by David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai
Translated by Halvor Ronning[1]
Dedicated to the memory of Gregory Steen[2]
In August 1769 Lavater urged Moses Mendelssohn to undergo conversion to Christianity, thereby causing much distress to Mendelssohn.[4] For our subject it is especially productive to consider the letter that Mendelssohn wrote to the Crown Prince of Braunschweig-Wolfenbuettel.[5] Among other things, he wrote: “The founder of the Christian religion never explicitly said he wanted to remove the Mosaic Law, nor to dispense with the Jews. Such a notion, I do not find in any of the Evangelists. For a long time the apostles and disciples still had their doubts as to whether Gentile believers must accept the Mosaic Law and be circumcised. Eventually, it was decided ‘not to lay too heavy a burden upon them’ (Acts 15:28). This agrees completely with the teaching of the rabbis, as I noted in my letter to Lavater. But as regards the Jews, when they accept Christianity, I find no basis in the New Testament for exempting them from the Mosaic commandments. On the contrary, the apostle himself had Timothy circumcised. Therefore, it should be clear that there is no way that I could free myself from the Mosaic Law.”
When Mendelssohn spoke of “the teaching of the rabbis,” he was referring to what he had written to Lavater, “All our rabbis are united in teaching that the written and oral commandments, of which our religion consists, are binding only on our nation…all other peoples of the earth, we believe, are commanded by God to obey the law of nature and the religion of the patriarchs.”[6]
You must be a premium member to view this premium content. Subscribe to Premium Membership (not Basic) or login (as Premium Member) over on right side of any page. Click “Signup” link at top for more information.
- [1] The translator would like to thank Horst Krüger, Christina Krüger, and especially Dr. Guido Baltes, for their invaluable assistance in preparing this translation. ↩
- [2] This article’s translation to English was made possible through the generous financial assistance of Paul, Clarice and Jeffery Steen, the loving father, mother and brother of Gregory. ↩
- [3] Jerusalem Perspective wishes to thank Dr. Volker Hampel and Neukirchener Verlag (http://www.neukirchener-verlagsgesellschaft.de) for permission to publish this article in English. ↩
- [4] David Flusser, “Lavater and Nathan, the Wise,” in Bemerkungen eines Juden zur christlichen Theologie (1984): 82-93. ↩
- [5] M. Mendelssohn, Schriften zum Judentum (1930), 1:303. ↩
- [6] Ibid., 10-11. ↩
You must be a Premium or Basic Member to post a comment.
Need help? Check out our Video: How to become a Basic Member.
Shopping Cart 
Your shopping cart is empty
Visit the shop
Excellent article! Well thought-out and written! However, I am struggling with a scriptural exception, which was not presented. And, perhaps, an additional article needs to be considered–myself not knowing if an article already exists or has been presented on this website.
Anyhow, it seems obvious that the Jerusalem Council understood the severity of laying upon the non-Jewish believers the yoke of circumcision and the law of Moses (haTorat) (Acts 15:5b), since they themselves could not keep it, and that God himself saved them through faith just like he was doing among the non-Jews.
However, in verse 21 of Acts 15 it reads, “For Moses (the Torah) has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” This verse, sadly, has been ignored in such discussions of non-Jewish participation in the Instructionsof God (Torah).
Myself and many other Jewish believers understand this passage as simply stating that as all believers–Jews and non-Jews–are gathered throughout the cities in various synagogoues and homes enjoying fellowship with one another, the Torah would begin to take-hold in their lives along with other aspects of Torah would be observed. Not in the context of “necessity” (dei-GK) (Acts 15:5, NKJV), but out of self-definition. Surely, not all aspects to the Torah are meant to apply to non-Jews, just like particular laws do not apply to men but women; however, there are many passages in the Tanakh and New Testament, which brings to light a tremendous amount of halackhot for both Jew and non-Jew, whom want to walk in God’s ways.
It is safe to presume that the brother of Jesus, James, and the other Apostles, including Paul, understood the present view of the Noahide laws; however, it is also safe to presume that they realized they were in the presence of prophecy being fulfilled with God’s hand of salvation being made available among the non-Jews (See, Jeremiah 31). If so, then, I doubt that the Apostles desired or intended that with giving these “Noahide” Laws to the non-Jewish believers that the matter was closed for further, progressive discussion. Given that the very next verse addresses where James midset was at.
There is still much to discuss about this matter including defined halachot for New Covenant beleivers as Jews and non-Jews.
Mendelssohn’s assertion that believing Jews must keep the Torah of Moses according to the Apostolic church is fabulous; however, I would assert that the Apostolic church also had more instructions and halachot for non-Jewish believers than the Apostolic Decree in Acts fiftteen, which is attested to within the Epistles.
Either way, these are merely my thoughts and if anything, it would be nice to read an article by a scholar at JP, which addresses Acts 15:21 in light of the Apostolic Decree and what it means if I am indeed wrong from the start of my premise.
Finally, and additionally, what we (Jewish and Christian scholars, historians, and theologians, including a few of us aged-students who think we are “something”) tend to refer to as early Chirstianity or Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians of the first centruy is a disservice to the believing Jews of the period. Why? Because it continues to allow for students, scholars, and lay-persons alike to ignore the greater picture of Messianic Jews and Gentiles worshiping in concert with one Messiah prior to the distruction of the Temple, under the banner of first-century Judaism.(Esphesians 2:15; Romans 11, et al.).
This has given room for Jews to ignore the Modern Messianic Movement, and to allow for the belief that Jesus is merely the messiah of the Gentiles. Also, for Christians to suggest the same, leaving division between who and what the Jewish messiah means for the entire world–Jew and Gentile.
Sincerely,
Adrian A. Bernal, M.T.S.
Columbia Evangelical Seminary
I have many questions on this article — on its historical and halachic aspects as well as on its theological message — but I’ll limit myself to one critical remark that to me is central as to the question of its theological coherence as well as relevant for its practical application and impact.
In the Appendix Flusser & Safrai refer to “the twin streams of the early church”, and express their agreement to the opinion of Toland (1670-1722), who, in his book Nazarenus, “held the view that Jewish Christians were forever obligated to observe the Law of Moses, while the Christians of Gentile background, who lived among them, needed only to observe the Noahide commandments, abstaining from eating blood and making offerings to idols”.
My question is about the phrase “who lived among them”. This phrase expresses an assumption which has to be clarified. For if the Jewish Christians observed the entire Law of Moses, why would Gentile Christians, who were only to observe the Noahide commandments “live among them”. I guess such a living together of two groups with very different lifestyles would be highly impractical. To my intuition there would be no sufficient reasons for such a living together. If Flusser & Safrai are historically and exegetically correct one would expect that Jewish Christians would live in a traditional community framework shaped by the Law and Jewish custom, while the Gentiles would live without this framework, and thus live their lives outside this Jewish community setting.
To give an example: Since the Gentile Christians were not expected to keep the Sabbath, there’s no reason to suppose that they visited the Synagogue on this day and worshipped together with their Jewish fellow believers. The Sabbath, which isn’t included in the Noahide commandments, was irrelevant for them. And so were all the other feasts and celebrations.
It appears to me, therefore, that according to this article one has to say that there were almost no tangible ties between the Jewish and the non-Jewish part of what is called the “church”. This would lead to the conclusion that, from a practical perspective, according to the authors there was only a Jewish church, in the sense of a real community of believers in Christ, bound together by a common religious lifestyle. On the basis of the Noahide commandments it is impossible to establish such a community. Noahidism knows of no celebrations, holy days, or any other communal religious observances.
For all practical purposes the Gentile believers found themselves outside this church. They may have shared the faith in the same G-d of Israel and in the same Messiah, but on the basis of the Noahide commandments they simply didn’t have the means to form a community on their own, while at the same time they found themselves excluded from the Jewish church.
To me this is a strong indication that the vision proposed in the article cannot be theologically correct. The NT Scriptures, in particular the Pauline Epistles, emphasize the unity of the church as well as strong practical and communal ties among its members. Such strong ties can only be imagined if all live under largely same set of rules. And this implies that there are only two possibilities for having a Christian church comprizing both Jews and non-Jews: Either all are to observe the Law of Moses, or none are. You cannot have one church, as the expression of the One Body of Christ, with within it two lifestyles so divergent from each other as the Mosaic and the Noahide ones. This simply doesn’t work. It can only lead to a complete separation of Gentile and Jewish Christians, which is what happened historically.
Onesimus:
Excellent argument.
Shalom.