Jews for Jesus Blogspot

What's the Matter with Intermarriage

2009-08-05T15:01:00.000-07:00

by Tuvya Zaretzsky

Actually, don't be misled by this title. This isn't an article against intermarriage. It is just that there are so many issues related to Jewish-Gentile couples in the news these days.

I just got back from Israel and have been catching up on my reading. I keep a Google search on issues related to Jewish-Gentile couples. July was an interesting month.

First, I was stunned to hear that Jewish demographer, Gary Tobin, died at the age of 59 in Florida. As a student of cultural anthropology, I appreciated his work at Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and his unconventional voice as president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco. Gary Tobin researched the growth of contemporary Judaism and he took a “big tent” view of the Jewish community and the question, "Who belongs as a Member of the Tribe?" That, of course, is a discussion in the realm of Jewish-Gentile couples. We continue to reference that question, especially in regard to the children of Jewish-Gentile couples.

Interestingly, the same line of questions came up with a movie premiere that same weekend. It was the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. A theme in that film was a case of art imitating life. In the realm of Harry Potter, wizards, possessing magical powers, were a minority in a world of ordinary or non-magical people. Please don't think that I'm trying to make a perfectly matching metaphor out of this imagery. I am in no way implying that Jewishness is akin to magical wizardry and Gentileness is not. However, the identities of the characters in this Harry Potter movie are evidently determined by whether one’s mother was a wizard and one's father was non-magical. In my mind, I could see similar implications for the children of mixed ethnicities in Jewish-Gentile couples. It was interesting to also read that Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who plays Harry Potter, identifies as a Jew, though only his mother was Jewish and his father was a "Protestant."

The same week, The Baltimore Sun featured a commentary by Rabbi Yaakov Menken, who is the director of Project Genesis, a Jewish cyber-outreach organization based in Maryland. He commented on an article from Julie Wiener's "In the Mix," a monthly column featured in The New York Jewish Week. Ms. Wiener is an intermarried Jew who comments on Jewish-Gentile couple issues. Recently, she grappled with her own discomfort at the thought that a Rabbi might intermarry. That is not to say a rabbi would perform weddings for Jewish-Gentile couples – Reform rabbi's already do that - but that a rabbi would take a Gentile as a spouse. Rabbi Menken actually assumes that it will happen within "Progressive" Judaism sooner or later, and most likely sooner. He predicted that the Hebrew Union College, Reform Judaism's rabbinical seminary, would ordain intermarried rabbis "within the next decade." Rabbi Menken concluded his observations with a question about the implications of Jewish-Gentile marriage for Judaism: "At what point will ’Progressive’ Judaism cease to be a religion practiced, in the majority, by Jews?"

Throughout these articles, the main issue was in the subtext: "Can American Jewry survive the welcoming embrace of intermarriage to Gentiles?" There are plenty of relevant matters to discuss in relation to intermarriage. They ought not be rooted in ethnic or racial bias. They can't all solve the multiplex dilemmas caused by interfaith disagreements. Nor is the preservation or survival of the Jewish people and their enduring values the only matter that counts.

At JewishGentileCouples.com, we take the perspective that the best approach to these issues is to ask God what He might have to say on the subject. Sociology has told us that Jewish-Gentile marriages have a risk of divorce that is twice as high as that of the highest divorce levels in either of the two homogamous marriage groups (Jewish plus Jewish or Gentile plus Gentile). That was reported again in a scientific paper from the Netherlands in July. Our own research found that the greatest threat to Jewish-Gentile marriage, dating couples, or cohabiting partners is the inability to find spiritual harmony. God has a lot to say on that subject matter if we will listen to Him. We would be glad to suggest some further summer reading on matters related to Jewish-Gentile couple relationships.

How can we serve you?

RICHARD NIXON, BILLY GRAHAM, AND JEWS FOR JESUS

2009-06-26T19:24:00.001-07:00

June 26, 2009

The Rev. Billy Graham informed Richard Nixon of the Jewish community's concern about Jews for Jesus in a private telephone conversation in February 1973. Graham represented the group as being "set up all over the country," at a time when the organization was in its fledgling stage, with just a handful of workers.

The 20-minute conversation, released on Tuesday as part of 154 hours of tape recordings from the Nixon White House, took place on February 21, 1973, the day Israeli jets fired on a Libyan passenger plane that violated its airspace, causing the plane to crash and killing 108 people on board. Nixon and Graham are concerned that this event will turn world opinion against Israel.

They are also troubled by statements by Jewish leaders, in particular the late Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum, then the director of Interreligious Affairs for the American Jewish Committee, denouncing Christian efforts to tell others, including Jews, about Jesus. They feel this may alienate the Christian community against the Jewish people.

Nixon and Graham were anticipating seeing Tannenbaum the following week at a dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Nixon tells Graham: "You tell him he's making a terrible mistake, and they're going to get the darndest round of anti-Semitism here if they don't behave." Graham explains to Nixon the concern of Tannenbaum and other Jewish leaders:

"And one of the things they're terribly afraid of is so many of these Jewish young people are turning away from Judaism. They're not turning away from Jewishness. They say they're remaining Jews, but they're becoming followers of Jesus. Well, that's just scaring them to death."

Graham continues, "They've set up all over the country, these Jews for Jesus at the various universities . . . . And this is frightening Jewish leaders, and they're overreacting in this country. I'm talking about the rabbis."

Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus and the director of the organization at that time, explains why a handful of staff could appear to be "all over the country."

"Our traveling musical team, the Liberated Wailing Wall, set up a number of church meetings," recalls Rosen, "and during the day we would go to the campuses. The group had some meetings in Texas, then traveled to Washington, Boston, and back to our headquarters in San Francisco. We probably appeared on fifty campuses in a three-month period. We were seen by a lot of people, but it was the same group!"

Rosen and Graham traded correspondence beginning in late 1977 after Rabbi Tannenbaum made a speech in which he referred to Graham's "repudiation of proselytizing of Jewish people through the deceptive techniques of such movements as Jews for Jesus." An article in McCall's magazine in January 1978 made a similar claim that "Billy is particularly opposed to evangelical groups such as 'Jews for Jesus' who have made Jews the special target of their proselytizing efforts."

In a letter to Rosen dated January 24, 1978, Graham said, "I regret that alleged statements by me concerning your ministry have caused you one minute's embarrassment or grief. So many people have reported to me what a blessing you and your group have been to them . . . . I can never recall ever criticizing your group by name in public or private! . . . Sometimes texts are taken out of the context to mean something more or less than was meant."

In the same letter, Graham said, "I have never publicly supported special missions to Jews—I preach to people as people! But you will notice when I give an invitation in my Crusades to accept Christ I usually say 'whether you are Catholic, Protestant or Jew.'"

What will the children be?

2009-06-26T08:49:00.000-07:00

by Tuvya Zaretsky

These days the simcha (joy) of Jewish weddings is often tempered by angst. In North America, more than half of all Jews are now marrying Gentiles. As a result, the survival of the Jewish people is a natural concern. It is often voiced in the question, "What will the children be?"

For the participants of intermarriage, the experience can be a world of confusion. I recently received an email from one of my daughter's high school teachers. He wrote, "My wife and children are Jewish as is my stepmother. My dad's family members are Methodist and Baptist born-again Christians. My mother is a Catholic who converted to Buddhism. My sister is Lutheran, and my brother-in-law is Muslim."

How can we make sense of such a complex mixture of ethnicities and religions? How can any of that help us provide clarity and identity for Jewish-Gentile couples?

First, I separate ethnicity from religion. Ethnicity is derived from blood lineage, family DNA, and is sometimes called nationality. It has nothing to do with passports or legal citizenship. It is to be part of a people, and it comes from the bloodline of our parents.

Religion, on the other hand, is a component of culture. That is, it is learned from our family, social authorities, community and expressed through traditional practices. In an individual, ethnicity doesn't change. Religion can.

There are actually four relational stages through which a Jewish-Gentile couple will experience tensions and challenges as a result of their two different ethnicities and the many possibilities of religious cultural expressions in their lives. It all starts when they are dating.

During the romantic, courting phase of infatuation and intense feelings, a Jewish-Gentile couple will likely discover a variety of cultural differences that at first can appear humorous. "Do you really eat that stuff?" But it can get serious quickly upon discovering a difference in core values, "You just can't say that name in my parents' home! We are Jews and we speak about Jesus differently."

The next relational stage is when the couple plans their wedding. Will it take place in a synagogue, a church, a park, a country club, a catering hall, or…? Every symbol incorporated into the wedding ceremony becomes a potential cultural landmine.

And once the wedding ceremony is navigated, a Jewish-Gentile couple begins to discover their own household identity. "Are we intermarried or a mixed marriage?" "Are we both religions, neither, just yours or my alone?"

It can be challenging to preserve mutual respect, let alone romantic affection, when the ethnic heritage and possibly the religion of one partner is threatened. It is easier to tolerate spiritual differences during the romantic dating phase of a relationship than it is when that partnership is permanentized in matrimony. Differences in core values, that were so easily passed over during infatuation, now threaten to separate or alienate partners. Ethnicity is not necessarily a barrier to spiritual harmony, but the cultural component of religious beliefs can pose a significant threat.

Two people in a marriage can fend other influences, or compartmentalize and accommodate their differences of spiritual outlook. However, when children come along, everything changes.

The arrival of children raises the question of their future identity with what people and which belief system. The question, "What will the children be?" takes on deadly seriousness as conflicting core values come to the fore.

Children bear the genetic makeup of both parents. How they will spiritually identify may be determined by the way that they choose their religious cultural components.

Spiritual harmony in a family is possible. Family identity can incorporate the preservation and survival of Jewish ethnic identity, even when only one partner is Jewish. It is made easier when both partners each seek and know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Him is the source of all life, the meaning of life and life as it was designed to be experienced. The key to a relationship with that God is through knowing His anointed Messiah of the Jewish people.

How might we serve you to find spiritual harmony as a Jewish-Gentile couple?

Where Will William Shatner Show Up Next?

2009-06-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

by Rich Robinson

I enjoyed screening the new Star Trek movie the other week. It was great seeing Spock, Kirk, Bones et al. in their more formative years, and wonderful to see Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as the "older" Spock.

Conspicuous by his absence, of course, was William Shatner. Which made me wonder … in the years since the original Gene Roddenberry Star Trek, William Shatner has shown up just about everywhere.

He was T. J. Hooker. He was (and is) the pitch guy for Priceline.com. He was (and is, if you count reruns and DVDs) Denny Crane on Boston Legal. He has his own interview show, William Shatner's Raw Nerve.

Which led me to the question, where will William Shatner show up next? Could he become a fifth face on Mount Rushmore? Or an icon on the Corn Flakes box? Will they make a "Wii William" game, or will "Shatner's Sautees" come to the Food Network?

As I thought about it, I wondered if William Shatner was like God. You know, omnipresent. Eternal. All that. Or did it just seem that way?

Then I got to thinking that maybe God is like William Shatner. After all, he runs a tight ship—it's just that it's the universe, not the U.S.S. Enterprise. (Cut to the Bible—"for He views the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens."—Job 28:24)

He plans to interview us all some day, just not on TV. ("For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."—Romans 14:10)

And he can get us something of great value at an incredible price, only it's not a hotel deal, but, you know, eternal life. ("Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost."—Isaiah 55:1)

Or maybe it is a hotel, kind of – "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you."—John 14:2)

I got to thinking that God is eternal, but that not even William Shatner will be around forever. Someday, someone, somewhere, is going to say, "He's dead, Jim."

In fact, some day he'll show up in God's interview room: "Real—unscripted—intimate—my guest is William Shatner. He talks with me about his life."

Maybe William Shatner has shown up in so many places to point us to something better than this world—a strange new world, where no one has gone before (except for Jesus—you're reading this on the Jews for Jesus web site, what did you expect?). A world where God is the captain of our lives, our defense attorney, and the one who gets us an awesome "deal."

If you're tempted to say with Scotty, "I've never seen anything like it!" or with Bones, "Are you out of your mind!?" just beam me an email at rich.robinson@jewsforjesus.org.

Of Mothers and Fathers

2009-05-05T09:03:00.000-07:00

by Tuvya Zaretsky

Jewish survival is a dominant concern among Jewish-Gentile families. Will their children be Jews? Will the rest of the Jewish community consider them as Jews?

Social research has shown two key challenges that Jewish-Gentile families experience related to children.¹ Marital dissatisfaction includes challenges to family harmony in forms like: parental reluctance to accept an intermarried couple; conflict over cultural symbols or competition to define an interfaith family identity. It was also found significant discord over enculturating children: which ethnic heritage will they claim, or what religious faith will be passed on to them?

It is helpful to frame the question of Jewish survival in terms of two perspectives: first ethnic and second religious. Jewishness of children is more easily defined through ethnic criteria.

Mothers or Fathers?

Jewish scholars agree that historically Jewishness was determined through the line of the father. The Hebrew people were first identified via the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his sons. Genealogical lineage throughout the Tanakh was marked by the familiar formula: so-in-so "the son of…" The first census of the Jewish nation in the Sinai wilderness was "by their families, by their fathers' households" (l'mishpehotam l'veit avotam) in Numbers 1:2.

Yet, we find biblical evidence that Gentile wives could mother and raise Jewish children. Rahab of the Canaanites and Ruth the Moabite were two classic examples. If that were not so then king David and his family would have been discounted from the Jewish line because of his great grandmother, Ruth.

So ethnicity in Bible times included Jewish heroes or kings who married Gentile women and produced Jewish offspring. Judah married a Caananite; Joseph took an Egyptian princess as his bride; Moses wed a Midianite and an Ethiopian; David married a Philistine, and Solomon's harem was a role call of the United Nations. Patrilineal lineage was the norm, but matrilineal descent was also accepted for ethnic continuity of Jewishness.

Who made the issue of matrilineal descent the dividing line for Jewish ethnicity and when did that happen? Evidently, it came from the traditional Jewish scholars of Judaism. Until 70 AD, and the destruction of the second temple, Jewish ethnicity was determined through the father - particularly for the cohenim.

Sometime during the First Century AD, matrilineal descent was adopted as the basis for determining Jewishness. Scholars believe that was to bring the growing body of Jewish tradition into line with laws of the Roman Empire. When the Talmud was finally codified in the fourth and fifth centuries, matrilineal descent became the law of Judaism.²

Traditional Judaism today is divided on the question of "Who is a Jew?" Orthodox and Conservative Judaism hold to matrilineal descent to define Jewish ethnicity. Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism adopted rulings for a patrilineal descent in the early 1980s.

However, with 63% of American Jewry is unaffiliated with traditional Judaism and Jewish-Gentile intermarriage has been the majority since 1985. Therefore, personal experience is trumping rabbinic authority. Couples are finding that the Bible pattern is still trustworthy.

In reality, Jewish survival has continued with the ethnicity of either father or mother. There are plenty of good examples today. However, we would like to point out that Jewish survival was guaranteed by something much more enduring than blood lineage.

Survival of the Jewish people depends on the unconditional faithfulness of God through His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The preservation of a Jewish nation depends on the faithfulness of God's word and character.³ That is a pretty safe bet!

And yet, the participation in Jewish identity depends on what children learn about that God. They need to know that God has a purpose in creating the Jewish people. They would be instrumental in delivering the Messianic Redeemer to fulfill Genesis 3:15. The person of Y'shua (Jesus) fulfills the Israelite mission. Jewish-Gentile children should learn that God ordained the Jewish people as a lamp through which He would reveal the light of His presence to all the nations. His covenant care for the Jewish people would teach that His character is dependable for all peoples.

Jewish mothers and/or fathers are essential for survival of the Jewish people. Family spiritual harmony depends on teaching all children about the God who created Jewish people to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth.⁴ History, the Bible and the personal experience of Jewish-Gentile couples are showing that one Jewish parent, sharing one messianic faith with a Gentile partner can create spiritual harmony and shalom bayit (peace at home). Happy Mother's Day and Happy Father's Day to every Jewish-Gentile mom and dad!

ENDNOTES

1. Zaretsky, Tuvya. "The Challenges of Jewish-Gentile Couples: A Pre-Evangelistic Ethnographic Study: A Dissertation submitted to the faculty of Western Seminary. (Portland: Western Seminary) 2004, pages 67 and 97.

2. Kiddushin68b according to an interpretation of Deuteronomy 7:3-4

3. Jeremiah 31:35-37

4. Genesis 12:3

The Jesus Problem

2009-05-04T10:44:00.000-07:00

by Rich Robinson

"Do Jews Have a Jesus Problem?" asks Jay Michaelson in The Forward, commenting on Peter Schafer's recent book, Jesus in the Talmud. Schafer thinks the rabbis of the Talmud saw Jesus, and Jewish believers in him, as a threat. So they wrote what essentially was a "counter-story" to the gospels.

This is quite different, says Michaelson, from the conclusion of another Jewish Jesus-book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus by David Klinghoffer. For Klinghoffer, the Jewish rejection of Jesus was not because of who Jesus was but because of who Jews were, and are: a chosen nation, not a people of universalism.

Michaelson's "Jesus problem" is not his alone. There are many people, not only Jews, trying to figure out what to do with Jesus and some of them write books. True, many Jews carry around the baggage of two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism (though I was fortunate enough to have been spared that in my Reform Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn). But then there are Gentiles who tell us that they are carrying around the baggage of their "fundamentalist" upbringing. So between Jesus and the year 2009, there is a lot of water under the bridge. Jesus himself, though, still remains a hot and sellable topic of books, films and blogs.

Who then was Jesus? According to whomever you consult, he was the Son of God, a good teacher, a rabbi, a deceiver, a psychedelic mushroom, a mystic, an ascetic, a gnostic, the first Reform Jew, the first liberal Christian, a product of someone's imagination, a miracle-worker, a nice guy, a bad guy, an ascended master, a bad conscience, a conundrum wrapped up in a tallit.

Michaelson himself, in an earlier article with the tongue-in-cheek title of "How I Finally Learned to Accept Christ in my Heart," opts for a pantheistic, or panentheistic, view of Jesus: a "fully realized being" who knew he was God and that everything else is God, too. To Michaelson, this makes more sense than the strange if not nonsensical doctrines of the virgin birth, hell, original sin, atonement, etc.

Put aside for a moment the question of whether those sorts of ideas are really nonsensical and whether so many people in the world are really opting for idiocy. What Michaelson wants is to be able to learn from (and simultaneously differentiate himself from) Christian teachings. In the Forward article he says;

I want to understand Christ the way Christians do — not to become one of them, but in order to enrich my own religious life. I want to learn from them how to have a personal relationship with a personal, humanized, embodied God who cares, and who saves. I want to experience Jesus as a human being enlightened enough to see everyone as holy, even the impure, the leprous and the marginalized. And I want to follow his example, seeing all my fellow human beings and myself as sons and daughters of God.

There is a real question here whether Christians in fact view Jesus in this way. Historically, to Christians Jesus came to make us holy because we are in fact sinful rebels against God. He came to make us sons and daughters of God because we are prodigals who have wandered, sheep who have left the fold, usurpers of God and followers of ourselves, or of Baal, or (today on NPR) of Thor.

From where does Michaelson garner his picture of Jesus? The Jesus problem is not so much figuring out anti-Semitism or Jewish identity but figuring out Jesus. "And God created man in His own image" says Genesis. "And men created Jesus in their own image," comes the echoing answer, "a Jesus without sin, atonement, virgin birth, resurrection, deity, a Jesus who suits their religious sentiments." The question is, which is the real Jesus? And where is he to be found (one suggestion: read the New Testament)?

MEET THE NEW ATHEISTS... same as the Old Atheists

2009-03-03T09:55:00.000-08:00

by Matt Sieger

Move over Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche...

Make room for the new kids on the block—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens! These "New Atheists" proclaim God's non-existence with great fervor. But they're not saying anything new.

Dawkins declares, "Faith is the great cop out." Where did we hear this before? Oh, yes, Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people."

Harris says belief in God is "a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind." Not new. Freud said that to put faith in God is "patently infantile."

Hitchens states, "God did not make man in his own image. Evidently it was the other way about." Nietzsche said it already: "Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?"

The Bible (oops, sorry atheists) got it right: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

So what's different about the New Atheists? They're just more "in your face." As Clark Pinnock notes:

These fellows such as Nietzsche and Freud thought more in depth about what atheism entails and could understand what might interest thoughtful people in religion. The new atheism in contrast is disinterested in fair-minded discussions about whether religion might actually have something to contribute to human knowledge. In the new atheism (and it is not really "new"), readers are not expected to understand religion or have any sympathy for it. Instead they are exhorted to detest faith.¹

But the New Atheists are actually wimps compared to the old atheists. When Nietzsche declared that God was dead, he understood that if there is no God, there are no morals. The New Atheists are afraid to go that far. They say we can have moral standards without God. But if there is a moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. Where does our conscience come from, if not from God?

Perhaps the New Atheists are afraid of the anarchy that would result if people practiced atheism the way Nietzsche understood it. If there are no moral standards, then who is to say that Hitler did anything wrong? No one would need to deny the Holocaust. People could just say that the "Final Solution" was morally neutral.

In shying away from Nietzsche's logical conclusion, the New Atheists are intellectually dishonest. They want to create a moral universe without God. Whose morals will they choose? And why should others follow the morals they select?

The new and old atheists say that only a fool believes in God. But the Hebrew Scriptures say, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

The atheists claim that only the ignorant believe in God. But the Scriptures say, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7).

In the late 1800s, Nietzsche predicted that the necessity to believe in God would fade away in the face of science and technological advancement. With God out of the way, we would make a better world. How have we done? Chris Hedges, foreign correspondent for The New York Times, has called the Christian right "fascists." But he's just as tough on the New Atheists and their faith in the human race. Here's his assessment on our progress:

"There is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history."²

Why is this? Because we have failed to account for the virus with which we are all infected: sin, our propensity to do wrong. Hedges says,

"Not believing in God is not dangerous. Not believing in sin is very dangerous."³

Sin is what separates us from God. It fouls up our relationships. It causes ugly thoughts. It weighs us down and burdens our conscience. The guilt we try to suppress or rationalize away persists. We feel that the God we say we don't believe in will punish us for our sins.

Unless sin is dealt with, we'll never be at peace with ourselves. The Scriptures declare that one man lived a perfect life, qualifying him to be our sin-bearer. He died in our place to pay the penalty, to declare us "not guilty" before God.

By individually acknowledging what Jesus of Nazareth has done for us, we can be reborn and experience internal peace and the security of knowing we will live forever in heaven.

If Nietzsche was right and we don't need God anymore, what are these New Atheists screaming about? If God is dead, why make such a fuss?

Maybe it's because they (and we) have an internal knowledge that God made us and "has planted eternity in the human heart" (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Look up at the stars some night (even through the smog), or watch the sunset. Do you think this world is an accident?

If you do, are you willing to bet your life on it? If those of us who have believed in Jesus are wrong, and there is no life after death, we have lost nothing by believing. But if the new and old atheists are wrong, and there is an ultimate judgment, you have everything to lose by not accepting what Jesus has done for you.

If you believed the old atheists, don't get fooled again.

Where do you want to spend your eternity? With the New Atheists? Or with your Maker?

Clark Pinnock, "God And The New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, September 1, 2008, http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social-assistance-lifestyle/religion-spirituality/1895338-1.html

Chris Hedges, interviewed by Charly Wilder for Salon.com, "I Don't Believe in Atheists," March 13, 2008, http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/index.html

Ibid.

Fifty Years On…. Herman Wouk's This Is My God Revisited

2009-02-09T09:52:00.001-08:00

by Rich Robinson

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of Herman Wouk's classic précis of Orthodox Judaism and personal statement of his faith, This Is My God. I have just pulled my dog-eared copy, probably handed down by my grandfather or father, from the shelves, and over the past several days I have read, or possibly re-read, it. I have little recollection of having gone through it as a child, though I may well have done so.

As of this writing, Wouk is still living, having been honored by a lifetime achievement award in 2008 at age 93. There is also a follow-up volume, The Will to Live On, which saw the light of day in the year 2000, but I have not yet obtained a copy. It would be interesting to see how his views have or have not changed over the past forty years, the span of a biblical generation.

This Is My God is something of an American Jewish classic, depicting mid-20th-century orthodox Judaism as well as Wouk's own journey to orthodoxy. Always a writer, he was not always "religious," the term my Reform family tended to use of the orthodox. Wouk writes humbly and even self-effacingly, at his most engaging when explaining Jewish practices through remembrances of real-life moments. Part of the book's appeal, I suppose, lies in the fact that he is not a rabbi declaiming from a pulpit but a novelist sharing with us what his faith means to him.

By his own statements, before becoming observant, Wouk's life—which in those days included comedy writing—was incomplete, "thin," and lacking an important component: his own identity. As he tells it, his life "left out my grandfather, the most impressive man I ever knew." And his grandfather was classically orthodox. Wouk's move away from secularity was a way of acknowledging that it was important to be a Jew, and that "the classic way" was in fact the best way of doing that. (Wouk throughout refers to Reform and Conservative as "dissenters," making it clear where he thinks mainstream Judaism lies, or should lie.)

The reader will find no screeds in This Is My God, though Wouk does not mince words when it comes to the dangers of assimilation. Neither will he or she find dogmatic views on questions of metaphysical truth. Wouk's beliefs about weighty matters such as God and the afterlife follow on the heels of his observance—true to Judaism in which actions have generally, if not always, been more important than doctrines. (Medieval Judaism had its share of beliefs which to deny meant to be excluded from the world to come.) The "decision to experiment with one's life by taking up the laws of Jewry does not even now seem to me a steep or wild gamble . . . [but rather] a chance at rejoining a great mainstream of ideas and—this is the real stake—a hope for finding God" (p. 335 in my 1961 Doubleday edition.) Regarding the afterlife, Wouk's grandfather was of the opinion that "we can never be sure of the hereafter" (p. 174). Reflects Wouk: "Is my grandfather eating leviathan and drinking hidden wine in the world beyond? For all anybody can tell me, he is. I think that that is more likely, that that his spirit is dead to God."

Embracing one's Jewish identity and finding God—those twin beacons have undoubtedly guided many Jews, including the "dissenters" and those who have dissented even from them, JUBUs and Jewish Renewal folks and many more. I suppose if one starts from the Jewish people, it makes sense to embrace what the majority have embraced. One wants to connect—both with countless past generations as well as with the God of Israel himself.

It is possible too, to start from the God of Israel and then ask what it means to be Jewish, and how that affects one's daily existence. Most of us are not competent in abstruse philosophical arguments for God's existence or for the veracity of the Bible. It is easier, more natural perhaps, to work inductively, from the people to their God, rather than deductively, from grand First Principles downwards. (There, I have thrown in two terms from philosophy, and I cannot be sure that I am using them in quite the right way.)

Enter a disruption. Jews are only too well acquainted with disruption. Pogroms, expulsions, the Holocaust—what disruption have we not faced over thousands of years? The disruption I have in mind, though, is of a different kind. It is the entrance of Jesus of Nazareth onto the stage of Jewish (and ultimately world) history some 2,000 years ago. Born into a Jewish home, moving among Jewish people, monotheists at that (idolatry had been finally rooted out by the Babylonian Exile)—this Jew had the effrontery to claim Messiahship and a special relationship with God, to assert that his death would be the atonement for sin—a Yom Kippur to end all Yom Kippurs—followed by his rising from the dead—is that not reserved for the End?—and that through him—"this is the real stake"—we can find God.

No need for philosophers, though philosophy can be of enormous value. God himself, it was said, entered Jewish life in a thorough-going way, more deeply than the many times God appeared to his people in the Hebrew Bible, more deeply even than at Sinai when amidst clouds and lightning and fear, God delivered to Moses the Law whose observance would come to characterize classic Judaism.

In this way, I propose, God allowed us to start from himself and only then ask, since I am a Jew, what does it mean to be a Jew? Very possibly, if Jesus of Nazareth is all of what he said of himself, and what others said of him, the answer is bound up in him. This is not to denigrate those who observed Torah as they best knew. I too have fond memories of a grandfather. But it is to say, that something greater than the Torah may be here, and that this Way—so the first Jewish followers of Jesus referred to their faith—can teach us how to embrace both Jewish identity and the God of Israel.

Perhaps Herman Wouk will yet have something more to say. I for one would welcome his thoughts, a half-century out from This Is My God, on Jesus of Nazareth and his meaning—if he thinks there is one—for Jews today.

A 2004 video interview with Wouk can be found at here.

A brief biography is at Wikipedia, which should be used as a general orientation, not as a final authority.

2008-09-11T16:24:00.001-07:00

A Further Clarification from David Brickner

I want to thank those of you who have commented either here or in e-mails in response to the media furor over my remarks at Wasilla Bible Church on August 17th. The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that.

Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don’t believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible.

I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way. Please feel free to read my further explanations, in my Realtime article and in the interviews I did with Christianity Today and NBC.

Sincerely,
David Brickner

One Day in Wasilla

2008-09-10T09:06:00.000-07:00

by David Brickner

Last month I had the privilege of speaking at a large church in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. At the time, few people outside of Alaska had heard of Wasilla; now almost everyone in America knows that it is the hometown of Sarah Palin, John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate. She not only grew up in Wasilla; she served as its mayor before being elected governor of Alaska. The Palins now attend the church where I spoke; in fact, during the second service the entire family stood before the congregation as their newborn son was dedicated to the Lord.

My message that morning from Matthew 23: 37-39, titled, "The Jerusalem Dilemma," made reference to sin and judgment, and the need for all people, both Jews or Gentiles, to repent and seek forgiveness through Y'shua. I pointed to the many conflicts and tragedies that we hear about daily on the news, as evidence that the whole world is suffering the effects of sin and stands under God's judgment; that we all need the grace and forgiveness of God found only in Christ. These are no more or less than basic tenets of the Christian faith. Then I spoke of God's great love for Israel and for the world, and shared the encouraging news of how many Israelis are now open to hearing about Jesus.

Once Mrs. Palin's candidacy as vice-president was announced, my message became a matter of sudden public interest. A blogger on Politico.com quickly tore a small portion of the message out of context and twisted my words into something ugly and hurtful:

"Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."

That is not what I said and it is certainly not my belief.

However, this misinterpretation of my beliefs became fodder for the media's reporting. Scores of news reports online, in print and on TV have repeated Politico's fabrication as fact without further scrutiny, sometimes even furthering the distortion. Typical of this was political pundit Rachel Maddow, as she criticized Sarah Palin in an exchange with Chris Matthews. The following was taken from NBC's national coverage of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

Maddow: Jews for Jesus founder [was] speaking at her church while she was there two weeks ago making incredibly, incredibly out of line comments about Israel and Jewish people. Saying that's why Israel was subject to terrorist attacks. It was God's judgment for not believing in Christ.

Matthews: What's the source?

Maddow: Politico.com

Some reports have even mistaken me for Sarah Palin's pastor, further comparing me to Jeremiah Wright who was Barak Obama's pastor. Last Saturday yet another story has come out in "The New York Times." As a result, I was interviewed by MSNBC News the following day.

I recognize that I am not the real target of this scrutiny; Sarah Palin is. By the time you read this, the whole story may have blown over for me and for Jews for Jesus, with the media moving on in search of other issues that might color people's view of all four presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Nevertheless, here are a couple of my reflections on the events of the past few days.

First, it is amazing how ready people are to believe a false report. Numerous friends and colleagues wrote to ask me if these reports were true. I'm sure it never would have occurred to them to think I would think or say such things if they had not seen them in print. How much quicker will strangers be to assume the views attributed to me were truthful? This experience has confirmed the old adage: you can't always believe what you read in the press.

I am certainly grateful for the institution of free speech and a free press. Jews for Jesus has relied on those freedoms as we proclaim the gospel. But freedom of speech can also be abused with deathly cruelty. For example, Raymond Donovan, President Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of Labor, was the victim of a long campaign of rumors and innuendo, which led to criminal prosecution. After incurring legal bills in excess of a million dollars, Donovan was acquitted of all charges. When he emerged from the courtroom, reporters swarmed around him vying for his comment. In response, Donovan posed the poignant question, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

Proverbs 18:21 tells us, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit." How true! Words that roll off this two-ounce slab of muscle and mucous membrane have an inordinate capacity to affect lives. Consider for example, the speeches of Nazi miscreant Adolf Hitler, contrasted with those of statesman Winston Churchill, during the Second World War. Both were eloquent orators. Hitler, on one side of the Channel, used his words to lead a nation into devilish crimes against humanity. Winston Churchill, on the other side of the Channel, used his rhetorical skill to lead a nation to the highest and most noble sacrifice, to England's credit in her finest hour.

We need to be discerning about what we listen to and what we are quick to believe. The Talmud asks, "Why do human fingers resemble pegs?" and then answers, "So that if one hears something unseemly, one can plug one's fingers in one's ears" (Ketuvot 5b).

We need to be especially discerning when it comes to negative or critical remarks, because those are the ones that people love to repeat. Bertrand Russell once dryly observed that no one ever gossips about another's secret virtues.

Second, I am grateful that God can use almost anything to further His work and to get out the gospel. Case in point: the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) is a wire service for the Jewish print world, much like the Associated Press is for secular publications. The JTA released an article titled, "McCain team: Palin rejects views of church's Jews for Jesus speaker" in which they repeated the distortions of my views. However, they also provided a link to my entire sermon, both the transcript and the audio version. Anyone who chooses to check the source by reading or listening to this message is going to hear the Good News.

I will never avoid the subject of sin and its consequences, but my message says more about God's love in Christ than it does about judgment. Here is one brief excerpt:

"And so all of the controversy that we see swirling in Jerusalem is really a mirror that the world looks into to see the controversy within. The Jerusalem Dilemma is the Wasilla Dilemma; it's the dilemma of the human heart. And so it's important for us to notice Jesus' response to this unbelief, this rejection.

"'How often I've longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.' And Jesus says 'Come under My wings, O Jerusalem. There's a place of grace that I want to establish for you in spite of your unbelief.'

"And so committed was Jesus to that place of grace that not many days after He said this, He stretched out His arms on a cruel cross and shed His blood to pay the penalty for your sin and for mine. But because of who He is—because He is the Messiah, the Anointed One of God—death could not hold Him, and the grave could not keep Him, and He rose again from the grave. And now that same resurrection power of God is available to be applied to the lives of all those who trust Him, in Jerusalem and around the world. That is the answer to the Jerusalem Dilemma, the dilemma of unbelief—the mercy and grace of God, this place of grace that whosoever will may come under and find God's forgiveness."

You can read or listen to the entire message at our website if you like. Please pray that many people, especially unbelievers, will do so. May this be God's way of getting His gospel message out far beyond Wasilla!

An UNCONVENTIONAL Truth

2008-08-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

Extra!! Extra!! New Discovery Challenges Beliefs About Jesus!! Read all about it!!

2008-07-28T14:33:00.000-07:00

by Rich Robinson

Got your attention, didn’t it? Some media announcements about archaeological discoveries paint them as shaking the very foundations of faith in Jesus. The latest such has been described on many blogs over the past month. In a nutshell, the media storm concerns a stone tablet that is said to date from the 1st century B.C. and which appears to describe a pre-Jesus messianic figure who dies and rises on the third day.

Well, maybe. Or maybe not. CNN has a helpful video summarizing the possible implications of “Gabriel’s tablet” (you may have to sit through an online ad before the actual video plays). The announcer intones that the tablet is “raising blood pressure in the world of biblical scholarship,” though I have yet to see any scholars turning beet-red over the find—certainly not the scholars interviewed by CNN. That’s because at worst, the tablet doesn’t say what it’s supposed to. And at best, rather than overturning faith in Jesus, it simply affirms the Jewishness of the gospels.

Take Stephen Cook’s blog, for instance. Dr. Cook is professor of Old Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary. He posted this on July 9:

I've received many emails asking me what I think about all the recent buzz on “The Vision of Gabriel,” the stone tablet from (purportedly) the first century BCE that appears (according to Dr. Israel Knohl) to speak of a dying and resurrecting messiah …. Knohl reconstructs lines 80-81 of the text to read: "By three days, live, I Gabriel, command you, prince of the princes.”

Cook continues:

First, the stone was not found as part of a scientific dig, so its authenticity may never be assured. Second, the text is very fragmentary, so the reconstruction of its meaning will be open to debate. Indeed, reading the text through quickly, it is not immediately obvious that it refers to a suffering and dying messiah.

…
when journalists now look at "Gabriel's Revelation" and ask, "What impact would a pre-Christian reference to suffering, death and resurrection have on Christian scholarship?" (MSNBC), the answer is clear: This would be another piece of evidence showing that the idea of Christianity is a meaningful and valid idea. I.e., there were relevant messianic expectations around for Jesus to fulfill.It is hardly any sort of challenge to Christianity that the idea of a resurrection after three-days was around before Christ.

Then move over to Ben Witherington’s blog. Witherington teaches New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, and he is a man of judicious opinions. One point he makes:

…the real implication of this for Jesus' studies should not be missed. Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually made by Jesus—they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the Evangelists. But now, if this stone is genuine there is no reason to argue this way. One can show that Jesus, just as well as the author of this stone, could have spoken about a dying and rising messiah.

For those interested, many more links can be found on Mark Goodacre’s blog. Meantime, if anything, this discovery should end up raising the blood pressure only of those who think that Jewishness and faith in Jesus have nothing in common.

THE MOST INCONVENIENT TRUTH

2008-07-21T10:39:00.000-07:00

by Carolyne Rohrig

Going green. It's everywhere. Slogans like "Composting is a 'berry' good idea!" and "'Lettuce' make an impact on our community" are hugging the sides of buses in California. Times Square is unveiling its first solar-powered billboard at the end of the year. Boeing is developing a new jet that burns less fuel and cuts carbon emissions. Green is in. It's trendy. It’s big business. And it's also very Jewish. Eco-friendly Jewish farmers are promoting the "going green" lifestyle with their free-range livestock, fairly-traded foods, and agricultural cooperatives.

Soon we’ll be replacing our SUVs with hydrogen-powered cars for those road trips to the green hills for an organic picnic lunch of fairly-traded quinoa and organic iced tea in recyclable paper cups.

But no matter how you slice it, going green is inconvenient. It requires that we change our lifestyles in order to protect the environment. Just when we thought we had enough to worry about, Al Gore in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, wants us to add the climate crisis to the list. That’s inconvenient for a lot of us. Many believe him, others think it's a myth. But whatever side we're on, one thing is for certain. Everybody likes a clean environment.

Keeping our planet green is a noble task. It reminds us of our original mandate. The first habitat for humanity, the Garden of Eden, was green the minute God created it and he pronounced it good. Everything in it was luxurious and convenient—the water, the air, the ground, the plants and the animals. God entrusted Adam and Eve to care for and nurture it.

But all of it was turned on its head when Eve fell into temptation and chose to question God's love for her. She bit into the forbidden fruit and shared the experience with Adam. The universe gasped. The man and woman stood ashamed. And God knew that a toxic poison had just been released into his world that would make living very inconvenient. Immediately sin began to deconstruct everything God had made.

The problem of saving our planet goes much deeper than anything Al Gore or any green solution can solve. The Bible tells us that sin is the deadliest pollutant in the universe, and the inconvenient truth is that it took a radical and costly solution to get rid of it. Y'shua (Jesus) bore the Ultimate Inconvenient Truth, because he died for you and me. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

There’s nothing more inconvenient for a Jewish person than following Jesus as God’s Messiah. Friends and family won’t like it. But if we care for the fate of our planet enough to make difficult choices, shouldn't we be just as concerned for the fate of our souls?

Not everybody will believe this, just like not everybody recycles. But those who place their faith in the Messiah become new people with a new life and a new future. And that is good for the planet:

“The righteous will flourish like a palm tree,
they will grow like a cedar of Lebanon;
planted in the house of the Lord,
they will flourish in the courts of our God.
They will still bear fruit in old age,
They will stay fresh and green,
Proclaiming, ‘The Lord is upright;
He is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him.’”

Psalm 92:12-15

"God as I understand him"

2008-07-07T09:55:00.000-07:00

by Ruth Rosen

I've been listening to the radio far more often since receiving my recent birthday present to myself: a compact table-top radio/cd/alarm clock. And so it was that I heard a personal essay deemed important enough, or deep enough or who-knows-what-enough to be read aloud on National Public radio.

"I do not want to be a God-fearing man," the slightly southern sounding drawl intoned. The man went on tell how the religious institution in which he'd been raised was ruled by fear. He used words like "sledgehammer" and "intimidation" to describe his experience. He recalled how he'd been "disfellowshipped" as a teen, after having premarital sex with his girlfriend. He'd been offered the following choice: announce to the congregation that the behavior was a sin, repent and be forgiven, or leave the church. He made his choice, and has since gone on to discover "God as I understand him."

As this man explained (I am paraphrasing but this is pretty close) "I talk to God as I understand him every day, and though he does not answer, I know that he is there. I am not afraid of him. He does not condemn me. He fills me with peace and joy. And so, rather than the God I was told I should believe in, I chose the God I could believe in."

While this man came from a "Christianized" background, I have heard or read testimonials by people who have left their synagogues for similar reasons. After all, the God whom many people don't understand, the God who actually wants to have a say about our personal lives, did not originate in what is commonly known as the New Testament. Everything we learn about him there is built upon and expanded from the Hebrew Scriptures.

"God as I understand him" is extremely popular, in part because he does not talk back to us. Just plain God who revealed himself in the Hebrew Scriptures (and has lots to say about things we might feel are none of his business) would probably not win an election on any conceivable ticket. But then he doesn't need to; he's God.

Many insist, "No one can know the truth about God," yet God claimed through the Jewish Scriptures, "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).

The catch to the "all your heart" part is the implied willingness to give up our favorite past times or prejudices, should they turn out to be, for reasons that we may or may not understand, contrary to or offensive to God.

God doesn't expect us to be perfect. But He can't forgive us if we think we've done nothing wrong, and we can't understand what's right or wrong if we treat God as the divine re-enforcer of our own choices.

"God as I understand him" has no actual power other than what we choose to impart from our own understanding. The real, all-powerful God whom we don't always understand says his ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:9) He is holy as well as merciful, righteous as well as compassionate. He is good and just and absolutely wonderful.

If you are interested in God as He understands Himself, why not pick up a Bible . . . and ask him to help you read it with an open mind.

Iron Man: The Stark Truth

2008-06-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

by Arielle Rothbard

SPOILER WARNING: if you have not seen this movie, the following may contain a spoiler.

“The man who has everything... and nothing.”
That is the paradox of Tony Stark.

Stark lives the American dream: wealth, intelligence, power, sex, and social status in excess.

Shaken from his pleasure-coated reality by three month’s captivity in Afghanistan, Stark rethinks his personal philosophy. An Afghani surgeon installs an electro-magnetic device in his chest to keep him alive, creating a stalemate between the shrapnel and his flesh the way Tony once hoped to keep order between countries. The surgeon urges Stark, “don’t waste your life.” The prideful, alcoholic, weapon-manufacturing millionaire, takes it to heart.

Upon returning to the states, Stark globally announces that he will no longer produce weapons. Ironically, his new vision is to perfect the armored suit he used to escape Afghanistan. The suit becomes the “bigger stick” Stark’s father insisted was necessary to achieve peace. Stark no longer builds weapons: he becomes one.

Tony Stark desperately wishes to impact society for good. Once he sees his good intentions have gone bad, his heart is changed. He finds purpose and motivation by creating a larger-than-life “iron man” suit to help him ensure justice and peace.

The problem: every issue Stark tackles is directly connected to him. His worldview remains within his personal circle of events.

In the process of making restitution for his actions, he jeopardizes the lives of others.

Iron Man must cope with his inadequacies. He constructs armor for himself, giving himself physical weight, prominence, and power, making himself unavoidable. Yet, he is vulnerable. Powerless, he relies on a self-made mechanism to supply power for his suit and keep metal shards from puncturing his heart. He lives moment by impulsive moment and by the time you calculate in his alcoholism, you have a man with substantial problems.

Iron Man’s plotline is strengthened—intentionally or not—by biblical parallels. The hero and villain fighting to the death, the hero grazing death, but emerging victorious—these and many other aspects of the plot are familiar to Bible-readers. It is no coincidence that Stan Lee, J.K. Rowling, the Wachowski brothers and other storytellers throughout history shaped their protagonist/antagonist climax from the Word of God.

Even Iron Man and Neo need reconciliation with God, our maker. The relationship that God wants to have with us, his most advanced creation, has been destroyed by a weapon more potent than the atom bomb: sin. Sin is anything that goes against God’s moral code: little, white lies to murder.

A true change of heart, a life devoted to serving others requires internal transformation. King David says in Psalm 51:10 “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit in me.” The psalmist understood the importance of a repentant heart.

Creating weapons is a self-perpetuating cycle. No individual can alter that sequence, no matter the technology. Humanity’s only hope is God. Jesus, the ultimate hero, gave his life to reconcile us to God. The reunification process between creator and creation builds love and peace, radiating out to everyone.

Iron Man is a fictional character. His spiritual issues are hypothetical. Ours are not. The question we all face: what will I do about my heart?

Arielle Rothbard is a Jewish believer in Jesus who just finished her first year at the Fashion Insitute of Technology in Manhattan.

Why Jehoshaphat Wasn’t Jumpy

2008-06-11T11:41:00.000-07:00

by Matt Sieger

“And the kingdom of Jehoshaphat was at peace, for his God had given him rest on every side.” (II Chronicles 20:30)

One of the first issues Barack Obama had to tackle after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination last week was Israel’s security. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama claimed that Bush administration policies on Iran and Iraq have made Israel less secure.

“Because of the war in Iraq,” said Obama, “Iran . . . is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”

Two days earlier, John McCain made the opposite argument to the AIPAC. He said that Obama’s plan for a phased U.S. pullout from Iraq would result in the formation of a “potential terrorist sanctuary” that would threaten Israel’s security and “invite further intervention from Iraq’s neighbors, including a very much emboldened Iran.”

Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain’s most prominent Jewish supporter, said that Obama is mistaken in blaming Iran’s resurgence on the Iraq war. “If Israel is in danger today,” he said, “it is not because of American foreign policy. It’s because Iran is a terrorist, expansionist state.”

When a Hamas official said in an April radio interview that the group would like to see Obama elected president, McCain seized on the opportunity to portray Obama as a Hamas-supported candidate. But when Obama issued a statement last week in which he called Israel’s security “sacrosanct” and promised to support an “undivided” Jerusalem, Hamas reversed itself and said it doesn’t want either McCain or Obama to win!

Will the Obama or McCain approach make Israel more secure? Both strategies can’t be right. Both could be wrong. Or insufficient.

It’s not as if this is the first time that Israel has been threatened. Around 850 B.C., the Moabites and Ammonites set out to attack Judah and Jerusalem. King Jehoshaphat called out to God in prayer, saying, “We have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you” (II Chronicles 20:12). Then God told Jehoshaphat through a prophet, “You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will give you” (II Chronicles 20:17). When the men of Judah went out to meet the enemy, God caused such confusion that the Moabites and Ammonites destroyed each other!

I know it’s not politically correct (or expedient) for candidates to admit that they don’t know what to do about the powder keg that is the Middle East today. But admitting that and looking to God worked for Jehoshaphat. I hope that our next president will be supportive of Israel and savvy about the situation - but in any case, Israel's survival will not be determined by Obama or McCain or whoever else may one day be in the White House.

Israel’s only real security is in the Almighty. As the psalmist said, “Where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth. He will not let your foot slip – he who watches over you will not slumber; indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:2-4).

I would welcome your comments about Israel’s security—or our own. Where do you look for your security?

My Thoughts on Rami Shapiro

2008-05-07T09:59:00.000-07:00

by Pseudo-Rooney

*Recently a cache of articles was found that sound remarkably like Andy Rooney. However, scientists have proven that Andy Rooney was not in fact the author of these articles; the unknown writer has been dubbed “Pseudo-Rooney” by scholars. Since no else has seen fit to publish his writings, we’ve decided to go ahead. Here is one of his recent pieces.

I just read an article in Tikkun magazine. I don’t normally take Tikkun, but a friend showed me a short article that caught my interest. It was called “Outgrowing Our Need for Promised Lands and Chosen Peoples” by someone named Rami Shapiro, and it was written in honor of Israel’s 60th birthday.

If Israel were a person instead of a country, I’m not sure how it would feel about Rabbi Shapiro’s piece. He starts out declaring his fondness for both Israel and Massachusetts, and that he counts both as nice places to visit. That’s a good beginning. I like Israel, and New York, and California; I’ve visited the first and lived in the second two. Never liked Boston much though. Too many of those roundabouts.

But then Rabbi Shapiro goes on to say that he doesn’t believe in a Promised Land, and doesn’t believe in a Chosen People—“silly,” he calls it—doesn’t believe in the supernatural, and lists out a couple of other things he doesn’t believe in either. Then he waxes positively philosophical. Who, he asks, has a “right” to land? Who has a right to exist, anyway? What does “exist” even mean? “There is no right to exist,” he says. All there is, he suggests, are defensive powerplays against the next guy.

That sounds pretty grim. It kind of reminds me of that old radio ad that was meant to get people to be better drivers. They had this guy with a husky, menacing voice, and he would get on the air and say, “Watch out…for the other guy.” It could have been a trailer for one of those slasher movies, and I don’t remember if there were fewer accidents after it ran. I think it probably made people more paranoid.

For Rabbi Shapiro there’s no God and no right to exist. Which brings me to his last sentence, which is that we need to recognize the “one Reality and one moral code: justice and compassion for all.”

Now, I like the idea of justice and compassion. Who doesn’t? I just don’t see how you get there if you don’t even believe in a right to exist, because that suggests that maybe it’s OK to kill the next guy. Somehow, Rabbi Shapiro seems to think that starting from a real God ends up “soaking sand in blood.”

Rabbi Shapiro wants to celebrate Israel’s 60th, her history, her future, her potential. I’m all for the celebrations, but if the good rabbi wants to relegate God to the invention of a couple of immature people, I’m not sure someone else won’t come along with a different idea of justice and compassion. Without God, how does Rabbi Shapiro know justice when he sees it, anyway? He has a right to his beliefs, of course. But I think that justice has to be rooted in a real God, or else all we are left with are people trying to crush one another out of existence. Can Rabbi Shapiro be an advocate for compassion and justice without believing in a built-in dignity to human beings that comes from God? Only time will tell if the rabbi’s “growth” is someone else’s stagnation.

Meantime—Happy 60th Birthday, Israel.

Expelled

2008-04-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

by Rich Robinson

To re-phrase Chaucer,

“When April with her sweet showers,

the drought of March has parched to the root,…

Then do folk get expelled…”

Yes, this April marks two expulsions, in a manner of speaking. Passover (beginning the night of April 19) is not really an expulsion like the bad ones when Jews were kicked out of Spain, Portugal, and other countries. It’s really about liberation, which came about when Pharaoh, having had it up to here with the plagues, essentially said, “Get out of here already!” His expelling us was God’s way of freeing us—a good expulsion.

The day before Passover, April 18, marks the release of Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, one of the latest in a series of advocacy films. Ben is talking about the expulsion that comes when proponents of Intelligent Design are “persecuted” in academic settings and denied the right of free inquiry, expelled from the academic establishment. In this case, expulsion is the opposite of freedom—a bad expulsion. (Check out the film’s web site, by the way, it is really quite funny and thought-provoking.)

There’s a third “expulsion” worth mentioning at this time of year. Jews who declare that they believe in Jesus are routinely “expelled” from among the Jewish people. I put “expelled” in quotes because there is really no authority that can expel or excommunicate Jews from the Jewish people. For every rabbi who might have excommunicated someone for something, one can find another rabbi who doesn’t agree with the first rabbi. Jewishness comes from God via parents, and one’s people are one’s people by virtue of a common history, culture, and destiny. A Jew can no more be expelled from the Jewish people than someone can be expelled from the human race because they believe the Creator is a frog from Neptune…or because they believe in Intelligent Design. But there are still some who would like to see such an expulsion, and good riddance to those pesky Jews for Jesus.

People can be expelled from countries, and they can be expelled from academia. This is a good time of year to contemplate what freedom means: freedom from slavery, freedom of inquiry, freedom of religion. I don’t know what your seder will be like this year, but at mine I am thinking of celebrating not only our redemption from Pharaoh, but the possibilities of redemption from suppression of thought of all kinds. Will anyone join me? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

What is Authentically Jewish?

2008-03-26T16:12:00.000-07:00

by Rich Robinson

How do we answer the above question when, in every age and Jewish sub-culture, we have absorbed many influences from non-Jewish societies around us?

These influences have not only affected food and fashion, but even religious expression and doctrine.¹ They include:

The Hellenistic (Greek) culture of the 4th-1st centuries B.C.

Hanukkah notwithstanding, Hellenism influenced many aspects of Jewish life.² Rabbis used Greek language and references to Greek culture. Jewish art as well as Pharisaic Jewish society also picked up some Greek “flavor” as did Jewish biblical interpretation. And traditions? What could be more Jewish than the Passover seder? Yet it also drew from a Greek institution called the symposium, a kind of banquet and philosophical lecture for holidays and special occasions. At a symposium, you would find questions concerning the foods, eating of greens and an apple mixture, and reclining—rituals readily recognizable as part of the modern seder.³ So is the seder “authentic”?

Greek philosophy (middle ages A.D.)

It seems we can’t get away from the Greeks! The famous Maimonides believed that Greek philosophy and the Hebrew Bible could be harmonized; his discussion of the nature of God relies heavily upon Aristotelian thinking. “Maimonides sought to bridge [earlier] interpretations with his assertion that the unity of God is unique. . . . Maimonides suggested that the intrinsic unity of God should be conceived as radically different in character from the unity of a species that is composed of discrete members, or from the unity of an organism that is made up of interrelated yet relatively distinct elements.”⁴ The Orthodox Jewish view of God’s unity may owe more to Aristotle than most Jews realize. Is it “authentically Jewish”? Was Maimonides? (In fact, Maimonides was the subject of controversy in his lifetime.)

Islamic influences (approximately 950-1150 A.D.)

Islam played a huge role in the development of medieval Jewish life, especially during the “Golden Age of Spanish Jewry.” Contact with the Muslim world encouraged Jewish exploration in mathematics, medicine and astronomy. Moreover, Arabic, not Hebrew or Aramaic, became the language of the common people, and also of many great medieval Jewish philosophers and grammarians. “In the literature of philosophy and even of theology one may say without hesitation that the influence flowed from Islam to Judaism and not the other way around. The notion of a theology, of a formulation of religious belief in the form of philosophical principles, was alien to the Jews of Biblical and Talmudic times.”⁵ Which Jewish culture is authentic?

Christianity (1750 A.D. - today)

Christianity certainly influenced Judaism in the development of counter-doctrines and practices. But Reform Judaism—especially when it began in Germany in the early 19th century—deliberately borrowed elements of worship from churches in order to adapt Judaism to modern life. “The Reformers also borrowed some of the church practices they considered most beautiful. Chief among these were the use of an organ and a ‘mixed’ choir [of men and women] . . . Another practice Reformers borrowed was the sermon.”⁶ Which set of Jewish practices is “authentic”? Orthodox? Reform? Neither?

Outside influences (not to mention internal Jewish changes) make it difficult to define what is “authentically Jewish.” We may want to say that being truly Jewish means believing in Y’shua, but the expression of that faith can reflect the wide variety of Jewish cultural forms our people have absorbed throughout history. Perhaps, to paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Jewish is as Jewish does.”

Notes

For a convenient online survey, see My Jewish Learning's website.

For more, see Lee I. Levine, Hellenism and the Jewish World of Antiquity (Univ. of Washington Press, 1998); David Steinberg, “The Impact of Greek Culture on Normative Judaism from the Hellenistic Period through the Middle Ages,” http://www.adath-shalom.ca/greek_influence.htm

Levine, pp. 120-121.

Martin Sicker, Between Man and God: Issues in Judaic Thought (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), p. 51. See also Kenneth Seeskin, The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 83 ff.

Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 80.

Eugene B. Borowitz,. Explaining Reform Judaism (New York: Behrman House, 1985), pp. 7, 9.

A Mystery in the Megillah

2008-03-18T08:17:00.000-07:00

by Jeff Millenson

A megillah is one of the five scrolls of the Bible (Ruth, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther). However, most often the term refers to the scroll of Esther, which is read in its entirety at Purim. Because the scroll of Esther is ten chapters long, the phrase "whole megillah" has come to mean the entirety or total amount of something.

The story of Esther is a familiar one From the days when we were children, many of us have participated in the Purim plays put on by our temple or synagogue, our Hebrew school or youth group. What Jewish girl hasn't longed to play the part of the beautiful Queen Esther? What Jewish boy hasn't vied with his friends to see who could make the loudest sound with his grager (noisemaker) in order to drown out the name of wicked Haman?

Because the story of Esther is so familiar. we may be in danger of overlooking one of its most fascinating mysteries: nowhere in that whole megillah is the name of God mentioned.

What? How can it be that God's name is omitted? After all, it is one of the books of our sacred Scriptures—how can it be a holy book when it doesn't even acknowledge the God of Israel?

There are answers for those who are willing to look for them—at least three different answers!

ANSWER 1: The name of God does not appear in the megillah of Esther because of the problem of translating that name into other languages. We learn in verses 1:1 and 8:9 that the region which King Ahasuerus governed covered an area which extended from India to Ethiopia. There were 127 different provinces included in the realm. While each province may not have employed its own unique script and language, still there must have been scores of different linguistic and ethnic communities within the borders of the Medio-Persian empire. The events recorded in the book of Esther were reported to the Jews living in the various provinces, and were very likely translated into the various provincial languages. What would have happened to the name of God in such a translation? It might have been transliterated. That is, "carried across" into the closest corresponding letters of the new language, in which case the non-Jewish reader might commit the error of trying to pronounce the sacred name of God. Or it might have been replaced by the name of whatever local god was atop the hierarchy of worship in that particular locale, a situation equally undesirable. So it is a strong possibility that the name of God was omitted to preclude such translation problems.

ANSWER 2: The name of God is found in the megillah! It's there, but it's hidden. One of the favorite devices of Hebrew writers is the acrostic, in which the first letter of successive words forms a word or a pattern. Psalm 119 is a good example: the lines of each stanza start with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Acrostics are harder to spot in prose, but clever Queen Esther is able to work one into her request to King Ahasuerus in 5:4. She says. "If it pleases the king. may the king and Haman come this day to the banquet I have prepared for him." The word for "may he come" is yavo', the word for "the king" is ha-melech, "and Haman" is ve-Haman, "this day" is ha-yom. The first four letters of these words are hwhy (yod, hey, vav, hey)—which together form the sacred and unpronounceable name of God.

To speakers of English, this acrostic might seem merely coincidental, but Hebrew scholars assure us that it is not. The writer of the megillah has deliberately chosen this method to reveal that God is indeed present in the story of Esther.

ANSWER 3: God Himself is present in the megillah of Esther because it is He who guides and directs the events that take place in it, and who inspires the godly attitudes of the main characters Esther and Mordecai.

Many of the events that are recounted in the book of Esther are clear indications of God's hand in the situation. Among these are Esther's finding favor with King Ahasuerus in the first place and the king's subsequent willingness to extend his scepter to hear her plea: Mordecai's overhearing the plot against the king, coupled with the king's later sleeplessness and his reading about Mordecai's heroic deed in the chronicles of the kingdom: and in the very fact that all the events have been recorded for us today to learn from and to remember.

We also see the hand of God in the attitudes of His people. In verse 4:14, Mordecai voices his confidence that help will arise "from another place" even if Esther does not speak up: yet he is convinced that Esther has been placed on the throne for such a time as this, and that she will not fail her people. Surely it is God Himself whom Mordecai credits with placing Esther on the throne.

In 4:16, Esther both fasts for herself and requests that all the Jews of Shushan fast for her as well. Although only fasting is specifically mentioned, is it too much to surmise that, while the people were abstaining from food for three days to honor Esther's request, they also prayed to the God of Israel, as did Esther herself?

In 10:3, we see a final reminder of God's presence with Mordecai: raised to a position of power second only to Ahasuerus himself, Mordecai seeks for the good of his people and the good of the nation above his own honor or glory. Only a proper reverence for God could have sustained an attitude like this.

We have seen that, although His name is present only in a mysterious and hidden way, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the main actor in the drama of Esther—guiding and directing events and inspiring men and women to trust in Him, not in human rulers, for their security and safety. But perhaps the real mystery of the megillah is this: How can we, the sons and daughters of Israel, live our lives from day to day as if God were not involved with us, as if He were not as desirous for us to trust in Him for our safety and welfare as He was for our ancestors to do the same?

As Jews, we are beset by the "Hamans" of today: anti-Semitism, secularism and cynicism. Will we look to God to set us free or will we continue to ignore Him? That is the mystery in the megillah.

Y’shua or Yeshu?

2008-03-05T08:49:00.000-08:00

by Rich Robinson

Ask any Israeli how to say “Jesus” in Hebrew, and you’ll invariably hear the response: Yeshu (pronounced Yay shoo). Yet according to scholars, His Hebrew name (depending on how you spell it) is Yeshua or Y’shua (pronounced Yeh shoo wah). Why then, don’t Israeli Jews call Him by His correct name? Shouldn’t they be the first to know (and use) His Hebrew name? The answers to those questions take us back to a time prior to 1750 A.D.

Ever since the Enlightenment, Jesus has been viewed in an increasingly positive light by most Jews—not as the Messiah, it is true, but as a good teacher, a rabbi, “our brother,” perhaps a political martyr.1 But long ago, Jesus was believed by most Jewish people to be a deceiver who led Israel astray, and some even regarded Him as a sorcerer. Consequently, centuries ago he was called by the name Yeshu, a “play” on His correct name that is actually an acronym standing for Yimmach Shemo Ve-zikro—May his name and memory be blotted out. He is still viewed that way by some, especially Ultra-Orthodox Jews; those, however, are the minority.
The name Yeshu has filtered down through history as the name of Jesus in Israel. Most Israelis (who are secular) have no idea that it originated as an acronym of contempt. How could they not know? Just think of our days of the week: Thursday was originally Thor’s Day, but what it originally meant has nothing to do with its current meaning. Ask an American what Thursday means, and the answer will probably be, the day of the week that comes after Wednesday. Similarly, ask an Israeli who Yeshu is, and the answer will probably be, a man who lived in the first century, the Christians’ Messiah.

Our staff in Israel have been working to make Jesus’ true Hebrew name a talking point, and this will continue throughout the next several years of Behold Your God Israel. Imagine the possibilities! We want to lift up the true name of Y’shua, which was given to indicate that He would save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

And outside of Israel, few Jews know him as either Y’shua or as Yeshu. Perhaps you can tell a Jewish friend that you have learned the name of Jesus in Hebrew, and it is Y’shua; and that his mother’s name was originally not Mary but, in Hebrew, Miriam (a topic for another article). Then you can ask why, since Jesus is Jewish, most Jewish people don’t believe in Him—and see if God opens a conversation.

For an in-depth look at the name of Jesus, see the article “An Introduction to the Names Yehoshua/Joshua, Yeshua, Jesus and Yeshu” by Kai Kjær-Hansen at http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/names

End Notes:

1. In contrast, it is Paul, not Jesus, who is seen as the “bad guy” who invented a new religion and “turned” Jesus into a god. For more on this modern Jewish view of Paul, see http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/paul.

The Light of Hanukkah

2007-12-05T10:45:00.000-08:00

Last night, as we lit the candles for the first night of Hanukkah, my wife recited a very traditional Jewish prayer:

Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha'olam, Asher kid'shanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu l'hadlik ner shel Chanukah

Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and has commanded us to kindle the Chanukah lights.

Interestingly enough, there is no record in the Hebrew Scriptures of such a commandment by God. In fact, you won’t find Hanukkah mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. It comes as a surprise to many Jewish people to find out that the sole mention of Hanukkah in the Bible is in the New Testament. So, if it’s not in the Hebrew Scriptures, how can we know what the celebration of Hanukkah is all about, and why we’re thanking God?

To find out what Hanukkah commemorates, we have to look into the inter-testamental period, a 400-year period between the closing of the Hebrew Scriptures and the writing of the New Testament. Biblical scholars sometimes call this a “silent period,” and since the events of Hanukkah took place during this inter-testamental period, we must turn to extra-biblical sources to learn about them. What we know about the history of Hanukkah can be gleaned primarily from I & II Maccabbees, two apocryphal (or non-canonical) books, and also from the Talmud, a collection of the oral lore of Jewish sages and rabbis.

During the inter-testamental period, there was no king in Israel. The Jewish people had returned from exile in Babylon under the leadership of Nehemiah, but they were ruled over by a succession of foreign empires. Malachi contains evidence that it was written while Israel was ruled over by the Persian empire, which was conquered by Alexander the Great in 331 B.C. When Alexander died in 323 B.C., his empire was carved up by his four top generals. Israel lay in between the kingdoms of Egypt (ruled by the Ptolemic dynasty) and Syria (ruled by the Seleucid dynasty), and was ruled by both at different times. The Greek, or Hellenistic, culture of Alexander was continued by both of these empires.

In 198 B.C., Israel was under the rule of the Syrian empire. These Syrio-Greeks had forced their own Hellenistic culture upon the Jewish people. In 175 B.C. Antiochus IV ascended the throne of this empire, and took upon himself the name Antiochus Epiphanes, meaning “the visible god.” Antiochus truly believed that he was a god. His contemporaries may not have shared this view, since he is often referred to in writings of the day as “the madman.” Antiochus forbid the Jewish people to keep the Sabbath, to read or study the Torah, or to circumcise their sons. He commanded that the temple in Jerusalem should become a temple dedicated to worshipping the Greek god Zeus, and even erected a statue of Zeus at the Temple – a stature bearing a suspicious resemblance to Antiochus himself! The final insult to the Jewish people came when Antiochus entered into the Temple and slaughtered a pig on the altar, then splattered its blood inside the Holy of Holies. I don’t have to tell you that this was definitely not kosher – in fact, it was a complete desecration of the Temple, and you can imagine the effect on God-fearing Jewish people!

I Maccabees tells us that living near to Jerusalem was a priest named Mattathias who, full of righteous anger at the abomination that had taken place, killed the priest who had slaughtered the pig. Mattathias then pulled down the altar before fleeing to the surrounding hills of Judea, along with his sons. As he fled, Mattathias cried out, “Whoever is zealous for the Law and maintains the Covenant, follow me!” With his sons, Mattathias formed a band of guerilla fighters who made frequent sorties against the Syrio-Greek enemy. When the priest died, leadership passed to his son Judah, who soon began being called Yudah haMakkabi, or “Judah the Hammer,” because it was said that he was the hammer of God, sent to smash the enemies of Israel. Judah’s followers were referred to as Maccabbeans.

The Maccabeans grew in numbers, and after 3 years of fighting, miraculously defeated the Syrio-Greek army, which was vastly numerically superior. After routing their enemies, the Maccabbeans marched into Jerusalem to rescue, restore, and rededicate the Temple. The Talmud records that the rededication took place on the 25th day of Kislev in the Hebrew calendar, exactly 3 years to the day after it had been defiled by Antiochus. Hanukkah means, “dedication” in Hebrew, so the holiday is known as the Feast of Dedication to commemorate the miracle of the rescue, restoration, and rededication of the Temple by the Maccabbeans. It’s a celebration of the faith that Judah Maccabee and his followers had that God would keep His promises to preserve the Jewish people, a faith that was amply repaid in the defeat of their Syrio-Greek oppressors.

However, today when most Jews think of Hanukkah, they do not think of the miracle of the Maccabees defeating a much larger, better equipped army. They associate a very different miracle with the holiday, one which is mentioned only briefly in the Talmud. According to the Talmud, once the Syrio-Greeks had been driven away, Judah Maccabee ordered that the Temple be cleansed and rededicated. As they cleaned out the rubble, built a new altar, and crafted new holy vessels for the Temple, a terrible discovery was made. There was only a single container of consecrated ritual olive oil, which was required in order to keep the menorah (the seven-branched candelabra) in the Temple burning through the night. This lamp was known as the Ner Tamid, or the Eternal Light, and God had commanded it should never burn out. To allow that to happen would be like another desecration. The problem was that it would take eight days for more oil to be pressed, prepared, and consecrated. With a sense of helplessness, the Maccabees and the priests offered their prayers and pleas for forgiveness up to God as they lit the oil they had. Miraculously, this one container of oil, enough only to last one night, burned for all eight days! Jewish sages hence instituted an eight-day holiday commemorating this miracle, customarily celebrated by lighting candles for eight days.

This is the miracle that most Jews think of as they celebrate Hanukkah, and the reason that it is referred to as the Feast of Lights. If you’re first learning about Hanukkah, you can now understand the significance of the Jewish tradition of lighting candles in the menorah for eight nights. We add a candle each night, symbolizing each of the eight nights the oil burned in the temple. The rabbis teach that as each candle is added to the menorah, the blessings increase, and by the final night, the room is awash with light, a symbol of the glory and presence of God.

When was a kid growing up in synagogue, I can remember our rabbi talking to us kids about Hanukkah and about Christmas. I remember him telling us that the two holidays were to have nothing to do with us. “This Christmas is for the goyim, the Gentiles, because it celebrates this Jesus, and that is not for Jews.” I have many fond memories of my rabbi but today, as a Jew who believes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, I think that the rabbi missed the boat. You see, there is a connection between Jesus and Hanukkah. I’ve already mentioned that the single reference to Hanukkah in the Bible is found in the New Testament.

“At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." ” John 10:22-33

We know from this mention of the Feast of Dedication that it was Hanukkah, and during this particular Feast of Lights, Jesus would reveal a couple of things about Himself: His Messiahship and His deity. It’s interesting that He would choose Hanukkah as a time to do this. You see, on Hanukkah we rejoice over the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes, a madman who thought he was a god. But as followers of Jesus, we believe Him to truly be God. He is the Light of the World, and He chose the Feast of Lights to reveal that.

The text tells us that Jesus was walking in the Temple in an area known as “the portico of Solomon.” This was an area of the Temple with covered walkways, and it was something of a public gathering place. Some people would gather to talk, others would gather to listen. It was a public forum. As Jesus is walking, some of the Jewish people there gathered around asked Him, “Are you the Christ?” In other words, “Are you the Messiah?” Jesus answers this question in the affirmative, saying:

“I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.” John 10:24

Jesus didn’t just stop at proclaiming Himself as Messiah. He went on to proclaim His deity, His Godhood, in no uncertain terms:

“I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

The Jewish people gathered there understood Jesus’ meaning quite plainly. They understood Him to be claiming to be God, and their reaction was to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy. The Jewish people of the day – much like our Jewish people today – were not prepared to accept a Messiah who was also God.

Within this account in John’s Gospel is a fascinating historical convergence. You see, according to rabbinic sources, when Judah Maccabee and his followers began to clean the Temple, they ran into a dilemma. Judah’s father, Mattathias the priest, had pulled down the desecrated altar on which Antiochus Epiphanes had slaughtered a pig, and the stones of which the altar was built had to be removed. Since they had been used for holy purposes they couldn’t be merely tossed away; yet they were impregnated with the blood and grease of the unclean sacrifice that had been offered upon them. The rabbis record that, not being able to find any better solution, the Maccabbeans stored the stones in a pile in the portico of Solomon – where they remained in the time of Jesus!

Those stones were a physical reminder of a madman who claimed to be God in the flesh, and who forced idolatry and oppression on the Jewish people. What irony that those same stones might be used against a man who truly was God in the flesh, and who came to free the Jewish people from the oppression of sin. Yet when they asked Jesus who He was, the Jewish people at the Temple that day were not prepared to accept the answers Jesus gave them. So it is even today. Very few of our Jewish people will even ask if Jesus might be the Messiah. Jesus is God in the flesh, though; the fulfillment of all that is written in the Law and the Prophets, and the future hope that our Jewish people continue to long for. On the festive occasion of Hanukkah, Jesus invited people into a relationship with Him that would free them from sin and from death. While there were many who thought Jesus as much a villain as Antiochus Epiphanes, there were some who believed.

I want to close by pointing out something of symbolic importance. The Hanukkah candles are traditionally lit by a special candle called the shammash. Shammash is Hebrew for “servant.” In the shammash candle, we can see a symbol of our Messiah Jesus, for as the Gospel of Matthew says,

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:28

The shammash serves the other candles by bringing light to them. In the New Testament, Jesus is frequently referred to as “the Light,” and Jesus Himself once said,

“I am the Light of the World. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12

Just as the shammash gives light to the other candles, Jesus came to give the world His Light. As we celebrate Hanukkah, it is good for us be reminded of that light each night as we light our menorahs. As believers in Y’shua (Jesus), Hanukkah should hold precious meaning to us. The miracles we celebrate at Hanukkah – the defeat of an enemy army, the oil lasting for eight days – show how God keeps His light burning in the hearts of His people, even when they face what seem to be impossible odds or situations. With God, all things are possible. His light cannot fail, or go out.

May you be blessed this Hanukkah season, and beyond.

Pondering December

2007-11-30T15:49:00.000-08:00

As I write this, Shabbat is just a few hours away. I’m sitting in the living room of my house, with the most amazing smell drifting in from the kitchen as my wife puts the final touches on her pot roast. It’s been a much warmer day than the last day of November has any right to be, and I’m marveling that tomorrow will be December.

The month of December often presents an identity crisis for Jewish believers in Jesus like me. For many Jews, December is a time of year in which they are flooded by Christmas imagery, music, and decorations – a parade of foreign religious symbolism without surcease. Prior to coming to faith in Jesus, I had some of the same reactions that many of my Jewish brethren will have this year: I just wanted Christmas to go away. I saw Christmas as a threat to my very identity as a Jew.

Growing up in a Jewish household, I was pretty proud of the fact that we celebrated Hanukkah instead of Christmas. I loved the foods. Who could resist the greasy deliciousness – with just a hint of onion – of latkes, the traditional potato pancakes? My dilemma as a child was whether to drown my latkes in sour cream or applesauce! Then there was the dreidel game, in which parent-approved gambling could lead to a wealth of gelt (foil-covered chocolate coins). But aside from the food, and the games, and gifts, there was also the STORY of Hanukkah, which was a far sight better than any of the comic books I read as a kid. For those unfamiliar with the tale, I present a summary.

In the 2nd century BC, the Jewish people were oppressed by the forces of a Syrio-Greek king, one Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus forbid the Jewish people to practice their religion, and began forcing Greek culture and religion upon the resistant Jews. The final blow came when Antiochus desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem by slaughtering a pig upon the altar. As Antiochus proclaimed that the Temple was now dedicated to the Greek god Zeus rebellion broke out, led by the sons of a priest named Mattathias. The eldest son, Judah, led the rebellion after the death of Mattathias and was given the name Yudah haMakabi, or Judah the Hammer. His followers were known as the Maccabees.

Although vastly outnumbered by the Syrian armies, the Maccabees successfully drove their enemies away and reclaimed Jerusalem and the Temple. Judah ordered that the Temple be cleansed and rededicated (hence the name Hanukkah, which means “dedication”). As they built a new altar and new holy vessels for the Temple, a terrible discovery was made. There was only a single container of consecrated ritual olive oil, which was required in order to keep the menorah (the seven-branched candelabra) in the Temple burning through the night. According to tractate Shabbat 21b in the Talmud, this one container of oil miraculously burned for eight days, precisely the amount of time needed to press and consecrate more oil. Jewish sages hence instituted an eight-day holiday commemorating this miracle, customarily celebrated by lighting candles for eight days.

In my child’s mind, all of this made Hanukkah a vastly superior holiday to Christmas. Where else was I going to find a holiday which celebrated the Jews kicking some serious heiney??? I even wrote a play to be performed for my synagogue. Unfortunately, "The Bloody Maccabees" was far from a success; the special effects involved copious amounts of stage blood, scandalizing the members of my synagogue. Nevertheless, my love for the holiday was not weakened. The custom that developed much later in – probably in response to Christian celebration of Christmas – of Jewish parents giving their children presents on each night was just another point of which I could boast. “Sure,” I would say to my Gentile friends, “you guys get a big day of presents… but I get EIGHT DAYS of presents!”

As I got older, I began more and more to meet Christmas and its trimmings with rolled eyes and positively Scrooge-like comments. I would complain to friends that Christmas would be easier to handle if popular Christmas music wasn’t so lame and repeated ad nauseum. “Speaking of nauseau,” I would remark, “what’s with the decorations at the mall? It looks like Christmas just threw up in there!” In college, I can remember making my Gentile girlfriend furious when I mocked Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, one of her cherished childhood memories. “What does this horrible Claymation travesty have to do with Christmas??!” I shouted at her.

Even after I had placed my faith in Jesus as my Messiah, it was years before I was able to overcome the idea in my mind that Christmas was rank with hypocrisy. Would Jesus have approved of the focus on decorations, trees, and presents, I asked? If not, why did my Christian brothers and sisters continue to celebrate it with such materialism and greed, rather than focusing on Messiah? It wasn’t until I began dating my future wife that I experienced for myself a Christian family whose focus during Christmas was on celebrating the birth of our Savior. I began to get my first taste of this after being invited to spend the holidays with my wife’s family and being told that we would all be going to an 11:00 PM Christmas Eve service, so that we could worship and praise God for sending us His Son. At long last, I began to see that Christmas had depths beyond sugar cookies and brightly wrapped packages!

Being part of an intermarried couple, I now have a commitment to honoring the traditions of both of our families. Sitting in a place of honor in our living room is a small Christmas tree, unobtrusively decorated. We’ve talked about finding some chrismons for decorating it next year, to highlight the importance to us of Christ’s life and ministry. In the window is a menorah, and a string of Hanukkah lights in the shape of menorahs, dreidels, and Stars of David. This is a house where the identity crisis has been laid to rest. As a Jew, I am comfortable with my faith in Christ, and I am comfortable with expressing it with both Jewish and Christian symbols. As a Gentile, my wife insists that we honor my Jewish heritage and her Christian upbringing equally.

As I ponder December, I’m struck by something about both Christmas and Hanukkah. Both holidays represent the Lord’s faithfulness in keeping his promises, and both holidays show us how the Lord brings light into darkness. During a very dark period for the Jewish people, God kept His promise to defend and preserve the children of Israel. Through Judah Maccabee, the Lord drove off those who would destroy the Jewish people. The miracle of the oil is symbolic of the light of God’s glory shining forth. And what is Christmas, what is the Incarnation but the ultimate example of God’s light shining forth in the darkness? For those who trust in Jesus, the darkness in their heart is driven away, and they become the temple in which God’s Spirit abides.

As my wife and I prepare to celebrate Hanukkah, the Feast of Lights, we will remember the words of Jesus Himself as He declared,

“I am the Light of the World.” John 9:5

and as Christmas comes, we will remember that we are celebrating the birth of our promised Savior – the ultimate rescue mission by God on our behalf!

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6

Thanksgiving and Grace

2007-11-23T11:25:00.000-08:00

The big meal was eaten, the football game was watched (Green Bay vs. Detroit, in our case), there was catching up with family and friends. There are heaps of leftovers to be savored for a few days. For some, that will be swiftly followed by an internal shudder at the thought of eating yet more turkey!

My wife Kathleen and I had a wonderful Thanksgiving at the home of some of our Jews for Jesus CLIMs, who invited us to join them for the day, along with the current Liberated Wailing Wall. We had a wonderful time of fellowship before Kathleen and I began a long drive home. I went to sleep with my belly still comfortably full, and it wasn't until the alarm clock went off this morning that I realized just how tired I am from the day past. Yet if you asked me if I regretted a moment of it, I would say not even for an instant.

For followers of Jesus, being thankful isn't something for which we should really need a federally mandated holiday. Thankfulness is something that ought to flow naturally out of our love for and relationship with Y'shua. David Brickner once reflected on the nature of thankfulness,

"To be truly thankful, we have to acknowledge the source of every good thing: we have to realize that our health, our family, any abundance—even luxuries we may have—are from God. Moreover, we have not earned His blessings, but He lovingly chose to bestow them. Each gift from God, whether it is a new house or a new friend, shows that the Giver knows who we are and what has meaning and value to us. When we are truly thankful, we can't help knowing and declaring that God is so much better to us than we deserve."

Ideally, giving thanks is so much more than just a chance to worship God, to express our gratitude to Him for His presence and provision in our lives. For the mature believer in Jesus, thanksgiving is also an exercise in humility. When we truly give thanks to God, we are speaking to Him from a position in which we acknowledge how utterly dependent upon Him we are. It is hard to be centered upon yourself, to be full of pride, when you are in the midst of declaring that everything you have that is good came from the Lord, and that it's much, much more than you deserve.

Why is this the proper attitude with which to come before God? Because there is a link between our humility and God's grace. King Solomon understood this link well, writing,

"He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." (Proverbs 3:34)

Each person who has placed their trust in God's own Son, Jesus, has received this grace, and therefore has great reason to be thankful. I am sure that each one reading this has their own personal list of things to be thankful for. For myself, I am thankful for being able to see just how real God is over this past year. Last year at this time, my wife was troubled by health problems serious enough that we probably couldn't have even considered a lengthy drive to spend Thanksgiving Day in the company of friends. Yet over the past year God has answered our prayers on her behalf. Since that time, we've been able to move from Los Angeles to Fort Lauderdale, causing an immediate improvement in my wife's health. As I've watched her grow healthier and stronger, as my wife and I have turned to Him during minor and major storms in our lives, I know that God is real indeed, and that He provides for those who humbly trust in Him. I am thankful indeed for His provision and presence in our lives!

As we move now into the holiday season, with Hanukkah and Christmas soon swift upon us, I hope you will take the time to remember to be thankful for the grace of God in your life. Hanukkah is sometimes known as the Feast of Lights, and as a Jewish believer in Jesus I greet the upcoming eight days of Hanukkah as a chance to celebrate the Light of the World. Soon after that comes Christmas, and what better demonstration of the grace of God but that He sent His very own Son to live among us?

Chime in here on the comments. What are you thankful for? How has God extended His grace to you this year?

NO BARS TO HEAVEN, MR DEAN?

2007-11-15T12:02:00.000-08:00

Recently, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was addressing 3,500 Jewish leaders at the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities. During his address Dean asserted that “there are no bars to heaven for anybody.”

“Dean’s comments followed an address by the University of Tennessee's head basketball coach, Bruce Pearl, who told the crowd that as a Jewish student in public schools, he always felt uncomfortable when he was playing sports and his team's pre game prayers would end with an invocation to Jesus.”

Dean’s speech was an overtly political one, charging that the Democratic Party is religiously inclusive, and the Republican Party is not only exclusive but racist.

"This country is not a theocracy," Dean said, according to JTA. "There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; that we are not a one-religion nation; and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field."

I shy away from bringing up politics on this blog, for the simple reason that it’s not the point of the blog. Now, no one that I know of would point to Howard Dean as a theologian, but his statement doesn’t hold up to Jewish OR Christian theology! Over at A Goy for Jesus, Jews for Jesus friend Geoff Robinson had this to say in response:

“I hate to break the news to Howard Dean. There are bars on heaven keeping people out. It isn't based on race. It is based on sin.
God is holy. His Law condemns us. We lie, steal, and covet. We don't honor our parents as we should. We don't love our neighbor nor our God with all our heart.
And our only hope is the grace of God made manifest to us in Jesus the Messiah. If we do not trust in Him, we are doomed and will find bars to heaven. No matter what Howard Dean may tell you.”

I think Geoff has nailed it right on the head. While Howard Dean is certainly entitled to express his opinions and beliefs on the nature of Heaven (and how one gains admission to it), his statement that there are no bars to heaven simply doesn’t line up with the Word of God.

The Hebrew Scriptures make some things perfectly clear. One of these is that our sins separate us from God.

“your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:2

The Scriptures also make pretty clear that this is a problem for ALL of us, not just a few.

“Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.” Ecclesiastes 7:20

As if being separated from God by our sin wasn’t bad enough, God has made very clear that there’s a further price to be paid for our sins.

“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.” Ezekiel 18:4

Try as we might, there is nothing we can do by our own power to overcome our separation from God.

“For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” Isaiah 64:6

God DID provide a means that our sin could be paid for, a way that death could be avoided. That means was blood sacrifice.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” Leviticus 17:11

The blood of animals could only atone for sin for a short time, however. Thankfully, God loves you and I enough that He was willing to provide a sacrifice that would atone for our sin once and for all time. God sacrificed His own Son, Jesus, who lived a perfect, sinless life. His blood has paid the price for our sin.

“But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:10,11

Jesus made clear that there was only one way to Heaven, and that was through a relationship with Him.

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6

Howard Dean apparently believes Heaven is a place to which ANYONE can gain admission. To that, there’s only one response:

“the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:14