Americans love coffee. Or, at least we think we do. We like to think that we are coffee connoisseurs. Doppio this, macchiatto that ... part of the reason that Starbucks has been so successful as a franchise is that it's given us an excuse to roll these exotic European words off our tongues while ordering our morning cuppajoe.

But what most of us are drinking isn't actually coffee. It's mostly cream and sugar. Frothed, foamed, whipped, and sprinkled within an inch of itself.

You see, Americans don't actually like coffee. Coffee is bitter. Acidic. It's an acquired taste. What Americans really like is cream and sugar. And we like the concept of drinking coffee, even though we dislike the flavor. Starbucks has succeeded because it allows us to think we're drinking coffee and show off the fact that we are drinking coffee ... without actually requiring us to drink coffee.

This is the state of Messianic Judaism today. For the most part, we have built a very comfortable spiritual home for Jews and non-Jews who do a little bit here, mix in a little bit there, read a book or two ... and soon declare that we are Jewish connoisseurs.

The "coffee" of our movement is Judaism. It is the real, live, messy, complicated, demanding task of living according to the Torah in a community of real, live, messy, complicated, demanding Jewish people.

So if the coffee of our movement is Judaism, then what is the cream and sugar? I'll let you fill in the blank.

Continuity can only exist when we continue to live a Jewish life with and among our people. I am very concerned that the popular watered-down form of faith we call Messianic Judaism today will not exist in another generation or two. This does not mean I am completely without hope for the future. With HaShem's help, we will indeed continue to be a representative presence for Yeshua within greater Israel. But that can only happen when Jews continue to live as Jews. Let me make clear that "living as Jews" does not necessarily mean "Orthodox." There are many ways to be Jewish. But Jewish life must be committed to the foundation blocks which have held us together for over 3,000 years.

Messianic Judaism is like coffee. We can either be true connoisseurs with a deep value and knowledge of our history and tradition, or we can continue to drape our faith with a Tallis and call it "Jewish." It is my deepest conviction that the only Messianic form of faith that can survive into the future is one that truly is a Messianic form of Judaism.

There is a common misconception, particularly within the Messianic Jewish blogosphere, that conversion to Judaism is a post-biblical, and rather late "rabbinic invention."

However, very few people have really taken the time to trace the development of conversion (גיור‎, giyur), and particularly its widespread existence already by the time of the Second Temple period (i.e. before the development of what we commonly understand as 'Rabbinic Judaism').

This blog post is an expansion of my comment to a particular discussion on Rabbi Derek Leman's blog, Messianic Jewish Musings.

The Torah

It is true that the Torah and the earliest portions of the Tanakh do not mention conversion clearly. With that said, the question of how to include non-Jews into the community of Israel has always been an issue.

In the Torah, there is recognition of non-Jews participating within the community life of Israel. Additionally, the Torah even recognizes various types of "sojourners" (gerim), and specifies certain requirements for levels of participation for each of these different types of non-Jews. So although non-Jews were included in many respects, there were also noted differences.

For example, non-Jews may not have been allowed to offer certain sacrifices on the altar in the Mishkan. Another example is the laws of Kashrut. According to Deuteronomy 14:21:

We have always valued the participation of non-Jews. This has been true even to the point that there has also been an evolving understanding of how to fully include non-Jews, not only has fellow partakers (as gerim), but as full participants in the social and religious life of the Jewish people. As a result, we do get glimpses of the beginnings of some type of conversion in order to bring someone into full inclusion into the community, even in the Torah.

The first glimpse of this is with with gerim and Passover. Gerim were not allowed to participate in the eating of the Passover lamb, unless they underwent circumcision (which in later times, would be one of the prerequisites for conversion). This is an example where a religious practice was forbidden for non-Jews, unless they chose to conform to a specific religious rite:

In this way, the ger was brought into the peoplehood. Through circumcision one became "as native-born." Although not a fully developed idea of conversion, there was indeed a process for inclusion even if not yet fully developed. Another example that may be relevant to a process of conversion involves non-Jewish women captured in war who could be adopted forcibly as wives (see Deut. 21:10-14).

Tanakh

By the last centuries BCE, there was certainly some sort of recognized conversion process in place. This is supported most clearly in Esther 8:17:

The ter m מתיהדים means “to become Jewish/to make oneself Jewish.” The Septuagint (c. 2nd cent. BCE) interprets מתיהדים as "circumcised themselves." The Jewish historian Josephus (c. 1st cent. CE) recounts that "Many of other nations circumcised themselves for fear of the Jews" (Antiquities 11.6.13).

In both rabbinic and scholarly understanding of this period, circumcision is clearly a reference to some type of conversion.

The first century Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, also discusses proselytes in his work, Special Laws I. In speaking of proselytes, Philo enjoins his own people to treat them respectfully and to guard themselves from jealousy:

"After they have given the proselytes an equal share in their laws, and privileges, and immunities, on their forsaking the pride of their fathers and forefathers, they must not give a license to their jealous language and unbridled tongues ... lest the proselytes should be exasperated at such treatment and in return utter impious language against the true and holy G-d" (IX, 51-53).

Thus, it seems clear that conversion is not a “later rabbinic invention,” as we already see traces of it in the Hebrew Scriptures and contemporaneous sources. Additionally, there are even references to proselytes in some of the Apocryphal and pseudopygraphic literature of the Second Temple period.

But what about the B'rit Chadasha? What do the Apostolic Writings have to say about conversion to Judaism?

The New Testament

According to Strongs Concordance, the term proselyte(s) is mentioned FOUR TIMES in the New Testament alone.

Here are just two examples:

-"And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven … both Jews (by birth) and proselytes” (Acts 2:5,10).

-"Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of G-d” (Acts 13:43).

There is an additional reference in Acts 6:5 to Nicolas from Antioch, "a proselyte to Judaism," who was among a handful of others chosen by the Jerusalem Council to serve among the Greek speaking Jews.

By the Second Temple period, the concept of proselytes to Judaism was already well-established. These references demonstrate that there was a category beyond that of Godfearers, who were full converts – Jews in every sense of the word.

And the Apostle Luke does not make any judgement against these “Jews by choice.” Rather, he places them in high regard by not only mentioning them, but mentioning them in three places within the book of Acts.

The only seemingly negative use of the term proselyte in the entire NT is Yeshua’s reference to particular Pharisees and scribes who go to great lengths to bring proselytes into the faith, but lead them down the wrong path. In this context, it is not the proselytes who are the problem, but the specific group of scribes and Pharisees he is addressing:

There is even some interesting scholarship on Acts 16 that supports a theory that Paul had Timothy undergo a type of conversion “because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (16:3).”

Conclusion

So, after a little reflection, it seems that the assumption that conversion to Judaism is a "late rabbinic invention" is indeed false. The beginnings of a process to fully include non-Jews into the Jewish people began very early in Jewish history, maybe as early as the Torah.

However, the solid idea of a recognized conversion was already well established by the time of Yeshua, and the Second Temple period.