Congregation vs. Community
Notes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
Many leaders in the Messianic movement have never really grasped the difference between an Apostolic Torah Community and a Christian Congregation. In other words, one of the reasons that the current Messianic movement so much resembles the Christian Church and why so many Messianic Congregations seek ac- ceptance within Christendom is that most of the leaders in this movement have never been able to think outside of the box of Christian ecclesiology. Ecclesisology is the theological term for structure and doctrine about the ‘church’ - ekklesia.
In the same way that the Torah Movement is the result of recovering the biblical view of Torah, it is equally imperative for us that we recover a biblical ecclesiology. Instead of simply presuming that the way Christianity or Messianic congregations do “Church” or “synagogue” is the proper model for us, we must endeavor to recover a thorough-go-ing, biblical ecclesiology.
I’m not saying that the basic ecclesiology of the Christian Church is entirely wrong—it isn’t. Many aspects of the Christian Church are based squarely upon the Scriptures. We certainly do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water! But what I am saying is that within the traditional Christian ecclesiology there are core, foundational tenets that are not biblically based but have evolved over time. Put simply, we cannot accept the Christian ecclesiology carte blanche and also expect to build Torah Communities.
I should also add that recovering a biblical ecclesiology cannot be done by emulating the modern Jewish synagogue model, though we can certainly learn a lot from the way Jewish communities have “done Synagogue” through the centuries. Some say that in many ways, the contemporary synagogue (especially those of Reform and Conservative Judaism) has been heavily influenced by the Christian Church too. To be clear, the modern synagogue is not the synagogue that existed during the time of Yeshua as many historians clearly demonstrate - in fact, synagogues predate the rabbis by hundreds of years ‘as prayer houses’ and synagogues were independent and had local officials. Jairus, whose daughter died, was one such official Mark 5.22.
In seeking to express the need for recovering a biblical ecclesiology, I want to use the terms “congre- gation” and “community”. While a number of important things differ between the two, at least in my thinking, the foundational difference is this: a “congregation” is primarily concerned with the present and near future; a “community,” while concerned with the present, always has a generational element at its core. To put it simply: a community takes seriously the repeated phrase “throughout all your generations” found often in the Torah. It is this generational perspective that drives a community to be what it ought to be. Likewise, this generational aspect affects every major decision of the community, for the highest goal of a community is to remain faithful to its core values from generation to generation while entirely fixed on the coming day of judgement.
In a congregation, the real statement of faith exists on the website - congregations are primairly concerned with mentally agreeing with the stated truth. Not so in a community. The life of the community is the true statement of its faith. The core values do not reside in a written confession but in the daily lives of its community members. The congregation attempts to pass its confession of faith to the next generation; the community seeks to pass its life to the next generation. The one is based in cog- nition; the other in relationship.
Thus, one of the foundational differences that I see between “congregation” and “community” is the method each employs to promulgate the truth. A congregation puts most of its energies into explaining and teaching the truth. A community also emphasizes teaching the truth, but realizes that the truth will best be understood in the context of life-to-life relationships. For a community, explaining what is true is not enough. The truth of the core values must be experienced and seen in the daily facets of life in order for it to be passed to the next generation.
The bigger question, of course, is how we can go about recovering a Torah ecclesiology. The following are some of the necessary steps that are obvious to me as we engage in such an endeavor.
Step 1: Restore Biblical Leadership
Step 1: Restore Biblical Leadership
Perhaps one of the most obvious tenets of Christian or Messianic ecclesiology that needs to be jettisoned by a Torah Community is the traditional Christian view of The Pastor. The Christian perspective can be traced back to the early centuries of the emerging Christian Church. In the Apostolic Scriptures, we are met with three terms that designate leadership positions within the early assemblies of believers (ekklesia): overseer (episkopos), elder (presbuteros), and deacon (diakonos). Obviously missing from the list is “rabbi,” since this title did not gain a technical sense of an office of congregational leadership until hundreds of years later.
In the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, elders and overseers (often translated by the English word “bishop”) were equated. Elders were overseers, and overseers were elders, the two terms used in- terchangeably. But it was not long until the overseer became an office distinct from and superior to that of the elder. In each congregation, a single elder was elevated to the office of overseer, and this "bishop" exercised authority over the elders of that local assembly. Eventually bishops were appointed to oversee a given geographical region, meaning they had authority over a number of bishops who ruled their re- spective congregations. It was not long until the title “Universal Bishop” was developed which designat- ed one bishop as the ruler over all the bishops. It was this office of the “Universal Bishop” which even- tually became the Pope. This pattern by the way is what we see amongst the Rabbis, to the point where in the 4th century a Rabbi was granted authority by Rome over all synagogue officials, though it is unclear to what extent and what happened to this institution.
This hierarchical scheme of leadership and authority solidified the tradition of one bishop per local congregation, who submitted to the authority of a regional bishop, who likewise submitted to the authority of the “Universal Bishop.” But no such hierarchy can be found in the Apostolic Scriptures. In Acts 14:23, the apostles appoint “elders (plural) in every ekklesia (singular).”
When they had handpicked elders for them in every community, and prayed with fasting, they placed them in the care of the Lord—in whom they had put their trust.
Granted, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) appears to make authoritative halachah for all of the assemblies of believers, but even here it is not the rule of a single bishop but the collective counsel of a group of leaders that formulates the decisions. Though James is portrayed in Acts 15 as the acting moderator of the Council, there is no indication whatsoever that his voice carried more weight than any of the other Apostles or elders who gathered to resolve the issue. When the written edict is finally drafted, it is sent out as the conclusion of the Council, not the pontification of James or any other individual.
Moreover, an indication of the local, plural leadership that existed in the early communities of The Way can be seen in the opening of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. He does not send his epistle to a given individual (The Pastor) who governs the believing community (ekklesia) at Philippi. Rather, he ad- dresses his epistle to “all the saints in Messiah Yeshua who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).
Paul and Timothy, slaves of Messiah Yeshua, To all the kedoshim in Messiah Yeshua who are in Philippi with the overseers and servant-leaders:
Note carefully that even though the overseers and deacons had positions of leader- ship and authority, they are addressed as members of the “saints” at Philippi. In other words, they are viewed as indigenous to the community itself, not as professionals who had been “hired” or “commis- sioned” to be leaders. Equally important is the fact that in this single community there are overseers (plural) and deacons (plural). There is no hint of a single individual leader who stands as authority over the others. This is in harmony with the notice of Acts 14:23 that the apostles appointed “elders (plural) for them in every assembly (singular).” We find the same language in regard to the elders (plural) at Ephesus.
From Miletus, dispatching someone to Ephesus, he called for the elders of the community.
In Acts 20:17 we read, “From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (plural) of the assembly (ekklesia, singular).” Having gathered the elders together, Paul explains to them that he is on his way to Jerusalem where he expected to be bound and even killed, and that they would not again see his face. So he exhorts them to “shepherd the assembly (ekklesia) of God which He purchased with His own blood” (v. 28). Here, the overseers (plural) are to shepherd the assembly (singular) of God. They are to guard the flock from false doctrine and false teachers and feed them from the “word of God’s grace” (vv. 29–32). The role of community leadership is clearly in the hands of a number of overseers, not the responsibility of a single leader or Pastor.
Indeed, one searches in vain to find any instance in the Apostolic Scriptures where a local community of believers is led by an individual “Pastor.” Rather, the pattern clearly delineated in the Apostolic Scriptures is that the leadership of any local community of believers is invested in a group of leaders who function together in the Hebraic fashion as a council of elders.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Apostolic Scriptures to warrant the idea that the office of overseer or elder was filled by men from outside of the community. In other words, overseers and elders were indigenous to the community itself, as would be the normal procedure among a Jewish community. The idea that a community would look outside of itself for a trained professional to come into their com- munity and assume the role of a leader is foreign not only to the Apostolic ecclesiology but also to the Jewish culture in which the early Apostolic congregations were founded. This is highlighted by the fact that the overseers or elders of the early congregations were spoken of as “shepherds.” Our English word “pastor” is actually the Latin word for “shepherd” and became common in the Christian Church through the use of the Latin Vulgate. Actually, the noun “shepherd,” referring to a leader in the believing assem- bly, is found only one time in the Apostolic Scriptures, in Eph 4:11–12:
He Himself gave some to be emissaries, some as prophets, some as proclaimers of the Good News, and some as shepherds and teachers— to equip the kedoshim for the work of service, for building up the body of Messiah.
The verb, “to shepherd,” is found twice as a description of overseers in the believing community:
“Take care of yourselves and all the flock of which the Ruach ha-Kodesh has made you overseers, to shepherd the community of God—which He obtained with the blood of His own.
shepherd God’s flock among you. Watch over it not under compulsion but willingly before God, not for dishonest gain but eagerly.
Even though the use of “shepherd” to describe the role of an overseer is found only these few times, it still gives us an important clue as to how the Apostles viewed the office of overseer in the early com- munities of The Way. For a shepherd is someone who knows the sheep and one whom the sheep know. He is not a stranger who has no connection to the community that he helps lead and guard. In this re- gard, Yeshua is called the “Chief Shepherd” (1Pet 2:25) because the sheep belong to Him and He has given His life for them. But the fact that Peter refers to Yeshua as the Chief Shepherd means that there are other lesser shepherds who are to emulate His example as a Shepherd.
In John 10 our Messiah gives to us a clear picture differentiating a true shepherd from a hireling. The true shepherd knows the sheep and the sheep know his voice. For example, he knows the lamb that has a crooked leg because he was there when that lamb was born. He tends to the wounds of a sheep that was almost killed by wolves because he was the one who came to that sheep’s aid and ran off the predators. He knows to pay careful attention to the ewe who is ready to give birth because he has marked the weeks of her pregnancy. And when he calls to the sheep, they follow him because they trust him. He has been with them, fed them, led them to pasture and water, and protected them from danger.
Not so with the hireling, the shepherd who is paid to look after the sheep. When the difficult times come; when the wolf appears, he’d rather not risk his own skin to save that of the sheep. When the going gets rough, the hireling flees. He abandons the flock to the whims of predators.
The point is quite simple: you can’t trust a shepherd you hire because you don’t know him. And from an Hebraic perspective, you don’t know a person by his words; you know him by his deeds (cp. Lk 6:43f). Knowing a person by his deeds takes time. This is why in the Apostolic Scriptures, the leadership of a given community is always envisioned as indigenous, being part of the community they lead rather than being brought in from the outside to fill a job opening. When the Apostles appointed elders in every assembly (Acts 14:23), these were men who were already members of their respective communities, not those who were sent to them from the outside. Indeed, in the Jewish community of the 1st Century, “elder” referred to older men who were part of that community.
So the majority of congregations have come to accept the fact that Pastors come and go.
This highlights a foundational difference between a “congregation” and a “community.” At the bedrock foundation of a community is its generational character. Community decisions and direction will always take as a major factor what effect they will have on the next generation. A driving questions will always be: “how will this affect our children?” and “how will this enable our children to embrace the faith of Yeshua within obedience to the Torah when they are the adults of this community?” It is apparent that if you have rotating Pastors, you cannot expect to have generational continuity. If leaders “move on” when they see “greener grass,” why should we expect our children to develop any kind of enduring commitment within the community? The reality is this: the modern view of “Church leadership,” which has been accepted as normative by a majority of “Messianic Congregations,” may work for congregations but it will never successfully build communities.
Here, then, is one of the first things we must restore if we are to embrace a biblical, Torah-centered ecclesiology: we must abandon the idea of hiring shepherds from outside of the community and commit ourselves to indigenous leadership committed to generational community. Thus, as we disciple and train men to take the responsibilities of being overseers and deacons, we must instill within them the biblical picture of community leadership, namely that a true shepherd does not abandon the community but puts the needs of the community above their own desires and ambitions. Does this mean that someone in a leadership position within a given Torah Community is there for life? Yes, this would be the norm, but there may be exceptions, though we won’t get into what that might look like today.
Thus, the first important step an Apostolic Torah Community must take in recovering a biblical view of the ekklessia, the community of Messiah, is to recover a biblically based understanding of community leaders.
Step 2: Strive for Communities not Congregations
Step 2: Strive for Communities not Congregations
Membership in the community of believers is one of the primary means by which those who are justified progress in their sanctification. Or to say it simply: one of God’s primary means of sanctifying those He justifies is their membership in the community of believers, the ekklesia. There are many in the body that think Salvation is what happens when you put your faith in Yeshua. This is not the case. Salvation is what happens when Yeshua comes back on the Day of His Coming and judges the world and rescues you from that wrath to come. Those who endure to the end are saved. In the judgement we are saved by our faith, but that faith is proven throughout life by means of our faithfulness. And our faithfulness is linked to our growth in holiness. This is why the author of Hebrews says Heb 12.14
Pursue shalom with everyone, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
The question for us is this: is participation in a local community optional or foundational to our growth in holiness? Paul speaks directly to this issue in his epistle to the Ephesians:
He Himself gave some to be emissaries, some as prophets, some as proclaimers of the Good News, and some as shepherds and teachers— to equip the kedoshim for the work of service, for building up the body of Messiah. This will continue until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of Ben-Elohim—to mature adulthood, to the measure of the stature of Messiah’s fullness. As a result, we are no longer to be like children, tossed around by the waves and blown all over by every wind of teaching, by the trickery of men with cunning in deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all ways into Messiah, who is the Head. From Him the whole body is fitted and held together by every supporting ligament. The proper working of each individual part produces the body’s growth, for building itself up in love.
Here, the phrase “the fullness of Messiah” is very similar to Paul’s language in Romans 8 in which he speaks of being “conformed to the image of Messiah.” And how is it that each member attains “to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Messiah”? It is through the “proper working of each individual part,” causing the community as a whole to be built up, which is another way of saying “become sanctified.” For Paul, the sanctification process which must go on in every true believer is bound up with the proper working of the community of Messiah of which he or she is a member.
This, then, is the first and most important step in recovering a biblical perspective of community: to recognize that community is essential because apart from community it is impossible to obey God and grow in holiness.
Community vs. Congregation
“But,” you might say, “how does this make a distinction between ‘community’ and ‘congregation?’ Couldn’t a congregation affect the sanctifying process just as well as a community?” My answer to that is “no,” and here’s why: the sanctification process often involves persevering through difficult circum- stances (cp. Rom 5:3–5; James 1:2–4). Those who view themselves as part of a community have made a long-term, generational commitment to that community and therefore are willing to endure difficulties and circumstances that require greater faith, humility, patience and the exercise of genuine love to others (which often involves forgiving others). In other words, a commitment to community includes a willingness to persevere through trials which in turn advances the progress of personal sanctification. Of course, such a commitment to the community flows from one’s personal commitment to become more like Messiah (i.e., to be conformed to His image).
In contrast, the whole matter of commitment within a congregational mentality remains on the personal level. Members are encouraged to have a “personal commitment to God,” but this is often considered a private rather than a public matter. With such a “congregational mentality,” if the individual becomes dissatisfied with what the congregation has to offer or if difficulties arise, the normal response is to seek attendance elsewhere, in another congregation that better suits one’s expectations. Instead of persevering through the difficulties, the individual leaves to find “greener grass” and therefore the spiritual growth which would have come by remaining and working through the difficulties is lost.
Perhaps an illustration might help to explain the narrow way that I am defining “community” as over against “congregation.” Consider a business that has employees. The owner of the business views the whole enterprise quite differently than do the employees. The owner plans to be involved in the business long-term while the employees are there primarily to receive a paycheck. As long as the employees receive their pay and the working environment is suitable to them, they remain content and do their job. But if hard times come and the employer announces that the hourly wages are going to be cut, employees naturally think about finding employment elsewhere. In such a scenario, the owner may work longer hours to make up the difference, or make other difficult decisions to keep the business afloat. But the owner has too much invested in the business to ever think of abandoning it. Employees may come and go, but the owner remains. His commitment to the business stems from the fact that he hopes the business will benefit him in the long-term.
I think the analogy to our discussion of community vis-a-vis congregation is obvious: the owner of the business represents a community mentality. He’s in for the long haul because he has ownership of the business and he is willing to sacrifice his own interests in order to make the business succeed. The same is true for members of a community. They have a vested interest in the community—an ownership, if you will, because they see the future of their families wrapped up in the on-going viability of the com- munity. They are in for the long haul and are willing to sacrifice their own interests in order to maintain the community. The employees represent a congregational mentality. They arrive at work each day be- cause they are paid to do so. The same is true of a “congregational mentality.” People come to a congre- gation in order be personally benefited. As long as they are satisfied, they stay. If things are not to their satisfaction, however, they begin to look around for a different congregation to attend.
Consider this scenario: as a member of a local Torah community, you are regularly bothered by this person or that one whose mannerisms, personality, or social ineptitude rub you the wrong way. You seek to avoid them when in the community setting, but eventually it’s just too much for you. So what do you do? Do you begin visiting other groups to see if you can find one you like better? Or do you stop to con- sider that those people who “rub you the wrong way” may be the very “parts” of the body that will teach you humility, patience, love, and humble service? If you have a “community perspective,” you will seek to find ways to express genuine love and concern for these people. If you have a “congregational mental- ity,” you’ll start “shopping” for somewhere else to attend.
Consider a second scenario: someone in the community approaches you in private and expresses concern with the clothes you wear because at times, as far as that person is concerned, your clothing is less than modest. They might remind you that the community as a whole has adopted modesty standards and call you to conform to them. What is your response? If you have a community mindset, you’ll be grateful that someone took the initiative to approach you and you’ll give his or her words due considera- tion. After all, you are part of the community, and if the manner of your attire is causing some difficul- ties, you’ll be willing to make changes for the good of the whole. On the other hand, if you have a “congregational mentality,” you might consider the whole thing to be a bother. You will probably be offended and wonder why anyone would have the right to pass judgment on the clothes you wear. You might decide to start looking for another congregation that is not “living in the dark ages.”
Last scenario: A member of your community is caught in the sin of adultery. He is confronted in ac- cordance with Scripture, but refuses to admit his sin or to turn from it. Eventually the Overseers bring the matter to the whole group and, with remorse, announce that the offender is unrepentant and has therefore been dismissed from the community. Some of the people, however, think the leaders acted harshly and that more time should have been allowed before such strong measures were taken. As a result, some people began to speak against the leaders and eventually leave the community. They en- courage you to join them since they are beginning a new congregation that promises to be “more under- standing and not so rigid.” What do you do? If you have a community perspective, you understand that the good of the whole community takes precedence. As difficult as it may be, dismissing one member in order to preserve the integrity of the community is the right thing to do—“a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (1Cor 5:6f). On the other hand, a congregational perspective focuses upon the feelings of the individual rather than the good of the whole community. If this is your perspective, you may express to others that the group should be more accepting of people and less judgmental. Eventual- ly, you’ll probably join those who have left.
What I hope to illustrate by these various examples (even if they are not perfect illustrations) is that the sanctifying effects of community come about not only by the positive things that a community offers (encouragement, edification, companionship, the opportunity to live out the mitzvot, and so forth) but also by the hardships that come through unpleasant and even disturbing events that take place in the life of the community. The “hard part” of community (forgiving those who offend, seeking forgiveness from those we offend, loving the hard-to-love, grieving with those who grieve, suffering with those who suf- fer, and so forth) constitutes a very real means of sanctification for those who are committed community members.
In Ephesians 4:25, a verse that opens the concluding exhortations of the Apostle as he has described the local community of believers after the analogy of the human body, he writes:
So lay aside lying and “each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another.
Paul has been describing the manner in which the community of believers causes a growth in sanctifica- tion until each member matures “to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Messiah” (v. 13). In v. 25, he describes one way in which this takes place: we are to lay aside falsehood and speak the truth to each other. He basis this on a quote from Zech 8:16 –
These are the things that you are to do: speak the truth one to another; administer the judgment of truth and shalom in your gates;
But why would anyone be compelled either to speak or listen to one’s neighbor in this whole inter- change of truth? Paul tells us why—“for we are members of one another.” This is community language! He does not say “we have a relationship with each other,” though the phrase certainly includes this. Nor does he say “we like or appreciate each other,” though that too may often be the case. He uses the same “body” metaphor he has employed earlier: “we are members of one another.” In other words, each one is necessary for the life of the other because by God’s providence, He has placed each one within the local community to bring about His sovereign purposes.
Do you see that Paul’s words here can only be rightly understood in the context of what I have been calling “community?” Viewing the other members of the group as vital to my own spiritual existence is community language, not congregational verbiage. It presupposes an enduring commitment to the other members of my community because they are necessary and vital to my own life in Messiah.
This, of course, is the goal for which we are to strive. I recognize that no community will entirely achieve this goal, for there will always be those who attend the gatherings of the community who either have no real commitment to the community itself or whose commitment is minimal at best. But it is to be our goal, nonetheless, and if we hope that our current Torah communities will remain viable into the next generation, then we must apply all diligence to move toward the goal of being genuine communi- ties under the headship of Yeshua.
Step Three: Strive to Become Like Yeshua
Step Three: Strive to Become Like Yeshua
We may note how the Ten Words (Commandments) form a general paradigm for this process of sanctification. The first four Words speak to one’s personal faith in and submission to God as the one and only true God. The fifth commandment forms a natural bridge between love for God and love for one’s neighbor because honoring one’s parents is the first step in the practice of loving others. The final five Words extend this outward expression to the wider community. In other words, loving God (one’s personal commitment of faith) inevitably produces love for one’s neighbor (one’s corporate commitment of faith). But love for one’s neighbor also requires a growing love for God, for it is one’s relationship to God that forms the desire and ability to persevere in loving others. The Ten Words (the summation of the whole Torah) is therefore a cycle of growth in faith. Loving God proceeds to honoring one’s parents, which in turn proceeds to loving one’s neighbor, which requires a growing love for God. In the process of loving one’s neighbor as well as being loved by one’s neighbor, one’s love for God is tested and strengthened, and the cycle begins again.
Given this understanding of how God sanctifies those who are His, we should have a greater appreci- ation for the common opening of nearly every traditional blessing: “Blessed are You, Adonai our God, King of the universe, Who sanctifies us with His commandments (mitzvot)....”10 Surely it is God Who works within us to conform us to His will (Phil 2:12–13), but He uses means to accomplish this task of sanctification, and His commandments play a central role in this process.
As we seek to become like Yeshua, therefore, we must abandon the idea, so prevalent in our times, that this growth in sanctification is summed up in one’s personal relationship with God through Yeshua. Surely it begins there but it cannot remain individualistic. True salvation is manifest in one’s growth in holiness, a growth that requires our love for God to be demonstrated in the way we love each other. The way that the world will know that we are truly Yeshua’s disciples is when our love for each other is manifested: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Such love is tested when difficulties arise; when bearing one another’s burdens is required (cf. Gal 6:2); when offenses occur which require repentance and forgiveness (Eph 4:31–32); when we are called to love those who are difficult to love (Eph 4:2); and when we consider our fellow community members as more important than ourselves (Phil 2:3; Rom 12:10). In God’s way of salvation, there are no “lone rangers.”
But what keeps us striving for such a lofty ideal? What is the spiritual dynamic that continues to en- ergize us toward the goal of being like Yeshua? The answer to this question is two-fold: 1) our old self has been crucified with Messiah, and 2) a new self has been created so that we truly desire to please God (cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).
Consider Paul’s words in Rom 6:5–6,
For if we have become joined together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also will be joined together in His resurrection— knowing our old man was crucified with Him so that the sinful body might be done away with, so we no longer serve sin.
In other words, in striving to become like Yeshua, we are acting in accordance with who we are and who we are becoming. This does not mean that the path of sanctification is automatic, which is why I chose the word “striving,” for we still have the sin nature which must be denied and put to death (cf. Col 3:5). In fact, Paul uses metaphors that incorporate real struggle when he describes the process of sanctifica- tion. He compares the believer to a soldier in battle (1Tim 2:3–4; Eph 6:12f) or to an athlete running a race or boxing in the ring (1Cor 9:24, 26; 2Tim 2:5). What these metaphors all have in common is that the subject of each example has a goal befitting their life occupation and it is the attainment of that goal that drives them forward regardless of the cost. The same is true for those who have believed in Messiah, Yeshua. We have died and risen to a new life, a life of being disciples of Yeshua. Our goal is to sanctify the Name of God upon the earth by walking in His footsteps—by living as He lived. And the Spirit of God Who indwells us is committed to bringing us to that goal by comforting, encouraging, convicting, and strengthening us in accordance with the will of God.
It is, then, this process of sanctification—the work of the Spirit of God within the life of each and every true believer in Yeshua—that energizes the soul to persevere in the ways of faith, and in this struggle for holiness, to see the great value and necessity of being part of a believing community. It is our love for God and His word, our loyalty to Yeshua as our Master, Savior, and Messiah, and the abiding presence of the Spirit within us that keeps us fervent in our resolve to “preserve the unity of the Spir-
it in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).
What this means for us as we seek to build Torah communities is evident: our success in establishing
communities that will span generations is directly related to the measure of genuine faith each community member possesses. It is from our loving God with all our heart, soul, and might that we will be enabled by His grace to love our neighbor. If we are weak in the former, we will fail in the latter.
This highlights another important truth in our quest for recovering a biblical ecclesiology: Yeshua, Who is the head of the community (ekklesia) and the very object of our faith, must always receive the pre-eminence. As the object of saving faith, there exists a one-to-one relationship between the Messiah and each individual who has believed in Him. Each one may rightly say with the Psalmist, “Adonai is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Ps 23:1) as well as with Paul, “I have been crucified with Messiah; and it is no longer I who live, but Messiah lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal 2:20).
As individuals who have come to faith in Yeshua, surely He must be seen as pre-eminent in our lives for out goal is to be- come like Him. But Yeshua must not only receive the pre-eminence in our lives as individual believers. He must also receive the pre-eminence in the life of our communities, for He is the head of the ekklesia. Paul makes this clear in his Epistle to the Colossians:
He is the head of the body, His community. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead— so that He might come to have first place in all things.
The corporate reality of our faith can rightly be expressed only when Yeshua is seen to have the pre-eminence within our respective communities. Some might question how this could possibly be otherwise. After all, as “messianics” surely the person of Yeshua is what defines us. But while this may be true in word, in some cases it is sadly lacking in reality. Some have denied that Yeshua is the only way to the Father (cf. Jn 14:6), suggesting that other means of gaining righteousness before God exist. Others have denied His deity and in so doing have undermined the authority of the Scriptures and brought into question Yeshua’s ability to secure an infinite atonement for sinners. Still others are suggesting that Jewish believers in Yeshua should meld back into the traditional Jewish community, leaving the pre-eminence of Messiah as the duty of the Gentile Church. In more subtle ways, some leaders have made their position so prominent within the congregations they lead that the authority of Yeshua as the “Senior Pastor” (Chief Shepherd) is greatly diminished or even eclipsed. They appear to have forgotten the principle announced by Yochanan the Baptizer: “He must increase but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30).
In summary, if we are to build Torah communities that remain vibrant for the coming generations, we must see our faith in Yeshua as both personal and corporate, not diminishing one for the other. And we must give Yeshua “first place in everything.” As we live out our faith with this perspective, we may trust that Messiah Himself will build His ekklesia, and even the power of Hades will not prevail against us (Matt 16:18). For as He builds, He will use us as “living stones,” being “built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Yeshua Messiah” (1Pet 2:5).