To Convert or Not To Convert, 
That Is The Question
by
Chaim Urbach
DEFINING THE ISSUES:
The question sounds at first blush, well,
so academic. You might picture a roomful of Messianic mavens, arguing
over finer points of Messianic Halachah.
Conversion of Gentile believers to Judaism is by no means an ivory-tower
issue— it often comes connected with tremendous emotional and spiritual
freight. All of us know Gentile believers who have struggled with this
issue. Much rides on a balanced understanding of Scripture, which will
steer us through this potential minefield.
Let us define the issues. In this article I take for granted two
basic assumptions:
1. Conversion of Gentile believers cannot
be mandatory, either for the sake of relationship with the Lord or fellowship
with fellow believers. Acts 15 (1, 20) and the rest of the New Testament
(e.g. Gal. 5:4) clearly base our spiritual life on Yeshua's
atonement alone.
2. A Gentile believer should not convert
to rabbinic tradition. According to tradition, a bona fide conversion demands
that potential converts renounce their previous faith completely.
Maurice Lamm, a distinguished professor of rabbinics at Yeshivah
University, describes the convert as "a newborn child, not only in
spiritual-emotional terms, but also in legal and technical terms."
Can a believer, invalidate his new birth, and renounce his Messiah by
submitting to such a conversion? Even in the rare cases where the
converting rabbi did not require a renunciation, the conversion is no more
justified. Whether or not this is acknowledged, a believer adopts a
belief system that defines itself by the rejection of Yeshua.
The issue under the microscope in this article is this, "Should it be
possible for willing Gentile believers to identify more closely with the
Jewish people by voluntarily converting to Messianic Judaism." 2
CONVERSIONS
TO JUDAISM
ARE UNNECESSARY FOR FELLOWSHIP…
Acts 15:1-28 I Corinthians 9:19-23:
The ruling of the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-28) made it clear that
Gentile believers were excused from taking on the entire yoke of Torah (i.e.
conversion) but instead were prohibited from four things: food offered
to idols, fornication, meat strangled and blood (Acts 15:20, 29). Yet,
it has been argued that the ruling actually encouraged Gentile believers
towards a more Torah-observant life style and left room for voluntary
conversion. For instance, Patrice Fischer states that the majority of
Gentile believers at this point were Jews in all but name. 3
"These
G-d fearers were every bit as Jewishly observant as
their Jewish friends....
Their lifestyle already identified them as Jews,
even if the final ritual of formal conversion had not yet taken
place....."
The purpose of the four prohibitions according to
Fischer was "to delineate more fully their [the Gentile believers']
already fully Jewish commitment". 4 There
are two major problems with this reconstruction. The Gentile believers
in the new congregations, even at this early date (Acts 13-14) came from
diverse backgrounds. Some were indeed Torah-observant
God-fearers--participating in the local synagogues (Acts 13:26, 50; 17:14,
17), praying during traditional prayer times (e.g. Cornelius praying at 3
p.m., Acts 10:3) and keeping many of the commandments of Torah. Yet,
many (even a majority) of the other new Gentile believers were saved out of
rank paganism (Acts 14:13; 17:34; 18:11; 19:19). The ruling of the
council at Jerusalem had to be directed to meet the needs of the entire
spectrum of new Gentile believers, not just the minority who were more
observant God-fearers.
Secondly, the context of Acts 10-15 defines the ruling in Acts 15 as strongly
related to the social interaction between Jews and Gentiles--both fellowship
and outreach--not one of greater identification. The four
prohibitions mentioned in Acts 15 certainly point us in that direction.
5 The first pair of prohibitions--avoiding food offered to idols and
fornication--was associated with festivals (often orgies), held in honor of
the gods (e.g. I Corinthians 8:7, 10; Numbers 25:1-3). The second
pair--the prohibitions against eating flesh from animals that were killed by
strangulation and drinking blood--was based on laws of Kashrut
spelled out in the Torah (in this case Leviticus 17:10-14). An
observant Jew would be repulsed by and consider unclean anyone who
transgressed all of these prohibitions-- those dealing with Kashrut as well as idolatry/fornication. For
instance, Peter had to overcome his deeply-ingrained squeamishness towards
coming into Cornelius' house, thereby putting himself at the risk of becoming
(tameh) ritually unclean (Acts 10:28; 11:3).
Outside the book of Acts, only the prohibition against fornication (Acts
15:20, 29), is repeated again (Romans 13:13; I Corinthians 6:18; 7:2; 10:8;
Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:13; Colossians 3:5 etc.). Where
ritual matters are mentioned (I Corinthians 10; 27-30; Romans 14:1-6, 10-14;
Colossians 2:16), they are presented as matters where the believer has
freedom of choice. For instance, eating food offered to idols is
spiritually neutral unless it takes place as part of idol worship, or unless
they significantly undermine the faith of another believer. 6 One has to conclude that the other requirements
were not (are not) absolute requirements for Gentile believers. Rather, they
were issued to remove potential hindrances to fellowship between Jewish and
Gentile believers. While Acts 15 did not explicitly forbid Gentiles
from converting to Judaism, discouraging conversions certainly was a given at
the council.
CONVERSIONS
TO JUDAISM
ARE UNNECESSARY FOR
IDENTIFICATION… I Corinthians 9:19-23:
Does identifying with someone require our changing our identity through
conversion? Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues that Scripture provides a
different kind of a model for identification (I Corinthians 9:19-23). 7
The
biblical means of identification is by acculturation [i.e. adopting cultural
norms].
To become as [italic his] one is not to
become one. This little word is
forgotten or ignored
by the adherents of conversion to Judaism, who use this very same text to
prove
that their way of identification is by conversion.
Fruchtenbaum goes on to show that using this logic, Jewish believers should
convert and become Gentiles in order to more effectively share Yeshua with
Gentile friends. This is the farthest thing from Paul's mind in this
passage. The underlying principle is our need to restrict our freedom
for the sake of others by adopting their cultural norms. For instance,
we find Paul's approach to sharing Yeshua varied as his audience
changed. In the synagogue of Psidian Antioch,
he shared Yeshua through the Tanakh (Acts
13:15); in Lystra, he began by referring to the
true God versus Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:15) and in Athens, he referred to
their customs (altar to the unknown God) and their poets (Acts 17:23,
28). The same principle was applied sharing meals with Gentiles.
From his instructions to the Corinthian believers we see that he was willing
to temporarily lay aside his convictions about kashrut
in order to share a meal with Gentiles (I Corinthians 10:27; Galatians
2:11-14). Paul identified with his Gentile audiences but remained a
Torah-observant Jew (Acts 21:21).
Finally, when we see individuals in Scripture who underwent conversions, they
are not presented as "Jews" but retain their former identify (e.g.
Ruth the Moabitess, Rahab
the prostitute, Nicholas the proselyte etc.).
DOES
SCRIPTURE PERMIT
VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS… I
Corinthians 7:18-24?
Does the New Covenant speak to those who wish to convert voluntarily?
David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary affirms that it does. 8:
....
if a Gentile Christian wants to identify fully with
the Jewish people,
the New Testament in principle would permit
him to become a Jew.
Stern, then states that practical considerations would make these
conversations difficult at best. Does in fact the New Testament permit
a Gentile believer to do so? Unlike Acts 15 where the issue is dealt
with implicitly, in I Corinthians 7 it is addressed explicitly and
forcefully. This chapter discusses different aspects of marriage for
believers. Flowing out of this discussion about marriage, Paul lays
down a basic principle (1 Corinthians 7:17), which is then repeated twice
(7:20, 24).
1 Corinthians
7:17 .....each one should retain the place in life that the Lord
assigned to him and to which God has called him.
This principle is illustrated by two examples-- circumcision and
slavery. What did Paul mean by the principle and how does circumcision
fits into it?
The believers in Corinth did not understand that their relationship to
Messiah was compatible with whatever social position or occupation they were
in at the time they came to faith. 9 Much of what he tells them is
colored by his conviction that the Lord's coming is imminent and the
then-raging persecution of believers (7:26, 26, 31). In view of that
reality, believers' attention needs to be more sharply focused on furthering
the Kingdom of Heaven. As Stern points out, his concern is that Gentile
believers at Corinth should not waste precious resources in the effort to
change their circumstances". 10
Remaining in our assignment is the appropriate response in view
of the Lord's imminent coming.
Paul uses two different words "called" and "assigned", to
define believers' relationship to the Lord. Our call refers to our
salvation, whereas the second term refers to our assigned task within the
kingdom of God. Grammatically, the terms "called" and
"assigned" are the same type of clause (Hosea meaning
"as") governed by the same subject-- the Lord. 11
The thought is the same in both-- our salvation and our place of
service were given to us by the Lord and are under His control. There
are times when believers feel that the only way they can serve the Lord
effectively is in a role other that the one they are in. His message to
all of us is clear but often challenging-- "Remain faithful in the role
assigned to you." The Lord may lead a believer into a different
assignment, but until there is a re-assignment, he or she must remain
and serve faithfully.
Paul illustrates the principle, by referring to circumcision. For the
Gentile majority in the Corinthian congregation, circumcision probably meant little. 12 But
for a Jew, Paul's statement that "circumcision is nothing" would
have provoked outrage. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant and the
relationship with God. The fact that Paul, a Torah-observant Jew, would
make such an extreme statement puts his case in neon lights. For a believer,
circumcision, uncircumcision, one's marital status,
or whether one is free or enslaved-- none of those matter
as far as our salvation is concerned. Yet, while circumcision (i.e.
conversion) is irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned, that does not
mean that it is a matter of personal discretion. 3
It is true that Paul does not condemn circumcision of Gentile believers with
the same degree of passion as he did with the Galatian
believers. The stakes were far higher there but that does not mean that
he makes allowance for it here. When we view this verse (7:18), we most often
focus on part b, "was a man uncircumcised," yet this verse
comprises a couplet. It forbids Gentile men from becoming circumcised
and Jewish men from seeking to become "uncircumcised."
Becoming uncircumcised is not as far fetched as it
sounds. From the time of the Maccabees on, there were Jews who
underwent a surgical procedure called “epipasm”
that made them appear to be uncircumcised. 14 Paul
would have viewed either branch of the pair (7:18a
or 7:18b) as equally unacceptable. Just as a
Jewish believer should not undergo epipasm, neither
should a Gentile believer undergo circumcision.
For the second illustration, slavery, Paul adds an exception--a believer in
bondage may become free if the Lord gives him or her the
means to do so. The same applies to the question of marriage, where a
believer has some measure of individual freedom. Yet, there is no such
exception given in the case of conversion because of what it represents,
regardless of an individual's inner motivation, or whether this is a
"deep longing." 15 A
Gentile believer who wants to convert for the "right reasons" is
not free to do so. Conversion of a Gentile believer makes a clear
public statement-- Yeshua's sacrifice is not
sufficient (Gal. 5:2-6; 6:15).16 Stern argues that Paul's words should
not be construed as an absolute prohibition, but rather offered in the vein
of a rabbi discouraging a Gentile from converting out of convenience or based
on transitory emotion. 17 There are two basic
observations to make on this score. There is no clear consensus on just
when rabbinic tradition began to discourage potential converts. If
anything, the evidence favors the view that during the first century the
rabbis welcomed proselytes wholeheartedly.
.....it
is obvious that proselytism was widespread among the ordinary people....
the
near pride in which the rabbis took in the claim that some of their greatest
figures were
descended
from proselytes point to an openhanded policy toward their acceptance.... 18
The more germane issue is the fact that Paul applies his apostolic authority
in this case, as he does later in the epistle (I Corinthians 14:33, 37) and
elsewhere. What he is saying is not a suggestion, to be followed or ignored.
Rather, it is a principle to be followed universally. In the letter to
the Galatian believers (5:6; 6:15), the
circumcision of Gentiles is clearly forbidden. There is no reason to
assume that prohibition has been modified, despite the fact that Paul's tone
here is not polemical (I Corinthians 7:19-20).
SCRIPTURE
HAS NO MODELS
FOR THE CONVERSION OF GENTILE BELIEVERS:
The Tanakh makes provision for Gentiles to convert to Judaism-- Rahab, Ruth, and foreigners who were circumcised as a
prerequisite for celebrating the Passover (Exodus 12:48). These,
examples cannot be applied to Gentile believers who are fellow-heirs of
salvation (Ephesians 3:16). In the New Testament, we find the example of
Timothy being circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). Can that be used as a valid
model for conversion of Gentile believers as John Fischer claims? 19
In
the first century, since receiving circumcision indicated one's obligation
and intention
to
keep the Law of Moses, Rav Shaul's
circumcision of Timothy may be regarded as the
conversion
of the non-Jew to Judaism. Thus we may have a precedent in the
B'rit
Hadasha for such a
modern-day practice.
In considering Timothy's example, two issues present themselves: was Timothy
considered a Gentile in the eyes of the Jewish community? Directly
connected is another question-- why was he circumcised? In this
narrative, Luke attached an explanatory note suggesting that Paul had Timothy
circumcised "because of the Jews....[who] knew
that his father was a Greek," (Acts 16:3). What precisely did Luke mean
by this comment?
If
Timothy was considered a Gentile like his father, circumcision would have
been a non-issue. Timothy would have been welcomed as another
God-fearing Gentile (Acts 13:26; 13:50; 17:14, 17) wherever he and Paul
traveled. The fact that it was an issue at all reflects the sentiment
among the Jewish people that Timothy should have been circumcised but had not
been because of his Greek father. Timothy was considered to be a Jew,
albeit a "bad Jew" because he had not been circumcised in
compliance with the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis.
17:10) and the Torah (Leviticus 12:2-3).20
Circumcising Timothy was done to facilitate the spread of the Gospel, based
on Paul's stated principle that we should do everything possible to eliminate
barriers to the Gospel (I Corinthians 9:20-22). The Message of the
Gospel should be the only stumbling block presented (I Corinthians
1:23). Yet, this action was not undertaken merely for the sake of
expedience. Longenecker explains the
relationship between expedience (for the sake of sharing the Gospel) and
principle (living a Torah-observant lifestyle).
But
while Paul stoutly resisted any imposition of circumcision and the [Torah]
upon
his Gentile converts, he himself continued to live as an observant Jew and
urged
his
converts to express their [faith] through the cultural forms they had
inherited....
Therefore,
it was both proper and [italics mine] expedient
for Paul to circumcise him.....21
The false teachers who dogged Paul's trail attempted to spread rumors that he
had taught Jewish believers to discontinue their adherence to the Torah
(including circumcision of their sons). The leadership at Jerusalem
encouraged Paul to squelch publicly those rumors (Acts 21:21).
Unlike Timothy, Titus provides us with a clear model of how circumcision
impacted a Gentile believer in the New Covenant. Titus was
unambiguously a Gentile ("a Greek," Galatians 2:3). Paul took
him to Jerusalem as part of a trip to meet with the pillars of the
congregation (i.e. apostles). As we read between the lines, a battle
had been brewing between Paul and the "false brethren" who insisted
that Gentiles should be circumcised. 22 Titus
was a very visible point man around which the battle swirled-- if he would be
compelled to be circumcised, then all Gentile believers should be pressured
to do the same. For Paul, giving in on this issue was tantamount to his
declaring that the message of the Gospel was insufficient to save, and for
that reason, he dug in his heels-- Titus would not be circumcised (Galatians
2:3-5). 23
PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Part
of the underlying message Scripture conveys to Gentile believers and indeed
to all of us is this-- "Learn to be content with who you are (Psalms
139:13-14), regardless of “deep longings” to the contrary." The
Lord's choosing us and selecting an assignment for us is a choice blessing (I
Corinthians 7:18).
2.
Conversion of Gentile believers conveys the wrong message to Gentile
believers in a Messianic Jewish congregation-- "You are a second-class
citizen unless you become Jewish," (i.e. convert). It makes a
mockery of the principle of unity in diversity (Ephesians 2:12-19).
3. Conversion of Gentile believers to
Messianic Judaism is unacceptable (invalid) among Jewish people here and
abroad (especially in Israel). It is strictly an "in-house"
exercise and what's worse, it re-enforces the perception in the Jewish
community that we as a movement are "na-arish"--
we cannot be taken seriously. While rejection by the Jewish community
is part of our cost of discipleship, our rejection should be for Yeshua's sake only.
4. The
nuances of the conversion of Gentile believers would be lost on the rest of
the Body of Messiah, who would view this as a re-occurrence of the Galatian heresy. We cannot delineate theology on
the basis of whether it is understood by other believers. Yet
alienating fellow believers elsewhere for the sake of a practice that is
questionable at best, unnecessarily squanders precious goodwill we have
earned among other believers.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Conversion of Gentile believers is not necessary for the
sake of fellowship with Jewish believers or more effective sharing of Yeshua
with the Jewish community (Acts 1:1-28; I Corinthians 9:19-23).
2. Conversion of Gentile believers
violates the scriptural principle of accepting our God-given identity (I
Corinthians 7:18-20).
3. There are no scriptural examples that can
be applied to believers today (Acts 16:1-3).
4. Conversion of Gentile believers
works against the principle of unity in diversity among believers in and out
of Messianic Jewish congregations (Ephesians 2:12-19). It also promotes
confusion in how the Jewish community and the church view who we are.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Chaim Urbach was born
in Israel and has been a believer since age 13. He has considerable
experience in Jewish evangelism and the Messianic Jewish movement.
Chaim and his family reside in Denver, Colorado and he is the Messianic
leader of Congregation Yeshuat Tsion,
P.O. Box 22272 Denver, CO 80222-0272 Mr. Urbach can also be reached
ENDNOTES: (NOTE THIS ARTICLE FIRST
APPEARED IN KESHER
A Journal of Messianic Judaism, ISSUE
6, 1998.)
1 Becoming a Jew, (Middle Village, NY:
Jonathan David Publishers, 1991), pp. 73-74.
2 Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism, Summer
1997, "Halachah in Action," the editors,
pp. 91-95.
3 "Modern-Day G-d-Fearers: A Biblical Role Model For Gentile
Participation in Messianic Congregations," a paper available
through Menorah Ministries, Clearwater, FL, no date, p. 7, 8.
4 "Modern-Day G-d-Fearers," p. 7.
5 It is possible that the four
prohibitions were an abbreviated form of the Noahide
laws-- seven rules for Gentiles expanded the covenant with Noah in Gen.
9:1-17-- practicing justice, avoiding blasphemy, idolatry, adultery,
bloodshed, robbery, flesh and blood from a live animal
(Sanh. 56a)
6 See Craig Blomberg, I Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p. 193 on vv. 14-22.
7 Hebrew Christianity: Its theology,
history & philosophy (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1992), p.113.
8 Clarksville, MF: JNP, 1992, p. 562.
9 Simon J. Kistemaker,
I Corinthians, NTC, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1993), pp. 230; (7:5)see Gordon D. Fee's discussion in The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 280-283.
10 JNTC, p. 456.
11 I Corinthians, Hans Conzelman, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 125.
12 Fee p. 313.
13 Conzelman, p. 126.
14 Blomberg, pp. 145-146.
15 Fischer, "Halacha in action," p. 93.
16 Fee, p. 311-312.
17 NTC, pp. 562.
18 Encyc. Jud. 13:1183. Also see Ben Zion Bokser,
"Witness and Mission in Judaism," in Issues in Jewish-Christian
Dialogue: Jewish Perspectives on Covenant, Mission and Witness (New
York: Paulist Press, 1979), p. 134; Lawrence
H. Schiffman, Who was a Jew: Rabbinic and Halachic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian Schism,
(Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1985), pp. 20-21.
19 John Fischer, "Halacha in Action," p.
93.
20 While Scripture traces a person's line through the father, rabbinic
tradition early on (e.g. M Kiddushin 3:12) ruled in
favor of matrilineal descent. For an overview of the issue as it
related to Timothy refer to Stern, pp. 281-282.
21 Longenecker, Acts, EBC,
Zondervan, 1995, p. 25.
22 This seems to be an earlier occasion that the one described in Acts 15.
23 The view that Titus was not compelled but underwent circumcision
voluntarily does violence to the
grammatical context. Richard N. Longenecker, in Galatians, (Waco:
Word, 1990), p. 50 points out that Paul went out of his way to emphasize that
he would not give the legalists any quarter. To have Titus circumcised forany reason would have defeated his purpose.
For
More Information Contact:
Return
to
Convert ?
.... Can A Gentile Christian Become A Jew? ...... Really?!
To
return to MENORAH'S
HOME PAGE
|