From: Stefan Blad <sblad@tinn.net>
To: Hebrew Roots <heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org>
Subject: Mission to the Jews
MISSION
TO THE JEWS
Mission to Israel or to the Jewish people has in recent years been
questioned. Many find the matter problematic. Some believe that you should
not engage in such mission for different reasons. Others are convinced that
we should bring the Gospel as well to Israel and the Jew as to all other
nations and people. Both standpoints are, without doubt, represented by
people of sincere motives, convinced of the validity of their own
arguments. In spite of the differing opinions, there often exists, in both
groups, a consciousness of Israel's significance concerning the
consummation of God's Redemption. Because of the sometimes confused debate
in this matter, I consider it to be of great importance to try to explain
the reasons for the dissension. To a certain extent it is a matter of
definition. How do you define the words "Christian", "Church" and so
forth?
Concepts
To avoid misunderstanding I would like to define and clarify the concepts
used in this article. I will try to "liberate" them from any misconceptions
added to their original meaning in the course of history. If we are to
refer to biblical arguments, the concepts used must hold biblical substance.
The New Testament concept of "mission" or "evangelism" is that a
disciple
of Jesus proclaims the Gospel and acts in accordance with the Great
Commission in all respects. If the persons belong to the same people/nation
or not is irrelevant. Accordingly, mission has, in a fundamental, biblical
sense, nothing to do with transferring our own denominational structures to
other countries.
I will use the word "Israel" to signify all Jews living in the state of
Israel, and also those living in other countries. The word "Israel" in this
article is used as if all Jews would be denying that Jesus is the Messiah,
which of course is not the case. I know that there is a great number of
Messianic Jews in both the state of Israel and other countries.
I will employ the expression "Messianic Jew", as it is a common expression
for a Jew believing in Jesus as the Messiah. "Christ" and "Messiah"
are
consequently synonyms, one deriving from Greek, and the other from Hebrew.
I consider the words "ecclesia", "congregation" and "Church"
to have the
same meaning, though deriving from different languages. It is the meaning,
which the Bible has given to them. No matter which one of these three words
is used, it signifies and stands for "people". The connotation
"building"
or "organisation" is completely unknown in the Bible. The wrong
associations have been added in the course of history. The reader shall
have to try to see the word "Church" and its synonyms free from any
misconception conveyed to us by ecclesiastical history. It might be an
achievement in itself.
How it all started
"Some months ago Jesus from Nazareth was crucified, but still his disciples
go on to claim that he is the Messiah of Israel. Previous messianic
movements have always stopped when the leader died. So it has been and
probably will be until the coming of the true Messiah, who will restore the
Kingdom to Israel and deliver us from the detestable Romans."
The Sanhedrin might have thought in this way when they gathered to stop the
apostles Peter and John from "evangelising Israel". No one could anticipate
the proportions of the new messianic movement. Certainly a number of
similar movements had come up before, but they had all vanished together
with their leaders. So it had been. And so it has continued even until the
"messiah", who died in New York some years ago. There is but one exception:
Jesus, the Galilean from Nazareth, who claimed to be the Messiah! His
movement did not die out with Him. Contrary to all others this movement
began to grow rapidly after His death.
The meaning of mission
"And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,
and to the ends of the earth."
Jesus said so. To evangelise is to bear witness to what you have seen and
heard. The source of mission is the Great Commission of Jesus. However,
judging from the results we see today, one might think, that Jesus would
have said something like this instead: "Go to the whole world and build
churches! Organise them in different denominations! Make members of all the
nations!" Well, it may be a slight exaggeration. Many good things have been
achieved. The wording of the Great Commission is, as we all know, not
exactly as quoted. It says: "Therefore go and make disciples of all
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
This is the meaning of mission according to the New Testament.
Consequently, the promise of Jesus to be with us always concerns only
those, who carry out what He told us to do: to make disciples, to baptise
them and teach them to obey His commands.
One reason for the problematic situation of contemporary Christianity may
be a distortion of the original mandate. Priority has been given to
buildings and organisations instead of following the program of Jesus in a
simple manner. So the attitude to mission to the Jews depends on the
interpretation of the concept "mission". The question is: does mission in
the first place aim at making people disciples of Jesus or at "producing"
members for a Christian organisation? Member or disciple? It may indicate
two different directions, although it is possible to be both, of course.
The wrong kind of mission
If we start out from the concept of mission/evangelism formulated above as
being valid, some opponents to mission might not stay so any longer. Some
might just have been opposing the kind of mission that wants to make copies
in Israel of their own churches. It is a type of evangelism that exports
the divided Christianity of their native countries or that believes that
Christianity goes well with Western culture only. Such mission we should
spare Israel. It has never shown to be very fruitful and is being abandoned
more and more. Mission of today tries to transfer the work to the
indigenous people as soon as possible, to be structured by them in an
agreeable manner.
Mission to the Jews - a test case
Mission to the Jews, in Israel or elsewhere, might imply something like a
test of the Gospel. To preach to someone more or less ignorant of the Bible
does not require very much of the preacher. But to talk to a Jew, who knows
his Scripture and even the language in which it is written demands a
thorough examination of one's message.
Israel's advantage
It is evident, that the relation of the Jew to the Gospel is very special
compared to other people or nations. To evangelise the Jewish people we
therefore should be conscious of the fact that they cannot be compared with
other people. Israel has been entrusted with the Word of God. Theirs is the
covenants, the promises, the fathers and Christ according to the flesh.
Israel is the people God chose for His great plan of Redemption. This
election remains although they rejected Messiah (Romans 11:29). Remember
that the Gentiles have become co-workers in God's plan of Redemption in a
later phase than the Jew. This fact must not in any case check our
testimony but cause us to approach the Jew knowing that we talk to one who
is "near" (Eph. 2:17). It is true, that the Jews by rejecting Jesus as
Messiah are branches broken off but still they are natural branches (Romans
11:20). When they by faith are grafted in, it is into their own Olive Tree
(Rom. 11:23). So it is according to the apostle Paul.
Arguments against mission to the Jews
Usually quite a number of arguments are presented to prove that we should
not engage in evangelism of Jews. I want to mention and comment on some of
the most common ones:
¤ "Desiring to convert people of any nation to another religion is, on the
whole, disrespectful (to that nation)"
This opinion has got a certain hold in the World Council of Churches. If it
is wrong to convert Hindus, it is certainly even worse to engage in mission
to the Jews, in Israel or elsewhere. If you still want to call yourself a
Christian, this opinion falls flat because of its absurdity. Were it not
so, both Jesus and all His disciples throughout all times have completely
misunderstood everything.
¤ "We are not to engage in mission to the Jews but in dialogue only"
We should certainly keep a dialogue in the sense of talks. But mission and
dialogue does not necessarily contradict each other. Dialogue must not,
however, suppress the truth or proceed on the expense of the Gospel. Jesus
is our example even in this. His conversation with the woman at Sychar's
well is an outstanding example of good dialogue. We notice other manners in
His polemizing with the Pharisees. But at all times it is the truth that is
fruitful. For Jesus the consequences were not always positive. Resistance
or persecution need not be an indication of wrong behaviour. It can be a
criterion of true discipleship according to Jesus' words in Joh. 15:20.
¤ "The Great Commission is not for Israel. Israel cannot be placed in a row
together with other nations"
Even if Israel must not be compared with other nations, it does not mean
that they are excluded what concerns the Great Commission. Jesus was
engaged in evangelising Jews only. The disciples were told to start in
Israel. Had the statement quoted above been made during the first century,
no one would have taken it seriously. It was a matter of course that the
Great Commission was for Israel. The question at that time was: is it also
for other nations? After some years the matter was settled. Have the rules
been changed since then? If so, when? How do we explain to our fervent
messianic brethren that the Great Commission is not for the Jew?
¤ "The disunity of the Church is a vital hindrance to evangelising Israel.
We are not supposed to 'export' our divided church structure"
Right, so it is. But Jesus has not told us to engage in this kind of
evangelism. Evangelism of the Jew is possible without transferring our
organisations. I am convinced that mission can be carried out in a simple
manner from one person to another in daily life. The best way is by the
Jewish people themselves. The believers-to-be will then create the suitable
structures themselves.
¤ "The blood-stained history of the Church prevents us. Our mouth is
stopped because of it"
It is indeed true, that the Church is stained with blood. In various
periods anti-Semitism and hostility towards all Jewishness has found
dreadful expressions. There have been people in the Church, like in Israel
in Old Testament times, who have not "walked in the footsteps of the faith
that our father Abraham had" (Romans 4:12) but formed an apostate Church.
This apostate Church is guilty of many evil deeds against the Jewish
people. It is too much to expect the Jewish people to know the difference
between true and false Christianity. We must not forget, though, that among
those executed by the Church as heretics were people who refused to deny
their Christian faith and rather became martyrs. Some blood that the Church
has to answer for is blood of Jesus' true disciples.
If this blood-stained conscious of the Church is such a great hindrance to
mission to the Jews, it would consequently form a hindrance for
evangelising in Africa. Think of all the "Christian" countries that
"raped"
a whole continent and sold its peoples as slaves with the benediction of
the Church. This fact has never been an argument against mission to Africa!
I am well aware of historical difficulties hard to overcome, but with God's
love in our hearts we will always find new ways to reach out. In spite of
history and the sins of the Church we are not allowed to silence our
testimony. Historical sins are deplorable and must be condemned. Still the
content or meaning of the Message has not altered.
¤ "Mission to Israel will destroy the Jewish identity and culture. If the
mission to Israel had been successful during the first centuries, the
Jewish people would have been assimilated"
It cannot be correct. How could the Gospel, planned by the God of Israel,
primarily for the Jew (Romans 1:16), be something that destroys his
identity?
God's plan from the beginning was to fulfil Judaism in Jesus Messiah. An
identity in opposition to the identity "in Messiah" is the false one. If
the Gospel is true, then faith in Jesus as the Messiah is something that
makes a Jew what God intended him to be from the very start.
When you assert that the Jewish people would have been assimilated, had
evangelism been successful, you disregard one thing: all the promises
connected to Israel's Redemption should have been fulfilled already. Times
of refreshing should have become a reality (Acts 3:19). God's entire plan
of Redemption should already be completed. Using negative hypothetical
statements allows no leaving out of the positive parts attached to them.
¤ "Eschatological reasons. Evangelising Israel need not be because Israel
is hardened. God Himself will save them without our co-operation"
First of all: Israel as a whole has never been hardened. "Israel has
experienced a hardening in part", Paul writes. There has always been a
remnant that has experienced the fullness in Christ. (Romans 11:25)
Some say that the visible return of Jesus will bring Israel to salvation.
As everyone understands, this opinion does not contribute to regarding
mission to Israel as being important. To support the idea that Israel will
be saved at the return of Jesus, verse 10 in Zech.12, is often used as a
proof text: "And I will pour out on the house of David and the
inhabitants
of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the
one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an
only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."
Surely the passage deals with the salvation of Israel but I believe for
different reasons, that the text does not refer to the return of Christ.
"They will look on me, the one they have pierced" is supposed to be
metaphorical language, for excellent reasons.
Firstly: Are they likely to mourn in this way if the Messiah would appear
in a visible manner?
Secondly: One should not formulate a doctrine based upon one Old Testament
scripture only; in this case even a scripture of dispute. Instead the
unequivocal clear-cut scriptures should be allowed to interpret the less
distinct ones. Paul touches on this subject in Romans 11:23:"And if they
do
not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft
them in again."
And: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we
do
not see." (Hebrews 11:1)
Thirdly: It is very odd if Israel were to be saved in another way than
Abraham and all the heroes of faith numbered in Hebrews 11. We have rightly
applied the well-known teaching in Romans 10 to ourselves, the Gentiles,
but the chapter deals with the salvation of the Jew in the first place.
Believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth brings salvation. To
the Jew first and also to the Greek!
If the visible appearance of Christ will be what saves Israel, one would
expect it to save all that see Him according to the scripture: "every
eye
will see him,..." (Rev. 1:7) The New Testament gives no support to the
thought that saving faith will be given at the return of Christ. Instead
the faith that already exists will be tested. The Gospel is first for the
Jew. Therefore the Jew must in the first place accept the Messiah who came
before being ready to meet the Messiah to come.
¤ "Israel need not be evangelised. Being the seed of Abraham the Jew has
got his fellowship with God anyhow. We should encourage them to live by the
Sinai covenant and to expect the Messiah."
These arguments can be traced back to the renowned Jewish philosopher Moses
Maimonides (1135-1204). He developed a theory: Christianity is right for
the Gentiles because it leads them away from idolatry to worship the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob instead. Christianity is an imperfect religion in
its worshipping both God and man (Jesus) but in any case better than mere
paganism.
The thoughts of Maimonides were brought up by the Jewish theologian Franz
Rosenzweig in the beginning of 1900. In his book "The star of Redemption"
(1921) he develops what in contemporary language is called "Two Covenant
Theology". According to Rosenzweig Jesus is the Messiah of the Gentiles but
not of the Jews. He gave new interpretation to the words of Jesus in Joh
14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me." Rosenzweig interpreted this that Jesus is for the
Gentile only. The Jew is already with the Father. Consequently he does not
need to come to the Father. If this is true, then it is quite
incomprehensible why Jesus wept over Jerusalem. You might also wonder why
Paul had such "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" for the sake of his
brothers according to the flesh.
For people who confess this "theory" the relations to Judaism become less
complicated. The stumbling block is removed. The "Two Covenant Theology"
demands nothing of Judaism as it originates from it. It legitimates its
anti-messianic disposition to Jesus. But of the Christian (the messianic
Jew) it demands all because the creed is so important. "Whoever
acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in
heaven." (Matthew 10:32)
"If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed
die
in your sins." (Joh 8:24)."That if you confess with your mouth,
"Jesus is
Lord", and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will
be
saved." (Romans 10:9)
The last verse is about how the Jew is saved. The main thing is to confess
Jesus as "LORD," as possessing the holy, unspeakable God's Name
"I AM". A
correct confession of Jesus is decisive for our relationship to God and for
our salvation. So, if Jesus is not the Messiah of Israel, He is nobody's
Messiah! The Scripture never promised a Messiah only to the Gentiles! Other
religions, for instance the New Age Movement, speak about various
messiah-characters, but the religion of the Bible never does. Therefore the
Christian faith stands or falls with the answer to the question: Is Jesus
the Messiah of the Jews?
Conclusion
Some people think that such a long time has passed since Jesus appeared
that we should stop defending the doctrines of the New Testament. Maybe God
has abandoned His original plan and consequently Israel does not need to
believe that Jesus has come; rather they should concentrate on His Second
Coming?
This kind of thinking is nothing but a useless effort to turn the history
of Redemption back and give the present time the same conditions as before
Christ's first coming to us. This thinking may come out of love for Israel,
out of a desire to create good relations with Judaism, but the question
remains: is it true?
The Messiah-concept in the Bible is too fundamental to be distorted. 2000
years are not to the Lord what they are to us. He does not abandon His
original plan neither for arguments about time nor for historical motives.
I believe that the Gospel about the Kingdom is of first importance to the
Lord. The words of Jesus oppose any argument against mission to the Jews.
Who am I, then, to annul the words of Him, who also said: "Heaven and earth
will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:35)
The debate about evangelising Israel and the Jewish people is ultimately
about the validity of Jesus' words. If we believe, that His words still are
valid, we will have obvious problems in disputing evangelism of Jews
wherever they are.
To work against mission in general and against evangelism of the Jews in
particular might turn out to be fatal. According to 1 Thess. 2:15-16 we
become enemies of all mankind and the wrath of God will come upon us if we
stop the spreading of the Gospel. It concerns both Jew and Gentile. And it
shows the significance of God's Great Commission.
The ultimate goal of evangelising Israel is the salvation of all Israel.
When you have become aware of the promises connected to the grafting in of
the natural branches into their own Olive Tree, it is easier to understand
the importance of mission to the Jews. The greatest blessings and promises
for our time are bound up with the restoration of Israel, with their
spiritual exodus. (Romans 11:15) Therefore, the consummation of God's plan
of Redemption for our time cannot come before Israel accepts Jesus the
Messiah. We must see that God's enemy has very strong motives to stop it.
In one way or the other true love to Israel is expressed by a desire to
return to them the very best that we have got from them. If Jesus matters
to you, He matters to the Jews that much more!
Stigåke Gerdvall
Translation from Swedish: Birgitta Hällström
************************************************************************