Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Seeing Judaism Anew: Christianity's Sacred Obligation,
Ed. Mary C. Boys, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002
Chapter 14, "Covenant and Conversion" (pp. 163-174), page 168-169
In moving on to defend her positon from the Bible, Dr Spillman starts with the assertion that:
The conclusion that Christians should not try to convert Jews is not only consistent with an interpretation of the scriptures, but is also rooted in biblical teaching.
Two red flags in this sentence. The first, as we gave said before, is the word 'convert'. Of course Christians should not try to 'convert' Jews into Christians, to paganise us and tear us away from our biblical heritage. But that does not at all mean that we should not share the truth of who Yeshua is with us, provided that we are left alone to become Jews of faith, believing Jews, within Judaism, still an active and vital part of our people.
The second is the word 'interpretation'. By using simply an 'interpretation' it is possible to make the Bible say almost anything. By needing to have a particular interpretation of the the Bible, one becomes automatically suspicious to everyong else who holds to the mainstream balance of historical interpretation. To go against the flow - as Messianic Jews are successfully doing - requires mor than an interpretation, it requires the plain meaning of the text itself and the balance or consensus of meaning throughout the Bible. However, Spillman continues:
Because the following observations are written from an ecumenical perspective, every effort is made to provide an argument that is credible to both Protestants and Catholics. The argument is based on broad themes in the Bible, on the "thrust" of the biblical narrative.
Now I am concerned!