The book of Hosea/Hoshea’ is the book of all books when it comes to the deeper prophetic vision of the fate and future of the so-called Northern Kingdom, or “house of Israel,” in contrast to the “house of Judah,” to use the Biblical terminology. It is seldom read with much discrimination by either Jews or Christians in terms of these two “houses,” but anyone who spends a bit of time with it, even the first chapter, will quickly realize it is addressed almost exclusively to the northern house of Israel, also called by the name of the tribe “Ephraim” who became the head/birthright tribe of ALL Israel, notice carefully:

Reuben was the firstborn but his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, “For Judah became strong among his brothers and a Nagid (chief, anointed one) was appointed from him, but the birthright belonged to Joseph” (1 Chron 5:1-2).

As such the there was, is, and will be a bit of “jealousy” and “hostility” between the two houses, as Isaiah 11:13 makes clear, particularly as the two houses are drawn back to the Land.

Hosea really tells it all, and as Zechariah is very much the Prophet focused on the return of Judah to the Land, Hosea is focused on Israel/Ephraim. Accordingly, their destinies are quite different as are their specific roles and experiences in final return to the Land. The Prophets of Isaiah and Jeremiah “broad brush” the overview but it is specifically in Hosea that the sharp detailed future of Israel/Ephraim is projected.

There is much to absorb in that regard, as Israel (not Judah) becomes “Not my People,” and “No Mercy,” her two new names, and thus loses its identity as Israel. The image Hosea is given is that of a formal divorce of a husband to sends away an adulterous wife, and based on Torah such a banning is to be permanent not temporary (Deut 24). This means that the northern kingdom, for all practical purposes “become Gentiles” to put it in plain English, or as Hosea puts it, “they shall be wanderers among the nations” and will number as the “sands of the sea.” They follow an “east wind” to the West. During their “many days” of separation they are essentially cut off from the access to and knowledge of YHVH, which Judah continues to experience through king and priest as well as the revelation of Torah and Prophets.

The way in which Israel/Ephraim finally is brought back is most interesting. The main passage in Hosea that sketches this out, also using a “marriage” image, is the following, and the details and language are most instructive and complex:

“Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. (15) And there I will give her her vineyards and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt. (16) And in that day, declares YHVH, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Lord” (Baal) (17) For I will remove the names of the Lord (Baalim) from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more. (18) And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety. (19) And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. (20) I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know YHVH. (21) “And in that day I will answer, declares YHVH, I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth, (22) and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel, (23) and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People,‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’” (Hosea 2:15-23; but 2:14ff in Christian Bibles).

Both what proceeds and follows this key central passage on the “return” and re-marriage of Ephraim/Israel to YHVH is vital to follow but here I focus just on three key elements of this section. Notice:

How: The means of the regathering:YHVH will “allure” Ephraim. This is an most interesting and important one, the Hebrew word “patah” (different but related to patach “to open”). It is usually a negative term, for one who is so “open” as to be simple and thus easily fooled or enticed, but it can mean, in a certain context such as this, to draw one in, thus “allure” is a good translation. Some translations, picking up on the context of YHVH as lover, use the verb “to woo” her. What is implied is that an attachment to another/s, in this case “Lords” is dissolved and a renewal of vows toward YHVH takes place. Israel is actually “in love” and drawn to YHVH.

Where: The setting is “in the wilderness,” and specifically identified with the “door” of entry at Achor, down toward the Dead Sea in the Judean desert and southward to the Negev. It is the same “route” ancient Israel used in coming up out of Egypt in entering the Land across from Jericho. How literal one is to take this is an open question but the description is “alluring” to say the least.

When: It is a time of the bow, sword and war in the Land where there is no safety.

To understand how the “alluring” takes place, that is, its setting, one has to read carefully Hosea 2:1-13, where a rich, and prosperous Ephraim, tied to and happy with her lovers/Baalim, is stripped naked and loses everything, and thus ends up in the “desert” situation Hosea addresses, whether literally or figuratively.

Much to ponder here but if you have not read through Hosea lately it might prove quite instructive in evaluating the situation today of Judah in the Land.

This thoughtful article by Rabbi Riskin in the Jerusalem Post on Friday was worth passing along. Also, be sure and tune into the live video or audio broadcast on the weekly Torah portions coming to you from Temple Sinai and the Roots of Faith congregation, 10:30 CST each Sabbath:

http://rootsoffaith.org/streaming-video

Parashat Vayera: Why Israel is God’s Chosen
Nov. 5, 2009
Shlomo Riskin , THE JERUSALEM POST

I have loved [known] him in order that he will command compassionate righteousness and moral justice… Genesis 18:19)

In last week’s portion, Lech Lecha, we read of God’s covenant with Abraham – that seminal event which made Israel the Chosen People. An important contemporary theologian, Michael Wyschogrod, maintains that our covenant is a result of God’s preferential love for the descendants of Abraham, through which He continues to “dwell within the continuity of historic or corporate Israel.”

The Bible itself teaches (Deut. 4:37-38; 7:7,8), “He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their seed after them, and brought you out in His presence with great power from Egypt, to drive out nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in and give you their land for an inheritance… God did not love you and choose you because you were greater in number than any people; rather, you were the fewest of any people; it was because the Lord loved you and because He would keep the oath He swore to your ancestors….”

This is how Wyschogrod formulates his thesis: if God continues to love the people of Israel – and it is the faith of Israel that He does – it is because He sees the face of His beloved Abraham in each and every one of his offspring, as a man sees the face of his beloved in the children of their union. (See Meir Y. Soloveichik, God’s First Love, First Things, November 2009).

I would maintain, however, that God’s election of Abraham was not merely an act of love but rather a morally directed charge in keeping with the fundamental definition of ethical monotheism. This is made clear in this week’s portion; “And Abraham shall surely become a great and powerful nations, through whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; it is to this end that I have known [loved, specifically appointed] him; in order that he will command his children and his household after him to guard the way of the Lord, to do compassionate righteousness and moral justice (tzedaka umishpat), in order that the Lord may bring you, Abraham, whatever He has said He would.” (Genesis 18:18, 19)

The divine election of Abraham and his descendants is explained by their responsibility for spreading God’s message of compassionate righteousness and moral justice. This fits with the ancient definition of a covenant – a two-way street of mutual obligations. This covenant between God and our ancestors provided an enlightened alternative to the corrupt societal structures which brought about Divine punishment through deluge, fire and brimstone. And even though God unconditionally guarantees that Abraham’s seed – the Jewish people will never be destroyed – our ability to live in the Land of Israel as a sovereign nation is dependent upon our moral and ethical worthiness.

The relationship between our status as a nation and our ethical standing is iterated and reiterated throughout the Bible. Even those biblical passages which emphasize divine love as the reason for the election conclude with a warning: “But you shall observe the statutes and commandments which I have commanded you this day, that it may go well with you and with your children so you may lengthen your days on the land which the Lord your God has given you…” (Deut. 4:40)… “And you shall know that the Lord your God, He is God the faithful God who observes the covenant and – lovingkindness for those who love Him and observe His commandments … So you shall observe the commandment and the statutes and the laws which I have commanded you this day to do them (Deut. 7:9-11).

Indeed the Bible prophecies two destructions and exiles – one foretelling the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE (Lev. 26:14), “if they will not hearken unto Me,” and the second dealing with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the second exile (Deut. 28:15), “And it will happen if they do not hearken to the voice of the Lord your God…” The prophet Isaiah (1: 27) even refers to the divine charge to Abraham when he insists that ultimately “Zion shall be redeemed by means of moral justice [mishpat] and [Israel] shall return [to her land] by means of compassionate righteousness [tzedaka].” No wonder that these are the concluding words of our prophetic reading (haftara) on the Shabbat before Tisha Be’av, the anniversary of the destruction of both Temples.

The message which emerges from this study should be clear and frightening. God loves and believes in Abraham’s progeny, and there will always be a faithful remnant worthy of redemption. But whether our present miraculous return – “the beginning of the sprouting of our redemption” – will truly flower into the long-anticipated salvation of our nation and the world depends on our penitent hearkening to God’s voice, and our ability to serve as a sacred model of compassionate righteousness and moral justice.

The writer is the founder and chancellor of Ohr Torah Stone Colleges and Graduate Programs, and chief rabbi of Efrat.

David Horowitz died at age 99 seven years ago today, October 27, 2002. I spent this afternoon at the UI offices thinking about his life, the past seven years and the remarkable events that have transpired and how utterly thrilled and excited he would have been to have seen his mission and vision, drawn so directly from the Hebrew Prophets, now take wings through a reestablished UIWU, the publication of Restoring Abrahamic Faith as a lovely book, and the activities through Roots of Faith and the SWW that Ross Nichols has pioneered. I lit one of the original candles I had saved from his NJ cottage and spent some time meditating on it all.

A nice way of remembering David might be to revisit his remarkable biography which you can find at:

http://unitedisrael.org/United-Israel-Organization-Information/Founder-David-Horowitz.html

I can also attach it as a PDF file for those of you who might want it as a more permanent file on your own computer.

Shalom to all,

James Tabor on a rainy, cloudy, day in Charlotte…

Horowitzbio.pdf

In the early 1990’s, Dr. James D. Tabor presented a lecture on the Five Fundamental Flaws of Evangelical Christianity. This lecture has been very popular and widely distributed for well over a decade.

Recently, at a conference held in the historic Temple Sinai, Dr. Tabor  presented a revised version of this lecture. Dr. Tabor seeks to show the 5 main points that he feels Christianity has veered from it’s original and thoroughly Hebraic path in this lecture. The lecture is sure to challenge those who claim to follow the teachings of Christianity.

Is standard, evangelical Christianity the same faith that emerged in the first century, or has it developed into something entirely different? You will not want to miss this exciting and challenging lecture by James D. Tabor.

The lecture is available on iTunes and for download now on the Roots of Faith web site.

Here is the link:

http://rootsoffaith.org/2009/10/24/the-five-fundamental-flaws-of-evangelical-christianity.htm

Recently Ross Nichols, founder and teacher of “Roots of Faith” in St Francisville, Louisana, gave a message with the provocative title “Following Jesus: Out of Christianity.” You can download an audio version of this message at:

http://rootsoffaith.org/2009/10/12/welcome-to-roots-of-faith.htm#more-408
You can find out more about Roots of Faith at http://rootsoffaith.org as well as the “Synagogue without Walls,” which you are welcome to join at http://rootsoffaith.net

Here, in Ross Nichol’s own words, is his introduction to this audio message:
You see, I began my journey towards truth from the rank and file of fundamental Christianity. As I read and studied my Bible I soon discovered a vast difference between the religion of Jesus and the religion about him (Christianity). Years ago I came up with three statements that helped me along the way. Since I came from a Christian background, I used my familiarity of the New Testament texts to find my way to the truth. I began to see that “Jesus” had been misrepresented by the “Church”, and felt that I had inherited lies, vanity and things wherein there was no profit – Jeremiah 16:19. I still maintain the highest regard for the historical Jesus of Nazareth who believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the eternal validity of the Hebrew Bible and taught the people of his day to return to the true faith. Below are the three statements that helped me find my way to the God of Jesus – a WAY that is clearly defined in the Bible that Jesus read. Jesus sought to bring about the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth – which is the goal and meaning of history. His followers would do well to take his yoke and learn from him.

I put my faith in the God of Jesus – commonly referred to as “the LORD”, but known by the designation YHVH in the Hebrew Bible, and referred to by Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament by the Aramaic term Abba / father. This God is one, and beside him there is no other, neither in heaven nor on earth. He is the Ancient of Days, El Shaddai, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Matthew 19:16ff; John 17:3; 20:17; I Corinthians 15:24; II Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3, 17; Colossians 1:3; I Peter 1:3; Acts 2:22: 10:38). I do NOT believe that the historical Jesus is or was the God of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Furthermore, I do not believe that he ever claimed such.

I put my faith in the Bible that Jesus read – commonly referred to as the “Old Testament”, but strictly and properly referred to as the Hebrew Bible or TaNaKh, an acronym formed by the first letters of three Hebrew words used to designate the three main parts of the Hebrew Bible (Torah – Law, Neviim – the Prophets and Ketuvim – the Writings). (Matthew 5:17ff; Luke 16:16ff, 29; 24:25, 32, 44ff; John 1:45; 5:39, 46; Acts 13:15, 26ff; 15:21, 17:2, 24:14, 26:22; Romans 1:2; 7:12, 14, 22; 10:4; 15:4; 16:26; I Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 3:24; II Timothy 3:15)

I put my faith in the authentic teachings and mission of Jesus – to bring about the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, to seek and save the lost sheep of the house of Israel (hitherto unaware of their true identity), and to do and teach the Torah of YHWH. (Matthew 5; 10:6; 15:24)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090924093355.htm

Jewish Priesthood Has Multiple Lineages, New Genetic Research Indicates

ScienceDaily (Sep. 25, 2009) — Recent research on the Cohen Y chromosome indicates the Jewish priesthood, the Cohanim, was established by several unrelated male lines rather than a single male lineage dating to ancient Hebrew times.

The new research builds on a decade-old study of the Jewish priesthood that traced its patrilineal dynasty and seemed to substantiate the biblical story that Aaron, the first high priest (and brother of Moses), was one of a number of common male ancestors in the Cohanim lineage who lived some 3,200 years ago in the Near East.

The current study was conducted by Michael F. Hammer, a population geneticist in the Arizona Research Laboratory’s Division of Biotechnology at the University of Arizona. Hammer’s collaborators in the study include Karl Skorecki of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and Rambum Medical Center in Haifa and colleagues and collaborating scientists from Tel Aviv University and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The July 2009 issue of Human Genetics has published the Hammer team’s newest findings in their article entitled “Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood.”

Hammer and Skorecki were part of the first research group 10 years ago that found the DNA marker signature of the Cohanim, termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype. Today, Hammer and his colleagues are able to use a much larger battery of DNA markers and consequently able to develop a more fully resolved Cohen Modal Haplotype called the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype. The smaller number of markers used in the original Cohanim studies did not allow for full resolution of the history of the Jewish priesthood.

“These findings should motivate renewed interest in historical reconstructions of the Jewish priesthood as well as additional high resolution DNA marker analyses of other populations and ‘lost tribes’ claiming ancient Hebrew ancestry,” Hammer said.

Using the new data, Hammer and his team were able to pinpoint the geographic distribution of a genetically more resolved Cohen Modal Haplotype and tease apart a multiplicity of male lines that founded the priesthood in ancient Hebrew times. The more fully resolved Cohen Modal haplotype (called the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype) accounts for almost 30 percent of Cohanim Y chromosomes from both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities, is virtually absent in non-Jews, and likely traces to a common male ancestor that lived some 3,200 years ago in the Near East.

Additional Y chromosome lineages that are distinct from that defined by the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype, but also shared among Cohanim from different Jewish communities, reveal that the priesthood was established by several unrelated male lines.

1. Michael F. Hammer, Doron M. Behar, Tatiana M. Karafet, Fernando L. Mendez, Brian Hallmark, Tamar Erez, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Saharon Rosset and Karl Skorecki. Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood. Human Genetics, 2009; DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5

Last night marked the beginning of the strangest festival in the biblical calendar. It is called the “festival of shelters,” literally and it last for seven days. The word is Sukkoth in Hebrew, which literally means “huts” or some other kind of temporary dwelling. Its meaning is very close to our English “homeless shelter” today. Though it is often translated “tents” or “booths” the idea is some kind of arbor or lean-to under which one can get a tiny bit of needed shelter, but still very much exposed to the elements and the sky. This was one of the three ancient pilgrim feasts of Israel. We are not told too much about it, but the meaning seems simple, Israel, settled in permanent dwellings and cities in the land, is never to forget its “wilderness” origins, so that once a year, in the Fall, they are to actually “go back to nature” and camp out or live in huts, tents, or temporary dwellings, for a week, so as to remember that YHVH made our ancestors live in this nomadic, temporary way in the time of Moses. This festival then vividly reminds us of that, of the CAMP of Israel, of the time when the Column of Cloud/Fire was visible, when there were no sacrifices or Temple, just the simple “tent of meeting,” when everyone was fed morning and evening with the mysterious “manna,” and when YHVH spoke face to face with Moses.

You can find the descriptions in the Torah, particularly in Leviticus 23: 39-43. But what is really interesting about Sukkoth is that it not only looks back, but also forward. Notice these words of the Prophet Hosea:

I have been YHVH your God since your days in Egypt, and I will make you DWELL IN SUKKOTH again, as in the days of MEETING.
I will speak through prophets, I will give vision after vision and through the ministry of prophets will speak in similies” (12:9-10)

This is really an incredible verse, as it pictures a time of Israel’s restoration, when Prophecy returns, no more “hiding of the Face,” and the days of “meeting” could well refer to that “Tent of Meeting,” from those wilderness times. Here we have that same motif that we find elsewhere in the Prophets, the idea of an Exodus II that parallels Exodus I of the time of Moses. Thus Micah the Prophet declares: “Once again YHVH will show marvelous things as in the days when you came out of Egypt (Micah 7:14-15)

Zech 14 also tells of a time when the whole world will come up to Jerusalem and dwell in Sukkoth/tents/shelters during this week….

Some other relevant readings for this time are Hosea 12, Micah 7, Psalm 80-81, Isaiah 24-35…

Some folk camp out in tents, others gather at campgrounds or even hotels, some just stay out on their porches or balconies and many build shelters on their property, as is the custom within Judaism. The more one can actually “live” in the Sukkoth, the better in terms of getting the meaning of the festival. The moon during Sukkoth is full. On a clear night everything is bright and lovely, almost magical. The experience can remind us of a more simple and primitive time, getting away from all the “modern conveniences,” more or less what we mean when we talk of “camping out.”

We at United Israel wish all of you, our thousands of readers worldwide, a meaningful festival. Sukkoth is truly an extended Biblical “Thanksgiving.” In our troubled and complex world it pulls us outside, away from it all, to sit/dwell in our “huts” for the next seven days…

Blow the shofar at the new moon,

at the covered moon, on our feast day.

For it is a statute for Israel,

a rule of the God of Jacob.

He made it a decree in Joseph

when He went out over the land of Egypt (Psalm 81:3-5)

Just this week I became aware of the amazing work of Shmuel Greenbaum and his efforts with Partners In Kindness.  I spent some time browsing the Web site and found it incredibly moving. I remember very well the bombing at the pizza place on Jaffa road in 2001 but I had not heard of the response and subsequent efforts of this widower who lost his wife Shoshana to find kindness in our world of darkness and light.

I just subscribed to the e-mail newsletter called “Kind Words” and I have also just ordered the book, A Daily Dose of Kindness. I have written and talked a lot about YHVH’s self-proclaimed “character description” in Exodus 34:5-7 (see my full discussion in Restoring Abrahamic Faith, pp. 23-26). In that formulaic statement, subsequently repeated in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, YHVH is described as both Rav-Chesed and Notzer Chesed–full of loving-kindness and “keeping” kindness. In my studies of the word Chesed I have come to the view that we have no precise English equivalent. Our English world “love” is unfortunately used in so many ways that it can hardly serve to carry much specific meaning. “Kindness” works quite well I think, but perhaps the notion of loyal-kindness should be included–thus “keeping” kindness, or even “guarding” kindness. It is not feeling alone, but something that involves work, commitment, and action.

A recent statement titled “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission,” issued by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is rightly causing lots of stir and controversy among Jewish leaders. Despite what had come to be seen as progress based on the 1965 Second Vatican Council declaration, Nostra Aetate, with its assertion that the Jewish people collectively are not to be blamed for the death of Jesus as well as a general understanding that interfaith dialogue should not have as its purpose the conversion of Jews, this latest statement from the USCCB makes clear that the Catholic Church stands firm in its historic position that Christianity has superseded and thus effectively replaced Judaism:

“The long story of God’s intervention in the history of Israel comes to its unsurpassable culmination in Jesus Christ, who is God become man.”  According to the document, “we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.”

Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamantion League (ADL) has issued for formal statement of protest, highlighted on the ADL Web site:

ADL Troubled By U.S. Bishops’ Statement That Appears to Green Light Missionizing Of Jews

The Catholic News Service (CNS) has also posted a story:

Jewish leaders say bishops’ June statement could hurt dialogue

A more pointed story was just posted by Israel National News ISN):

US Jews Enraged by Catholic Document Urging Missionizing of Jews

Despite Pope John Paul II’s language about the Covenant with Israel being one that was “never revoked,” the Bishops were keen to make clear that such language does not in any way preclude “supersessionism,”that is, the notion that this “Old Covenant” has in point of fact become obsolete. Jews remain valuable as “historic witness” to God’s previous dealings with humankind, but there is nothing in the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation, past or present, that declares the Jewish people, short of accepting Christ, as enjoying a fulfilled relationship with God. Accordingly, the historic Christian insistence on the “conversion of Jews” remains central to the Christian mission, despite any progress in ecumenical dialogue and exchange among Rabbis and Bishops.

It has become somewhat fashionable in our time, and particularly among certain circles of biblical scholarship, to argue that the documents of the New Testament, and those associated with Paul and John in particular, do not in fact support the subsequent Christian doctrine that Israel’s covenant with God has been superseded and made obsolete. New Testament scholars are familiar with the work of Loyd Gaston (Paul and the Torah 1987), supported by John Gager (Reinventing Paul 2000) and the late Kirster Stendahl, who argue that Paul upheld Israel’s Sinai covenant as eternally valid for Jews, while Gentiles are part of a new covenant through Christ. According to this view when Paul seems to speak negatively about the Torah, or the insufficiency of Israel’s covenant for salvation, he has in view only attempts by his opponents to force such upon his Gentile converts. As attractive as such a view might be for modern ecumenical relations between Christians and Jews, I am convinced that Alan Segal (Paul the Convert 1992), Ed Sanders (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 1983) and any number of others, have adequately demonstrated that for Paul both Jew and Gentiles find hope for salvation only in the New Covenant brought by Christ.

In that sense there is really “nothing new” in this latest clarification by the Catholic Bishops. They are simply saying clearly what orthodox Christians have said now for nearly 2000 years, despite some hope by Rabbis and Jews interested in Jewish-Christian dialogue that things might have changed. The fact remains, Paul’s view that his Jewish brothers and sisters are accursed from God, cut off from Christ, having a “zeal for God, but without true knowledge” could not be more clear. They are branches broken off the Olive Tree of Israel, God’s true people, for their unbelief in Christ, while Gentiles who do accept Christ are “grafted in,” as wild shoots (Romans 9-11).

In my book The Jesus Dynasty I maintain that Jesus was and remained a Jew and never entertained the establishment of a new religion. In contrast, it was Paul who might actually be called the “founder” of Christianity, with its distinctive theological doctrines. Even though Jews disagreed on how one might reflect and live out all the teachings and commandments of the Sinai revelation, especially regarding what came to be called halacha (literally “the way” or “the walk”), that is how to fulfill the various commandments, in general religious Jews, who took seriously the revelation of Torah, agreed on the obvious point that Israelites of all persuasions were obligated to live according to the commandments in order to be faithful to the Covenant.

Historians and scholars seem to be in almost universal agreement that what is called “the Jesus movement,” as represented by the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, was a movement within Judaism/s of its time and is most properly understood in this way, rather than as a “new” religion, separate from the mother faith. Likewise, I think there is general agreement, as far as I am aware, that James the brother of Jesus, leader of the Jesus movement after Jesus’ death, remained an observant Jew himself (Acts, letter of James, Josephus, Hegesippus, etc.).

To be “observant” in this broader context does not so much imply a uniform “orthodoxy” such as later developed within Rabbinic Judaism, but that whatever one’s halachic view, one remained “in the camp” in terms of covenental identity with the Jewish people and a concerted attempt to embody the teaching and commandments of the Sinai revelation. Judaism, as it developed, was understood as a religion, a people, and a culture, so matters of “definition” could be quite complex, i.e., you could have one who was born as a Jew, spurning the religion, or living immorally, or even turning to another faith, and yet, technically, remaining “Jewish.” In the same way non-Jews might take up Jewish customs and observances and still, nonetheless, not be considered “Jews” in a formal sense. E. P. Sanders, in his book Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, might be one of the best summaries of this entire matter. He exhaustively explores the various “Judaisms” of the period, showing ways in which they differed, but also what gave them their essential identity, something he terms “covenantal nomism.”

Non-Jews, in most of these forms of emerging Judaism, were not expected to “convert” to Judaism in order to have a spiritual relationship with God. They could function within the more universal “Noahite” covenant, and the notion and even social existence of the “righteous Gentile” or the “God-fearer” has been extensively documented, particularly during the late Roman empire. Here I recommend the monumental study of my teacher Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Roman World. One way of putting it was the adage “The righteous of all the nations will have a place in the world to come.” Jesus appears to share this openness to the non-Jew and the messianic vision of the Prophets was that all nations would learn to walk in the light of the Torah’s essential ethical teachings.

If Paul did indeed redefine the people of Israel (what he calls the “true Israel” ) as those who had faith in the heavenly Christ, thus excluding those he called “Israel after the flesh” from his new covenant, and if he also held the view that the Torah given to Moses was valid “until Christ came,” so that even Jews are no longer “under the Torah,” or obligated to follow the commandments or mitzvot as given to Moses but a new “Law of Christ,” then most historians have agreed that we are not merely dealing with a movement “within Judaism,” but the makings of a “new religion” that comes to be called Christianity. This is not to deny Paul’s “Jewishness,” in the cultural sense of that term. He surely believes in the God of Israel, Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, and the Torah and Prophets as Scripture. But in Paul’s thinking, instead of humanity divided as “Israel and the nations” which is the classic understanding of Judaism, we have “Israel, the Gentiles or “non-Jews,” and the new people called “the church of God.” This does not mean that Paul advocated immoral living, he surely did not. In all his letters he takes pains to enforce and reinforce the essential ethics revealed in the Torah as applicable to Gentiles upon his followers.

The rub comes for Jews–if it is now okay for a Jew who is “in Christ” and thus part of this new spiritual Israel, to fail to circumcise his or her children, to ignore observance of the Sabbath and the festivals, to eat anything set before them, and to generally “live as a Gentile” in terms of observing such marks of Torah observance then Paul’s position takes him outside of “Judaism” or observant Torah faith. Such a view implicitly leads to the abolition/replacement of the mother faith. It was upon that basis that the entire super-sessionist/replacement idea that became so current in Christianity developed. Paul takes the position in Romans 9 that any Jew who does not share his faith in Christ is “lost” and cut off from God, no matter what might be his or her spiritual devotion, Torah observance, or even reliance upon the grace of God.

Then there is also the matter of “justification by faith.” Judaism in all its forms has taught that all humans are sinners and can only be accepted in God’s eyes through repentance and faith. Psalm 51 would be the most classic expression of this, the Thanksgiving Hymns in the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the same for the Qumran community, as srict was they were in their legal interpretations, and Rabbinic literature reflects the same. As a Jew Jesus expressed these very ideas when he speaks of the two men praying in the Temple, one of them a “sinner” who smites his breast and turns to God, and is thereby “justified,” and the other self-righteousness, thinking he had no need of justification. E.P. Sanders is very good to make it clear that the notion that Christianity depends on “grace” and Judaism on “works” is a terribly unfortunate misunderstanding of Judaism. What divides Paul from Judaism is his insistence that this grace bringing justification is only extended to those who accept his Christ faith.

With these three elements based on Paul’s perceptions and heavenly visions: a new definition of Israel, the abrogation of the Sinai covenant, and the restriction of God’s grace to those who “accept Christ as savior,” we truly have a “new religion” and by no theological, cultural, or historical definition could it properly be called “Judaism,” but even more to the point, it must ever stand opposed, by its own self-identity, to all forms of Judaism as expressions of faithfulness to the God of Israel. Talk about irony. But such are the ways of the history of religions when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths–with each successive manifestation, first Christianity, and finally Islam, seeking to invalidate that which went before, while offering lip service to superseded obsolescence. For a full discussion of this point, and particularly the ways in which a more universal view of Hebraic faith addresses the issues of super-sessionism, see the treatment in my recently republished book, Restoring Abrahamic Faith.