Responsibility for the Jewish Condition by Fred London

I wanted to share the following that I received from Fred London, a friend who is a Jewish believer in Jesus who was involved with the “Messianic Jewish Movement” in its early days but is now “on the outside”.
I always benefit from the perspective his experience gives, but most importantly I benefit from the way he insists we would see things through the truth of scripture.
_________

Responsibility for the Jewish Condition

There is no question that for most of the last 2,000 years, the predominantly Gentile church has been primarily engaged in provocation rather than the Biblical mandate expressed by Paul to "provoke the Jews to a spiritual jealousy." Yes, to a significant degree, it has contributed to a hardening of Jewish hearts to the Gospel. Having said that, though, it may, and continuing to be, a valid negative influence upon Jewish openness to the Gospel, it is, ultimately, no excuse for their rejection of the Gospel. We are all "without excuse." It is Christ, Himself, who is a "rock of offense," a stone of stumbling." "For when you search for Me with all your heart, then you will find Me."

Moreover, it is also true that much of this rejection is due to a religious self-righteousness of which Paul speaks of in Romans 10:2-3 by the Orthodox Jewish community and ranging to a general indifference or humanism not unlike Gentile unbelievers by non-religious Jews. The bottom line has always been, and will forever be, "But, who do you say that I am?" That is the ultimate question, which demands the ultimate answer. That is the literal heart of the matter. Not unlike much of the "new and improved" Emergent Church, in my opinion, much of the Messianic Jewish Movement has also bought into the philosophy of "Maybe if they like us, they'll like our Jesus, too?" So there is plenty of culpability to go around.

I have been on the "inside" for many years and on the "outside" for many years. Although one can certainly draw from those experiences in deepening their understanding of the dynamics involved, they can only be validated by applying them to the truth of Scripture, which is "able to discern between soul and spirit." And, if rightly applied, is able to trump any soulish bias related to personal experience, something I always endeavor to apply in my own Biblically-related inquiries. Although I may not always hit the mark, I at least know where to aim, and therefore, in that regard, I myself am without excuse.

It’s MY blog and I’ll rant if I want to!

What happens when a respected “Rabbi” takes offense at having his disobedience indirectly mentioned in the comment section of his blog?

Of course, as expected, he deletes the offending comment. Then he sends a personal email strongly conveying his displeasure.

Now what rudeness of mine sparked this response?

The gentile born “rabbi”, in justifying his choice to convert to Judaism (AFTER professing faith in Messiah) pointed to the legitimacy of conversion for those with a “healthy sense of identity and a persistent desire to belong to the people of Israel”.

I’m not sure when “healthy sense of identity” and persistent desire” were valid reasons to contravene clearly stated prohibitions written by the apostle Paul*. Can those reasons be used to excuse all of our disobedience? Is persistent desire a legitimate reason for giving in to any temptation?

What exactly caused the offense?
I made a blunt comparison.

I mentioned a person I know who was born male. However this person has a sense of identity with and a persistent desire to be female. As a result he has been living as a woman and intends to “convert” through a “sex-change” operation.
Does this person’s “sense of identity” (which he would consider healthy) and his “persistent desire” legitimize HIS conversion?

------

* From the apostle Paul:

Gal 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

And

1 Cor 7:18
Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised