Not of Abraham: A Primer on Talmudic Judaism (Part 1)

I’m telling you right now, this will not be an entertaining article. It will be an informative one, and aims to explain the origins of our current controversy. You’ll be blessed for struggling with this complicated issue, no matter which conclusion you come to. God blesses the work of study.

Much of the debate in conservative evangelical social media about the place of Judaism in God’s redemptive plans is caustic and vitriolic. On one hand, some evangelicals seem to border on anti-semitism. But on the other hand, some evangelicals seem to border on heresy. However, if both sides properly understood the difference between Mosaic Judaism – or the religion of the Old Testament – and Talmudic Judaism, most of that angry disagreement would subside. Defining terms is always helpful for the meeting of minds.

The debate over the question of Judaism has largely been spawned by accusations of anti-semitism toward Christian Nationalists. Christian Nationalists generally believe that America should be an explicitly Christian nation, and so far as it is possible, enforce God’s laws – including prohibitions against false religion. For those who refer to America’s founding as Judeo-Christian, this has become a point of contention (because the first-half of that hyphen, without Christ, is heretical).

JUDEO-CHRISTIAN

The term, Judeo-Christian, first appeared in print in 1821, but because it was referring to converts to Christianity from Judaism, it doesn’t really pertain to today’s context. Today, the term is used to refer to the alleged roots of Christianity in Judaism, irrespective of Jewish conversion (I say “alleged” because it is better said that the Old Testament is the foundation for Christianity, not Judaism). That use for the term didn’t arise until the 1940s, as a part of war propaganda designed to convince a very isolationist America to take up the war in Europe. Essentially, convincing a war-weary America to take up the cause of the Allied Forces was difficult, but appealing to Christians on the basis that defending the Jews of Europe was a religious obligation proved effective.

One can easily fail to comprehend the historic significance of the term (and concept) of “Judeo-Christian” if they aren’t careful. For the first time in world history, Christians took up the cause of Jewish people on religious grounds. Historically, Christians have been oppositional to Jews, rather than defensive of them. But a lot has changed in the last 85 years. Perhaps nowhere more so, than in evangelical churches.

Today, the nation-state of Israel – which didn’t exist when the term first developed – enjoys widespread support from the American Bible Belt, sustaining the small but wealthy nation with billions in tax dollars, charitable giving, and military aid. But the most important change has been the shift in attitude of Christians towards Jews, in some part due to the development of Dispensational Premillennialism.

DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM VS OTHER FRAMEWORKS

Dispensational Premillennialism is different from Historic Premillennialism, which was held from the earliest stages of church history. Dispensational Premillennialism came about near the turn of the 20th Century, with most seeing the inaugural publishing of the Scofield Study Bible in 1909 as its beginning. This eschatological (End Times) view differs from historic premillennialism, amillenialism, and post-millennialism which all pre-date it, in that it more rigidly distinguishes between Israel and the Church. There are also other distinctions, some of them vast, but I haven’t the inclination to get into any of that here.

The other three orthodox (non-heretical) eschatological views are largely redemptive frameworks, meaning that they’re designed to explain how God has worked salvation for mankind in time and space. And secondarily, they are eschatological, adopting an End Times view that makes sense within their respective redemptive framework.

In juxtaposition is Premillennial Dispensationalism, which is not primarily a redemptive framework but an eschatological one. In other words, it seeks first to determine what happens in the End Times, and only then retroactively applies that understanding to its redemptive framework. To clarify, other views start with redemption and end with eschatology, but Premillennial Dispensationalism starts with eschatology, and works its way back to redemption.

Both Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism hold that a literal, coming reign of Christ is going to last for a thousand years on Earth, after Christ’s “Glorious Appearing” (when he touches down). Dispensational Premillennialism, however, believes a rapture (when Christ appears in the air, bringing Christians to Heaven) will occur prior to the beginning of the foretold seven years of tribulation. Historic Premillennialists, on the other hand, either reject a rapture altogether, or believe a rapture will occur in the middle or toward the end of the tribulation period.

Amillennialists don’t believe in the millennial reign at all (a is a prefix in Latin that means “no” and the term means “no millennium”). They believe Christ’s Kingdom is already on the Earth, and will experience various failures and success, until God decides to wrap up the world. Post-millennialists believe that Christians will victoriously usher in the reign of Christ and dominate the world, after which Christ will return.

WHAT THESE ESCHATOLOGICAL VIEWS DO WITH THE JEWS

Post-millennialists believe in little distinction between the believers of the New Testament and the believers of the Old Testament. In fact, as almost all Post-Millennialists adhere to a Presbyterian variety of Covenant Theology (as opposed to a Reformed Baptist variety of Covenant Theology referred to as 1689 Federalism), they believe that the Old Testament believers were a part of the Church, and that the New Testament Church is the same as Old Testament Israel. This is one reason they baptize infants, for example, drawing parallels between the practice of infant circumcision as a sign of God’s covenant with believers then, and Baptism being a sign of God’s covenant with believers today (it only makes sense, then, that you would baptize infants).

Amillennialists deny that the Old Testament believers were the Church, which differentiates them from Post-millennialists. However, they believe that the promises made to to Abraham and David have been fulfilled exclusively in Christ, and already accomplished. They do not believe that the Church has “replaced” Israel, but that Israel has been expanded to include Gentile believers in the Messiah.

Historic Premillennialists, like Amillennialists, also deny the Post-Millennial view that Old Testament Israel is the Church during that era, and hold that the Church did not begin until Christ’s redemptive work was complete. They do affirm that the church is the Israel of God, and chosen by him to receive the promises concerning redemption given about Jesus, to Abraham and David. Historic Premillennialists do not, necessarily, deny that certain eschatological promises remain for the physical descendants of Abraham, but not those promises fulfilled by Christ’s redemption. In other words, while certain prophecies remain unfulfilled, Jews must be saved just like anyone else, which is by faith in Christ.

PLAINLY HERETICAL VIEWS

Full Preterism is a heretical view that goes well beyond Post-Millennialism (which is sometimes called “Partial Preterism”) in their claim that all End Times prophecies have already been fulfilled (preterism means “past”). These prophecies include the Second Coming, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the denial of future judgment. In other words, all heresy.

Dual Covenant Theology is a heretical view that is gaining traction in the evangelical church today, and is held to most prominently by John Hagee. It holds that Christians must be saved by grace through faith in Christ, but that Jews may be saved by adherence to the Old Testament law and keeping Jewish rites. I cannot emphasize how damning and deplorable this doctrine is, or how insanely impossible it would be to either (1) keep the law of God according to his righteous standards or (2) observe Jewish rites and rituals that are impossible without a temple and with Cultic Israel having been utterly dismantled.

JUDAIZING

Judaizing can’t necessarily be called an eschatological view, or a redemptive framework, so I will include it separately. It is absolutely heretical, and we know that with certainly because the Apostle Paul laid that out for us. There are two basic kinds of Judaism. The first (1) requires Jews to continue observance of Jewish rites (IE the dietary code, festivals, feasts, circumcision, etc) in order to be justified before God – which is essentially Dual Covenant Theology, explained above – or to maintain some kind of non-salvific favor with God. The second (2) goes so far as to tell Gentile believers in Jesus that they also need to keep Jewish rites in order to either be saved or maintain favor with God.

This is a primer on Talmudic Judaism, and not Judaizing, or I would give more explanation as to exactly why this is so heretical, and do so with no shortage of Scriptural texts. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians provides the clearest condemnation of them, on the grounds that confidence stemming from ritualistic observance or the hope of obeying God’s laws well enough, places one “under the curse of the law.” These ceremonial rites were clearly discontinued in the New Testament, just as the dietary restrictions were lifted even during Christ’s ministry (and clarified later to Peter and pronounced abrogated officially at the Apostolic Council in Acts 15).

WHAT IS MOSAIC JUDAISM?

Mosaic Judaism is the religion adhered to by Jesus, up until his abrogation of the Ceremonial Law culminating with his resurrection. It is the Judaism we see in the Old Testament, which began with Abraham and then further explained and ritualized through Moses.

Mosaic Judaism has several qualities which, in the absence thereof, Mosaic Judaism doesn’t exist. It required then, and it would theoretically require now, certain qualifications to be considered the same Judaism given by God in the pages of the Old Testament.

These requirements include (1) a priesthood in the line of Levi (2) atoning blood sacrifice made how, when, and where God instructed that sacrifice to be made; by a priest, on feast days and as necessary, in Jerusalem and at the temple (3) a temple, where God personally dwells to receive the sacrifices made through a priest of the right order (4) circumcision and adherence to the Levitical Holiness Code (dietary laws, cleanliness laws, festivals and feasts).

INTERESTINGLY, being a genetic descendant of Abraham was not required. Not only do we see Gentiles in the lineage of Christ who had converted to Judaism, we even see written into the law of Moses, stipulations allowing Gentiles to take part in the cultic religion in the architectural design of the temple and the Courtyard of Gentiles, under certain circumstances.

As you can see from the above characteristics and requirements of Mosaic Judaism, God himself wiped the world of it. Of course, those who are physically descended from Abraham exist. And depending upon your redemptive framework and eschatological view (explained above), what that means for them, will vary. But so far as the cultic religion itself is concerned, Mosaic Judaism does not exist.

There is no longer a Levitical Priesthood. There is no longer blood sacrifice made how, when, and where God instructed because – frankly – it was destroyed by the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy and now there’s a mosque on top of it. God no longer embodies a building, but his followers. Not even the rites and rituals can be observed as Moses required.

For all intents and purposes, Mosaic Judaism is dead and no one has observed in almost 2000 years.

TALMUDIC JUDAISM

Even by Jesus’ day, Mosaic Judaism had waned, and a new Judaism had begun. The Mishnah was largely considered authoritative for the Jews, a collection of Jewish oral traditions that in many ways contradicted or undermined the Judaism given by God (in Jesus’ day it was only oral, but it was compiled and written down by the 2nd Century AD). When the Pharisees repeatedly accused Jesus of breaking Jewish law, for example on the Sabbath, they were accusing him of violating rabbinical traditions. Jesus, who broke no law of God, was accused credibly of being a “law breaker” because he violated the fake law imposed by men in the name of Judaism.

But after the destruction of the Temple in the First Century, and the resulting Diaspora (dispersion) of Jews across the world, the question for unbelieving Jews was how to maintain the religion of Moses without any of the capacity to do so according to Moses’ law. The answer, for them, was Talmudic Judaism.

It can be said that the rabbinic Judaism of Jesus’ day was a shadow of Mosaic Judaism. But Judaism as it is practiced today, isn’t even a shadow of the real; it’s a shadow of a shadow.

The destruction of the temple and removal of the physical remnants of Mosaic Judaism hastened the need for the Mishnah to be written down and codified. Then, for several centuries, a commentary was compiled to explain the Mishnah, called the Gemara. If you’re keeping track, the Mishnah is rabbinic commentary that largely butchered Mosaic Judaism, and the Gemara is a commentary on a commentary. These two works together, the Mishnah and Gemara, form the Talmud (and there are two Talmuds, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, but never mind that at the moment).

As I’ll explain in Not of Abraham: A Primer on Talmudic Judaism Part II, the teachings of the Talmud greatly differ from Mosaic Judaism given in the pages of the Old Testament. They differ so greatly, in fact, that it would have been unrecognizable to the saints of the Old Testament.

From sexual ethics, to business ethics, to the treatment of others, to the understanding of what Mosaic Law teaches, Talmudic Judaism is as different from Mosaic Judaism, as Mosaic Judaism is from Christianity. It really is a contradiction of the Mosaic Law.

TO CONCLUDE (until part II)

So much of our current debate on the question of Judaism presupposes that criticism on the part of Christian Nationalists is criticism of the religion of Abraham, Moses, or Jesus before the New Covenant. That is a mistake on the part of their critics, and hopefully it’s an honest mistake (I’m skeptical on that).

Meanwhile, Christian Nationalists seem quick to dig-in on their criticism of Talmudic Judaism, but don’t seem to comprehend that many onlookers don’t understand that their criticism is not of Moses, or Abraham, or Jesus.

Comprehending the difference between Mosaic Judaism and Talmudic Judaism, for all who don’t hold to heretical notions like Dual Covenant Theology or Judaizing, will surely clear up lots of confusion and bring back a spirit of good will to the discussion.

If the matter is not cleared up in this debate, a very real threat exists of empowering Dual Covenant Theologians and Judaizing heretics, who will capitalize on this disagreement and drag naive Christians into their heresies. If we are not careful, we will go from debating the Post-War Consensus of World War II, and again have to debate the Jewish Super-Apostles and Judaizing forces that so bitterly plagued and vexed the Apostle Paul.

Ancient heresies do not take a holiday. They only take a nap. It is the duty of polemics-minded Christians to be on guard for the devil’s old schemes, because if given the chance, he will again make them engulf the church.

About Author