Interview: R. M. Bailey
Another interview with a pronomian brother in Messiah.
I first came across the works of Mr. Bailey when researching my dissertation. His book What God Hath Created: Does the New Testament Do Away with the Dietary Commandments? was invaluable to my contentions and I hoped that he would write more, as it was clear to me that he had a theological mind and truly understood the exegetical importance of a pro-Torah hermeneutic. It was with great joy that I found out that he had written more two more works, both of which are foundational to pronomianism: Neither Circumcision, Nor Uncircumcision: A Messianic and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Galatians and Purity, Politics, and Parables: A Narratological and Exegetical Study on the Handwashing Conflict in Mark 7:1-23. I recently had the pleasure of interviewing him on the eve of his new book release, Who God Has Made Clean: A Pronomian Pocket Guide to Acts 10:9–15, which I happily wrote an endorsement for.
Dr. Szumskyj: It's great to connect with you Rick. For those unfamiliar with you or your works, would you be so kind as to give the readers a snapshot of your background?
Bailey: The pleasure is mine, Benjamin! Thank you for having me. For a little background information on me, I am a Messianic Jew who came to be known by the Lord in 2012. Prior to that I was an atheist, then an occultist, and ultimately saved miraculously. Two years later I equally miraculously married my wife Ally, and we have four wonderful children. We currently live in Macon, Georgia, but originally lived in Delaware until April of last year (2024) when we (again miraculously) landed here. Since 2022 we had been traveling for the Lord, basically as traveling ministers, having given up everything back home per a calling on our lives. Since then I have also attended seminary, and am currently enrolled in a Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies program, while still debating a PhD pathway for the future. My heart is teaching and outreach, and this is essentially my life after family. I run a ministry called The Engrafted Word Ministry, which focuses on “feeding” the Church exegetical and expository teachings on Scripture and feeding the local homeless and needy in our area, and these are my two loves. The Lord has blessed me with an inquisitive, ever-curious mind and over time I have stumbled into the member He has for me. My research interests are mostly Old Testament Law, Second Temple Period Judaism, and Pauline studies, all colored in by an emphasis on Greek linguistics and shading this all with a particular focus on biblical theology. So, my research, studies, and publications reflect this hermeneutic that “zooms in and zooms out” on the words of Scripture, but my particular interest is on the biblical languages and linguistics.
Dr. Szumskyj: How did you come to salvifically know יהוה?
Bailey: My journey is a long one, but essentially the Lord revealed Himself to me after multiple people witnessed to me about Him. At that time I was a practicing Buddhist, but melding together an assortment of ideas and beliefs which would best be categorized generally as an occultist. I was always seeking for the truth and immediately prior to coming to know God (or, rather, to be known by Him) I was dealing with what can only be called serious spiritual warfare, and God sent multiple brothers and sisters who came from a witchcraft background to explain not only what I was going through but also to reveal the Gospel to me. This was important as I always figured Christians were foolish people who knew nothing of “the spiritual world.” That happened for a few weeks and I eventually had a meeting set up with a man who gave me “the full Gospel,” to say, committed to praying for my soul, and about a week later during a cigarette break out back of a Ruby Tuesdays (an American chain restaurant) where I was working, fittingly next to the dumpster, God revealed Himself to me. There’s some type of ironic but beautiful message there, though I haven’t quite figured it out! My path after that was equally complicated, but at that moment He began the journey of shedding off what I had covered myself with and growing more in Him. The rest is HiStory, and the above rather condensed.
Dr. Szumskyj: At what point did you come to embrace a pro-Torah hermeneutic? Do those around you support your contentions?
Bailey: I would say most of the Torah came naturally to me, being Jewish, but other than somewhat superficial things a deeper commitment to the Torah took some time to flower in me. It was actually my wife who felt convicted to adopt a kosher diet and begin truly observing Shabbat, and we began to be fully committed to observing Torah around 2015. I didn’t come to God with any real background in Christendom, and therefore any influences or presuppositions regarding the Torah, so I didn’t come with an antinomian hermeneutic over Scripture, nor did my wife. So it was never really a “coming to Torah” moment along our walk but more of a “coming to the Bible” one, where God simply commanded us to do these things and we did as we learned. I never really received much pushback from keeping the Torah per se, but more so my faith in Christ, by those around us. Obviously, I would come to find that with various interactions with believers, but in our personal lives this was never a significant issue like other Messianics tend to unfortunately deal with from family, friends, and the Church. There is always pushback within the Church, but I have found that the way we articulate our beliefs is important in the reception of them.
Dr. Szumskyj: It could be said that many of those in Messianic Judaism tend to inundate themselves with "proving" the laws of the Torah and oftentimes, and quite unfortunately, missing the salvation-historical and ecclesiological nuances. Why is that and how can this be corrected?
Bailey: I’d say this is a rather complicated issue with multiple “branches” to it, and not one which can be duly treated here. In part, I do believe it is genuine zeal that leads people to immerse themselves with “proving” Torah—they have come to this realization and they desire for all to come along. At some point, however, people tend to miss the forest for the trees. And even worse, they occupy themselves with saving Christians from antinomianism than saving unbelievers from being lost. I don’t think social media has helped this, and we have countless people who seem only to post memes and “fast food theology” posts on why someone needs to keep Sabbath and kosher. I call this a “mere diet and schedule change,” as Torah is intended to lead us into a deeper, more authentic and robust relationship with God and the Bible, which effects how we read the entire Bible and simultaneously live our lives. I strongly believe that you get what you are seeking for, and if we are only looking to treat the Bible as an apologetical document for Torah-observance, that is what we are going to get out of it.
The Bible, however, especially the New Testament, invites us into an unimaginably deep narrative of the God of Israel revealing Himself to all of the nations, and welcoming them into His family. It is a literary work spanning millennia, multiple genres, and incorporating prophecy, visions, motifs, polemical arguments, narratives, etc. When we fail to acknowledge these things we tend to read it superficially, and, in a way, extract from it what we want rather than actually reading it organically. The irony here is that Messianics tend to treat the Bible as a bag of trail mix just as they accuse non-Messianics of the same. I believe both sides of the aisle—Messianics and Christians—fumble the ball when they fail to recognize that pericopes like, say, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, has very little to do with food and commandments but, rather, fostering table fellowship and community between two (at the time) diametrically opposed groups—Jew and Gentile. As I often say, the New Testament is almost never arguing (in these typical contentious sections) about how one is saved (i.e., legalism), but rather who is saved (i.e., inclusivity versus exclusivity). The New Testament is a record of salvation-history and the unveiling of ecclesiology in Christ, so to neglect this can be quite disastrous to our theologies and interpretations, which I feel is somewhat self-evident. A way forward is seeking out resources that teach us how to read the Bible, which is, despite many opinions, a learned skill and a craft which is perfected.
Dr. Szumskyj: How did your book What God Hath Created: Does the New Testament Do Away with the Dietary Commandments? come about? What is the difference between Rabbinic and biblical parameters of what is acceptable to eat?
Bailey: So WGHC came about based upon a desire to provide Messianics with an accessible, all-in-one work arguing for the continuity of the Torah’s dietary commandments. I saw a need for this beyond social media posts and website articles, and essentially rewrote multiple articles I had on the topic via the ministry website myself into the book. The goal was not to provide a massively dense and scholarly work, but something simple and to-the-point that people could read and articulate to themselves and others a pronomian hermeneutic over otherwise contentious and ambiguous passages like Acts 10, Romans 14, Colossians 2, 1 Timothy 4, etc. God has used the little book and it’s helped many!
As for the differences between rabbinic and biblical regulations regarding food, there are not significant ones, at least in my mind. I think rabbinic ideas simply reflect man’s attempt at exegeting the Word and the general rabbinic idea of insulating the Torah with halakha (interpretation), a “fence” around the Torah, as Pirkei Avot puts it. Matters like the prohibition of eating meat and dairy together are examples of what is probably an inaccurate interpretation of the Scripture, but one will generally find a kosher label to helpfully avoid contaminants often overlooked like gelatin and inhumane husbandry practices (to some extent). In the first century we have good reason to reconstruct what was a larger matrix of “extra-biblical” prohibitions, especially with the purity and idol-defilement programs reflected in areas like Mark 7 // Matthew 15, Acts 10 and 15, Romans 14, etc., but it is debatable if these ideas find their way into later rabbinic material, at least in the same form. Ultimately, rabbinic conceptions of diet are helpful, but ought to be nuanced as man defining, categorizing, and therefore interpreting the Torah’s injunctions.
Dr. Szumskyj: You have recently written Who God Has Made Clean: A Pronomian Pocket Guide to Acts 10:9–15. What is different about this book and what is your goal in writing such a book? Why do you believe Christians have been inconsistent with the holiness of YHWH regarding clean and unclean food consumption?
Bailey: I actually believe Whom God Has Made Clean contributes towards paving a path of addressing the issues mentioned above, of neglecting salvation-historical and ecclesiological nuances in the Scripture. In that book I attempt to espouse such a hermeneutical framework to Acts 10 and show how failure to really appreciate the theology, narrative, and symbolism of the Bible ultimately results in bad readings. Before actually looking at the rich imagery of Peter’s vision, the first chapter addresses some common misunderstandings surrounding the Law, Jewish salvation, and the New Testament’s handling of the Torah, which is important and “sets the table” for what follows. To me, the traditional reading of Acts 10 is the quintessence of antinomianism in that the vision has nothing to do with the cleansing of ontologically unclean animals, and rather glaringly so.
I can only imagine that Christians never really consider the relationship between eating and holiness since they start off on the wrong foot with interpretations such as those which surround Acts 10. I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Christians, scholars included, have ever been consistent and asked these types of questions because they have removed the need or purpose to, in their minds. Moving past the impasse of an abrogative view of the Torah allows us to ask these questions. Whom God Has Made Clean obviously does not necessarily do this, but it does challenge us to ask if our readings really do due justice with the text, which is ultimately the first step in asking these other questions. In a way, the work is an example of the fruit that we find when we take this type of approach. In misinterpretation of Scripture it is not so much the false idea we arrive at in doing so that really matters but, rather, the correct idea that we are missing. And I feel confident that the book really highlights significant beauty we miss in Peter’s vision.
Dr. Szumskyj: How does a believer navigate the uncertainties that come with eating out and being present where unclean food is being offered?
Bailey: That is a difficult question and one which someone must navigate for themselves at the Lord’s discretion and guidance, especially when they are in missional settings. By and large, this was the issue which surrounds a lot of the New Testament’s “food discussions.” Ultimately, despite one’s interpretations of the Scripture, you are rolling the dice with eating out at places that serve dishes made from unclean animals. Most of us have probably consumed an unclean animal unknowingly from eating out, if we are honest. For my own interpretation of “the spirit” of Torah, I believe for something to be fully kosher (i.e. “fit” for consumption) the ideal is organic, pasture raised, humanely treated animals along with completely natural ingredients, which is hardly found when eating out. So we have multiple points of contention at the junction of “eating out” that one needs to work out within themselves. The fact of the matter is that unclean animals should not be present in any dining setting, so we are naturally dealing with a rather ambiguous and elusive circumstance, so I defer to each situation being circumstantial and guidance sought from the Holy Spirit. That answer may not be the preferred one, but I’ve weighed this out a lot and have not personally come to an answer for myself, let alone for others.
Dr. Szumskyj: Neither Circumcision, Nor Uncircumcision: A Messianic and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Galatians was an ambitious project. Share with us the journey in writing this commentary and in doing so, what was most challenging about your research and did you come to any new conclusions by the end of your study?
Bailey: The path to writing NCNU was an odd one, but I essentially came to the threshold of writing a commentary on Galatians because it is the epistle most often referenced within the Law discussion. One day I really reread through it closely and said to myself, “there is nothing in this entire epistle about legalism.” Which, in reality, there isn’t. After more reading, research, and attention to Paul’s careful rhetorical structure, discourse, and use of allegories and metaphors it became rather obvious to me that the epistle was, as I write in the conclusion of NCNU, “a rhetorically formatted, thematically structured, allegorically enhanced, metaphorically outlined, and cosmologically oriented apologetic treatise” for the inclusion of Gentiles. This really set in motion a radical overhaul of my own theology and investigation into the intersection of Second Temple Period Judaism and Christianity that is the New Testament, and really began me on a path that NCNU only scratches the surface of. In a way, researching for and writing NCNU began my entire research and publishing endeavors. The process made me a serious student of the Word and history.
With this all being said, I could not even begin to explain what research into these topics has done to challenge me. The scholarship on the epistle is wildly out of proportion with its length, and that does say something. It also necessitates research into almost every corner of biblical studies. This was one of my challenges: properly and wholly representing all of the scholarship on the epistle while simultaneously walking the tight rope of writing an accessible work for the “layperson” and equally maintaining a robust and exegetical treatment of the epistle. NCNU, therefore, is a bit of a mixed bag, and written in what I call a “journalistic” style, inviting the reader on a path through the epistle and making frequent stops up that mountain to address various themes and concepts within a whole Bible theology. In a way it records my own developing conclusions on the epistle and Paul’s theology, too. The goal was to provoke thoughtfulness in the reader’s mind, and is the starting point of what will, Lord willing, be a good amount of future projects in various capacities and forms. I am confident that NCNU at least accomplishes the goal of provoking thoughtfulness, which we must always be actively involved in. I would say that the writing of that book, a daunting endeavor, changed the way I read, research, write, and live forever—mostly by way of acknowledging how little I really know and how impossible it is to know as much as you need to (what a way to market one’s book!).
Dr. Szumskyj: In your opinion, should a Gentile in Messiah be circumcised? Should his children be circumcised?
Bailey: This really depends on how we perfect “circumcision,” and properly contextualizing mentions of it in Paul’s letters in particular. In almost every situation the mention of “circumcision” means conversion, as this was a “conversion rite” for the Gentile proselyte to join the people of God. On this side of the Cross, one is saved by faith and the “true circumcision” (Php. 3:3), the one made without hands which puts away the body of the flesh (Col. 2:11). So for a Gentile, they are certainly free to naturally circumcise if they so feel led, but physically and religiously they are (free) to remain as they are in the context of conversion (cf. 1 Cor. 7:18). This (conversion) is the context of circumcision in the New Testament. Simultaneously, therefore, when it comes to a baby boy, I see there being no reason to not circumcise them. The medical field goes back-and-forth on the medical and hygienic benefits of circumcision, but ultimately God designed our bodies to be circumcised (on the eighth day one’s vitamin K levels are at 100%) and there is a great deal of significance and symbolism in circumcision. In a way it symbolizes and ritualizes what happens to us in salvation, with respect to the body of flesh, and can be seen as dedicating one’s body to the Father, but I digress.
I debated this with both of my sons, seeking a lot of counsel from others and guidance from the Lord, and He ultimately pressed it upon me that they were to be circumcised. And doing so for my last came at great expense due to our circumstances at the time, which only emphasized the importance and necessity of it. Now, is that due to me being Jewish? I don’t know, but I reject ideas of bilaterial ecclesiology, and do not see God maintaining circumcision due to ethnic borders that, in Christ, have been dissolved. In my experiences both Messianic and non-Messianic Gentile believers that I know have felt strongly led to circumcise their sons, and at some point—since the Scripture is oftentimes descriptive and not prescriptive, case and point with circumcision, so not necessarily clear—we need to defer to how brothers and sisters have been individually led by the Lord on ambiguous topics like this. In sum, an uncircumcised Gentile who comes to Christ is free to remain as they were called, but I believe circumcising our sons is a command grounded in nature and the theological and soteriological significance that the rite contains. What the true object of our focus should be if our hearts are being circumcised by the Spirit, but we don’t throw out the ritual in lieu of the reality which it symbolizes. That (postmodern, or Western) mindset has created a lot of issues in Christendom.
Dr. Szumskyj: Purity, Politics, and Parables: A Narratological & Exegetical Study of the Handwashing Conflict in Mark 7:1–23 is a fascinating work on a passage that has historically been interpreted incorrectly and in scholarship, is undergoing a notable shift. What has been the exegetical barrier regarding this passage that has caused such misinterpretation?
Bailey: Similar to Acts 10 and Peter’s vision, Mark 7 is another quintessential pericope in which the plain and original meaning must be distorted to some extent for the traditional reading to be maintained. For me, the most glaring detail with respect to this is the exact parallel account in Matthew 15, which describes Yeshua being concerned strictly and solely with the Pharisaic custom of handwashing. In my mind, neglect of a canonical parallel account which clarifies an otherwise ambiguous and enigmatic passage—which is unprecedented and violates one of the core principles of hermeneutics of ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’—betrays a fundamental resistance to approaching the pericope from a sound exegetical approach on scholars’ and readers’ part. In recent decades the general interest of reading the New Testament “within Judaism” has resulted in various challenges to the standard interpretation for reasons that are too numerous to mention here, but are the result of what we can call a more historically accurate approach to Scripture. PPP is relatively bibliographic, having over 350 sources cited and interacted with, and it therefore showcases the general scholarly conversation on this and other topics.
That the solution to the fabricated problem is so simple as reading the account in a historically and contextually accurate approach points me to assume that it is an eisegetical barrier which is willingly maintained. That may not come off as entirely charitable, but I do believe the data speaks for itself, and I also believe that readers simply tend to gloss over the historical background and get hung up on the parenthetical clause in 7:19b, which is perfectly understandable. So I don’t think it is an issue with people actively and consciously resisting a proper interpretation but just people not asking the right questions in the first place. Once we start asking questions that we ask in Purity, Politics, and Parables, like “what does Yeshua mean that what comes out of a person defiles,” I think the proper answer is not very far out of grasp—for anyone, really. Humans naturally approach any topic with certain presuppositions and I believe the standard (mis)interpretation of Mark 7 is more or less a consequence of our interpretive heritage which has only recently begun to be challenged as scholarship has begun to ask these very “Jewish” questions.
Dr. Szumskyj: How do you envision pronomianism in the future of scholarship and in planting pro-Torah congregations?
Bailey: I see the larger movement that we may use the terms ‘Messianic,’ ‘pronomian,’ and, obviously reluctantly, ‘Hebrew Roots,’ to describe as growing tremendously in its ability to influence the Church and scholarship. My hope and vision is that many Messianics will be led to handle the Scriptures via academic approaches and, even, pursue a pathway through seminary. What we are missing is sound scholarly voices that emphasize the importance of established and accepted hermeneutical approaches to Scripture yet are simultaneously willing to carve new paths, not simply submitting to the ‘norms’ of both Messianic Judaism (per se) and Protestant Christianity. A pronomian framework of the Scriptures opens us up to ask questions which have never really been asked before and present new views towards every aspect of biblical studies. We are uniquely positioned to take an objective and novel approach to Scripture, so my hope is that we see a large increase in pronomian scholars entering the larger conversation that is biblical scholarship. The influence we can have remains unknown, and even unimaginable. I have a great deal of hope for that.
And as is the natural outcome of people seeking to become qualified and prepared to be teachers, I envision pro-Torah congregations being established with both those who are equipped in exegesis and those called into the role of a shepherd, fostering an environment that is familial and intimately bound together in Christ’s love. Additionally, I really hope to see the pronomian / Messianic “movement,” of sorts, encouraging a return to a more biblically and historically accurate ecclesial and liturgical structure—not simply adapting a modern Jewish one, but carving a new path that invigorates the first centuries’ model and takes cues from STP Jewish synagogues rather than simply rearranging the furniture in the inherited lineage of Christendom’s models, not that there is anything inherently wrong with these. I’d like to see a pro-Torah approach take roots, penetrating into the ground of how we “do” church in every way—on the individual and corporate levels.
Dr. Szumskyj: Which authors have had a profound impact on your life and ministry?
Bailey: There would be far too many to mention, in all honesty. Scholarship is essentially structured by multiple sub-disciplines in which a scholar focuses. This is basically the model of a PhD—one studies and situates themselves as the “expert” on that specific topic, concept, etc. So, when one is involved in biblical studies, they will have a plethora of people who all have equally profound impacts, but in different ways on different areas. And to make a list would inevitably exclude those who deserve mention. One scholar especially worth mention, however, is Krister Stendahl. Though Stendahl did not publish much, his impact upon scholarship has been profound and he put the words into my mouth that I couldn’t articulate—the true father of new perspectives to Paul. Richard N. Longenecker had a special impact upon me, and is equally another father of new views to Paul. John Oswalt, Gordon Wenham, G. K. Beale, L. Michael Morales, Stanley Porter, Constantine R. Campbell, Craig Blomberg, Alan Segal, Craig Keener, Michael Gorman, Michael Bird, F. F. Bruce, P. T. O’Brien, and Daniel Wallace are a handful of scholars that I am entirely indebted to, though, again, too many go unmentioned. Although focusing very little on authoring books, the man who has had the most profound impact on my life and ministry is without a doubt rabbi Greg Hershberg of Beth Yeshua, and has been the strongest voice in my life for over a decade now.
Dr. Szumskyj: Are you currently writing any other books?
Bailey: There always seems an ever-growing list of books to read and to write. So long as the former remains longer than the latter! At the moment I am taking a brief sabbatical from writing books to focus on an assortment of other things, primarily our homeless outreach ministry, but I am currently writing three. The first will be announced soon, but it is a collection of essay-studies titled The First Five Books: Jesus, the Apostles, and the Law in the Gospels and Acts. This will be an accessible-yet-academic-leaning work which tackles a particular passage regarding the Law in each of the Gospels and two in Acts. It is actually the project which “birthed” both Whom God Has Made Clean and Purity, Politics, and Parables. I am very excited for that work and have extended its release for it to be as good as it can be. I wouldn’t call it a “magnum opus,” but it is intended to be rather conclusive on, as the title suggests, Jesus’s views of the Law, and the apostles’ in Acts. That will probably be followed by—eventually—a similar work on Paul. I am also writing a technical-leaning, likely two-volume commentary on Ephesians (which will probably take years) and a pretty technical work on Paul’s use of νόμος (Greek nomos, “law”) in Galatians and Romans—essentially a product of my various proposals in NCNU, but primarily a linguistic-exegetical work—that, too, is a long-term project.
I have an assortment of other ideas—some concrete, some speculative—but nothing that has “hit the word document,” to say, except an introductory and apologetic work to/for the Torah that I have “put on the shelf” for the time being. There are also some possible publishing opportunities which may present themselves. For the time being, after six months of writing, I am taking a needed break. I return to my first two sentences to this question! While I love writing, I feel led to make simpler and shorter resources available for the Church, in whatever form of media it is that the Lord sees fit, and that is what I am actively involved in right now—mostly readying to relaunch the ministry website which will be accompanied by a rather large doctrinal statement (a catechism, really) which intends to provide Messianics with a statement to affirm and glean from. There is a lot in the oven!
