Judaism for Non-Jews or God for Everyone?

This entry is a response to Shmuley Boteach's opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, “No Holds Barred: Non-Jews as the saviors of Judaism”, which was previously posted on this blog here. To read Shmuley's full article click here.

One of my many concerns with rabbinic Judaism is its exclusive focus on the Jewish people. Perhaps that makes sense as a religion of the Jewish people, but unfortunately God's calling was not to create our exclusive religion. His desire for us as a people was much greater (and fulfilling)- bless the whole world! (see Genesis 12:3) God said through the prophet Isaiah, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6, emphasis mine). God is clearly speaking to an individual, “My Servant”, who I believe is the Messiah, but I also think Israel has a part in being this light. God chose Israel, and from Israel the Messiah, for a very specific purpose- bring salvation to the whole world!

That said, I'd like to turn to Shmuley's article. While he seems to present an open and welcoming stance toward the nations, ultimately it's quite self-focused. He writes, “Having non-Jews become excited about Judaism is the most effective way to address assimilation, because Jews would now be blending into a culture that embraces and honors their tradition.” Shmuley expresses more concern here with preserving this exclusive religion than fulfilling God's purpose for us.

Shmuley presents a “seven-step program” to implement his plan. Here it is:

" 1. Observe Friday night as family night (see www.fridayisfamily.com) by tuning out all electronic interference and focusing on children, friends and community.

2. Eat kosher food (20 percent of Americans already look for kosher symbols for cleanliness and purity) and separate milk from meat as a symbol of the affirmation of life and its negation from all forms of corrosion and death.

3. Celebrate the themes of the Jewish festivals. Passover Seders, emphasizing the human capacity to rise above material enslavement (President Barack Obama already hosts his own annual Seder), transcending a reliance on material comforts by returning to the essentials of nature on Succot, lighting lamps on Hanukka as a symbol of the human capacity to illuminate a dark earth and heal a painful life, and reorienting ourselves to the essential laws of ethics and morality on Shavuot.

4. Studying Judaism’s great texts, from the Torah portion of the week to selections of the Talmud, to the epistles of Maimonides, to kabbalistic and hassidic works.

5. Observing the marriage laws, including the monthly act of sexual separation thereby creating an erotic barrier that enhances lust and pleasure (see my book Kosher Sex).

6. Appreciation of, and respect for, the feminine, including codes of alluring modesty for women, and domesticity and marital commitment for men, all necessary in an age where teens like Miley Cyrus are already pole-dancing and stars like George Clooney can’t commit.

7. A commitment to acts of communal kindness, such as regular visits to hospitals and homes for the elderly and giving 10 percent of one’s income to charity. "

These points could be viewed as Shmuley's version of the 7 Noahide Laws, but they are much more dubious. Shmuley explicitly states that he is not interested in converting non-Jews, yet if you read his list it looks awfully close to conversion!

Separating milk and meat!?! This is supposed to be some great Jewish principle? I don't quite understand how this is a “symbol of the affirmation of life and its negation from all forms of corrosion and death”.

I agree with the idea of spreading Biblical (Jewish) values. Number 7 is a point I can support. If you read the rest of the points, however, you quickly notice that “Biblical” is not an issue all. For example, he cites Madonna, in another part of the article, as an example because she dabbles in a popular form of kabbalah. This is supposed to be a positive example for us? My opinion on kabbalah is material for a separate entry, but I will say that study of kabbalah seems to have near to nothing to done with God or the Tanakh. 

Speaking of God, by the way, where does He appear in this seven-step program? He does not even make a cameo appearance!! This “incidental” omission of God is an unfortunate tendency in some (or many) forms of rabbinic Judaism. They may promote Jewish values and keeping kosher, but what about loving God? Why is this not number one on the list?

Shmuley bluntly states, “Judaism has failed”. He mentions high rates of assimilation and the poor image Israel has in the world. I agree with him, there is a problem. Rabbinic Judaism has failed to provide the solution. I'm sorry, Shmuley, but your solution is no better, if not worse. The only solution is to return to GOD, not Jewish values based on traditions of men, and embrace our calling as a light to the nations. We, as Israel, must obey God and His commandments. God has given us a choice: life or death (see Deuteronomy 30). Let us chose the path of life! God has even promised us His Spirit to enable us to follow His decrees (Ezekiel 36:27). Only then can we go to the corners of the earth and teach the nations the greatness of our God!

Why I believe the Torah is still relevant.

The Torah is a central issue in how we relate to God as Jews and how we live our lives. It is essential to know whether we should keep the commandments, as given in Torah, or not. First of all, I use the term “observe Torah” as an equivalent to “obey God”. Secondly, I am speaking stricly of the written Torah, and not rabbinic interpretations and halakhah, i.e. the oral Torah.

I believe the question of observing Torah is a simple matter.
The basis is that Torah is God’s commandments to Israel, and there is no indication that it is a temporary system. The burden of proof is on those who say Jews do not need to observe Torah.

Most all arguments against observing Torah come from Shaul’s letters. We can address his different statements in another place because it is not my intention to do that here. I merely note that I am aware of these arguments. One who takes this stance against Torah has to deal with Yeshua’s own words that he did not come to abolish the Torah (Matt. 5:17).

Putting Shaul’s points aside, which were written to Gentiles, not Jews, there is a very logical argument based on historical evidence.

The largest issue that arose when the message of Yeshua began to spread to the nations was whether Gentiles need to be circumcised and follow the Torah. The elders in Jerusalem decided that Gentiles were not required to observe all of Torah (Acts 15). The underlining assumption was that Jews still must follow God´s commandments as given in the Torah. Otherwise it never would have been an issue for the Gentiles! The question would have been asked if anyone needs to observe Torah. This question is not raised.

One response I have heard is that the elders had not quite understood what Yeshua had done and the consequences for us. As time passed more revelation was given and it was understood that none need to observe Torah. I find this argument speculative at best and at worst preposterous.

If anyone has a better explanation I am ready to listen. Otherwise I am going to follow the example of Yeshua´s own students, who knew him quite well, and observe Torah as an expression of my love for God.

עשרת הדברים

Yesterday I decided to read about לוחות הברית (the tablets of the covenants) to see how one might come to the interpretation that מלאך יהוה (the Angel of the LORD) wrote them. As a side note, there are some that claim that the Angel of the LORD is a pre-incarnated Yeshua, which is another topic altogether.

This brief investigation brought me to some interesting thoughts, not necessarily related to the Angel of the LORD.

First of all, the account of giving the tablets appears in Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10. In both places the same phrase is used that they were written באצבע אלהים (the finger of God). This seems to be the primary basis for this argument. To be fair I've never heard the argument developed fully, only references as if it is widely understood and accepted. Why are believers so uncomfortable with anthropomorphisms? Why does every reference, for example, to God's right hand have to be Yeshua?

As I looked at the passages I noticed some other things. The "Ten Commandments" are listed in Exodus 20, but the description of giving the tablets, referred to as לוחות הברית או לוחות העדות (the tablets of the covenant or of the testimony), isn't until chapter 31. In Deuteronomy the "Ten Commandments" are in chapter 5, but the tablets are given in chapter 9. What's interesting is that there are other commandments given in the chapters in between, in both books. My first thought was why then are the "Ten Commandments" thought of being the ones written on the tablets. Then as I read more I realized that it is indeed explicit in the text.
ויגד לכם את בריתו אשר צוה אתכם לעשות עשרת הדברים ויכתבם על שני לחות אבנים (Deut. 4:13; cf. Ex. 34:28, Deut 10:4)

Clearly it is significant that God commanded to write these particular ten utterances on tablets of stone. But did He intend such a huge separation of understanding between these ten things (note that they are not all commandments) and the rest of His commandments? What I mean by this is the way some state that the Ten Commandments are what we must all keep for all time, but the rest of the Torah has passed away.

Maybe we get this division from Yeshua?
The only reference Yeshua makes to the Ten Commandments, that I am aware of, is the well-known story of the "rich young man" (Matt 19; Mark 10).
When asked what one must do to inherit eternal life Yeshua responded, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself". (Matt. 19:18)
I only count 5 out of the ten, and he adds this thing about loving your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). Was his memory that bad?

When asked what is the greatest commandment, he forgot the "Ten Commandments" completely . He responded with love God (Duet 6:5) and love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). All of the Torah and the Prophets hang on these two.

שמירת מצוות התורה - ציציות

Much has been said in our circles on the question of 'observing Torah' - most of it in the abstract. Instead of theory, let's talk specifics! What does it mean for us today when Adonai says:

דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם וְעָשׂ֨וּ לָהֶ֥ם צִיצִ֛ת עַל־כַּנְפֵ֥י בִגְדֵיהֶ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָ֑ם וְנָ֥תְנ֛וּ עַל־צִיצִ֥ת הַכָּנָ֖ף פְּתִ֥יל תְּכֵֽלֶת׃ וְהָיָ֣ה לָכֶם֮ לְצִיצִת֒ וּרְאִיתֶ֣ם אֹת֗וֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹ֣ת יְהוָ֔ה וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־תָתֻ֜רוּ אַחֲרֵ֤י לְבַבְכֶם֙ וְאַחֲרֵ֣י עֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַחֲרֵיהֶֽם׃

[Num. 15:38-39]

He says בגדיהם in the plural - does this mean we have to 'make tassels' on every single piece of clothing? Not only, say, a shirt or tunic; but also pants, jackets, socks, pajamas, hats, kipot? But wait; ציצית is singular! Was God's intention that we make one huge tassel for all the garments of Israel? Or that we each have only one tassel? Or one tassel per garment? It's confusing!

The more I think about it, the more questions arise! Does תכלת just mean 'blue', or does it refer to the color of a special dye manufactured from a certain species of sea creature? Do the non-blue tassels have to be the same color as the garment, to show they are part of it? Or maybe they should be a different color, to highlight their special function?

What about current rabbinic practice: instead of adding tassels to regular garments, 'Orthodox' Jews simply make a separate, special piece of clothing with tassels to wear every day (טלית קטן). Does that satisfy the commandment of Torah? Or how about Reform-style practice, wearing no טלית קטן but a טלית גדול once a week (or a year)? Incidentally, do the tassels have to show on the outside, or can I tuck them into my other garments? Should women also have ציציות, or is this commandment just for men?

In just a few minutes, I've come up with several questions related to how to keep this commandment. And I could go on and on. The words of the מצוה do not themselves answer my questions. So what do I do? The response of rabbinic and rabbinic-like Judaisms has been to try to standardize every single detail, to answer every single possible question with an "authoritative" prescription. A council of rabbis (or other 'clerics') decides what "must" be done - and that becomes the "doctrine" or teaching of the religion or denomination.

My view is the opposite. If God left it unsaid, where do these councils get the hubris to impose conformity on a free people? To put themselves in the place of God and issue additional מצוות to כל עם ישראל? To forbid what is not forbidden by Torah itself? Why do they even want to control every aspect of everyone's behavior? Is this not totalitarianism?

The wording of this commandment, as well as many others, leaves open the possibility of a wide variety of forms or styles in observance. In my opinion, each of us should make an effort to keep this commandment. Personally, I see no problem with one person wearing טלית קטן every day, another wearing טלית גדול only on shabbat, a third attaching green (and blue) fringes to his yellow football shirt, and a fourth wearing a brown poncho with brown and blue fringes. What in the world is the problem with this?? Only fascists want to eliminate all variety from life and force everyone to think and act identically.

God said for us to have ציציות on our clothes as a visual reminder of His commandments; i.e., of how He wants us to live. We should therefore have ציציות on our clothes as a visual reminder of His commandments. What we should not do is to ignore this instruction completely. We should also not ignore it in part, (e.g.) by explaining away the need for a blue cord. Yet neither should we obsess over what isn't clear. Not all details have been given, leaving many questions open to a multiplicity of interpretations. The possible existence of a variety of practices (ways of keeping this commandment) should be viewed as a positive phenomena and deeply enriching to Jewish life. Most importantly, none of us should attempt to impose one particular interpretation of these unprescribed details on everyone else. That does violence to God's commandments and also to the creativity and freedom He has implanted in every human spirit.