contradict the Torah’s own idea of “one law”?

Not so fast.

McKee notes that the Torah distinguishes between 2 groups:

On one hand, foreigners (ben-neikar), hired servants (sakir) and sojourners (toshav) are not to eat the Passover. God’s one law does not apply to them. Why? They are outside the Israel community. As McKee notes,

Ancient Israel might be a “welcoming” community in that outsiders are allowed in to work, and play a role within its economy. Yet, the commemoration of the Passover is to be a home affair for the Israelites, as “It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this.”

-J.K. McKee

But on the other hand, strangers (gerim) could partake of the Passover provided they become circumcised.

When a stranger [ger] sojourns with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land.

-Exodus 12

Notice again keeping the Passover applies only to Israel. Native-born Israel and the stranger who is circumcised.

At this point, you begin to think that circumcision = membership in Israel. It would seem God’s one law is applicable only for Israel and the circumcised. Indeed, this is the stance taken by many in Judaism, and even by many in Messianic Judaism.

If we leave it at that, gentiles should not keep the Passover, and maybe not even other parts of God’s one law. At least until they are circumcised.

McKee argues, however, that it is the commemoration of the Passover and Exodus from Egypt that defines Israel. To fully participate in the Passover, you get circumcised. Once circumcised, you’re celebrating the Passover, you’re considered no different than a native of the land. Passover is the central focus for membership in Israel.

So, should Messiah’s gentile disciples get circumcised, enabling them to eat the Passover, thus becoming indistinguishable from native Israel? Is this the same thing as conversion to Judaism? I’m a bit on-the-edge-of-my-seat to see McKee’s answers. I’ll cover it this in the next post.

McKee’s “One Law For All” article, Part 1

Much of the debate over the One Law issue has erupted on various Internet blogs, and on blogs there is often a dynamic present of provoking and antagonizing people to anger. It should go without saying that this is not a fruit of the Spirit.

-J.K. McKee

Today I am very happy to announce Messianic apologist J.K. McKee has published a landmark paper on the issue of the applicability of God’s commandments: One Law For All. 

(For the uninitiated, “one law” refers to verses in the first 5 books of the Bible which suggest there is a single law for both Israelites and those joined to Israel. It’s a big deal because it affects whether both Jews and gentiles should keep God’s commandments (One Law), or if the commandments are just for Jews (Bilateral Ecclesiology).

McKee is a good guy, I love him personally, I love him as a teacher and Bible scholar. He regularly rises above the fray: when all of us are busy fighting our Super Important Internet Battles, John is busy digging into the text. I’ve seen him bless folks that curse him out. Respond kindly to insults. I think in my years of knowing him, I’ve seen John lose his cool maybe once? Even his theological enemies will attest to this. It’s one of the reasons I follow his ministry: fruit of God’s spirit is evident there unlike any other ministry I know.

McKee’s organization, TNNOnline, is grounded in the Scriptures, Biblically conservative, free of pop theology, a bastion of apologetics, standing firm in the face of shifting ministerial alliances. If you’re a Messianic looking for stability, I would recommend John’s ministry before any other.

So when I hear John McKee has written a landmark paper, my ears perk up. When it’s on an issue so important to our movement, an issue I’ve put much thought and debate into over the last few years, one that affects even the Messianics in my congregation, I turn a careful ear.

This paper is important. It cuts past the distracting noise and goes to the heart of the matter, difficult as the subject matter is. As John puts it,

Sadly, when [one law] verses get mentioned among different Messianic teachers or leaders, rather than some reasonable discussion and constructive dialogue occurring, a great deal of accusations and misstatements are instead more likely to be made. The amount of negative emotions present, from all the various sides regarding the different One Law verses, has been quite disproportionate to the actual amount of careful dissection of these verses. There has been much written about the One Law subject matter, but most of it has unfortunately been in the form of refutations and counter responses to other teachers, with some territorialism quite easily detected.

I laughed at this only because it’s true. Accusations and misstatements…does that sound like any blogs to you? If not, you haven’t been reading many Messianic blogs lately.

Go check out the paper. I’ll be blogging about its contents in the next few weeks.

Have a good shabbat.