2.6.1 The Supernatural -
Oral Torah or New Testament?
A theological study of the Israeli Messianic Jewish Movement is likely to start with known, classical differences between Judaism and Christianity. Such issues would be „trinity versus unity”, Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's deity versus the oneness of the Jewish God, and Jesus' Messiahship, the role of Torah and the Mosaic law versus perceptions about the New Covenant. A cultural anthropological view on the movement will not exclude such issues, but concentrates on cultural and social-structural aspects, typically for this social science. A specialist discipline like organizational anthropology appears less inclined to pay thorough attention to religious matters, as it seems more concerned to serve to increase efficiency and effectivity of organizations. In this study I have purposefully not excluded the supernatural perceptions of the movement, as I found them even crucial for the shape of its internal and external social structure.
The differences in the social structure, between the ecclesiastical types, ℵ (aleph) and ℶ (beth), and the synagogal types, ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth), appear to derive also from the supernatural role that they deny or ascribe to Israel in relation to the church. From here, the differences regarding other supernatural issues and internal and external social structures and interaction among the four types become perceivable. Even the view on the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus' „blood of the [new] covenant” (Matthew 26: 28 NIV) could be regarded as submitted to it. Traditionally, many gentile churches regard themselves as the „real Israel”, the „spiritual Israel”, the „New Israel”, that replaced the „Old Israel”, the Jews, „Israel according to the flesh” (Stern 1988: 17). The more strictly a mission insists on such replacement, the stronger it will reject Jewishness and demand from Jews who believe in Jesus to forsake their Jewish fold and identity. In this view Jews must become Christians in every respect. If the church has replaced Israel, a synagogal expression of faith in Jesus becomes at least an anachronism (Weiner 1961: 114), at most heresy. From here, the sometimes considerable tensions between ecclesiastical and synagogal type groups become accessible. Also, from the point of view of replacement the Mosaic law receives different functions. Within ecclesiastical types it will more likely be read and studied in terms of symbols, typologies and allegories and less in a ruling and organizing sense. Within synagogal types it will also be read literally, as Jewish orthodoxy can do, demanding concrete obedience and application in every respect, like spiritually, socially, liturgically, politically. That is why the services appear very different, one like a Hebrew speaking Christian church, the other like a Jewish-Orthodox synagogue. From a theological point of view, this difference can appear to some as a question of right and wrong, good and bad, and not of option.
To some, the theological challenge could be to consider and to define in how far both forms theologically have the mutual right of existence and plight to their appearance. One possibility to formulate this question could be to ask whether the ecclesiastic form could be the more appropriate form for non-Jews, and the synagogal form the more appropriate form for Jews. From a philosophic point of view within the context of the democratic constitutional state founded on the rule of law, any fundamentalist exclusivity and intolerance must be ruled out (Habermas 1995: 153-155). From a social science point of view the differences can be studied and observed in its appearance and development.
„Aber der Bund ist mir nicht aufgekündigt worden,”
Buber humbly insisted in January 1933, during „the last Jewish-Christian dialogue in Germany, before the night began” (Schoeps 1970: 226-229. English ed.). If the „New” Covenant did not obsolete the „Old”, if the church did not replace Israel, then a synagogal expression may be regarded as the still legitimate Jewish expression of faith in Jesus (type ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth)). Historically and empirically, Moses” Covenant got two extensions, contemporary Judaism and Christianity, Halakah, Oral Torah, and the New Testament. Which of the two is the legitimate successor? Are both? If one or both are, to what degree? Here, Martin's notion of „differance”, derived from Derrida, of „difference without opposition” (Martin 1992: 134-141), consideration of the shortcoming of oppositional thinking, could possibly contribute to solutions. This is not the place to attempt answers and solutions to such questions. Yet asking such questions and envisioning such considerations appears organic in a climate of increased multiculturalism (Taylor 1995), and surely can depict the complexity of the matter.
Representatives of all four types of Messianic Jews insist to be both, Jewish, by origin, and Christian, by faith in Jesus. Yet probably only type ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth) representatives would really agree with the above statement of Buber. All four types regard Halakah, as officially prescribed by the rabbinate, as a post-scriptural and therefore unbiblical tradition that violates Scripture for the benefit of a particular Jewish tradition. Yet only type ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth) will not reject the principle of Halakah (Stern 1991a). The difference among all four types lays in the gradation of its rejection and acceptance. Those who reject it as unbiblical and expect Jews to become like gentile Christians regard any use of it as serious deviation from Scripture, or at least as cultural poverty. Such views consequentially shape the individual and collective religiosity more ecclesiastically, church-like. Those who reject the current Halakah, but regard Jews as still obliged to its principle, that is to live as Jews religiously according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, as the Jesus and his followers did, endeavour the redefinition of the content of Halakah (Shulam 1999). Such view enables their holders to selectively accept, reinterpret and apply elements of Halakah for their individual and collective religiosity. Consequently, they appear essentially synagogal. Relating their synagogal expression to Protestant tradition, they may appear liturgically Catholic and theologically Protestant. They may appear „liberal” and simultaneously „biblizistisch” (Schmidt 1975: 425). Ecclesiastic groups will embrace Judaism culturally, or nationally, and celebrate the national Jewish feast, and even light Sabbath candles if, when and how it pleases them. Still, they will not shape their worship place and style synagogal, because they do not embrace Judaism religiously. Yet this is exactly what the synagogal types do. They do not regard religious and ritual liturgic stipulations around Jewish feasts and ceremonies as optional. Still, they too will measure it against Scripture, and accordingly question Halakah if they think that it departs from it, as already Jesus and Paul did.
Another element that the four types have in common, in spite of their obvious differences, is the notion of personal salvation by grace. This can be regarded as an inheritance of their historically protestant origine and roots. Nevertheless, synagogal groups insist that salvation by faith ever was and is Jewish, and not something Protestant (Shulam 1999a). Keeping the Mosaic „law”, or Jewish tradition, is for none of the four types a way to salvation.
Salvation is found in no one else [but Jesus, ed.], for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12 NIV).
Messianic Jews believe in a personal saviour, Jesus, not in a saving religious law. Accordingly, in spite of sometimes serious differences, groups of all four types can join hands for evangelization to proclaim that. Nevertheless, the ecclesiastical types will more likely stress „by grace alone”, while the synagogal types will more likely stress that „faith without works is dead”. The former stress „faith”, the latter „faithfulness”. All four types attempt to maintain their particular balance between the two as two sides of one coin.
From the previous, renewed discussions about ancient theological issues within the movement and with churches become intelligible. Greek and other gentile thinking early entered the church (Schmidt 1975: 34-41, 99). Those who regard religious Judaism as anachronism or heresy for Jewish believers in Jesus appear to follow theological developments of a gentile church who departed partially from its Jewish roots. Those, who uphold religious Judaism as the legitimate and obligatory expression for Jewish believers in Jesus, must rethink their inherited Protestant theologies and cultures from within Judaism. They want a reversal of cultural and social-structural „gentilisation” and a restoration of „Jewishness” (Stern 1991a 54-55, 70-72).
Such a „Judaisation” (Weiner 1961: 113-116) of Jews who believe in Jesus must not be confused with a Judaisation of gentiles against which Paul wrote fierce letters. Synagogal type groups explicitly and vehemently oppose attempts to convert non-Jews to Judaism. Supernatural notions, like Trinity, embedded in non-Jewish and post-biblical terminology, appear to them as post-scriptural, unbiblical gentile-church development that deserves reconsideration from within and submission to a biblical Jewish notion and terminology of supernatural unity and oneness. A term like Tri-Unity is an attempt in that direction. Similar appears applicable also regarding the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which have to be understood from a supernatural oneness. To traditional, orthodox Christian theologies such are not issues, as is neither Trinity, since these are perceived to be obviously representations of Scripture. Some appear even alarmed by the idea that these notions should deserve reconsideration. Yet from within Orthodox Judaism, both Christ and the Holy Spirit would have to be understood Jewish from within the New Testament and the Unity of the deity.
For this study I read and studied various Siddurim, and even prayed from them (Stern 1936, Siddur Avodat Israel 1984, Dasberg 1993, Bamberger 1995). I read and studied guides to observant Jewish life (De Vries 1968, Donin 1972, 1977, 1980, Van Dorssen 1986, Hausdorff 1989, Vorst 1990, Cashman 1993). Temporarily and ludistically I tried following this „way”, while respecting both, Jewish tradition and my own conscience (Droogers 1994, Kalab 1995). Doing so, it appeared to me that the notion of the Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh, played no explicit or vital role in contemporary Judaism. Functionally, the Jewish notion of Sh'khinah, „God's manifest, glorious presence” (Stern 1992: 355-356, 913), approaches the Christian notion of the Holy Spirit. The „pneumatic” always played some role in church history (Schmidt 1960). Modern expressions of that dimension are the Pentecostal Church and the charismatic movement. As the Messianic Jewish movement has its roots in Protestantism, its pneumatic phenomena found their way into the movement and contribute accordingly to the shaping of its supernatural interaction and social-structure (type ℶ (beth) and ℸ (daleth)). While mystic phenomena occur in Judaism until today, it appears not to know something overarching like the Christian charismatic movement. A comparable Jewish movement would have to attempt to inspire and enter the various branches of Judaism, like Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox and Messianic Jews. From that viewpoint, the charismatic movement is a typical Christian phenomenon, unparalleled in Judaism. From the preceding follows that, of all four types of groups within the movement, the non-charismatic synagogal type ℷ (gimel) might come closest to Jewish-Orthodox supernatural perception and social structure. This, because it consciously refrains from ecclesiastical and charismatic expression, which both appear to them as typical Christian, un-Jewish characteristics. The ecclesiastical charismatic type ℶ (beth) might be most different from Jewish-Orthodox perception and social structure, since neither the ecclesiastic nor the charismatic expression finds a close parallel in contemporary Orthodox Judaism.
Ecclesiastical type views may consider the question „church or Israel” as still relevant. Synagogal type views will consider the question more likely to be wrong. To them, it is not a question of „or”, but an issue of „and”. By means of an „olive tree theology” they see the three distinct bodies as belonging together and in relation to the supernatural, „Gentile Christians, Messianic-Jews and non-Messianic Jews, without letting any of them drop to the ground” (Stern 1992: 416). „Olive tree theology” is regarded „underdeveloped” and in „ferment” (idem). Whether it would be an issue of ferment and development, that some parts of the movement can appear considerably ethnocentric may be an interesting question to consider elsewhere.