Last time I introduced the idea that Luther misread his Bible. He thought he saw in the Judaism of Paul’s day a reflection of ideas from his own time. He thought of 2nd Temple Jews as legalistic Catholics from his time period. He did not understand either the Judaism of his own day or the Judaism of Paul’s time.
I have done a number of articles called
Derek,
Hmmmm. It seems to me that John the Baptizer was not critiquing the covenant status of the Jewish people as defined in the earlier part of your paper so much as critiquing presumption. It is this attitude of presumption which offends God, no matter who manifests it.
For example, if a Southern Baptist feels his spiritual issues with God are in the bag and presumes to say, “I know I’m saved because I walked forward at a meeting at First Baptist Dallas when I was a boy of twelve,” is not this presumption an offense to God despite whatever merits there might have been in his adolescent experience? Here again, it is the presumption which offends God.
Therefore, are you right in asserting that John the Baptist was attacking the covenant status of those who came to hear him, or was he not rather critiquing their presumption?
More later.
And, by the way, it cannot be shown nor properly alleged that all of the Jews who came to hear John were presumptuous. He was calling ALL to repentance, and critiquing the particular weaknesses of each group, (See Luke 3:10-14). The particular temptation of the people of God, whether they be first century Jews or 21st century Baptists is presumption–but it their presumption, not their covenant status which is being exposed here.
A challenging question in view of the foregoing: what of the Jew who trusts in God’s covenant promises to his people, and who rejoices in the mercifulness of God? Is he presumptuous? And is a candidate for John’s rebuke?
Hmmmmmmmm
Stuart; Derek:
I would agree with you here Stuart that Yochanan was calling all Israel to repentance. However, I would question your statement that the real temptation of the people of G-d is presumption.
In another section of one of these blogs, Deuteronomy 30 has been raised. I would suggest the issue may be more of a lack of, or refusal to actively seek repentance. I do not think this lack on the part of Israel is a reult of presumptuousness. Rather it may be a lack of several more basic realities. Israel has failed to recognize the the “blessings and the curses” HaShem speaks of, and until such time as they (we) do, we will be burdened in the physical world with our Yetzar Hara.
We must first, as the sages teach us, repent in a specific manner, not unlike deciding to make a change in our lives when we truly recognize a behavior we desire to change. The formula is clear – the heart must first recognize and acknowledge, and the mouth must confess – without this process change cannot be initiated. I would add these two precursors are necessary but not sufficient for change. One must then do.
Israel has not necessarily presumed, but perhaps ignored. Until such time that we seek G-d’s ways with our hearts, we remain in exile. The talmud (Shabbos) teaches us that when we meet the conditions for repentance, we then put ourselves in the position for Divine intervetion which will remove from us the evil inclination entirely – this ocurring only int he time of Mashiach.
Stuart:
Several months ago on your blog you wrote of salvation reagrding indiduals such as A. Heschel, Ellie Weisel, The Chofetz Chiam, and their “fate ” in the world to come. You were raising the question whether such people, although not “believers” in Yeshua, would be left in “darkness” in the world to come – a question of salvation -
Can you posit additional thoughts concerning the salvation of not only Tzadiks, but the rest of us as Jews, who may not believe in Yeshua, or who may have proclaimed such faith without even knowing such was not done with the heart. Perhaps this is a matter of presumption as you note above.
In your opinion is belief in Yeshua necessary and sufficient for salvation?
Yaacov:
The only Jewish source I can think of on this subject is B. Talmud Shabbat 31 a.
We can discuss this further at Genes site. I am not sure if this is the proper venue and will of course defer to Derek. It appears to me that the discussion in this forum is related to Christian views of Jews as seen through several prisms. I think that courtesy dictates that if they want us to stick to that topic and to avoid Jewish points of view that we move this discussion elsewhere as we discussed previously.
In addition ,I am not quite clear what either Derek or Stuart are ultimately aiming at. I see that Derek has added some hybrid theological terms that attempt to address some errors in the way Jews relate to the question of justification. I dont recognize the terms from anything in Judiasm. I will state what I think he is saying in declarative English and of course he can correct me where I am wrong.
It sounds like he is saying that Protestant theology has mistaken Jewish practice at the time of Paul for certain medeival Catholic practices and world views that Luther found objectionable. I infer from this that he is saying that this affects the way some Christians view Jews and Judaism today. He believes that this misses the essential error in Jewish thinking about these matters.
I do know that “presumption” is a sin in Catholicism, and that Catholic spirituality tends to stress a continuum with “scrupulocity” at the other end. ( Noone tends to these nuances of the inner states of conscience like Catholics from my observation )
I personally am not clear that the comments made by John the B were not meant to imply something about covenental status BTW. What else could bringing forth new types of Jews from stones mean but a change? Certainly solves the whole “matrilineal/ patrilineal” thing that Gene has going over there.
Yaacov:
Israel has not necessarily presumed, but perhaps ignored<<<<
I think you are making a good point here. Unfortunately the majority of Jews simply are not encouraged to think in these categories at all. The problem that Derek Stuart and others have addressed is simply defined away. Furthermore the issue becomes so complex and so murky for Jewish people that to carefully investigate this issue is beyond the intellectual capacity and frankly the stamina of the average person. To add to this, as we pointed out in previous discussions, noone really has much of an interest in providing
guidance for those sturdy individuals who might actually be asking questions of the sort needed to address this issue. It is odd to say in a forum like this but I think we have concluded that it there just isnt any reinforcement for those with a knowledge base to address this issue with serious Jewish seekers. How much more so for the average Jew who just isnt even aware that its a problem.
I think we come back here to the “Saul Alinsky” question again. Who is going to care enough about this issue to overcome the inertia and apathy surrounding the Jewish people?
The energy and motivation will in my opinion have to come from “Simple Jews” and not from those preoccupied with the nuances of theology.
Dear Stuart and Derek
Will you be responding to comments above? I would welcome your collective thoughts
I believe we are made righteous by G-d, not by depending on our own works or acts of obedience. (Romans 3:21-31)
I also believe that we are made holy through a life in obedience to G-d, which for Jews means Torah observance. A life without holiness, a faith that does not lead to acts, is empty and in vain. (Yakov/James 2:14-26)
Luther was wrong a lot of times. But not always. I think he was right in appreciating the difference between justification (being made righteous by faith, as a free gift of grace) and sanctification (being made holy by obedience).
We obey G-d and keep the mitzvot, not to get to heaven, be our own redeemers (only G-d can be our Redeemer) or “help” Him out in atoning for our sins, but because we love Him.
Good shabbes!
Yaacov
I too fail to see why a timely answer was not forthcoming to your reasonable querie. I have seen these folks patiently endlessly discuss far less pertinent subjects with people who were less pleasant.
I think it a reasonable inference that the silence as before IS the message. I frankly at this point dont care to read the answer as it is abundantly clear to me that the politics of these questions matters far more to these people than the substance.
As for Genes comment on the distinction between sanctification and justification I agree with it. I still am in thebdark as to how he and others in MJ view Torah observance in the absence of the Oral tradition. What does that look like? The Karaites havent been too sucessful.
I move we continue this discussion on Genes board.
Shalom Bayit:
I think it unfortunate that Stuart and Derek have not yet responded. I have also experienced this before as well. It is a dissapointment, but my past experience is these tend to be esoteric and academic exchanges among those who seem only interested in speaking to each other and their own agendas. Why no reponse to Jews who seek and desire to exchange very serious questions about MJ for the commoner is not only perplexing, it seems to be characteristic of MJ “leadership”.
This sadly speaks to the state of affairs in MJ – no autherntic and subsatntial leadership – splinter groups with little apparent concern and no blatant interest for doing much more than isolated discussiions for the “select”. I am not speaking directly about Stuart or Derek, lest someone think this be the case. I speak more globally, using this blog as an example for a larger problem left unaddressed. I must ask those who claim “leadership” in MJ, what is your response to all of this? How do you expect those of us seriously questioning critical aspects of MJ and if it has a place at the table to react?
Back to Gene’s blog.
Yaakov:
I’ve read your comment several times looking for any question directed at me. I cannot find one. I am guilty of not answering a non-existent question. I sure get a lot of public humiliation for a very small crime.
I guess what you are demanding that I respond to, or be judged uncaring, is your suggestion that it is not presumption, but ignorance of God’s call to repentance, that is Israel’s problem.
The answer, clearly, is both. John the Baptizer was speaking to some leaders who held a presumptuous view. Yet he also preached to the masses who suffered largely from ignorance. I don’t see why it has to be one way or the other.
I hope there won’t be any political repurcussions from my answer. I need to get back to my self-congratulating cadre of scholars now.
Derek
Derek:
I dont want to deal with personal questions on the board. For clarification and closure, the comments I made an Yaacov made were not directed solely or even in any large part at you. I assume you have read the discussions we have had between Yaacov amd myself both on this blog and elsewhere. The plain text is about long standing issues we have had with what we perceive as an unresponsive MJ leadership that curiously places the struggles of real Jews on the back burner. The problem antedated you and I really dont expect you to solve it.
I hope there won
A response:
Derek, as noted by Shalom Bayit my comments were not directed at you personally, so all should be made aware.
However, since it was your initial statements on the blog, I perhaps ignorantly expected you to respond to something which you began – I suspected you initiated your comments for feedback and would then respond inkind. I was apparently mistaken.
This being said, please let me echo the cooment above, apologizing for what turned out to be someting taken personally which was not meant to be.
I too enjoy academic discussions and find them to be valuable approaches to learning. I think Shalom Bayit describes the problem well regarding the more essential issues facing everyday Jews struggling with MJ. I do not think it is your personal responsibility to address these issues, although you failed to comment about them. Why is this?
At any rate, my apologies again for in any way offending you. I think, as a few others have noted here and elsewhere, MJ has more critical issues to be addressed by those who are equipped to do so. Perhaps you have some insight as to why such issues and those in positions to address them fail to do so.
Shalom
Being imputed or declared righteous doesn’t mean you are aquitted of sin. An acquittal means you are 100% innocent. An acquittal of sin would be against God’s word and justice. This is how Luther misinterpreted imputed/declared righteousness as an acquittal verus a pardon.
We are being sanctified. And we are not declared righteous until we are perfect, when we are resurrected.
Marc
“Can you posit additional thoughts concerning the salvation of not only Tzadiks, but the rest of us as Jews, who may not believe in Yeshua, or who may have proclaimed such faith without even knowing such was not done with the heart. Perhaps this is a matter of presumption as you note above.
In your opinion is belief in Yeshua necessary and sufficient for salvation?”
Belief in the Gospel is necessary for salvation.
After the fact of the resurrection, I think that believing he rose
is necessary according to 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
I would base this on the prophet passage in Deut. 18 — whereby God is allowed give additonal revelation.
I believe the basic method of salvation was the same beforehand, just
with less details avaiable on exactly how God was going to accomplish it. Trust/or or commitment to God was still
required, and the good news was that God had promised delieverance for his people Israel.
This deliverance was avaiable to everyone who repented and trusted in God — even not knowing all the details.
I believe that there where some Jews and Gentiles who did understand
trust in God and the good news in this sense, so when they are preached to, the book of Acts characterizes it like this:
KJV Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the
Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who,
speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
The idea here is that they needed to heed the additional knowledge about Yeshua,
but they were not doing so from a position of being unsaved. They were just obeying the prophet passagage in Deut. 18.
So of course the good news when Yeshua preached was about God’s
deliverance that was promised, but the details of his personal fulfillment were still clouded some in the nature of prophecy.
Only when the prophecy was fulfilled did God require it of Israel.
Marc
Marc
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.