Jews for Jesus Founder Dies, 'Messianic Judaism' Controversy Lives On

Jews for Jesus Founder Dies, 'Messianic Judaism' Controversy Lives On

Two months ago the Jews for Jesus (JFJ) founder died. For sometime I've found this movement a bit interesting, but far more interesting has been the Jewish reception of this small sect, and when I say small I mean minuscule compared to the rest of Judaism. And by minuscule I mean a fraction of a fraction of a percent, and yet every Jew knows about it, and nearly every Jew has been indoctrinated by the Jewish community about how horrible the JFJ sect is.

It's really not too unlike how much of Christianity treats Mormonism, and our claims as being Christian. We believe Jesus was the Son of God, Savior, Creator, Redeemer of all Mankind, and the ONLY way whereby man can be saved ... and yet there's this one thing called "the Trinitarian doctrine", which mainstream says you must accept in order to be a TRUE Christian. Never mind that nowhere in the bible does it say you must believe in that concept of Christ, and never mind that the Trinitarian belief only exists among the mainstream Christians because it was borrowed from the Catholic from which they split.

Never mind the Catholic church invented it and voted it in on 323 AD in Nice Italy by popular (however not unanimous) vote. Never mind that it contradicts Jesus talking to a separate being called "God the Father" on multiple occasions (i.e., forgive them Father for they know not what they do" - talking to himself?), and there being 3 separate entities mentioned during his baptism, not to mention a fair number of New Testament based visions of his apostles depicting Him on the right hand of God. We're supposed to accept the Baptism minister's interpretation that these are all symbolic, right? Again ... who was Christ praying to in the Garden when his disciples fell asleep? Himself?

I don't mean to lightly dismiss of a concept that others might find enabling in some way, but for me "God so loved the world that he gave his only Begotten Son" looses all it's impact to me if he's just talking about giving of himself, but sacrificing his distinctly separate and literal Son, who was perfect - that's love that knows no bounds. And yet, because I believe that I'm not a Christian? Such a rule is absurd just like the Jewish rule that you have to deny Christ to be a Jew.

But it's to be be expected that all popular sects eventually make up whatever rules they can to stay in power and put down sects that they might find threatening.

That said, the Jews weren't the author of this "By definition a Jew rejects Jesus" rule so some compassion should be afforded to them in this matter. Do you know where that rule came from? Do any of the Jews?

I don't think so. The history books are pretty clear on this one: The Jewish people never considered the rejection of Jesus as Messiah as being intrinsic to their Jewish identity until long after early Christianity identified them first as Christ-crucifiers (incidentally, a despicable and grossly unfitting moniker, especially for descendents who never knew Jesus). I.e., historically speaking that is exactly where this absurd illogical rule came from: from the gentiles.

In fact before Jesus there were many Messiah type figures and the OT could be and was interpreted to suggest that a Messiah was the Lords 'Annointed" server to "deliver" his people from bondage something that happened frequently, whether it be Hazael, Jehu, Saul, Joash of Judah, David ... the difference that Christ was a deliverer of a spiritual nature, and a kingdom not of the world ... most indications are that although he was despised of the Sanhedrin most who didn't follow him certainly didn't define their Jewishness by that fact. In fact, their Jewishness was defined by their adherence to the Jewish law ... enough that when Paul said it wasn't necessary to keep it anymore it caused quite an uproar among the Christians of the time.

That was how Jews identified themselves - the strictness of their observances of their law ... it had nothing to do with Christ, or a Messiah of any kind. Again, that's not to say some didn't find the concept of Christ offensive - but it was only the Sanhedrin who stirred that pot and even the NT bears out that fact.

So it should be no surprise that Josephus merely mentions Jesus in passing, the popular consensus even among non-Christians being that his references to Christ at a minimum admitted he existed, and among Christians a consensus that Josephus (a well-published prodigy of Jewish thought in 60 AD) did not consider Christ as a key figure in Jewish thought in any way even 30 years after his death (which is what one would expect when considering Josephus' background).

The first time we hear of the "Rejection of Jesus" being associated with Jewish identity is at the time of Christ among the Christians, not the Jews. Even then it took 300 years until this association the became the justification for persecuting the Jews and that is where the Jewish people came face to face with that identity - but to their credit they maee their resilience and self-determination in the face of such persecution by Christians part of their identity. Still evil rarely begets pure good, and even if the Jews were the best of people and being told by not only their persecutors, but admissions by their teachers .. the Rabbi's for the next 1700 years that such noble resilience is tied to their rejection of Jesus as the Christ ... How could "Rejector of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ" not become one's self-imposed identity under such conditions?

So here we are today after 1700 year of it being forced upon them, the idea has become central to all Jews, both secular or orthodox: Being Jew means rejecting Jesus as the Christ - an idea that neither originated with them nor was even representative by more than a small minority of powerful Jews at the time of Christ. Remember also, it wasn't the Jews that pierced his side with a sword, or whipped him, and forced a bloody crown of thorns upon his head. In short, not only was the identification forced upon them, the identification is no less suitable to the rest of mankind.

Now consider that concept of judging someone out of hand, out of pure bias, ... MIND YOU again: not their fault in any way that this rule exists as part of Jewish self-identification (and I hope my point that non-Jews are to blame for it is well established). Is it a logical rule? Sensible? It is in fact the very definition of prejudice.

Nowhere in the scriptures, OT or NT, is prejudice of any kind promoted. Even the Old Testament is replete with the efficacy of prayer as a means to gain understanding, as well as the virtue of justice and mercy extolled. These concepts ever have been universal. We all are taught to judge fairly, and everyone with a brain knows God gave it to be used to judge between light and dark. By their fruits shall you know them, or in secular terms: actions speak louder than words, and to do otherwise is the very definition of prejudice.

So why would anyone want that as part of their identity, especially since it would be used for tens of generations to return such prejudice but by 1000 fold? Surely anyone should be able to see that this part of their identity is not a calculated investment ... it was programmed into the Jewish community as part of their identity.

Furthermore if they themselves, the Jews, believe an association with a prejudicial behavior to be true ... even an identity to be protected and honored ... there is there no wonder why similarly it could, even should, be so easily levied against the JFJ constituents?

Now don't get me wrong here ... Jews need not accept Jesus to be considered a fair and just people, but they only need to strike the elements of prejudice from their self-imposed definition of what it means to be a Jew. Instead they should adopt on official identity as a people who reserve judgement of anyone until fair investigation is made, living and letting others live, without bias but rather with compassion.

I hope they do but those Haredi seem to have a strangle-hold on the upper elements of the Israeli ministry. Despotism and Aryan-like philosophies find strange bedfellows ... I'd never have suspected they'd happen among those who once suffered most from them.

And what am I talking about here? I'm talking about just how much prejudice is leveled against the JFJ movement throughout Judaism - a story you likely haven't been told. Believe me when I say the level of abject disregard that most Jews have for the JFJ group is difficult to believe, and the origin as coming from 2000 years of indoctrination by persecutors is poorly understood as I described above even by Rabbi's. For example, in my experience most Jewish people would rather share an elevator with any anti-semite" bent on Israel's demise than with a Jew-for-Jesus member who sees them as a brother.

Admittedly I understand how they feel threatened by any organization who's #1 goal is to convert them specifically (and such is the case with JFJ - their primary target is to convert other Jews), but let's look at the official Israeli response, and you be the judge if the punishment fits the crime:

For over 20 years according Israeli State law, any foreign Jew by birth may be granted Israeli citizenship upon mere application (even unbelievers so long as the documents are valid) UNLESS they are a Jew for Jesus (JFJ) member. This sounds crazy, but it is true. Due to Rabbinical oversight of the ministry in the 1980's they REDEFINED a Jew as including the fact that one must NOT believe in Jesus. As if that wasn't discriminatory enough, the ultra-orthodox are now trying to make the JFJ organization illegal so it can purge it's remaining adherents (which make up a fraction of a percent of the population) from the country of Israel. A simple google search will even reveal claims that Israeli ministry has admitted to working WITH ultra-orthodox Jewish sects to further harass and intimidate existing JFJ members.

This is an unfortunate development in a region already synonymous with gross discrimination and injustice. This is egregious when practiced at the State level by a so-called-democracy that enjoys the friendship of the west who expects them to be a beacon of justice, espousing freedom of thought and speech in a region otherwise devoid of such virtues. Sadly, it seems that with regard to Jews-for-Jesus they are exactly like their neighbors. Just last month the same ultra-orthodox Jews in league with the ministry proudly admitted to segregating children from less strict forms of Judaism within the schools (resulting in jail time for the perpetrators proving at least that the legal system isn't yet entirely as corrupted as is parts of the Israeli ministry).

Rabbis rationalize this injustice by claiming that JFJ rebrands Christianity as a branch of Judaism, but of course all Christianity considers itself the successor of Judaism, and considers Judaism as the "lesser" law with Christianity as the rightful successor. Where's the outrage over that? JFJ seems much less harsh in it's view of Judaism - at least maintaining that compatible Jewish traditions are noble and worth continuing. Rabbi's arguments that it can only be understood on religious terms COMPLETELY fails due to the fact that even most unbelieving Jews dislike the existence of the JFJ as much as most of the most religious conservatives. Instead it's all as I said earlier: offensive because they see it as attacking their now prized-identity as Jesus-Rejectors ... and identity they adopted from gentiles as I explained above.

In the end, despite my dismay at this institutionalized discrimination within Israeli thought I have great hopes for Israel ... and I understand and relate with the sacred nature of the identity of a people ... especially regarding the Jews when you look at their resilience throughout history. Having an attachment to my identity as a Mormon in light of the struggles of my forefathers also means a lot to me.

Furthermore, I understand and can excuse to date how they can adopt for themselves an uncouth definition for their identity originally espoused by their enemies because I've seen that happen to some of my LDS friends where a false idea imposed from the outside has made it's way into their self-identification as a Mormon. As an example of this I think of the doctrine of being saved by a mixture of works and grace. It's a criticism leveled against Mormons "earning their way to heaven". I've heard Mormons respond by defending such a belief despite the fact that we do NOT believe in being saved through a mixture of works and grace*, in other-words other I've seen first-hand people of my own faith adopting an identity forced upon them because they wrongly assumed the criticism levied against us was honest in nature.

The Jews are therefore no worse for doing the same ... adopting for themselves the forced-upon identity of "Christ Rejectors" as being definitive of their Jewish identity.

I'm an Israel supporter, largely because I see a lot less institutionalized prejudice in them than in their neighbors, and their military actions are for the most part far more defensive than what we see exhibited by any of their neighbors. As Americans and as their allies we need to expect from them a higher standard of justice and equity. It behooves the President of the United States to have Israel reconsider how far right it is willing to go ... will the ministry entrench itself more deeply with the Haredi who seem bent on purging Christians from among their citizenry? How do they expect us to believe their claims of clemency for Palestinians, which they disregard such for JFJ members? What will we do if they try purging from among themselves a group of peaceful citizens, and do they know or believe that we won't stand for religious or ethnic intolerance by them anymore than we would from ourselves?

Frankly I'm ashamed our government has looked the other way this long on this issue. At a minimum we need to call out prejudice when we see it, and not just when it's politically expedient. I appeal to Benjamin Netanyahu ... a man who's career I've followed and admired for a long time and have seen as a bright hope of sensible and rationale thought in a sea of otherwise radical ideologies: encourage your people to be prudent, wise, and fair - especially your cabinet members. Help your people see they are above institutionalized prejudice as a national, ethnic or religious identity ... promote the idea that no judgement is just regardless of the reputation of the accused, until investigated thoroughly and fairly, free of cultural, religious or ethnic bias, and with compassion. Once such ideas are adopted Israel will have a permanent hope for salvation in this life and in the next, but without complete equity and efforts toward fairness there is no hope.
----

* Regard the true Mormon belief regarding faith and works as they pertain to salvation: We believe in being saved by grace, not by works, lest any man boast ... HOWEVER one who is truly worthy of Christ's grace must have works to be qualified so that the grace can work a mighty miracle to bring about the forgiveness of one's sins. Nobody has the capability to erase sin but Christ regardless of how much good they might do ("[saves another] hideth a multitude of sins" also frequently misunderstood), and perfect cleanliness is required for exaltation and eternal life. Mormon doctrine regarding salvation is however still distinctly different than mainstream Christian thought. In Mormon doctrine qualifying for grace is a constant process of proving one's devotion to Christ's teaching ... not a mere destination achieved by uttering the words "I believe" after-which one will go to heaven regardless of their subsequent behavior (that's the mainstream Christian belief on the issue). So Mormon belief is different than mainstream Christian belief in this matter, but it's still all done by the grace of Christ for which we must qualify by our faith and works ("grace without works is dead"). Note that this misunderstanding largely comes from misunderstanding a scripture in the Book of Mormon to mean that salvation is at least partially "earned". It says "We are saved by grace, after all that we can do", but that doesn't mean what we do is part of what saves us. It merely means that those who don't love him enough to continually try to do their best ... i.e., "all we can do" can take advantage of the sacrifice the offered in our behalf. But this is often misunderstood in popular Mormon thought, and I firmly believe that it comes from a knee jerk reaction to defend anything thrown in our face by those who don't like us - i.e., adopting for ourselves an identity forced upon us which is not accurate.