PASTOR'S ANSWERS TO QUESTION

Question 1:

Unless I'm confused or mistaken, the rabbinical rationale for separating meat from dairy is from the Biblical commandment to not cook a "kid in its mother's milk."   If that is the case, why is chicken (poultry) included as "meat" under this law?  I know of no chickens that give milk, and it would therefore be quite impossible to violate this law by cooking a chicken, even when cooked with some dairy product.  (submitted by Stephen P.)

Preliminary Answer:  I will research this question and get back to you.  The matter might very well have its explanation from an extension of the principal that one must build a fence around the Torah.  It is a rabbinical principal that, in most situations, one should devise a more stringent law than God's Law so that by obeying the rabbinical law, one can not even come close to violating God's Law.  That is how orthodox Judaism obtained the law restricting the combining of milk and meat in the first place.

Most Messianic Jews (myself included) do not believe that the "fence" principal is a good idea because it focuses us on keeping man's law instead of God's law.   If one constructs and endeavors to keep a rabbinical law which is more stringent than God's law, then one need not even think about God's law.

Followup from Stephen:   Hmmm. I believe I agree with you... I think we should learn God's law, and practice observing them. I also agree that that the "fences" make up a man's law structure intended to insulate from God's law. I believe He intended us to know exactly where all those lines are drawn, and understand why He has drawn them, and to focus on Him (not so much on the "line" exactly). I feel certain that a completely honestly inadvertent violation would be unquestionably forgiven. Say, for example if an orthodox Jew discovered that unbeknown to him, someone had been "accidentally" contaminating what he fully believed to be kosher. Say our poor Jew had been consuming the contaminated product for years, would he be lost to be eternally cast out of the body? I think not. Fortunately for us, God's laws are somewhat more lenient in some ways than most of our laws. That is, He will forgive most violations assuming one is appropriately repentant and diligent in ceasing violations.

Perhaps, (I don't know) many of the "Rabbinical fences" are similar to this one, which I consider silly and ridiculous to the extreme, repeating my original statement that I've never seen chicken milk. I guess I can appreciate an argument that if one gets in the habit of
eating chicken in cream sauce, they might somehow get confused or forget the original admonition and opt for beef or perhaps veal in cream sauce without thinking. (yeah sure). Why not simply legislate out cream sauce altogether? Or perhaps all meats and meat products?

Pastor's Response:  Although I do not consider the building of "fences" around the Torah to be inspired of God, I am not as critical of the practice as you appear to be.  Also, before being too negative, give me a chance to research the origin of counting chicken as meat.  Please check back in a day or so.

Researched Answer

The principle of not mixing milk with meat has its origins in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21.  The operative language is "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk" (NKJ).  The rabbis of old interpreted its thrice appearance in Scripture as prohibiting one from (1) cooking, (2) eating, and (3) deriving benefit from the mixture of milk and meat.  This is codified in Maimonides' "Sefer haMitzvot" as "Negative Commandments 186 and 187.

The broadening of rabbinical understanding as to which meats are included within the prohibition comes from Maimonides' (and others') belief that God's reason for giving these Scriptures was to discourage Israelites from engaging in certain obscene practices of idol worship connected to food.  Specific references to fowl, predating Maimonides by hundreds of years, can be found in tractate Hullin, chapter 8 of the Mishna as follows:

"No flesh may be cooked in milk excepting the flesh of fish and locusts; and no flesh may be served up on the table together with cheese excepting the fish and locusts.  If a man vowed to abstain from flesh, he is permitted the flesh of fish and locusts.  A fowl may be served up on the table together with cheese, but it may not be eaten with it.  So the School of Shammai.  And the School of Hillel say:   It may neither be served up with it not eaten with it" (Hullin 8:1).

A footnote to this Mishnah found in Herbert Danby's The Mishnah, (Oxford University Press, 1933) further explains that the inclusion of fowl in the prohibition is "To avoid the possibility of transgressing the thrice repeated law against seething a kid in its mother's milk."  This is a fence of the kind I spoke about earlier.

If you are interested in reading further on this subject, I suggest that you read all six sections of Hullin 8.  Meanwhile, you may take comfort from knowing that you can eat locusts with milk to your heart's content.

*****

Question 2:

In my readings (in much of this area I am self-taught by study and reading) I find two divergent beliefs regarding Non-Jews. On the one hand, some sincere Lovers of God say there are "two sets of rules" and refer to the Non-Jewish one by the term "Noachdic laws." On the other hand, other trustworthy Lovers of God say (as we have to this point held) that we have been made one. The additional problem with the second stance is a further diverging of thought: some see all Believers as free from "rules", especially rabbinic ones; some see us as candidates to follow the 613 rules plus rabbinic ones. HELP.  (submitted by Stephen B.)

Answer

You are correct that there are several points of view, but I will nevertheless offer mine.

Although God gave what is often called "the law" to the Israelites under Moses as part of the "Old Covenant" or "First Covenant", I have always believed that is was intended to be a "schoolmaster" to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews of the New Covenant. That is because Israel was always intended to be a witness nation and a priestly nation for the benefit of the entire world. After all, Abraham was to be the father of many nations -- not just of one nation.

It is clear to me that the law of the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law) does not apply today in the same way as it used to, for if it did, we would still be conducting animal sacrifices. On the other hand, that does not mean that believers are not subject to law.

The question is, "What law?" Jeremiah 31 defines the New Covenant as one where God's law would be written in our hearts and minds. Clearly then, the New Covenant is full of law, and although the Mosaic Law is no longer the code of law to which we are responsible, it is certainly one of the main places we look when we want to find the law for which we are responsible. God's law is similar to God's will. It does not radically change from one era to the next.

I believe that Messianic Jews have a special responsibility to be preservers and teachers of the law. However, when it comes to obedience to law, Jews and Gentiles are under the same obligation -- to the law of Messiah which is the law written on our hearts. It is crucial to understand that one cannot discern the law of Messiah without the Holy Spirit. This is one of the primary differences between us and the Israelites of old. Most of them did not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore they had to inquire of a prophet to discern the things which we can discern ourselves or with the help of fellow believers.

Do not become confused by what was decided at the Council at Jerusalem disclosed in the Book of Acts. It was determined there that new Gentile converts could have salvation without obeying all of the Mosaic law. All they were held to by the community was what some call the Noahic Laws. So, for example, Gentiles could have salvation without being circumcised, without keeping the Sabbath, without abstaining from unkosher foods, etc. These were minimum requirements, carrying no inference that Gentiles should not to keep the Sabbath or that they should not abstain from unkosher foods. These latter issues and others like them, were higher ideals which were not required for salvation, but might be considered as goals for the future. The essence of the decision was, "Let us not limit the new Gentile believers, but let us also not place stumbling blocks which would cause them not to want to enter the God's Kingdom.

Your question about rabbinic law will require more discussion, and might be the subject of a follow-up question.  I will, however, say this:  While I believe we are subject to law, I do not believe we are subject to rabbinic laws when they depart from or add to Biblical laws.  I also do not believe we are limited by interpretations of law which are promulgated by the Orthodox. Keep in mind that orthodoxy is Talmudic. There is nothing wrong with considering the Orthodox point of view, but we must depend upon the Holy Spirit as our interpreter, and be true to Scripture and to Messiah.

*****

Question 3:

My local congregation has been celebrating the Year of Jubilee since June 1998, declaring that this is our year of Jubilee.  Please explain to me if Christians should celebrate this year as the year of Jubilee.  The Bible says that Jesus came in the volume of the Book that He fulfilled the law.  Please explain:  Did Yeshua fulfill the Feast of Trumpets (Jubilee) declaring every year to be a year of Jubilee to all who have accepted His Finished work? (submitted by John F.)

Answer

My view is that choosing 1998 as a Jubilee year is shaky from every perspective.  Israel uses that term because 1998 is the 50th year of Israel's existence as a modern political nation.  That does not mean it is a Jubilee year as defined by Scripture.  Even if it were, the year would be expressed by some other reference than "Anno Domini."  I also would steer away from spiritualizing the Jubilee year based upon Yeshua's "finished work."  It is an interesting idea, but not provable.

I believe that the true Jubilee year must be discovered in and provable by the Biblical calendar.  That is a very complicated endeavor on which scholars disagree.  My son, David J. Rudolph has gained special expertise in calendar matters, and I am inviting his input by sending him a copy of this correspondence.