We will not take the time to go over the history of the Church and the deliberate move to differentiate itself from Judaism, or the refusal to acknowledge that Christianity is a religion in debt to Judaism, instead choosing a path in conflict with the Jewish religion.
The result was a de-judaization of Christianity and her way of thinking about God, as well as the relationship she has with Israel, the father and mother of Christianity. The children did not rise up and call their mother blessed, but instead they called her blind.
The gospel is an affirmation and a culmination of Jewish faith; yet the Church became a renunciation of the ancient faith.
For decades Bible scholars, pastors and teachers have been rediscovering the value of our common history, and how Hebrew, the Jewish people and Israel relate to Christianity. Still, we remain miles apart, and the closer we get the more difficult it becomes, like trying to force opposing magnets together. As Christians go deeper into Judaism they begin to understand just how deep the waters...
Become a Member
-
Read all member content
Get exclusive in-depth reports from Israel.
-
Get exclusive in-depth reports from Israel
Connect with Israel, right from your home.
-
Lift up the voice of truth and hope
Support Jerusalem-based Zionist journalism.
Already a member? Login here.
As you know Protestantism was a reaction to Roman Catholicism. The Reformation rejected the notion that the church had replaced Christ and scripture as the leading authority. The article rather addresses how the church departed from its Jewish roots in its early centuries.
At the time Judaism had been transformed from upholding the scriptural authority Moses had left it to a more rabbinic Judaism that was ruled by the rabbis. The temple had been destroyed in 70 AD by Titus and ben Zakkai developed a synagogue based Judaism not unlike the church. Judaism was further divided as synagogue Jews distanced themselves from church Jews. As more and more Greeks became Christians they reacted against rather than reconciled their differences with the Jews until enmity took root and the early church fathers felt justified in being antisemitic. Constantine took advantage of this enmity by Hellenising Christianity and making it a Roman religion.
The Reformation started the reconciliation process to return Jews and Christians to the biblical model God had started with the scriptures. We can rejoice that Gentiles are coming to faith in messiah through the evangelical revival and Israel is restored, with Christian blessing, as a nation.
Neither the church or Israel realise the Reformation has helped restore Israel, probably because Luther’s remarks, but looking at it logically it has. The messianic movement arose out of the evangelical revival and this is the effort that seeks Jewish restoration with the scriptures and with her Messiah, Yeshua Ha Mashiach, the Lord Jesus Christ. One can only praise God for His wisdom in finding a way to reconcile Jews and gentiles in Christ despite the best efforts of the world to prevent it.
Well done, David!
My guess is that most who subscribe to Israel Today would fit the phrase of “preaching to the choir”.
Then there is that other movement, which you may wish (or not!!) want to write about: Hebrew Roots Movement, which goes all in on everything Jewish/ Orthodox, and possibly makes it difficult for other Christians to even gently entertain what you are talking about.
I recently engaged with Gentile folk who deemed themselves Hebrews, and their explanation was, “Because we obey the Torah.” Needless to say, they also insisted on physical circumcision for Gentiles, which is tantamount to saying that Messiah’s death can’t graft us into the “Israel of God” (Gal 6.16), to wit, into a regenerate body of Jewish and Gentile Nazarenes.
This was topped up by attacking the Medinat Yisrael and the Jewish people (imposters, Khazars, Edomites, the DNA shows…, they obey Talmud not Torah, etc.).
Put another way, those Gentiles were supposedly “the real Hebrews” while the ancestors of Yitzchak and Yaakov were cheats.
I couldn’t believe it, but such sentiments apparently go also under the “Hebrew Roots Movement” = supersessionism & replacement theology at its worst.
Praise God! We, Protestant Christians, need to stand for the Truth. Thank you. It is written!!
If Jesus and His Jewish followers continued to be devout Jews, what is Protestantism saying? If Jesus did NOT come to do away with the law, calling it Holy, what is being said by dismissing the Jew and calling the law unholy and antiquated?
What part of the law are Gentile believers to observe? The book of Acts repeats 3 times the 4 necessities. That was the reason for the Jerusalem Council.
If we dismiss the law, we dismiss Yeshua Himself, who came only to the lost sheep of Israel and lived the law as it was intended. He wants Jew and Gentile one, not a replacement of Jew with Gentile. NO Christian can claim to follow Jesus and trash the Jew. Yeshua was born, lived and died a Jew. And He will return as a Jew to Jerusalem to rule. The law will come forth from Zion.
Toda raba, David – you hit the nail on the head.
A few remarks, if I may…
When Paul wrote “we are not under law but under grace,” he was not referring to Mosaic Law, but to the LAW OF SIN (the principle that sin is ultimately followed by death). This is just another example of a misunderstanding which has separated the Church from Judaism. Paul, as all the early Nazarenes – Jews & Gentiles – were fully Torah-observant. Gentiles were exempt from physical circumcision (the way to be grafted in in Moses’ day), but they did not enjoy pork chops while their Jewish brethren had chicken, etc.
One may also add that the first gospel, compiled by Mattai, was written in Hebrew, which the Gentiles named later the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS; our Greek Matthew is not a translation of it (the canonical gospels were compiled somewhere between 170 and 180 CE).
Quoting bits from an article I wrote:
The synoptics are the result of dissecting, copying, rearranging, and gentilizing the Hebrew original – “Divide et Impera,” the usual way of Roman conquest. The Hebrew Gospel (GH) was initially the only gospel extant. Neither Barnabas nor Clement, nor any other coeval such as Ignatius, Polycarp, or Hermas ever allude to the canonicals by name, and the reason is not anonymity but non-existence. In 160 CE, Justin cites the Tanakh two hundred times, often prefixed with phrases such as ‘Isaiah records’ (Dial. 63.2), ‘from the Book of Joshua’ (Dial. 62.4), or ‘in the Book which is entitled Exodus’ (Dial. 59.2). He also cites two hundred portions from the “Memoirs of the Apostles,” yet never names the corresponding book since the memoirs were identical with the Gospel of the Apostles aka the Gospel According to the Hebrews (Jer. Pelag. 3.2). Justin’s readings either differ or are absent from the synoptics, and he never quotes John. The meld of GH with the unadulterated Gospel of Yohanan (‘John’) was misleadingly tagged Diatessaron (‘made of four’), branded heretical after Nicea, and then confiscated; the last 200 copies were destroyed in the mid-fifth century.
In that Gospel, Jn 1:17 reads as follows:
“The Torah was given by Moshe, and the truth of it came through Yeshua.”
J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ (Edinburgh, 1894), 337, fn. 5. (cf. Aphrahat, Demonstrations 2.5)
Naturally, the Hebrew Gospel prescribed Torah-observance; it did not contain anti-Judaic, antinomian, or Trinitarian alterations and interpolations. The Spirit of Holiness is introduced by Yeshua as his mother, which is not Gnostic (as Cambridge & Co. tell us) but biblical truth.
The earliest original sayings of Yeshua (disregarding transmission errors), recorded between the resurrection and the ascension, can be found in the so-called GOSPEL OF THOMAS, – also successfully demonized by Oxford & Co. as Gnostic, middle-Platonic, or Zen Buddhist, etc. Papias said that these devarim/logia were compiled by Mattai originally in Hebrew (note: the Coptic clearly has a Hebrew substrata).
And so it goes on and on…
I also slightly disagree with Protestantism having brought us closer to Israel (as intimated in another comment).
Today, most Protestant churches are “harlot churches” and the mother of those harlots is the Papacy. For instance, the erroneous notion that water baptism is an “outward expression of an inward change,” is a satanic legacy of the Protestant Reformation.
A millennium prior to the Reformation, no one had ever heard of some “outward expression of an inward change.” While sadly anti-Judaic for the most part, the early Christian writers did not twist verses regarding salvation. Some of the below quotes only detail water immersion, but it is evident that salvation was understood as coinciding with rebirth, which in turn is effectuated by water and Spirit baptism:
[The repentant] are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the sameway in which we were reborn […] For the Messiah also said, “Unless you be born again, youshall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
(Justin Martyr, First Apology 61.3–4)
Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect isspiritual, in that we are freed from our sins.
(Tertullian, On Baptism 7.2)
[Upon repentance] we have been reborn through water and the fire of the Holy Spirit, andwe are presented to God by the Messiah.
(Eusebius, De Paschale 4)
The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the waterof rebirth; only then do they receive the Spirit of Holiness. (Aphrahat, Demonstrations 6.14)
There is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which are washed away through water and the Spirit. (Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9)
When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons.
(Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 1.6)
Certainly triggered some interesting responses. Hoping to learn more. Thank you David for this important message on a very thorny yet simple issue
I always enjoy your articles, David. Here are some questions I have:
–Strong’s Concordance lists 31 uses of ‘hell’ in the Old Testament. What do you think was the determining factor for one’s eternal destination?
–Does Jewish extra-Biblical literature have any mention of Nicodemus, Zachariah (father of John the Baptist), Joseph of Arimathea or other Bible-named followers of Jesus?
–Does secular Jewish history mention how big the Jerusalem church was in 50 AD or even closer to Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD?
Thanks for your help and keep up your good writing!–John E Taylor
Thank you, David, for your article. Reading your article brought to mind the tenets of our faith in God.
One of the questions I want to ask God when I see Him, is why He required a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. I have read Leviticus 17 many times, each time with the deep realization of God’s requirement for shed blood; not the aimless shedding of blood (vs. 3, 4), but for the purpose of taking the sacrifice to the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to the priest, who would spread the blood upon the altar of the LORD. (vs. 5, 6)
I think of Abraham on Mount Moriah when God provided a ram for him to offer as a sacrifice, instead of his son, Issac; Abraham called the name of the place, “The-LORD-Will-Provide”. (Genesis 22:14)
While I will understand more fully in eternity, by faith, I know that I have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:18, 19)
I can’t post even a short comment as it is refused as being too long.
Dear friend, we had to limit the number of words folks could use for comments. Some were longer than the articles themselves and many not relevant to the topic. Readers were complaining it distracts from real dialogue and we agree. You can now post up to a 200 word limit. Sorry for the inconvenience and do hope you will share you thoughts on this important topics and others on this platform.
Best
Quite understand. I haven’t made it through all the longer posts. You may need a word counter running at the bottom of each comment as it is being typed.
You may need to update your comments guidelines too.
I notice you quote Maimonides. I appreciate he was a towering figure in Judaism but what authority do you extend to his writings as someone who didn’t recognise Yeshua?
I don’t think in terms of “authority.” When such a man as this understands biblical Hebrew and can explain the original meaning of the Hebrew texts, I listen.
Yes, working on word counter. Thanks again!
This is refusing comments well below 200 words.