The position I favor for implementation among Jewish believers in Yeshua (JBY) may be described this way: “Living today for Israel’s tomorrow.” It is a proleptic, postsupersessionist, postcryptosupersessionist and communal approach to halachically-informed Torah living for Jewish Believers in Yeshua.
Let me briefly unpack this for you.
First and foundationally, my paradigm involves “living today for Israel’s tomorrow.” This means our primary focus ought not to be on preserving and protecting old and favored constructs, as commendable as they may be. Instead, our focus is on preparing for and aligning with what is to come. In mission theology this is called an adventus position as contrasted with a futurus position. In a futurus position one plans present behaviors on past experiences. In an adventus position, one plans present behaviors on a future already anticipated. The gospels are adventus documents: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand! Repent and believe the good news!” In other words, the future has broken in, and we must realign our lives accordingly.
Second, this is an anticipatory or proleptic position. This means that in thought, action, relationship and experience, our communities are meant to be a foretaste of what is to come, signs, demonstrations and catalysts of God’s consummating purposes for Israel. Having foreseen something of the shape of Israel’s future as summarized in my discussion of Ezckiel 37, we must adjust our agenda accordingly.
Third, this is a post-supersessionist position. This means that it is anticipates Israel’s glorification and consummation rather than her eclipse. In keeping with the uniform testimony of the prophets, this is a position which anticipates the rising and shining of Israel’s light, the vindication of Israel as God’s people and the Living God as her God.
Fourth, this is a post cryptosupersessionist position, prepared to reconsider and abandon those habits of thought, attitude and practice which tend to bleach Jewish life of its religious particularity, facilitating assimilation into the wider world, compromising our responsibility to be a peculiar people whose contrasting way of life by way of mitzvoth, chukkim and mishpatim would cause the nations around to sit up and take notice.
Fifth, the position favors halachically informed Torah-living. As already noted, “the Torah is best interpreted in concert with the historical stream and transgenerational discussion of that people to whom it was given.” Although many of us have been conditioned to distrust or ridicule the halachic rulings of the the wider Jewish community, the fact remains that it was to the assembly of Jacob that Torah was given. We should mark as naïve and presumptuous any attempt to interpret Torah apart from interaction with that community and its millennia of serious deliberation. Yeshua reminds us, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” As Noel Rabinowitz teaches in the conclusion of his paper on this text, “Jesus did not mean for his disciples to literally do “all” that the Pharisees taught. He meant rather that they were to obey their teachings regarding the Torah and halakhah in principle, a fact supported by Jesus’ own basic observance of oral tradition.”
While I recognize that this is not where many Messianic Jewish leaders wish to go, nevertheless I believe this is where God is taking us and where we should be heading.
To do otherwise seems both exegetically and missiologically unjustifiable.
In my next three postings, I will consider in turn the whether, the what and the how of this proposal.
 “Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people” (Dt. 4:6).
 Mt 23:3-4
 Noel S. Rabinowitz, “Matthew 23:2–4: Does Jesus Recognize The Authority Of The Pharisees And Does He Endorse Their Halakhah?” JETS 46/3 (September 2003) 423–47, here 47.