What is a Disciple? What is an Apostate?

This is my entry in the CTOMC essay contest. I suppose this to be a swipe at the hornet's nest. So be it.  Well, maybe not hornets...

There is a new website that promotes the notion that Gentiles have no place in Messianic Judaism. I suppose the God of Israel and His Messiah were wrong to try and include Gentiles in Israel, in Torah observance and in Temple worship (at least according to the sponsors of this travesty).
Don't you just love people that try and correct the Father, His prophets and His Anointed?

I suppose it is inevitable when you try to understand 1st century Messianic observance through the lens of modern Christian and Jewish traditions and cultural norms. Two thousand years of evolution guided by the hand of man can change a religion - or two - more than a little. It can even create a couple.

I refuse to provide a link because that might imply that I condone this heresy. But at the site, I found a list of names:

Janicki, Toby
Levy, Jordan
Tucker, J. Brian
Stokes, H. Bruce
Adler, Jeff
Pyles, James
Michael, Boaz
Lancaster, D. Thomas
Campbell, William S
Bauckham, Richard
Leman, Derek
Bockmuehl, Markus
Hardin, Justin K
Rudolph, David J
Zoccali, Christopher
Fredriksen, Paula
Eisenbaum, Pamela
Hodge, Caroline Johnson
Le Cornu, Hilary
Shulam, Joseph
Nanos, Mark D
Wilk, Florian
Zetterholm, Magnus
Willitts, Joel
Oliver, Isaac
Eby, Aaron

If you are familiar with the Messianic movement, you may recognize a few of these individuals. These people are public figures, religious 'leaders' and are extremely dangerous teachers because of the way they twist scripture. Most of these people call themselves 'Leaders' and 'Rabbis' or are their Christian supporters in the Messianic 'Jewish' movement. Some aren't even Messianic, they're modern traditional Jews. Most are affiliated with or supporters of the teachings of UMJC, FFOZ, MJAA and like organizations. Their heresies are gaining support. I understand that UMJC alone rakes in millions in donations a year. But who's counting, right? It's not like this is big business, right?

Whatever their ethnicity, religious or cultural bias or monetary motivations, what they call Messianic Judaism doesn't even slightly resemble the 1st century model of observance of which I have read. They prefer their vision of Messianic Judaism to more closely resemble a hybrid of modern traditional Christianity modified to be more palatable to the modern traditional Jewish community - one whose greatest fear is Gentile assimilation - and Gentile contamination. I suppose they would feel more comfortable if the Gentiles that visit their shuls would announce themselves by proclaiming aloud, "Unclean! Unclean!"

These people promote the status quo: Christianity for Gentiles and Judaism for Jews. Their message to Gentiles that would become more observant, "Go back to your church." The 'one new man in Messiah' concept is misunderstood according to them. However, their interpretation of 'one new man' looks more like apartheid or racial segregation, relying on the same 'separate but equal' logic that stalled the civil rights movement for so long. Instead of "White" and "Colored" signs on the fountains of Living Waters, they would see "Jew" and "Non-Jew". Their self-serving statements, position papers, blog posts and publications remind me of the axiom: 'Lies are always more complicated than the truth'.

From what I have read at places like the Orthodox Messianic Blog, most of them seem to have a hard time with direct questions.

These people above were listed as authors, speakers, experts, etc., on this Gentile 'resource' site. But they claim to be followers of Messiah Y'shua or of Jesus the Christ. I find their claims doubtful. You see, I can read. I have read the instructions of Messiah. Especially those explicit instructions made to His disciples. These people reject Messiah's explicit instruction concerning their own status among the brethren and the treatment of Gentiles for the sake of their (Whose?) mission. Hence, the questions:  What is a Disciple? What is an Apostate?

In the interest of full disclosure, I too have my flaws. However, my sins are simple weaknesses, not self-serving aggrandizement. I don't take money for sharing the Word - or twisting it. I tend to be impatient with wolves in wool tallits. I don't know these people except by reputation. I cannot speak to their motivation. I can only speak to their actions. Nor am I a scholar. But I do know a few things. As the Master taught, I will know them by their fruit.

When I was a young lad, my mother taught me how to pick fruit at the market. The most compelling of these lessons was based on appearance, firmness and bouquet. I have followed the changes in the Messianic community over the last decade. These folks look great. Public relations seems to be their forte, but their arguments lack the firmness of good fruit. When their verbiage is reduced to it's simplest form, their words do not cover their arguments. Pull back the verbiage and you can see the holes. Mom taught me what holes in fruit meant. Aren't parallels fun? So, just for fun, let's save the 'sniff test' for last, OK? It may prove to be a strong bouquet.

What is a Disciple? 

Isn't 'disciple' related to the word discipline? I think there should be some expectation of the exercise of discipline; an expectation of obedience to the teachings of the Master. Don't you? Isn't this the classic example of knowing is doing and doing is knowing? Isn't discernment in a case like this, really a case of 'knowing them by their fruit'?

I have heard certain of these people place a lot of emphasis on their education. They claim great insight into scripture because of it. But these are the same people that teach and do things that would make their Teacher rebuke them openly. Are they disciples? What does academia say about the word, 'disciple'? Here is a link to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disciple. They list definitions from a variety of Lexicons, in this case including The American Heritage® Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary and Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary. I do hope that this will serve purpose for the learned among us:

Definition of Disciple:

dis·ci·ple  (dĭ-sī′pəl) n. 1. a. One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another. b. An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy. 2. often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus. 3. Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ. [Middle English, from Old English discipul and from Old French desciple, both from Latin discipulus,pupil, from discere, to learn; see dek- in Indo-European roots.] dis·ci′ple·ship′ n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published byHoughton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

disciple (dɪˈsaɪpəl)

n

1. (Philosophy) a follower of the doctrines of a teacher or a school of thought

2. (Bible) one of the personal followers of Christ (including his 12 apostles) during his earthly life

[Old English discipul, from Latin discipulus pupil, from discere to learn]

disˈcipleˌship n discipular adjCollins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

---

dis•ci•ple (dɪˈsaɪ pəl)

n.

1. any professed follower of Christ in His lifetime, esp. one of the 12 apostles.

2. (cap.) a member of the Disciples of Christ.

3. a pupil or an adherent of another; follower: a disciple of Freud.

[before 900; Middle English deciple (< Anglo-French de(s)ciple), Old English discipul < Latin discipulus=dis- dis-¹ + -cip(ere), comb. form of capere to take + -ulus -ule]

dis•ci′ple•like`, adj.

dis•ci′ple•ship`, n.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

disciple, discipline - Disciple comes from a Latin word meaning "learner" and discipline comes from one meaning "instruction, knowledge."

See also related terms for instruction.

Farlex Trivia Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

I am reminded of such verses as, 'If you love me, keep my mitvot (commandments).' So the assumption becomes, if you actually love the Teacher, you will actually do what He teaches you, right? Well, that's what I thought! But evidently, there are those among this group that are not so inclined, yet still insist on calling themselves 'followers', 'disciples' or 'talmidim' of Messiah Y'shua! I wrote a blog post about Rabbinic Authority as it applies to the disciples of Messiah Y'shua, based mainly on Matthew 23:8-12. You might want to take a look.

Matthew 23:8-12

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

8 “But you are not to let yourselves be called ‘Rabbi’; because you have one Rabbi, and you are all each other’s brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘Father.’ because you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to let yourselves be called ‘leaders,’ because you have one Leader, and he is the Messiah! 11 The greatest among you must be your servant, 12 for whoever promotes himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be promoted.

So now, the 'Leaders' and 'Rabbis' of UMJC, MJAA, FFOZ etc., would have you believe that Gentiles have no place in Messianic Judaism and no business observing the instruction of the Word, Torah. Well someone is going to be humbled. Are we still guessing who?

You know the classic ploy of the TV attorney that discredits a witness by catching them in a lie? They ask their big question, "So you lied then, but you claim to be telling the truth now? You have already proven that you are a liar, why should we trust you now?" Only in this case, it would sound more like: So if we can't trust them with little things (like following the explicit instructions of Messiah), why should we believe anything they teach (like claiming they are His disciples and followers or that their education gives them special insight into the Word)? If their (Whose?) ministry is ethnically prioritized, where else does their ethnic bias extend?

Forget for a moment that the context of Messiah's rebuke to the Cohen and P'rushim in the above passage, included their practice of excluding and segregating the Gentiles that would come to worship (sound familiar?). Forget the whole concept of Torah being a beacon to the nations, of Messiah being the living incarnation of the Torah (Word) or His being the Light of the world (Gentiles). Obviously, these people are not impressed with the authority of scripture.

Instead, just remember His explanation that He came to save the lost sheep of Israel or the phrase, 'to the Jews first', something that these people recite like a mantra. Instead, remember that after He was resurrected, evidently something changed. Because He told His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations (Gentiles) into talmidim (Disciples), immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the age."

The ringleaders of this anti-Gentile heresy teach that there is nothing wrong with ethnic prioritization in their (Whose?) ministry to the Jews. This has prompted me to look up a couple of other words...

...like Bigot (also from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot:

big·ot  (bĭg′ət) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. [French, from Old French.] Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published byHoughton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

n

1. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

[C16: from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]

ˈbigoted adjCollins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

---

big•ot (ˈbɪg ət)

n.

a person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion.

[1590–1600; < Middle French]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

...and Apostate:

a·pos·tate  (ə-pŏs′tāt′, -tĭt) n. One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause. [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin apostata, from Greek apostatēs, from aphistanai, to revolt; see apostasy.] a·pos′tate′ adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published byHoughton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

apostate (əˈpɒsteɪt; -tɪt)

n

1. a person who abandons his religion, party, cause, etc

adj

2. guilty of apostasy

apostatical adjCollins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

---

a•pos•tate (əˈpɒs teɪt, -tɪt)

n.

1. a person who commits apostasy.

adj.

2. of or characterized by apostasy.

[1300–50; < Late Latin apostata < Greek apostátēs (see apostasy)]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

So, if you first come to be a 'servant' of the Lord, but eschew that title for that of 'Rabbi' or 'Leader', against the explicit instruction of your Master, the Son of God, does that make you an 'apostate'; "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause"?

Hmmm... Time for desert. Does their fruit pass the 'sniff test'?
Whew! Open the door and windows!

Freely you have received, freely give.  This work is licensed under: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.