Rabbi Julius Hollander is the English-language spokesperson for the Sanhedrin Initiative, who are seeking to reinstitute the Korban Pesach sacrifice at Passover this year 2010 (5770).
Hollander is also on the rabbinical advisory board of Noahide Nations, a website run by former Christian-turned-Noahide Ray Pettersen, who proselytises amongst Christians to become Bnei Noach.
We read on Hollander’s profile at Noahide Nations:
Rabbi Yeshayahu [Julius] HaKohen Hollander is the current Segan Av Beith Ha-Din of the Sanhedrin. [...] Through his work on the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Hollander assists Noahides from around the world.
The Sanhedrin Noahide court was established by Rabbi Avraham Toledano, a former leader of the Far Right Kach party now outlawed in Israel.
The Noahide Nations’ Academy of Shem teaches that Christianity is irredeemably anti-Semitic and constitutes idol worship. We read in one article:
Most Noahides have come out of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity, and know the tactics of the missionary. Noahides know all the arguments, they know the theology, and they know what verses the missionary will use to back up their claims. Noahides also know the fatal errors in the Christian argument, not the least of which is the validity of the Greek texts of the New Testament.
Another article claims that the golden calf was half-ox representing Edom and Christianity, and half-donkey representing Ishmael and Islam. So Rabbi Hollander is an advisor to Noahides who seek to prosleytise Christians out of what they consider to be idolatry.
Yet here is Rabbi Hollander on Turkish TV saying all ways are acceptable to God – including Christianity:
We want to bring the situation to where the only issue is to bring people by intellectual means and by the use of our spirit to understand God in this world, and when they do that they will accept making peace in the whole world. And all people together, we’ll all worship together, each one in his own way: the Druze in their way, Islam in another way, the Christians in another way, all ways are accepted to God.
It seems that Rabbi Hollander is trying to have the best of both worlds: on the one hand he considers Christianity to be as equally valid as Judaism, and on the other hand he supports proselytising attempts which target Christians for conversion to become Noahides who reject Christ.
I think believers in Yeshua haMashiach who support the Sanhedrin Initiative’s attempt to reinstitute the Korban Pesach sacrifice on the Temple Mount should be aware of these contradictions.
Not surprised. Interfaith dialogue people like him often say such things. You would wish that he would be consistent though. At least he is here on the record.
makes you think if this was just for public consumption only. The real McCoy is maybe just for in house people? ….Now that would not surprise me either.
You are trying to compare Rabbi Hollander’s comments with articles on Noahide Nations written by someone else. Rabbi Hollander is an adviser to Noahide Nations, but that does not mean that he agrees with everything that is written on their site.
The term “Bnei Noah” is a broad term and is used differently by different schools of Rabbinic thought. Some opinions include Christians as Bnei Noah, some don’t, some say Christianity was originally based on an Abrahamic “Bnei Noah” faith and later incorporated foreign ideas. It is an idea still being discussed by the Jewish community, and should be interpreted as an extended hand of friendship to all believers in God, not a threat as it is presented here.
If you want to really understand the issues rather than just quote second, third and fourth hand information, try reading wikinoah.org or http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/bneinoah/ or written Rabbi Hollander directly at webmaster@thesanhedrin.org
Ben, thank you for your comment. The guy in charge of Noahide Nations, Ray Petterson, is quite deeply hostile to Christianity as he abandoned Christianity to become a Noahide – Petterson sees ex-Christian Noahides as people who like Abraham have abandoned idolatry.
Although not fully signed-up Noahides, does Rabbi Hollander consider Christians to be naturally following the Seven Laws of Noah, as, say, Rabbi Riskin does?
wikinoah is not considered a primary source for information as anyone can put information on it without regards to correctness.
And after having several conversations with R. Hollander I am not sure what he believes
There is a good discussion of the Jewish position concerning Christianity, within the context of the “teachings of Bnei Noah”, here
http://en.wikinoah.org/index.php/Christianity_and_Noahide_Law
Christianity itself is a broad term, different groups have different views on issues of that are of concern to Jews. While Judaism recognizes that there are devout Christians, full of faith, and dedicated to serving G-d, emulating scripture and living righteously and helping the Jewish people — it also recognizes that there have been equally devout Christians that have caused much harm to the Jewish people.
The problem appears not so much to concern the “teachings of Noah”, rather it is the “replacement theology” and antinomian character of Christianity, which puts it into direct conflict with Judaism. These two issues create an obstacle that prevents even the beginning of entering into a recognized relationship with the Jewish people through the teachings of “Bnei Noah”.
On the page http://en.wikinoah.org/index.php/Noahide_Protestant_Religion it talks about (from a Jewish point of view) two kinds of Noahide Protestants. Reformists and Rejectionists.
Rabbi Hollander works with both kinds.
Thanks Ben.
But surely if the Protestants were antinomian, then there is no way they could have any hope of keeping the Noahide Laws? An antinomian would deliberately break these laws.
Also, how does Rabbi Hollander feel about Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians who are working to combat replacement theology and anti-Semitism within churches?
Is there really a thing called noachide laws, or is it just another invention of the rabbis?
Antinomianism is the teaching that there is no obligation to keep the law (of Moses), not that one must break the laws.
While Rabbinic Judaism agrees with Paul that you can’t be “saved” (earn a portion in the world to come) by doings work (mitzvot) alone, Judaism differs with modern Christianity in that it recognizes no separation between “Church and State”. All laws, whether marriage, criminal law, or even traffic violations have a divine component to them, for all authority ultimately rests with God alone.
In Protestant Christianity (and essentially Catholicism as well) the only enforceable laws are that of Roman Law, or what we call today secular/civil law. The Church does not see its role as examining evidence, trying criminals, thieves, and murderers and running a nation. Jewish law does. However in Christianity, Mosaic law has been rendered obsolete, invalid or of token historical value at best. This, however, is a result of Constantine’s innovations – to suppress Jewish nationalism – not New Testament teachings.
The Noahide laws are essentially seven of the ten commandments (Jews don’t believe that non-Jews must keep the Sabbath, etc). It is not an invention of the Rabbis. Many Church fathers believed that Acts 15 speaks about the Noahide laws and mention it by name,
According to his website, Rabbi Hollander will meet with, discuss and work with any non-Jew (Christian, Messianitic, or Muslims) not involved in missionizing the Jewish people or terrorism.
Rabbinic Judaism does not agree with Paul. ‘Works’ are essential to being saved. One can not receive a reward if you did not do anything for it. If you do not do mitzvos you will not have a ‘world to come’.
Moshe, what do you make of James?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:14-26&version=NIV
James does not agree with Paul. Luther had wanted to exclude James from the canon because of that. See the following links:
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/why-did-martin-luther-want-book-of-james-out-of-bible.html
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/Canon.htm
Let me clarify what I wrote above.
Rabbinic Judaism does not agree with Paul.
My intention was to clarify the definition of Christian “antinomian”. Christianity teaches that you cannot “be saved by law”, implying that in Rabbinic Judaism you can be “saved by law”. But this is a false comparison and does not correctly represent the role of “commandments” in Judaism.
Unlike what is taught by some groups of Christians, Judaism does not teach that you can be a “good” person by outward, hypocritical observance of the commandments of God. It is agreed that in both Judaism and Christianity sincerity and devotion are essential qualities for the righteous.
The Seven Laws of Noah are not a form of legalism, but the basis of any proper religion.
Sorry for typing too fast in my previous message.
Regards
No problem Ben, and chag sameach.
The following is a multiple choice question I have sent to many people over the last eight years.
Do you believe Moshiach is
(a) A Polish stew best served in the midst of winter.
(b) A metaphor for an age of world peace which does not need an actual person.
(c) A silly old myth with absolutely no relevance to today’s world.
(d) Best personified by the State of Israel and the Jewish people as a whole.
(e) Has not been born yet.
(f) Has already lived and will be returning soon.
(g) Is alive and breathing right now on Planet Earth doing his work.
Adam Neira,
I will go with ‘F’!!!
Hmmm……the OP states: So Rabbi Hollander is an advisor to Noahides who seek to prosleytise Christians out of what they consider to be idolatry.
Yet here is Rabbi Hollander on Turkish TV saying all ways are acceptable to God – including Christianity.
It seems that Rabbi Hollander is trying to have the best of both worlds: on the one hand he considers Christianity to be as equally valid as Judaism, and on the other hand he supports proselytising attempts which target Christians for conversion to become Noahides who reject Christ.
Maybe he learned it from Paul; tell them what they want to hear; present yourself as
a friend to all:
“19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Chava,
You are quoting this passage way out of context, please be honest and read it for yourself. Shual was a Pharisee, he does not condone idolatry or the belief in another god.
If what Rabbi Hollander is saying that all roads lead to Rome, well that is way far from the truth!
I did not say that about Paul. What I am saying is that he seems to think it is
okay to lie and present oneself as something one is not just to win converts.
Now we know what Paul “seems to think”, do we?
When Paul says that he has made himself a slave to everyone, in order to meet people where they are, in order to serve and help them – and, if possible, “win” some – do you then completely misconstrue that to be him saying that it’s “okay to lie”?! Clearly he is only speaking of the lengths he will go to in order to relate to people on their own terms, rather than elevate himself to some authority, as, being a Pharisee, he had absolutely every right to do. He chose to humble himself, rather than judge people from an elevated position like so many others, and for this you accuse him of condoning lying and deception?
If a Rabbi stoops down to whisper truths to a child, boldly proclaims something from a rooftop, cries his advice in private to a dear friend in danger, or sternly challenges a stubborn intellectual concerning the truths of Torah, is he “lying” or “presenting himself as something he is not”? Of course not. He’s showing a much needed versatility in ministering to others. Paul did the same. He would never have boasted about, or condoned, deceiving others.
I suspect you are simply projecting your understandable feelings about what you perceive to be deception taking place in the modern-day Messianic movement onto Paul. However, in doing so, be sure you’re not begrudging a fellow Jew, your brother, and one you are commanded (Leviticus 19:18) not to speak disparaging things against.
Chava,
Well Luke summed it up pretty well…… thank you Luke!
Who was Shual/Paul?
-A Jew Acts 21:39, 22:3, Gal 2:15
-Of the tribe of Benjamin Rom 11:1, Phil 3:5
-An Israelite, of the nation of Israel Rom 11:1, Phil 3:5
-A descendant of Abraham Rom 11:1
-A Hebrew of Hebrews Phil 3:5*
-Circumcised the eighth day Phil 3:5*
-Not a sinner from among the Gentiles (pagans) Gal 2:15
-Foremost sinner of all sinners 1 Tim 1:16
-Born in Tarsus of Cilicia Acts 21:39, 22:3
-Brought up in Jerusalem Acts 22:3, 26:4
-Brought up among my own nation Acts 26:4
-Educated under Gamaliel (one of two chief rabbis of the time) Acts 22:3
-Educated strictly according to the Torah (law) of our fathers Acts 22:3
-His education in the Torah made him zealous for G-d Acts 22:3
-A Pharisee Acts 23:6, 26:5
-A son of Pharisees Acts 23:6
-Lived according to the strictest sect of our religion Acts 26:5
-Was apart of the Way which is called a sect (of Judaism) Acts 24:14
-Stood trial for the hope of the promise made by G-d to our fathers Acts 26:6
-A bond-servant of the Messiah Yeshua Rom 1:1. Phil 1:1
-As to zeal, A persecutor of the church Phil 3:5*
-As to righteousness which is in the law (rabbinic law, oral law), found blameless Phil 3:5*
-Born a Roman Citizen Acts 22:28
If a Christian presents themselves as Jews in the Jewish community in order to convert them, is not that deceptive?
If a Jew presents himself as a Noahide in order to convert Christians away from Christianity, is
not that deceptive?
It has nothing to do with relating to anyone. It has to do with putting on a false front in order to
convert people.
“I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”. Sure sounds like Paul will put
on any facade to convert people.
My main point was, however, someone is accusing the Rabbi Hollander of doing the very
same thing Paul did-talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. Or was Rabbi Hollander
merely just trying to “relate” to the different groups?
Chava, both of the examples you’ve attempted to associate with Paul are inaccurate and non-applicable. Paul was a Jew. He didn’t need to “put on a false front” to “deceive” anyone. He never pretended to be a Jew or Noahide, so your argument falls flat. What you might not realize is that Paul was the messenger appointed by the G-d of Israel to the nations at that time, not to the Jews. While he, being a Pharisee, spoke to Jews often, his primary office was that of presenting the plan of redemption to the Gentiles. This would require him meeting many people, of many different cultures, exactly where they were. Nearly all of the people he spoke with were aliens to Torah. This required tailor-made approaches to delivering truth accurately. This is not deceptive, unless you consider speaking to your husband, children, co-workers or friends in different ways as deceptive. As Rey pointed out, I’ve answered your error more than adequately. Clearly, though, you’d prefer to remain ignorant concerning this simple issue, so I’ll be happy to oblige you.
The more important issue in my mind is that you continue to slander your kinsman, contrary to Torah. Especially during this season, you would do well to consider how G-d views such things.
Concerning the Rabbi, this is old news. I agree with you, however, that he is being deceptive and his beliefs are erroneous. In this way, he couldn’t be more different than Rabbi Shaul. It does not surprise me in the least to hear of yet another Rabbi affiliated with the Noahide movement engaging in deception, which is why I don’t really feel like commenting on it beyond that.
Chava,
I have no idea what Rabbi Hollander is doing, but i will tell you once again that you do not have no idea what your talking about when quoting Shaul. I have heard this argument before and it’s way out of context, please re-read what Luke wrote above… i think he explained it pretty clear. Shaul had none of this in mind when he wrote it.
Now on the other hand it is deceptive if a Christian dresses up like a Jew just to try and witness or convert whichever you want to call it….. but yea that is deceptive and i don’t think it is right neither. But please do not say that is what Shual was saying.
The following has been sent to many people all around the world over the last eight years.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
Do you believe “Moshiach” is…
(a) A tasty Polish stew best served in the depths of winter.
(b) An irrelevant, archaic concept with no relevance to today’s world.
(c) A metaphor for an age of world peace and does not imply an actual person.
(d) Alive and breathing right now on Planet Earth and is doing his work.
(e) Has already lived and will return one day.
(f) Not born yet and is not physically present on earth yet.
(g) Best represented by the collective Jewish people and/or the State of Israel.
It is perhaps flattering that so many people relate to what I wrote and said, but it is obviously my fault for not knowing what has been going on here.
For the record: The definition I use for Christianity was told to me by a well-known pastor, in a meeting attended by many Christians, including Catholics and Protestants of various denominations. These are the two basic beliefs which define Christianity:
1. Man is inherently a sinner whose natural fate is to be sent to hell
2. The only salvation from hell is through Jesus.
Clearly there are a great many variations on these beliefs, additional dogmas, in various denominations [I heard that in the USA alone there are 400 different Christian denominations!], including Immaculate Conception, Trinitarianism etc.
In my understanding, Judaism does NOT accept belief 1, hence logically belief 2 in not relevant, and Judaism does not accept belief 2 either.
We DO believe that a non-Jewish person may have a relationship with The Almighty [and even accept the Talmud's assertion that Bilaam was not less a prophet than Moses]. We do not believe that belief in the two principles of Chrisitanity will prevent a good relationship. We do NOT believe that these two beliefs are IN ANY SENSE idolatry, although we think they are mistaken.
We do believe in the prophecy of Isaiah 11,9.
Hi Rabbi Hollander. Many thanks for replying, and I find your post quite refreshing. I have a question. How could something be idolatry for a Jew, but not idolatry for a Gentile?
In Psalm 115, the worshipper of HaShem criticises people who worship idols, for “they have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see.” Clearly, the definition of idolatry depends upon who or what you are worshipping, rather than upon your mother’s ethnic/religious identity.
So if Christianity is not idol worship, how does it become idol worship to one born a Jew, should a Jew decide to worship Yeshua as God?
Joseph, thanks for writing. By the way, much of what is written about me is inaccurate, for instance – even my Hebrew name.
You are entirely right about “the definition of idolatry depends upon who or what you are worshiping, rather than upon your mother’s ethnic/religious identity”. However, in principle, the Pentateuch related to the Children of Israel differently than to others. The requirements from the Children of Israel are much more demanding. I will get back to this later.
I wrote that the two basic beliefs which define Christianity are not idolatry. I did NOT write that all Christian denominations are free of idolatry. The idea that Jesus is God IS idolatry. The idea that Jesus was a messenger of God is entirely different: all who chose may be messengers of God.
I do not try to understand the finesses of different types of Trinitarianism. Some of our Jewish sages considered some forms of Trinitarianism to be permissible to non-Jews. Other sages consider ANY form of Trinitrarianism to be prohibited to non-Jews also.
To get back to your questions: Let’s say that the forms which are not prohibited to non-Jews according to the first group of sages are “soft” idolatry and permitted [according to those sages] to non-Jews, but this “soft idolatry” is NOT permitted to Jews, according to ALL.
Joseph wrote:
“How could something be idolatry for a Jew, but not idolatry for a Gentile?”
My answer was concise, and I received a question about it. I will therefor elaborate a bit.
The High Priest has specific rules of conduct. See Leviticus 21,10-15. These rules are more limiting than those applying to an ordinary priest [Leviticus 21,1-8].
All these are more limiting than those applying to other Jews.
And Jews are more limited than non-Jews.
How can we understand that?
The Torah sees the High Priest as one who is more devoted to his personal relationship with God than others, hence he does not mourn his relatives the same way as an ordinary priest.
We expect the High Priest to have a better understanding of divinity than an ordinary priest.
Jews are expected to devote more effort to God than non-Jews, in analogy to ordinary Jews and Priests. See Exodus 19,6. Therefor they are expected to have a better understanding of divinity than others. What is not an improper theology [idolatry] for others may be improper for Jews.