“Jewish Adventist” Works for Reconciliation
by Debbonnaire Kovacs
by Debbonnaire Kovacs
Submitted 12/1/2013
Dr. Richard Elofer, publicity photo, used by permission
Dr. Richard Elofer, Director of the World Jewish Adventist Friendship Center, believes that the final prophecy of the Hebrew Scriptures, found in Malachi 4:5, 6, is speaking of reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity. The prophecy reads: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.” (NASB)
“When we read the text in Hebrew. . .[the Hebrew word] means the spiritual ancestors…” says Elofer. “The spiritual fathers have to be reconciled with the spiritual children. As a church, we are the spiritual children of Israel. Israel are our spiritual fathers.”
For Elofer, the greatest schism that has occurred in the church is not the rift between Roman and Orthodox Catholics, not the rift between Catholics and Protestants, but the rift between Judaism and Christianity that began in the second century and came to full strength under Constantine in the fourth. At that point, not only was anti-Semitism rife so that Christians were rejecting Jews, but when Christianity became the official state religion and the day of worship was changed to the day of the sun, Elofer says, Jews “radically rejected Christianity.” They knew, he says, that Jeremiah said God would write his covenant, or his commandments, on the heart. If a supposed messiah said to change that law or covenant, then “he couldn’t be our messiah.”
Elofer points out that this was a huge shift. Originally, the Christian population was almost entirely Jewish. “Jews accepted Jesus with enthusiasm and were baptized by the thousands.” Jesus, he says, was never a Christian, and didn’t come to start a new religion. The book of Acts calls him the savior of Israel. “If Jews and Christians had understood their faith and the teachings of Jesus, we would still be one people.”
Dr. Elofer himself represents a reconciliation between these two often contentious faith traditions. He was born into a devout Jewish family in Casablanca, Morocco. When he was eight, the family moved to France, where his father contributed to the establishment of a synagogue in the town of Villejuif, a suburb of Paris whose name translates to Jewishtown. At twelve, like all faithful Jewish boys, Elofer became a “son of the covenant” in the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Here he received his first full rabbinical Bible and began to read it intensively.
In an interview with Alberto Rosenthal, hoffnung-weltweit.de, which can be heard in its entirety at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvO40BFmPkI, Elofer says that after his Bar Mitzvah he was “disappointed,” and began to “rebel a little bit” and didn’t attend synagogue as faithfully as he had before. He doesn’t state the reasons. However, a few years later, he met some people who “helped me discover the Jewish Messiah. That made a revolution in me.” Elofer explains that in the past he had known of Jesus only as “an idol on a cross.” When he read the whole story of Jesus,(and when he discovered that what he was being told could be verified in his rabbinical Bible,) he says it actually helped him to discover more of his “Jewishness.” He realized Jesus was born, lived, and died a Jew, and says he felt Jesus was his close brother. Little by little, he came to see that Yeshua was, in fact, the Jewish Messiah. At nineteen, he was baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Paris.
The next year, Elofer began his studies at the Adventiste Université du Salève, where he earned his first theological degree. He worked as a pastor for seventeen years in France, and then went to Israel to work fifteen years as President of the Seventh-day Adventist church there.
In his interview with Rosenthal, Elofer says that he and his wife were told there were only about 50 Adventists in Israel when they arrived. In an article in Adventist World magazine [see below], he is quoted as saying that, “After about 100 years of presence in Palestine/Israel we had only 50 members. Today there are more than 1,000 members, shared in 25 congregations, and the majority of our members are Israelis.”
It apparently became clear to the General Conference that Elofer had an understanding that was making a difference, because in 2000, GC asked him to become the part-time director of the World Jewish Adventist Friendship Center. In 2012, he moved back to France and became full-time director.
Dr. Elofer says that Adventists have so much in common with Jews, not only in doctrinal beliefs, but in lifestyle issues, such as clean versus unclean meats, that we could be called Adventist Jews. He believes that we could lead the way in dialogue and reconciliation between Jews and Christians.
It begins with something as simple—and as vital—as language. Elofer argues that calling the first part of the Bible the Old Testament implies that it is old, outdated, obsolete, and that it’s a will, or testament, of something or someone who is dead. Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures is a more inclusive term. He says he can start a good discussion with another Jew by saying that he would like to introduce the Jesus of the Bible, not the Jesus the church has generally taught. He will ask them if they know Jesus was a Jew and if they realize that what is usually called the New Testament (he calls it the Book of the New Covenant, or the Apostolic Writings) was written entirely by Jews. He informs them that Jesus never told people to stop keeping Sabbath. They are, by his report, almost always surprised, and often then open to more discussion.
Discussion, dialogue, reconciliation are what Dr. Elofer is after. In the interview, he reads with feeling the first verses of what he calls “the Jewish gospel” that begins in Isaiah 40: ““Comfort, O comfort My people,” says your God. “Speak kindly to Jerusalem; and call out to her, that her warfare has ended, that her iniquity has been removed, that she has received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” That, he says, is good news to anyone. Comfort and tenderness are the center of everything Jesus said and did, but Dr. Elofer thinks we are not using those qualities as much as we might, to reach out to our estranged brothers and sisters.
“If we take the effort to change our words, we will change our thinking and the reconciliation can go from there.”
Dr. Elofer has earned a MA in Global Leadership (MAGL) (2008) and a Doctorate of Intercultural Studies (D.I.S.) at Fuller Seminary (2012). He is married to Liliane, they have three children: Rachel, accountant in England, Raphael currently engineer in computer science in Edinburgh, Scotland, and Johann, dentist in Paris.
He will be speaking at the Manhattan Seventh-day Adventist Church in a series of seminars starting on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday evenings (Dec. 4-6) at 7:00 p.m., and on Saturday morning, Dec. 7, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. and in an afternoon seminar that same day at 2:30 p.m. If you are in that area, you are encouraged to attend and bring friends. If not, you may learn more about Dr. Elofer or hear him and his insights for yourself below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvO40BFmPkI
www.Jewishadventist.org
https://www.adventistworld.org/article/1354/resources/english/issue-2012-1011/the-jews-of-adventism
Please explain the meaning of Leviticus 16:14 "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times." In connection with the unpardonable sin, of denying the Holy Spirit, and Jesus saying,
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
Luk 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Is it ok for Adventist to wear the Jewish Prayer Shawl? and the skull cap?
Sincerely,
Connie Anderson
Luke's attitude to the Jewish people is a complicated one. Luke also wrote Acts, and the speech of Stephen is perhaps a better illustration. Many scholars believe Luke (through Jesus and Stephen) was not condemning the Jewish people, but the Jewish leadership.
Another good example is Acts 15. The Apostles and Elders (who were Jewish we should remember) were not suggesting Jewish believers in Jesus should stop being Jews. Rather, they were saying Gentile believers don't need to become Jews.
This might seem raddical but it isn't. In fact, it is what Jewish Rabbis today teach. Jewish Rabbis today don't expect or even want Jewish converts – they only want Gentiles to obey the Noahide laws as set down in Gen 9.
So lets be clear. Virtually all of us Adventists are non-Jewish Gentiles, so we don't have to wear the prayer shawl. We don't have to convert to Judaism.
However, for Jewish Adventists, they shouldn't feel that they should somehow give up their ancient traditions either. The Mosaic Law doesn't save us or them, but the Jewish feasts and traditions, including circumcission, were shadows that point to Jesus.
It is interesting to know how history would have turned out if the Romans didn't wipe out Jewish Christianity in the 1st and 2nd Centuries.
Man looks on the outside, at clothing and on fashionable presentation. God sees theheart of man. By their fruits of the Spirit shall ye know them.
I'm not sure I understand the question concerning the Leviticus text, but the way I personally would answer the question of the prayer shawl and yarmulke is that they were commanded in the Jewish Scriptures (Num 15:38-40; Deut 22:12, for example) and Jesus wore them, and anything He did I think is okay for us to do. I agree with Dr. Elofer that Jesus didn't come to create a new religion, but to call His children back to Him. If His people as a whole had listened to Him then, we would all still be Jews, only with a Messiah. Customs like head coverings and prayer shawls would probably have stayed with some people and adapted in others, the same as all customs have.
Connie, I hope Richard sees your comments and responds. Meanwhile, as Richard's colleague in Adventist Mission (my area is Islam), I would like to respond to your question concerning the Shawl, etc. Let's remember that most of our dress and customs are borrowed from our culture. Their meaning is the meaning that culture has given it. I haven't figured out why I need a tie (!), but somewhere in our background it came to mean "dress up" and especially respectful "dress up." So we do it. To the Jew, the shaw and cap are symbols of reverence and worship. Are not those characteristics we would want to portray as well? "When in Rome….." This especially is true when communicating eternal concepts. That is why Paul said, "when I am with Jews, I become as a Jew….that I might win some."
I have prayer shawl that I like to use for personal prayer (when I think of it). Wearing these items would be a wonderful tradition for us, but they don't fit in our current culture and could be misunderstood. It would certianly fit in Adventist Jewish congregations and other Messianic Christian groups.
I support Dr. Elofer's work and would like to see the denomination move in this direction and embrace its Jewishness and the fact that Jesus was a Jew and did not start a new religion.
I think Acts 15 is the cornerstone of the split. Most Christians today see this as the start of Gentile Christianity as a new separate religion. However, the Apostles and Elders (who were Jewish) merely required of the Gentiles what modern Rabbis require of Gentiles – the Noahide Laws of Gen 9.
The NT doesn't ask Jews to stop being Jews – although it expects Jews to believe in Jesus. Rather, it doesn't expect Gentiles to become Jews – again something modern Jewish Rabbis believe and teach with respect to Gentiles.
This seems like very exciting ministry and I pray for its success. Adventism seems uniquely well placed to bring about this healing with Jews and (Gentile) Christianity.
The question I'd like to ask Richard is what is the difference between Adventist Jews and Messianic Jews?
It would seem to me that a Holy Grail would be for the Messianic Jewish community (or one or part of it) and the Adventist Church to be 'in communion' with each other, recognising each other as the respective Jewish and Gentile parts of God's Church – just like the NT Church. We could be our own new United Adventist Church.
I know Messianic Jews were mainly started by other denominations (was it the Baptists?) but surely the SDA Church would make a much better fit?
Could the same approach work for different areas of the Church from other backgrounds – including Islamic backgrounds? Could someone still think Mohammed a prophet (PBUH) of some sort but become an Adventist? I really don't know.
The NT Church seemed to reflect this unity in diversity model, centred around different Apostles: James' Jewish Christians, Peter Antiochan mixed group, Paul's primarily Gentile group and John's more mystical group. '
The whole point of the counsel in Acts 15 was working out what was 'essential' for the purposes of unity and what was cultural or even theologically 'non-essential', allowing for diversity.
That would be my dream.
The Noahide Laws to which you refer differ in many ways from Adventist doctrines:
Everything living thing is food for you (except no blood) as well as foliage of plants.
No Decalogue, no Sabbath, no Trinity, no unclean meats, almost nothing that Adventists require today.
The gentile believers were also only warned of food offered to idols, blood and fornication. Simplicity itself. Now compared to current FBs see how many have been added through the years.
It seems that God was most interested in allowing them all foods, and little else. Certainly, almost none of the Jewish and Adventist doctrines today.
I think there is arguments as to whether those things are implicitly found, much like the Decalogue itself. We can argue about the particular list you have given, but you do admit, contrary to your previous oft-stated position, that Christianity was not intended as a 'seperate religion'? The Apostles never expected Jewish Christians to stop being Jews, and Gentile Christians were only expected to follow the Law of Moses to the extent of its Noahide applications?
If the answer is yes, then we can discuss your little list.
Elaine: 'No Decalogue, no Sabbath, no Trinity, no unclean meats, almost nothing that Adventists require today. The gentile believers were also only warned of food offered to idols, blood and fornication. Simplicity itself.'
As for your list Elaine, probably the best and easiest example is food laws. The Noahide laws (both in Gen 9 and affirmed in Acts 15) do prescribe food laws. The question is if they only concern blood or types of meat as well – Adventists argue it is the latter. In particular, Adventists who think we don't eat pork because of Lev are wrong – it is because of Noah's example in Gen, when Noah brought 7 pairs of 'clean' animals onto the ark.
We have to realise the Noahide laws are broad and generic, like the Decalogue, and not detailed causatic laws. For example, there is nothing here where the Apostles tell Gentiles to worship only one God Yahweh – the God of the Jews. And yet, that is implicitly understood, perhaps under the command to abstain from things offered to idols. The Trinity would be understood within that framework.
As for the Sabbath, it is explicitly mentioned by the Apostles in Acts 15:21. James links these 'essential' teachings to the expectation that the Gentiles should already know these 'essentials' as preached to both Jews and Gentiles on the Sabbath day.
James's reference to the essentials of the Law of Moses in verse 21 is also arguably a reference to the Decalogue, because obviously he is not referring to the 'non-essentials' of the Mosaic ceremonial aspects of the Law, such as circumcission, which he has just explained are not essential. Arguably this very simple list for the Gentiles does encapsulate the Decalogue, but just said in a different way, just like the 2 Great Laws or even the two different versions of the Decalogue in Exodus compared with Deut.
Thus, you are right in saying the Apostles were indeed being very simple. But be careful in wrongly assuming, as you seem to be suggesting Elaine, that they were being simplistic.
Like the Decalogue, this simple Noahide list is both very easy but in its broadness very all encompassing. There is no evidence that the Apostles expected a narrow and legalistic interpretation of this list, as you seem to suggest. Adopting a broad construction of the passage, it arguable does cover the Decalogue, Sabbath, Trinity and unclean meats.
And I like how The Message puts Acts 15:19,20 and 21, especially verse 21, which does explicitly mention the Sabbath:
“So here is my decision: We’re not going to unnecessarily burden non-Jewish people who turn to the Master. We’ll write them a letter and tell them, ‘Be careful to not get involved in activities connected with idols, to guard the morality of sex and marriage, to not serve food offensive to Jewish Christians—blood, for instance.’ This is basic wisdom from Moses, preached and honored for centuries now in city after city as we have met and kept the Sabbath.”
All food that isn't contaminated or poisoned provides nourishment to the body. The Andes plane wreck survivors of some years ago, sustained life by eating human flesh. Paul, says not to judge what another eats or drinks, it is not what is ingested for food that defiles a person, but that which comes out of the mouth.
It is the spirit that God is concerned about. The body shell withers and dies, and decays, but the spirit, the soul of man is the temple of God. That which is flesh is not the spirit, the soul. Whatever a man eats as food, blessed by God, nourishes the body.
That's not what Acts 15:21 says.
The rules given to Noah were to eat of everything that lives on the earth, even crawling things. There were no restrictions because that was the only food available. The SDA assumption is that the 7 unclean were brought on board for food, but Noah and his family were never limited. There had been no previous food laws, or any specific laws given to Noah before the flood, and in one of the three versions of the flood story found in Gen. 6:5-8:22, Noah is told to bring two of each kind of animals, male and female, including creeping things of the earth, no mention of clean or unclean.
Then in the second story (Gen 7:2) Noah is told to bring 7 pairs of clean beasts, "and of the beasts which are not clean, two of both kinds."
In Gen. 7:7: "Of the clean beasts and of the beasts which were not clean, and of the birds and of all those which creep upon the earth, t wo of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female.
These are a clear indication that they were written after Sinai as there was no mention prior to that time of God instructing man on clean and unclean foods. After Adam and Eve had been created, God gave them every plant yielding seed, fruit from trees, and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth they were given green plants.
Was man not given green plants for food? Were all animals to be vegetarians? There are numerous animals that do not, could not survive on plants, nor were their digestive systems made to digest plants alone.
Maybe Elaine, but it isn't clear. The fact that the Apostles had to even have an ecumenical council in Acts 15 over the issue of the Law for Jews and Gentiles is indicative that Jesus' Himself was far from clear on how and what parts of the Law Christians should keep. The mere existence of this council certainly suggests Jesus was not antionomanist, as you perhaps suggest.
The problem with the Bible is that sometimes silence does not, as you perhaps suggest, mean licence. For example, in Matt's discussion of divorce, Jesus mentions the exception in the case of adultery. However, Mark has no record of Jesus' stated exception. Many scholars believe Mark never wrote the exception, not because Mark didn't think it applied, but rather the opposite – to Mark and his audience it was so obvious that it didn't warrant mentioning.
'The SDA assumption is that the 7 unclean were brought on board for food, but Noah and his family were never limited.'
Why then do you think the rabbis in Babylon were intent, through redaction if necessary, to ensure the story of Noah had the part about the 7 pairs of 'clean' animals? It was for sacrafice right? And in ancient society, you didn't simply just eat meat – you only ate it as part of sacraficial rituals.
That was the whole point of Josiah's reforms, by insisting all sacrafices occur in Jerusalem, because that in effect turned Jerusalem into a giant steakhouse, where meat will all be consumed in that city. We forget, ancients didn't eat meat very often – only occassionally as part of a religious ceremony.
Thus, the implication by the Jewish rabbinical redactors of Babylon, at least, wanted to draw a clear implication that Noah and his family ate 'clean' animals, which they sacraficed to God.
The Council in Acts 15 is drawing a similar bow. Talking about abstaining for blood and abstaining from food offered to idols is short-hand for Jewish food laws. Again, I think The Message paraphrase (a non-Adventist source) of Acts 15:21 says it best:
'to not serve food offensive to Jewish Christians—blood, for instance'.
The great irony today is that modern Christians think they can eat absolutely whatever they want. The decision of Acts 15:21 clearly suggests that is not the case. To abstain from blood, for instance, is probably not something most Christians adhere to every time they have a medium-rare steak!
What on your little list do you want to discuss next?
Interesting to read this article along with chapter 35 in Acts of the Apostles, "Salvation to Jews." A similar sentiment is also addressed in chapter 37–"…by this visit [Paul] hoped to bring about a firmer union between the Jewish and the Gentile converts to the faith" (p. 389). I'm not saying those chapters are the end of any debate; just saying they speak to themes in the above article.