I got an e-mail that was forwarded to me from God knows who, and no telling where it started, of an eleven page paper from Tim Hegg that described why he was dissolving all ties with First Fruits of Zion, Intl. I received this e-mail about ten minutes before getting into my car to drive up to hear Boaz Michael, President of First Fruits of Zion, speak on the inclusion and involvement of gentiles in the "Messianic Movement." Boaz was obviously distracted by the circulation of Mr. Hegg’s paper and was very interested to hear if it seemed there was any validity in Mr. Hegg’s accusations, based upon the lectures Boaz had presented that evening.
I’ve found that there are some immediate barriers in our ability to communicate with others based solely upon the vocabulary, the specific terminology that we use when choosing to assert our beliefs. In the case of Philip Levertoff, in his book "Love and the Messianic Age," he immediately flies in the face of our fundamentalism asserting the Chasidic understanding of discipleship and using the term "mysticism" in his application of that understanding.
The Chasidic view suggests that we are well to sit under the authority and teaching of established and learned scholars, imitating their behavior and following their course of study as if though it bear the weight and authority of Scripture itself.
He that walketh with wise [men] shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
(Pro 13:20)
Our Christian fundamentalism balks at this in how we understand the warning of our Messiah:
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
(Mat 23:8-12)
Paul, in his second exhortation to Timothy may be interpreted as suggesting study and scholarship outside the specific texts of Canon is unnecessary if not dangerous.
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:16-17)
Yet, Paul’s relationship with the gentile Churches carried hints of this Chasidic relationship:
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
(Phi 3:17)
Christian fundamentalism, based upon the Lutherian doctrine "the Priesthood of the Believer", is firmly established as each person possessing within him (or her) the capacity to understand all things contained in the Scriptures and an ability to apply those appropriately in his life. The suggestion of Chasidism runs utterly contrary to this sense of individualism.
The hermeneutical process in Christian fundamentalism is centered upon logic and intellectual reason. The term "mysticism" or the acceptance of theology beyond reason has no place. While the idea of "spiritual discernment" is acknowledged, it is given little more than lip service in any hermeneutical exegesis (1Co 2:11-14). Emphasis is upon logical comparison between Scriptures built upon an understanding of language and context. The underlying theme throughout Levertoff’s narrative is the idea that one can possess the greatest competency theological reason; but without a present, dynamic, living relationship with the Most High God, then theology is empty, or at best, academic.
I was surprised, and a bit disappointed to find no real earth shattering discoveries. At times I wondered if I was reading Levertoff the
Jew or Levertoff the Anglican clergyman. Then, a couple of couple of nights ago, I received a phone call from a man who described himself as a Conservative Fundamentalist Jew.
The man questioned me concerning my belief in Yeshua as the Messiah and how I was able to validate such belief based upon the
. Any evidences I presented were written off as speculative at best. What this man wanted to see was hard evidence in
that specifically identified Yeshua veNatzarete as the Messiah to come.
What I found myself defending (having been a card-carrying fundamentalist all of my life) was
Judaism. You see, there is no hard evidence in
that declares Yeshua as Messiah in
. There is also no hard evidence that establishes Jerusalem as the City of God. The process by which Scripture is built upon Scripture is not through technical understanding and parsing nuances; but by actively walking in relationship with God.
The message of "Love and the Messianic Age" is not a how-to manual for understanding the formula for love, anticipating the Messianic era, as we fundamentalists will be disappointed to try and distill out of it. It is not about reaching into ancient Jewish insights to achieve a greater understanding of God. It is an invitation to not miss the person of the Messiah in our pursuit of the principle of the Messiah. It is about learning to walk in love.
Club, but didn't find anything on this board.
Jew or Levertoff the Anglican clergyman. Then, a couple of couple of nights ago, I received a phone call from a man who described himself as a Conservative Fundamentalist Jew. 
