Converting to Judaism III

This is post is continued from two previous posts; I, II

In this post ill give what I see as a problem attached to converting to Judaism.

Heres the problem:

If you reject Yeshua as Messiah, why not go further and reject the whole of Judaism as well.

STOP you would say, this is an error in your reasoning, but wait, let me explain.

When one reads the Tanakh it becomes apparent that there is a development, I mean one cannot conceal his eyes for the fact that todays Judaism is very different from Moses’ Judaism[1][2], or David’s Judaism, or Jeremiah’s Judaism, and although this in itself is not negative, on the contrary, we believers, consider it to be a legitimate and G’dly guided development, this shows that there is room for religion to be externally influenced and undergo change (albeit slowly and in mostly the same direction).

What has this to do with “rejecting Judaism” (Q) as a consequent of “rejecting Yeshua” (P)? (P=>Q) [3]

It is tied to the most common reason for rejecting Yeshua as Messiah; the ‘discrepancy’ (forgive me Im biased:P) between the NT and the Tanakh, mainly found in descriptions by the Prophets of who the Messiah would be, how he would act, what would happen when he’d come, etc.

The best objection that is posed is:

if Messiah has come why isnt there peace on earth? Isnt it written [...]and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

And this objection is a very good one! Id say by far the best objection one can pose. Why, if my Rabbi is indeed the Messiah, isnt their peace on earth? Being a Christian (albeit an odd one:P), I know our answer pretty well We say, no but look at Isaiah Ch. 53, the Suffering Servant, this was prophesied to come to pass and has, and at his second coming, the other prophecies will be fulfilled. But how much evidence do we have for this? Very little, in general prophecies concerning Messiah are scarce, and those that would indicate two comings are even more hard to be found. [4]

Nevertheless, from my point of view, the events that took place around the person Yeshua of Nazareth, as recorded by the NT[5], sound credible enough for him to be made a candidate in the race for the Messiah [6]. So even though some of the thought that is presented in the NT may appear not to flow fluently with the Tanakh, theres a general direction that is very much in line with the previous revelation (see an earlier post of my take on how to approach the NT here).

Again, there are many ‘discrepancies’[7] in the Tanakh (thank G’d for Rashi!), yet we dont dismiss it altogether. Similarly, although at some points the NT presents a developed thought (or in the words of others: foreign thought), e.g. the Suffering Servant, or an emphasis on the role of G’ds spirit in the life of the believer, or conceptually, as the spirit-christology that is more apparent in the Synoptics as opposed/in complement to the logos-christology that is posed by the Johanine writings, this is not sufficient criteria for dismissing it, as the Tanakh is full with this. Examples of these would be the shift from ethnos to ethno-religion[8], the change in who constituted part of the nation of Israel[9] but also as my friend Geert ter Horst pointed out to me, the difference between Ezekiel the Prophet’s description of the future Temple and the Tanakh’s prescriptions.

I know Im not really convicing in this post, but let me share a real life example, I had a friend who was on a similar path as me, call it “the Christian for Moses-path”, but when critically examining the NT in relation to the Tanakh, that is, holding the Tanakh to be constant and thus not open to internal critique, but solely looking between the NT and the Tanakh, he found that it was not compatible with each other. He pressed for conversion but the Rabbi slowed him down and suggested Noahidism. Yet while pursuing this, and continuing his studies in the Tanakh, he found that if he were to use his rhetoric in the same way as he did previously, he couldnt hold onto Judaism either, as internally the Tanakh didnt seem to be compatible, and he didnt.

Does this prove my point? Not really, as you could find fault with his reasoning, yet I do think this is not necessarily an illogical step.

—————————————————————

[1] Theres a midrash about how if Moses would come into the Synagogue today, he wouldnt understand anything of it and people would have to explain it to him. This, I think, indicates the Sages z”l acknowledging the difference between todays Judaism and Moses’ Judaism instead of claiming it to be the unchanged form (although often todays Judaism is forced back into the text, but this is understandable as this is somewhat demanded for making it a ‘work-able’ concept).

[2] Im aware that its anachronistic to use the term “Judaism” but use it anyways for comfort sake

[3] Im supposed to study for my mathematical logic class now but am writing for my blog, in this way I ease my conscience by still doing something in relation to my course:P

[4] Wouldnt know of one actually… granted, the idea of a suffering servant and conquering king lends credence to the thought, one could say that the existence of those two concepts necessitates two comings but a specific verse or passage for this, I wouldnt know.

[5] One could easily throw in some Biblical Criticism to debunk the NT, however the same can be done to the Tanakh, and for those that have studied that issue a bit more in-depth (Biblical Criticism especially on the Torah), it is known that the results arent that well-founded.

[6] As my blog-name (Christian for Moses) indicates I believe him to be the actual promised Messiah of Israel.

[7] I put discrepancies between inverted commas, as I dont mean real discrepancies (although in some details there may be), but rather, seeming differences in concepts, these being mainly additions that are of a complementary nature.

[8] See Shaye D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 109-39

[9] Before the Babylonian exile people were mainly defined by descent and territory, to be an Israelite, one had to be either descended from Jacob or be a non-Jew living in the territory of the land of Israel (while accepting its governance). The boundary between Jews and non-Jews was mainly based on moral-religious grounds and thus permeable if one would live in ways that were in line with the religious morality of the nation of Israel. After the Babylonian exile this changed, descent became the chief factor in defining the nation and non-Jews living in the land of Israel were no longer regarded as part of the nation of Israel regardless of their observance.