Caspari Center Media Review – October 11, 2011
During the week covered by this review, we received 8 articles on the following subjects:
Messianic Jews
Attitudes to Christianity
Christian Zionism
Christians in Israel
Conversion
Archaeology
Book review
This week’s review includes a feature article looking at Messianic Judaism and a note of the suspected “hate crime” against Michael Rose.
Messianic Jews
Haaretz, October 7; Jerusalem Post, October 9, 2011
Dorit Shiloh contributed a sympathetic article to Haaretz (October 7) prior to the Day of Atonement which looked at the function of “original sin” in Messianic Judaism. An acquaintance of “Yael” (false name), the center of the piece, since prior to her coming to faith seventeen years ago, Shiloh attempted to discover what role sin plays in Messianic Jewish life, noting that “Here in Israel, too, there are people whose lives revolve around this original sin, identified today with Christianity. There are Israeli Jewish Messianics for whom original sin and the atonement for it which God offers is the guiding force not only of their spiritual lives but also of their daily existence.” She also states that “The Messianic Jewish community in Israel is forced to live in hiding and to downplay its faith. The democratic State of Israel does not facilitate true freedom of conscience and religion, and the Messianic Jews are harassed by religious organizations who set themselves the goal of embittering their lives. One of the central organizations is ‘Yad L’Achim,’ which, inter alia, collects information about Messianic Jews and passes it on the Interior Ministry. Interior Ministry officials then summon them for questioning and turn their lives into a bureaucratic hell. Alongside all this there are also plots and schemes, false rumors, and attacks on businesses. Those who suffer are Israeli citizens in every respect, who love their country, serve in the army, pay taxes, educate their children on Zionist principles, inculcate patriotic values in them, and send them to State schools.” The interview with “Yael” establishes that original sin is not directly associated with sex before marriage, that forgiveness is one of Messianic Judaism’s central tenets, that Paul’s exhortation to “accept the weak” overrides (as he himself instructs it should) obedience to the commandments (Yael gives the example of a friend with a special diet who cannot eat matza and to whom Yael thus allowed, when she visited during Passover, to bring bread into her house), that “missionizing” is properly performed through conduct rather than with words (evangelism), and that while she fasts together with all Israel on the Day of Atonement, she knows that her name is “already written in the book of life” (the title of the article). At the conclusion, Shiloh cites Dr. Evyatar Marienberg, of the Religious Studies department at the University of North Carolina, as saying that “many people in Israel assume a priori that Judaism and Christianity do not go hand in hand. They cannot accept the view of Messianic Judaism as Judaism in every respect because the creation of the mainstream Israeli-Jewish worldview denies this possibility. ‘If we were talking about a combination of Judaism and Buddhism, I don’t think that would be a problem for anyone. It certainly wouldn’t arouse such antagonism.’ According to Marienberg, the integration of Judaism and faith in Judaism is not foreign to Christian history. ‘In the first three centuries C.E.,’ he says, ‘there were quite a few Jews who believed in Yeshua’s messiahship in one form or another. Many of them apparently found it difficult to imagine how a person could believe in him without first being Jewish, since the claims that Yeshua is the Messiah are found, in their opinion, in the Jewish Tanakh. Faith in Yeshua without faith in the Tanakh – which in their view foretells him – was very strange in their eyes. Precisely this phenomenon – of people in the same early period who began to believe in Yeshua without first becoming Jewish – is of particular interest, engaging the attention of many scholars. It nonetheless faded out, and several centuries following the birth of Christianity, it could be said that it had disappeared entirely. The reverse process began naturally: suddenly, most of the believers in Yeshua found it odd that that a Christian could be a Jew in any sense.’ According to Marienberg, the possible claim of today’s Messianic Jews that they are the continuers of those first Jews who believed in Yeshua in the first three centuries is problematic from a historical perspective but legitimate from a conceptual viewpoint. ‘Human and religious groups develop all the time and there is no going back to the past,’ he says. ‘But in fact, the Messianic Jewish claim is essentially no different from what modern Jews think – namely, that they are continuing in a direct line from Jews in the past. This is not a simple claim in any way.’”
Perhaps just as noteworthy, the Jerusalem Post (October 9) noted that “The home of a ‘Messianic’ pastor in California was vandalized. A swastika and the word ‘Jew’ were painted on the Hernet, California home that Pastor Michael Rose shares with his wife and children, The Press-Enterprise newspaper reported. Police are investigating the vandalism as a hate crime. Rose, pastor at the Light of Love Chapel, discovered the vandalism on Thursday morning. The self-identified ‘Messianic Jews’ embrace Christian theology and adopt some Jewish practices. Some are of Jewish ancestry, though many are not. Jewish groups have objected to the Christian movement’s use of terms such as ‘Messianic Judaism’ as misleading.”
Attitudes towards Jesus and Christianity
Haaretz, October 7; Yehdiot Rishon, October 7; Yediot Rechovot, October 7, 2011
As part of the paper’s preparations for the Day of Atonement this week, it asked its writers to address the sins for which the people ask forgiveness on the holiest day of the Jewish year. Aviad Kleinberg took “We have transgressed” as his theme and looked at the differing attitudes towards sin in Judaism and Christianity. Having noted that “Christianity sees [sin] as an almost insurmountable cosmic force that can be overcome only by divine grace … Christianity sees every person – including every Christian – as a habitual sinner,” he proceeded to acquit Jesus of this development: “This central insight of Christianity did not come from the founder of the religion. In the tradition of the Jewish prophets, Rabbi Yeshua Ben Miriam demanded of his disciples not to be satisfied with a mechanical observance of the commandments. The only way to ‘activate’ the therapeutic power of the commandments – i.e., to turn them from empty words and acts into therapy for the soul – is by means of a profound understanding of their intention and by acting according to that intention. Jesus believed that all the commandments were valid, ‘For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled’ (Matthew 5:18). But the actual implementation of each commandment requires soul-searching: Sometimes one should be lenient, and sometimes strict (it is permissible to pick wheat on the Sabbath when you are hungry; it is forbidden to refuse to give a loan to your enemy). In other words: The commandments are not a substitute for moral judgment, but a call for complete moral responsibility. Jesus does not think that some sort of ‘original sin’ can prevent a person from doing what is good and righteous in the eyes of God. On the contrary: He is certain that human beings can do the good that God demands of them. Doing good, as he understands it, is not always respected in this world. In certain respects it flatly contradicts the ways of this world. That is why the Messiah came: to bring his brothers the ‘good news’ (the Gospel) that the temptations and sufferings of this world mean nothing, and the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Jesus makes stringent moral demands of his disciples, because he is certain that they can fulfill them. All they have to do is to recall that their persecutors can kill the body but not the soul (Matthew 10:28); they can torture and debase the body, but they have no control over the soul would not surrender to them. Although sin is always on the doorstep, its power is only an illusion. Ignore it and enter the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Although he then rather predictably proceeds to blame Paul, his analysis is very astute: “That is not how the Gentiles’ apostle saw things. Paul never saw Jesus face to face and never heard him preach. To him, the ‘prophetic’ moral insights that Jesus spoke about were less important than the life story of the Messiah, especially his life-giving death on the cross. Why did the Messiah die such a terrible and humiliating death? Why did he reveal himself to Paul, who persecuted Christians, and not to those who were far more deserving? These questions aroused in Paul a profound appreciation for the absurdity (to humans) of divine redemption – an absurdity he refused to whitewash. God does not work in such strange and scandalous ways for no reason. Paul therefore derived three profound insights from his existential-theological confusion. The first was that Jesus’ sacrifice was no accident, nor was it trivial: Jesus died in order to repair some monstrous primal transgression that nobody else could repair. This is the ‘original sin.’ Original sin was not a local event that caused the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden; it totally destroyed mankind’s ability to do good. All human beings are sinners from birth and are drawn irresistibly toward their own ruin. Mankind cannot redeem itself; only the son of God can redeem it. The second insight: Since the ability to do good of one’s one free will, the essential condition of Jewish understanding of the covenant between human beings and God has disappeared since the original sin was committed, except in a relative and insufficient manner, the commandments cannot serve as a ‘cure’ for the sin. The commandments are thus invalidated. Absurdly, they were given so that mankind would understand that they are useless even when accompanied by good intentions and a worthy desire to the right thing in moral terms. Only God’s grace can save. The third insight: Because there is nobody who actually does good, the decision as to who will be saved and who will be destroyed does not depend on a person’s deeds (‘works’), but on the totally arbitrary decision of God. This decision was made by God long ago and cannot be changed. Paul’s worldview destroys the cornerstone of Judaism – the idea that there is a contract between human beings and God that is binding on both sides. God gave the Jewish people (and by implication, all of humanity) the Torah, in which his demands are spelled out. The Jewish people promised during the revelation at Mount Sinai to do God’s will. God for his part promised to reward those who do his bidding, and to punish those who do what he considers evil. As for the ability to do good, for Jews the divine commandments themselves serve as proof that human beings can both want what’s good and do it. In Paul’s eyes, however, human beings cannot want what is good. Salvation is therefore granted to sinners, and is the product of an internal process within the divinity. The New Testament, which was not sealed with the blood of beasts like the Covenant of the Pieces, nor with the blood of the Passover lamb, but with the spilled blood of the Lamb of God, does not leave a human being the right to stand and speak before the divine court. Whatever his deeds, a human cannot legally demand his due. When he stands before the heavenly court, he can hope for redemption as an expression of divine mercy. Justice unaided by grace necessarily means condemnation. That does not mean that there are no righteous and wicked people in the world. It means that the difference between them is the grace of God, not their own goodwill. If God’s grace is removed from even the most righteous of people for even a moment, it’s as though all that person’s rights never existed. Paul’s radical viewpoint was not accepted literally in Catholicism (although in some Protestant churches it is the official teaching). Church leaders were afraid that if it were declared that everything is preordained and there is no free will, human beings would be inclined to sin. Because if refraining from sin does not guarantee reward, why not enjoy the contemptible but oh-so-pleasant fruits of sin? It is therefore preferable to declare that the result of mankind’s race toward the Kingdom of Heaven is not determined in advance – at least not entirely. God grants us all initial grace, then adds more through his sacraments. This grace enables us to desire what is good in spite of the original sin. Later, he adds grace based on our good intentions. In the final analysis we have a limited but important influence on the decision regarding our fate … But this diplomatic solution, which removes the sting from the Pauline attack on the Jewish concept of reward and punishment, while accepting the concept of God’s grace, does not eliminate the profound Christian fear of sin. The believing Christian remains a weak creature whose ability to do good is in doubt. He cannot rely on his good ‘works.’ He never knows with certainty whether his actions find grace in God’s eyes, whether they were done out of true love for the Master of the Universe, as required. He constantly has to examine his soul to see whether it has been polluted by sin … At the end of Yom Kippur, a general absolution for all the sins between man and God is declared. The Jewish community, ‘Israel according to the flesh’ as Christian theologians dismissively call it, feels comfortable with God. It is protected by its contract with God, and is exempt from the existential anxiety and chronic sense of insecurity that typifies ‘Israel according to the spirit’ … In the traditional Jewish world, too much self-doubt was considered a type of spiritual sloth, if not the beginning of apostasy. But perhaps we need a little more of that Christian remedy to existential complacency. It is surely no coincidence that feeling the urge to probe deeper, Jews who emerged from the ghetto walls had such a great appetite for psychology that they turned it into the ‘Jewish science.’”
The identical pieces in Yediot Rishon (October 9) and Yediot Rechovot (October 9) appeared under the “Culture” column of the two local papers and explained the “Last Supper”: “One of the formative events in the life of Yeshu, which has served as an endless form of inspiration for artistic works and thence to caricatures, parodies, imitations, and everything else you can think of. The ‘Last Supper’ apparently took place on the eve of Passover and was the last occasion on which Yeshu ate with his disciples before his trial and crucifixion.”
Christian Zionism
Index HaGalil – Tiveria, September 23, 2011
Despite the UN vote on the Palestinian State, which caused some tourist-groups cancellations, visitors are continuing their sight-seeing trips to the Galilee because, in the words of Eli Kedem, marketing director of Ma’agen Eden Holiday Village, “most of the foreign tourists today are Christian supporters of Israel for whom visiting the Holy Land is an act which derives from faith in the propriety of Israel’s path.”
Christians in Israel
Jerusalem Post, October 9; Yediot Ahronot, October 6; Haaretz, October 7, 2011
One of the other contributions to Haaretz’s look at the Day of Atonement (October 7) came from Romuald Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel, who was born to a Jewish family during the Holocaust, raised by a Christian family, entered the priesthood, finally discovered that he was Jewish, and made aliyah. In addressing the sin of “We have been obstinate,” Weksler-Waszkinel noted that “The biblical description of Israel as a stiff-necked people is not unequivocal. It has many aspects, which attribute different significance to the effort to learn to be a free people – or, more accurately, to their effort to reconcile between personal freedom and obedience to God. But at the same time, it must be remembered, God remains faithful to his people, even though the people are not always faithful to their God. Although purveyors of Christian apologetics circulated the three rebukes mentioned above [that the Jews are guilty of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, that they were rejected by God, and that the Christians took their place] among the first Christian communities (in part from envy), the apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) wrote in a radically different style to the Christian community of Rome: ‘I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid … God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew’ (Romans 11:1-2), and later, ‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance’ (Romans 11:29). A view from the outside of the relations between man and God reveals a colorful, attractive picture: The people of Israel are still learning by a variety of routes to be free and at the same time to cope with God’s demands. But in relations between man and his fellow man – one can find in Israel much enmity, repulsion and sometimes even contempt with regard to relations between the different conceptions of God and of those who remain indifferent to him. I am saddened by such attitudes.”
The well-known author Nava Semel contributed a lengthy article to Yediot Ahronot (October 6) looking at the history of the Templer school in Haifa, to which she devoted a chapter in her latest novel Night Games, focusing on one of its teachers, Friedrich Länge, who “educated generations of pupils to fellowship with the Jewish people … I tried to understand how the Nazis worked with a remote control and how it transpired that students educated in this tradition were swept into the evil spirit of Germany – being, precisely to the sorrow of their Jewish neighbors, tainted by the Hitlerian plague.”
According to the Jerusalem Post (October 9), “Far-right graffiti was found spray-painted in Muslim and Christian cemeteries in Jaffa, police said Saturday night. The messages ‘Price tag’ and ‘Death to Arabs’ were written on the tomb-stones … Police are not convinced that the graffiti was spray-painted by far-Right elements. ‘Price tag’ attacks happen when Jews exact a price from Arabs or from the security forces for any action taken against the settlement enterprise … On Saturday night, around 200 people took part in a protest against the vandalism.”
Conversion
Hed HaIr – Shfela, October 6, 2011
This lengthy article featured a former secular IDF pilot, Daniel Asor, who converted to Christianity and then embraced Orthodox Judaism.
Archaeology
Zavit Acheret, September 26, 2011
This piece noted the recent archaeological finds of a menorah and sword in the City of David.
Book review
Haaretz, October 7, 2011
Israel Jacob Yuval reviewed Pawel Maciejko’s The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). A movement who believed in Frank as a (false) Messiah, the Frankists ultimately converted to Christianity, pushed in that direction by the rabbinic establishment itself: “The exacerbation of internal religion tensions within Judaism was directly connected to the lessening of tensions with Christians. One of the biggest fighters against the Sabbateans [another group of followers of a (false) Messiah], Rabbi Jacob Emden (Germany, 1697-1776), viewed Christianity as a religion meant to spread monotheism and the ‘seven commandments of the sons of Noah’ among the pagans, and as a ‘heavenly church’ … Emden’s position led him to involve Christians in his struggle against the Jewish heresy. The Frankists responded in kind. And so the two camps stood facing each other, each turning to different Christian groups for aid. The Frankists depicted Judaism as a religion of the uncharitable letter of the law, while the rabbis depended on the revulsion of the church toward ecstatic religious movements and their suspicion of private religious experience which deviated from the church framework … The history of the Frankists did not end with their conversion. Some of them sought to retain marks of their Judaism even after they became Christian: to keep Hebrew names, to refrain from marrying non-Jewish women and eating pork, to rest on the Jewish Sabbath as well as on Sunday, and to study Jewish mysticism. The conversion of the Frankists aroused contradictory responses in the Christian world. The Protestants were disappointed with the Frankists’ attachment to ‘idolatrous’ Catholicism, rather than ‘pure’ Protestantism, which seemed to them closer to Judaism. In contrast, the Catholics used their success with the Frankists to serve their infighting with the Protestants, especially after religious tolerance became part of the Polish legal system at the beginning of the 1770s. Frank really was a pious Catholic in his religious consciousness, attracted to the mythic and ritualistic aspects of Christianity … Rabbinical pressure on one side and the rabbis’ praise for Catholicism on the other caused the Frankists to define their identity more clearly as separate from both Judaism and from Christianity. These determinations are the most important innovations in this fertile and groundbreaking book.”