Gentile Torah Observance: Common Objections

A Collection of Commonly Used Theological Arguments Against Full Torah Observance by Gentile Christians

 

The following is a collection of arguments against the theological position that endorses or encourages full Torah observance by Gentile believers in Messiah Yeshua. It is our purpose to study each of these arguments in detail, and, in articles that will follow, to comment on them, and, if possible, to refute them or to give counter arguments. This stock-taking of arguments will be clarifying for discovering the proper position of Gentile believers in the Messianic Community in regard of the much debated question whether they should be Torah observant.

 

To be clear in this matter, it is not our own position that Gentiles should refrain from Torah observance, nor is it our position, at the moment, that Gentiles are obliged to become Torah observant. We are simply trying to analyse all the relevant arguments in this difficult question, and possibly to attain at a biblically sustained solution.

 

 

1. Blurring the Jew-Gentile distinction

The distinction Jew-Gentile is blurred out by Gentile Torah observance. Full Torah observance by Gentiles threatens the distinctiveness of the Jewish people. The Jewish people is a distinct nation that should keep its caracteristic features even within the context of the Messianic Community. When Yeshua the Messiah reconciled the two (Jew and Gentile) in one Body (Eph. 2:15-16), this presupposes that the two are and remain distinct. Their harmonious unity in Messiah does not make them the same.

 

2. Prohibition of Circumcision

Paul prohibits circumcision for Gentiles. If such a fundamental commandment as circumcision is prohibited for Gentiles it is at least probable that other ritual commandments are discouraged or prohibited as well. In Paul’s letters not a singular instance is found where Gentiles are encouraged or commanded to keep the ritual commandments. Sometimes it is said for example that Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to keep Passover in 1 Cor. 5:8. However, this verse is perhaps not dealing with kosher lePesah but about the “leaven of malice and wickedness” and “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. Paul is attending his readers to the moral commandments by pointing to the Passover sacrifice of Messiah (5:7), that is the Crucifixion. He tells them they are living now in the post-Crucifixion era, that is figuratively in the time-period of unleavened bread. There seems to be evidence enough that Paul was not teaching Torah (in the sense of the ritual commandments) to Gentiles. The Passover Seder could only be celebrated legitimately in Jerusalem, not in Corinth. And every male involved in its official celebration would have to be circumcised. The Corinthian Gentiles could have a meal of Messiah of course, but not the Seder as commanded in the Torah.

 

3. Circumcision versus Conversion

It is said by Thomas Lancaster (The Mystery of the Gospel) and Tim Hegg (Fellow Heirs) that the prohibition of circumcision by Paul is only a prohibition of the rabbinic conversion ritual, not a prohibition of circumcision as such. Paul however seems to prohibit circumcision for Gentiles in general terms and without exceptions. In the writings of Paul there is not found a distinction between two kinds of circumcision. As “the circumcision” for Paul is a shorthand term for the Jewish nation in its (temporal) covenantal status and responsibility, a circumcised Gentile is an oxymoron, for by covenantal circumcision a Gentile is incorporated into Israel, the Jewish people.

 

4. “Staying in the Condition in which one was Called” (I Cor. 7:18-24)

Paul explicitly says that each member of the Messianic Community must stay in the condition he was in when he was called (1 Cor. 7:18-24). This excludes the option of a circumcision “later on” of the Gentile members. Paul clearly prohibits circumcision and he warns the wannabe circumcised Gentile that, as soon as he gets circumcised, he is kept to fulfil all of the Torah. In other terms, Paul warns the wannabe circumcised Gentile that by circumcision he incorporates himself into Israel (and consequently becomes a proselyte Jew — Gal. 5:3). This implies that Paul recognizes the rabbinic conversion ritual as valid. There is no indication in Paul’s letters that he acknowledges a category of circumcised non-Jews.

 

5. Two Kinds of Circumcision

If one says that Paul does not want Gentiles to undergo circumcision because he does not want them to become Jews according to the conversion standards of the established Judaism of his days, that is probably right. But that still does not allow Gentiles to get circumcised by way of what Lancaster and Hegg call “the simple commandment of Scripture” over against circumcision as a conversion ritual. Paul never makes this distinction between two kinds of circumcision. He does not want the Gentiles getting circumcised because in his eyes this would imply conversion. For it is clear that to get circumcised in a covenantal way is to become a member of the community of the circumcised. Now the community of the circumcised is Israel according to Paul. The Jewish people is called “the circumcision”. A circumcised Gentile therefore becomes an Israelite, a member of the Jewish people, and thus a Jew. There is no need at all to distinguish between two kinds of circumcision. And there is also no evidence that Paul ever questioned the legitimacy of the conversion ritual as such. That this ritual is not found in Scripture is no argument. As a Pharisee Paul recognized many of the developed customs as legitimate. There is for example no marriage ritual found in Scripture either. Would that imply that the ritual marriage celebration and contract are null and void? Hardly. Paul simply does not want the Gentiles to become circumcised, because he wants them to receive the blessing of Abraham in Messiah as Gentiles, so that the truth of the Shema shines forth, that the One G’d of Israel (“Hear o Israel, HaShem is our G’d…”) becomes known as the One G’d for all mankind (“… HaShem is One”). He is, as Paul says, not the G’d of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also. By becoming circumcised, however, the Gentiles would become included in the community of the circumcised, and become Israelites. They would no longer receive their blessing as Gentiles. They would thereby declare that G’d is the G’d of the Jews only. This may be the major point of Paul’s prohibition of circumcision, and thus of full Torah observance, for Gentiles.

 

6. “One Law for the Homeborn and the Stranger”

It is not convincing to deduce from the often cited formula that there shall be one law for the born Israelite and for the stranger, that the circumcised Gentile remains a Gentile. This sentence is simply a warning against discrimination within Israel, of making a distinction, as if there were two classes of Israelites. There is only one class of Israelites, that is what the Torah is saying by this formula. The circumcised stranger is fully absorbed by the Jewish people. He is called a stranger only because he is no descendant of Jacob. And it is obvious that his descendants (or the fourth generation of them) are Jewish. They are all members of the same nation. Nowadays Gentile members of the Messianic Community however do not (have to) become members of the Jewish nation. They remain members of their own nations. They only partake of the spiritual blessings of the Jewish people, not of Jewish peoplehood. This was different in times before Messiah. But the position thas favours full Torah observance for Gentile members of the Messianic Community inevitably leads to the absorbtion of the Gentile believers into the believing remnant of Israel. Even if the circumcised Gentiles are still considered to be Gentiles, this will no longer be the case within a few generations. The posterity of these Gentiles will be considered Jewish, if their parents follow the commandments of the Torah and circumcise their sons at the eight day. There is no longer any practical difference between them and the Jewish members. The difference between Jew and Gentile is reduced to a difference in descent only. But as this difference in descent is not expressed by visible distinctions anymore, it becomes a hidden difference. All members of the Messianic Community will be considered Jewish. And this surely leads to the result that the wrong message is communicated that the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah is something for Jews only. This seems to be a very problematic consequence of the “One People, one Torah” view.

 

7. Only Jews are Israelites

If a Gentile member of the Messianic Community does not become a Jew, then he is not an Israelite, for Israelites are Jews and only Jews are Israelites. But if a Gentile believer is no Israelite, he is unable to recite the first half of the Shema. He cannot say to himself: “Hear o Israel, HaShem is our G’d…” for he is not Israel. The Gentile is not an Israelite. He cannot replace Israel or the Israelites. Only an Israelite, a Jew, can legitimately recite the Shema. This proves that a Gentile is not called to full Torah observance, except when he becomes a Jew, because reciting the Shema is one of the commandments. But becoming a Jew is what Paul forbids for Gentile members of the Messianic Community. A Gentile may recite however the formula of Zecharia (sometimes called the Gentile’s Shema): “HaShem shall be King over all the earth. In that day HaShem shall be One and His Name One”.

 

8. Replacement Theology

If Gentile members of the Messianic Community were able to fulfil all the commandments of the Torah, Israel could be replaced by the Gentile part of the Messianic community. Full Torah observance for Gentiles implies Replacement Theology. A restoration of the Jewish people is no longer needed in this scheme, for Gentiles can take things over. But as this is simply not true, because of G’ds faithfulness to His people Israel, Gentiles are not in the position to fulfil all the commandments.

 

9. Gentiles in the Temple Contrary to Paul

If Gentiles were called to full Torah observance and were to be circumcised “later on” while remaining Gentiles as is suggested by Lancaster and Hegg, this would in Paul’s days have resulted in Gentiles visiting the Temple, entering the court of the Israelites and bringing sacrifices as if they were Israelites. Bringing Gentiles into the Temple was exactly what Paul was charged of by his Jewish accusers and that accusation was vehemently denied by him, according to Luke (Acts 21:28; 24:6; sed contra: 25:8). Now, one may ask, if Gentiles were encouraged by Paul to full Torah observance, would this accusation not have been true? Gentiles dressed like Jews, wearing tzitzit for example, would have been discovered and exposed by the Jewish people as counterfeit Jews and copy cats. This would have resulted in gravely deepening the already existing tensions between the Messianic Community and the Jewish people, and it would have fueled the distrust of the Jewish people and its leadership against the “Messianics”. Consider two cases: (1) A non-circumcised Gentile Christian wearing tzitzit. For Jews this would be an impostor, because tzitzit symbolize full Torah observance (Num. 15:39). That implies of course circumcision. So an uncircumcised Gentile wearing tzitzit is clearly a Gentile who tries to hide his Gentile identity, and thus an impostor. (2) A circumcised Gentile wearing tzitzit. This Gentile would perhaps, even if he had not followed the conversion procedure of the Rabbis, be benevolently considered a Jew. However, this would be contrary to Paul’s teaching that Gentiles ought to remain Gentiles. But in case this Gentile were not considered a Jew, because of not following the proper procedure of rabbinic conversion, he too would be considered an impostor or faker by the Jewish people. How would Paul be able then to defend himself against his accusers if he really encouraged the Gentile believers to act in this way?

 

10. The Paradox of I Cor. 7:19

I Cor. 7:19 at first sight seems to be paradoxical. First Paul states that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, and then he states that keeping the commandments is something. This second statement seems to imply that Gentiles must be circumcised because circumcision is one of the commandments. However, when Paul says: “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments” this does not necessarily mean that both the circumcision (the Jews) and the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) have the same set of commandments, but simply that each group is to fulfil the set of commandments it is bound to. Paul distinguishes for instance between commandments for masters and for slaves, for men and for women, for parents and for children, so why not between commandments for Jews and for non-Jews?

 

11. The Apostolic Council of Acts XV

The interpretation of Acts Ch. XV is very important concerning the issue of Gentile Torah-observance. Lancaster and Hegg interpret Acts 15:21 as implying that Gentiles are encouraged to embrace the entire Torah at their own pace. This interpretation however is not the only one possible. Perhaps the explanation of this verse is that Moses will not be forgotten when the Gentiles enter the community of the redeemed, because “of old time Moses hath in every city them that preach him.” That would imply that Gentiles need not to take upon themselves the ritual commandments (Chukim), because the Jews do them already in every city. The verse would thus be about the priestly function of the Jewish people (Ex 19:5-6), not about Gentiles learning the ritual commandments from the weekly (=Sabbath) Torah reading. Gentiles would visit the Sabbath services of course as far they were able to, and learn to lead an ethical life, but that does not imply they kept the Sabbath commandments. In many cases this was even not possible because their social circumstances were very different from those of the Jews, especially when they were slaves of non-Jewish masters.

 

This interpretation seems to be supported by Acts Ch. XXI, where we find no possibility at all in favour of the opinion that expects Gentiles to follow the ritual commandments. In this chapter the division is very simple. Jewish believers are to follow the entire Torah and the customs (21:21 & 21:24), whereas Gentile believers are to follow instead the four regulations of the Jerusalem Council against idolatry (21:25). There is no mention at all in this chapter about Gentiles hearing Torah readings. If this however was so important, why is it not mentioned?

 

12. “Inclusion in Israel”

It is often stated by Lancaster and Hegg that Gentile believers are included in (or become part of) Israel. Paul however never directly says this. Paul’s vision seems to be that Gentiles are included in the Body of Messiah on equal footing with the Jewish believers, without becoming Jews and without becoming “Israel” or “Israelites”. They are received in the Body of Messiah as Gentile members. When Paul says that Gentiles are ingrafted in the Olive Tree of Israel as Gentile branches, this does signify their partaking in the blessings from the root (the Patriarchs, especially Abraham). It does not in any way signify the Gentiles becoming “Israelites” or “spiritual Israelites”. They remain wild branches (i.e. Gentiles). Paul upholds firmly that it is still a great advantage to be a Jew (Rom. 3:1-2: “much in every way!”, Rom. 9:4). As Mark Nanos says in his book: The Mystery of Romans (178-179): “Paul’s concern was to clarify that the Law was not for the Christian Gentiles as though they were now Jews, for that would compromise that G’d is the G’d of the Gentiles equally (with Christian Jews who keep Torah) in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:27-31; 4:16).” It is of course to be seen whether Nanos’ interpretation of the letter to the Romans is tenable in its entirety. But it is cristal-clear that Paul never calls Gentiles by the name of Israelites. Gentiles are not Israel, but are called to worship with Israel (not as part of Israel, but together with Israel), as the Psalm says: “Rejoice Gentiles, with His people”. It is therefore simply impossible that Gentiles are called to full Torah observance, for the Torah is given to Israel. Gentiles are, as was said concluded above, unable, as Gentiles, to recite the Shema, which says: “Hear o Israel: …” Gentile recitation of the Shema prayer would be a strange kind of Replacement Theology. Gentiles calling themselves Israel, which they simply are not. But if Gentiles as Gentiles are unable to recite the Shema, then clearly they are not called to full Torah observance.

 

13. A sociological Argument

The visible distinctions that are part of the Torah, e.g. wearing tzitzit, will cause people that see Gentile Christians involved in them think they are Orthodox Jews instead of followers of Yeshua. Believers cannot by their own Torah-practice and use of Jewish symbols undo 2000 years of Jewish denial of Yeshua being the Messiah. Everyone knows that “Jews don’t believe in Jesus”. Thus tzitzit, kippah and observances such as Sabbath will be perceived by others simply as “Jewish”, not as signs or witnesses for Yeshua, in fact more probably as denials of Yeshua. In the Kingdom Age this will be different of course, but we are not in the Kingdom now. One cannot make Jewish symbols having a Messianic significance simply by wishing them to have it. Symbols can only do their job if they are perceived by the world at large in the same way as by the people that use them. But the only ones who see in Jewish symbols a witnessing for Yeshua are Messianic Jews and Torah observant Gentiles themselves. Only in the Kingdom period this will be different, for all Israel will at that time believe in Yeshua as the Messiah.

 

14. The Great Commission

The “Great Commission” of the Lord Yeshua in Mt. 28:20 is sometimes cited in favour of Torah observance by Gentiles, in conncection with Mt. 5:17-19. The text of the Great Commission however does not necessarily mean that the Gentiles are to follow all of the Torah. It is very well possible that it means: “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you [that they should observe]”, or: “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you [to teach them]”.

 

The Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture

 

 

Divine revelation has many aspects, and doesn’t only consist in the Bible. It consists of actions of G’d in the history of mankind, in the calling of the Patriarchs, in the constitution of the nation of Israel, in all the institutions and laws of the Torah, including the very important institution of the Sanctuary and everything belonging to it. Finally and ultimately this revelation centers in the person of Messiah, the perfect Man and the complete embodiment of the Torah and the prophets, the one and only Mediator with G’d. All this belongs to the divine revelation. This revelation thus includes much more than only Scripture.

 

Why then is Scripture so important that many of us would adhere to the formula of the Reformation: Scriptura sola? It may be asked: Is it really of fundamental importance if there are so many ways G’d by which has revealed himself to mankind?

 

I think Scripture is of fundamental importance, and that is necessary for us even to confess its full inspiration, and — as a consequence — to affirm its inerrancy. I think it also possible to understand and affirm the rallying cry of the Reformation “Scriptura sola ” in a way that is relevant and applicable to our situation today as Messianics. 

 

The necessity to confess the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture stems from the fact that it is only by Scripture that the other means of divine revelation just mentioned were guarded and kept secure and intact in the course of salvation history. All these relevatory facts, instructions, institutions and doctrines are known to us nowadays by no other means than Scripture. Scripture alone is the safe ark that leads us through the storms of time to the coast-land of eternity. Now, it has been asked why I so strongly insist on this being so for us, if it be admitted that this was not so for believers of all times.

 

Let me begin to say that from the time on that the divine revelation became written, this written word was regarded as an expression of G’d himself and thus as inspired, even if this was not expressed in a theoretical doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. We know in what words the tables of the covenant were described, as written by the hand of G’d. In the times of Moses and the first phase of Israel’s history however there was something that can be called “divine government”. The priesthood was in possession of divine assistance in the Urim and Tummim, there was the Real Indwelling in the Tabernacle and the Temple (the Shechinah). The people of G’d was governed and guided by HaShem in a very direct way, as is known from many stories in the first books of the Bible. There were many means whereby G’d revealed himself in the national institutions of Israel and whereby the faithful could know the will of G’d. Beside that, there was at times the warning voice of the prophets when the nation corrupted itself and went astray.

 

After the installation of human kings, and so much the more after the Babylonian captivity a number of these things ceased. In the second Temple there was no longer a Shechinah, and the Urim and Tummim were lost. Direct divine guidance already ceased before the captivity. After some time even the prophetic voice ceased. Maleachi was the last prophet. Only Scripture and a number of oral traditions — including traditions about Scripture interpretation — remained. Thus we see that the content of revelation was more and more concentrated in Scripture.

 

Then came the important events of the movement of John the Baptist, the earthly ministry of Messiah Yeshua, the great outpouring of the Ruach HaShem and the subsequent events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. During this time revelation again occurred by a living voice and visible divine guidance. The ministries of Messiah and his Apostles were accompanied by signs and marks of authority such as miracles. It was the time of the Kingdom offer to the nation of Israel. This period lasted until about 40 years after the crucifixion. When the great refusal of the nation became fixed (cf. Acts. 28) gradually all that remained of the ancient institutions came to an end in the terrible events that followed: the first Jewish war, the destruction of the Temple, the second Jewish war, the destruction of Jerusalem, the Roman exile. Everything was destroyed, except Israels bare existence and its Scriptures.

 

At the council of Yavne, where the survivors of the first Roman war fled after the first war with Rome, a lot of decisions were taken. All references to a suffering Messiah were stricken from the Jewish liturgy, the birkat haminim was instituted, the Septuagint was condemned, and the canon of Scripture was formalized. This formalization was not a big issue. There were nearly no debates, except for the inclusion of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. Practically, in the life of the nation, the canon was already fixed generations before.

 

We see that at this council a lot of wrong and anti-Messianic decisions were taken together with the decision about the canon of Scripture. In the Christian councils between the third and fifth centuries we see a parallel development. Here were also a host of wrong decisions and doctrines dogmatized. At the same time however the question of the canon of the Apostolic Writings was settled — after very little debate compared with the other doctrinal matters — at the African Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). In the same manner as in the Judaism of Yavne, the formalization of the Christian canon was not a big issue, and in the life of the Church the matter was already practically settled generations before. The Christian Church did however not accept the decision of the council of Yavne. It considered instead the Septuagint to be the true canon of the “Old Testament”. This was not corrected before the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church thereupon fixed her Septuagint-based canon at the council of Trent.

 

What should we conclude from this? Should we regard the traditional Christian canon as simply the product of Roman Catholicism?

 

My answer would be that the canonization history — of which I have given only a very elementary and incomplete sketch — shows that the canons of traditional Judaism and of traditional Christianity were not decreed or imposed by councils and synods. They existed long before, and were merely formalized by these colleges. The canons of both communities already were practically fixed, and were accepted without much quarrels and disputes, because of the strength of the respective traditions. Tradition was the main argument here. And I think we should view this process of tradition as the means whereby the Ruach of G-d preserved the content of G-d’s revelation to the succeding generations.

 

Why should we view this tradition of the canon as lead by the Ruach haKodesh, as “sacred” in a sense, if we reject so much other Christian traditions? Should we not question the whole thing again, and re-open the canon question?

 

I think this is neither needed nor wanted, for several reasons. After the rejection of Messiah and his Kingdom offer, and after the subsequent catastrophes the Jewish nation — and not to forget the Jewish Messianic Community — went through, there was left no other trustworthy source of revelation left in Judaism then the documents of Scripture and some orally transmitted traditions. Likewise in the Messianic Community at that time there existed no longer a living voice of the Apostles or of elders and overseers appointed by them. Only Scripture, and perhaps some oral traditons.

 

The formation of Catholic Church in the following centuries changed the whole basic structure of the divine religion by the putting aside of the Torah and by the speculative innovations in christology. Yet the Catholic Church maintained throughout the ages the “New Testament” as the core revelational content of her own whole superstructure. And when the NT was rediscovered, and a first attempt was made to consider it on its own merits, by faithful Christians at the times of the Protestant Reformation, it appeared to be a deadly weapon against Catholicism. In the later stages of Reformation history the same NT was used by some XVII^th and XIX^th century divines to teach from it the future restoration of Israel, against the mainstream of Protestantism. And in our days it is used by our own movement to teach Christians to return to Torah observance as the real fulness of the messianic lifestyle.

 

All this shows abundantly, as an illustrated history, that the Apostolic Writings cannot be considered to be a product of Catholicism. When the tradition- and interpretation layers of Catholicism and Protestantism are gradually removed from the human mind, these Writings appears to be in harmony with the Hebrew Bible, the Tanach. I think a better conclusion of this whole complicated history is that the NT documents of revelation were kept intact by divine protection, and needed only the serious attention they deserved from their adherents to regain full actual significance. And that should be a first reason not to attack or criticize the Apostolic Writings.

 

A second reason why we shouldn’t attempt to criticize these Writings or to reconsider the canon question is simply that we are wholly unable to do so. We have at present no other source of divine revelation that can be used and critically compared with the Apostolic Writings, except of course the Tanach. But it is not at all sure whether there exists any real tension between the Tanach and the AW. This may well be only a matter of interpretation. And we should deserve to be called ungrateful fools if we dared to throw away parts of the very texts by which we rediscovered the life and work of the Jewish Messiah and the relevancy of Torah.

 

This second reason gives ground for introducing the axiom that the AW be not in conflict with or contradictory to the Tanach. This axiom of course cannot be proved — which is according to the nature of axioms — and thus shouldn’t be considered as something to be proved at all. It should instead be considered as a necessary religious presupposition of our faith and theology, and as a basic principle of interpretation. Why should this axiom be accepted? If we interpret the AW under the presumption of this axiom, it is assured beforehand that the AW can never be explained in a way that conflicts with the Torah, without having to take recourse to such drastic and irreversible operations as revising the text.

 

If under the guidance of this axiom there should appear difficulties that cannot be solved at all, we should follow the ancient Jewish rule for unsolvable problems and say that we wait for the return of Eliyahu the prophet to solve the difficulty in the future. In other words, we should live within the constraints of the historically accepted decisions concerning the canon of Scripture and not revise them, but wait until a new clearly divinely legitimated leadership will reappear in Israel and new light will be thrown on our difficulties.

 

A third reason why we shouldn’t attempt to revise the Apostolic Writings is that we cannot build in this question on the results of modern critical historic research. We can never be sure enough of these results to allow them to interfere in such weighty matters as revising a sacred text, other than by means of textual criticism, which is a harmless manuscript discipline. However, to allow redaction criticism and other congenial disciplines to determine earlier “sources” or to detect “redactional falsifications” of later generations is useless in this question. It is not at all sure that these earlier and hypothetical sources indeed exist, and still less sure whether these sources are divinely inspired. There is nothing against inspired texts having sources and antecedents that were not inspired at all.

 

This third reason may be given a more fundamental and philosophic turn.

I think it a basic biblical thought that divine revelation not only occurred to make known to us the way of salvation, to lead us from this word to that which is to come. Revelation also occurred to give us a fundamental new orientation in this world affected by sin and its corruptions, an orientation that was gradually lost by mankind after the fall. That means that divine revelation is important for all domains of our life. If we have begun to return to the Torah we may already feel the force of this principle. By implication divine revelation is also relevant for the life of the sciences and for scholarship in all its domains. The Bible affords us basic orientations not only in matters of theology, but also in physics and geology, (natural) history, economics, and so on. A proper domain of scholarship can only to its own harm consider itself as “autonomous”, as independent from the divine revelation contained in Scripture.

 

It is easy to see from this that if we allow a special science or domain of scholarship to criticize Scripture, we inadvertently elevate that domain of learning to a position of indepence from Scripture. And above that, we give this special science a religious status, because we elevate it above the central documents of our religion. That means that in reality by so doing we don’t criticize religion or Scripture by science or scholarship at all.  No, we criticize religion by means of another religious instance, a domain of learning that is was elevated by ourselves to a pseudo-religious status — and in this manner was turned into a pseudo-science as for instance the evolution theory. Such an elevation of “science” above Scripture is essentially nothing else but apostasy  and idolatry.

 

From the foregoing we may detect why the slogan of the Reformation: Scriptura sola — properly understood — is still important for us. The Reformers didn’t say by this slogan that religion had to entirely free from tradition and human authority. They knew quite well that this wasn’t possible. By their “sola Scriptura” they wanted to free Scripture from a specific train of tradition: Roman church tradition. They didn’t knew that they had to interpret Scripture in the light of Jewish tradition. They had just the intuition that the Roman tradition was wrong, and that is was to be removed. They wanted Scripture to speak for itself. That was their point. I think that this message of the Reformers is still relevant for us and for keeping our religious freedom. We have to avoid two forms of religious absolutism: the absolutism of Papal and Church authority on the one hand, and the absolutism of Orthodox Rabbinic authority on the other. Both are incompatible with a truly messianic lifestyle. The one forces us to give up the Torah, and the other forces us to renounce Yeshua and the Apostolic Writings. We cannot subject to either tradition. This of itself implies that our only sure refuge to escape these absolutisms is the Written word. It is all we have in our hands and our only safeguard against all attacks of the enemy. It can be a great comfort for us to know that it was also the only safeguard of our Lord and Saviour in his temptation by the evil one (cf. Mt. 4:1-11).