When 'Hebrew-Roots' folk say they're following 'Messianic Judaism', I think to myself, "Which of the Judaisms are you incorporating into your Messianism?" Because there were numerous Judaisms, from the first century BC to the first century AD.
Upon hearing that, a lot of the Messianic-Judaism folk look a little puzzled, and just retort that the Torah is quite simple and that we should of course take it on face-value. But the differences among the Judaisms of the first-centuries BC and AD, each of whom were reading the same Torah, were as great if not greater than the differences among organisations today who are each reading the same New Testament.
The answer of course, is that Messianic Jews don't adhere to any of the Judaisms of that period. No Jews do. Pharisaic Judaisms (there's reason to believe there likely was more than one type of Phariseeism, or at least variety among Pharisees) were likely able to adapt after the destruction of the Temple (circa AD70) better than some of the other popular forms of Judaisms were able to - but even the Rabbinic forms of Judaisms (which putatively resulted from those adaptations from Phariseeisms) underwent further variations, and some forms of Judaisms didn't start looking very much like their modern forms of Judaisms until centuries after that again. And of course today the differences among denominations within 'Judaism' still vary significantly. But none of them look very much like any of the first-century Judaisms. As the joke goes, two Jews three opinions.
______
Reportedly, Gamaliel II, when challenged by his students for not obtaining permission not to say the Shema at his wedding night, replied that he would not cast off from him the responsibility of the kingdom of heaven, even for a moment.
That implies that, in their minds, the Shema had a political import (there is only one universal King); and so did 'the kingdom of heaven' - it wasn't just about piety.
_______
Flavius Josephus reportedly wrote that the Pharisees believed in a measure of freewill, not just in Divine sovereignty, unlike the Essenes:
Upon hearing that, a lot of the Messianic-Judaism folk look a little puzzled, and just retort that the Torah is quite simple and that we should of course take it on face-value. But the differences among the Judaisms of the first-centuries BC and AD, each of whom were reading the same Torah, were as great if not greater than the differences among organisations today who are each reading the same New Testament.
The answer of course, is that Messianic Jews don't adhere to any of the Judaisms of that period. No Jews do. Pharisaic Judaisms (there's reason to believe there likely was more than one type of Phariseeism, or at least variety among Pharisees) were likely able to adapt after the destruction of the Temple (circa AD70) better than some of the other popular forms of Judaisms were able to - but even the Rabbinic forms of Judaisms (which putatively resulted from those adaptations from Phariseeisms) underwent further variations, and some forms of Judaisms didn't start looking very much like their modern forms of Judaisms until centuries after that again. And of course today the differences among denominations within 'Judaism' still vary significantly. But none of them look very much like any of the first-century Judaisms. As the joke goes, two Jews three opinions.
______
Reportedly, Gamaliel II, when challenged by his students for not obtaining permission not to say the Shema at his wedding night, replied that he would not cast off from him the responsibility of the kingdom of heaven, even for a moment.
That implies that, in their minds, the Shema had a political import (there is only one universal King); and so did 'the kingdom of heaven' - it wasn't just about piety.
_______
Flavius Josephus reportedly wrote that the Pharisees believed in a measure of freewill, not just in Divine sovereignty, unlike the Essenes:
The Antiquities of the Jews, 13.172
Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston
172Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination.
And Paul said that he had been a Pharisee. Yet some people want to impose onto Romans 9-11 the kinds of meanings which would be more Essenian than Pharisaic.
_______
_______
No comments:
Post a Comment