In one of the ongoing blog discussions that I participate in concerning the Torah and its applicability today in the lives of non-Jewish believers, a friend likes to point out ‘anachronisms,’ or, as he might phrase it, ‘an improper application of a commandment given in one time period by a person or group in another time period.’

Lately, one of the topics has been ‘One Law’ as explained by JK McKee in his recently reviewed book titled One Law for All, and a major point of discussion is whether the commandments concerning the ‘ger’ have any relevance today.  In fact, my friend, James, says,

I give “props” to McKee for his obviously detailed research and dedication to the topic of “one law” in ancient Israel but it almost doesn’t matter. Those passages cannot anachronistically be applied either to the Gentiles entering the Jewish worship stream of “the Way” in the first century C.E. or to we Gentile Christians, Messianic Gentiles, or Gentile One Law devotees today.

Now, I would argue that those passages, as foundational passages from the Torah for all of Scripture, have profound application and implication today, but that is not the purpose of this post…  It is the reference to ‘anachronism’ while he is leaning on the Rabbis for context and understanding!  So, imagine my surprise when I started a new book yesterday, Fellow Heirs, and the author, Tim Hegg, begins to make the case that the proselyte system of joining the Jews did not begin development until after the Babylonian exile and did not really come into being as a formalized rite until around the Maccabean crisis more than 1000 years after the giving of the Torah!  He says,

A recently discovered papyrus scrap (P. Duke Inv.727) dated to the 3rd Century BCE, however, offers proof that the word proselutos was still being used at this time in its common sense of “foreigner” without any reference to the Jewish conversion ritual.  It was only later in the history of Israel, in post-exilic times, that the Greek word proselutos became defined by the religious ceremony conversion, and thus denoted a “convert,” a non-Jew who had undergone the ritual of conversion.  (Fellow Heirs, pg. 5-6)

After Hegg explains a little more history and how proselyte ceased to simply mean ‘foreigner’ as a sociological term and transitioned into a technical term denoting a religious rite of conversion from being a Gentile to Judaism, he addresses the use of ‘proselyte in Jewish and Rabbinic literature.  He quotes Leviticus 19:33-34 from the Stone Chumash,

When a proselyte dwells among you in your land, do not taunt him.  The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt – I am Hashem your God.  (The Stone Edition, Chumash pg.665)

Here is what is interesting: the Hebrew word ger appears three times in those two verses, but the translators have chosen to use two very different words to create a sense of distinction when the Hebrew makes no such differentiation.  In fact, the Hebrew is intentional in equating the alien/sojourner with the resident alien status of Israel while they were in Egypt!  Talk about anachronisms!!  The highly charged term ‘proselyte,’ representing a religious ritual not developed for about 1000 years is used instead!!

I’ve written before about the lying pen of the scribes…  I just didn’t apply it to Judaism’s translations.

Lest we think this was an oversight or error on the part of the translators, as I read part of this week’s Parsha from Deuteronomy, I found another nearly identical example,

He carries out the judgment of orphan and widow, and loves the proselyte to give him bread and garment.  You shall love the proselyte for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.  (ibid. 993)

Deu 10:18 עשׂה משׁפט יתום ואלמנה ואהב גר לתת לו לחם ושׂמלה׃
Deu 10:19 ואהבתם את־הגר כי־גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים׃
(e-sword)

For your convenience, I put every instance of ger in bold.  Again, the intent of the Author of Deuteronomy, through the mouth/pen of Moshe, was to draw a parallel between the resident alien/sojourner in the land of Israel with the resident alien/sojourner status of Israel while they were in bondage in Egypt. By using the ritually charged word ‘proselyte’ in distinction to ‘strangers’ the translators of the Stone Chumash have decidedly tilted the understanding of the reader in favor of a religious ritual that was 1000 years removed from the giving of the Torah in the wilderness!

Wow!

In short, this gives some profound implications about how we are or are not to understand ger in the Torah!  We most certainly cannot apply the definitions of ‘proselyte’ from Second Temple Judaism as it completely skews the original intent of the text.  Further, when we apply the Torah to modern society and to non-Jews in particular who wish to walk with Israel and the God of Abraham, we cannot apply the idea or definition of ‘proselyte.’  No such encumbering system existed at the giving of the Torah!!  Further, as I have said before, I think this clearly points to Paul, James and the other Apostles driving around parts of the religious ritual of Second Temple Judaism to return to the original intent of the Lawgiver.

So, to return to James’ quote cited above,

I give “props” to McKee for his obviously detailed research and dedication to the topic of “one law” in ancient Israel but it almost doesn’t matter. Those passages cannot anachronistically be applied either to the Gentiles entering the Jewish worship stream of “the Way” in the first century C.E. or to we Gentile Christians, Messianic Gentiles, or Gentile One Law devotees today.

I would have to respectfully disagree.  McKee’s research is precisely what we need to peel back the layers of this onion and find the original intent of the Author in His unchanging, everlasting Word.  Then, we can understand what it truly means to return to the ancient paths and walk in the ways that demonstrate our love for God.

You shall therefore love the Lord your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments.