So last week we looked at a curious Pauline quote from the Christian Scriptures that suggests something profound:
Gentiles who believe in Messiah have undergone a metamorphosis. They’re no longer far off from God, they are no longer aliens to Israel, no longer foreigners to the covenants God made with Israel.
You fine blog readers sure had your opinions on these bits!
Reader Societvs was convinced Paul is not saying gentiles become Jews,
“I do not believe we become Jewish at all – this is not what happens in real life. I do not become a Christian and all of a sudden ‘poof’ I am Jewish too.”
Longtime reader Efrayim brings up the point about our fuzzy understanding of Jew and gentile, and how they fit into God’s people Israel,
Before you can have any meaningful discourse about this subject you must first define your terms.
What exactly is a "gentile"?
What exactly is a "Jew"?
And most important of all, Who is Israel?
Another reader, Jeff, also comments on the blurry understanding of Jew and gentile,
I often have fun with this statement of Paul. I ask "What is the opposite of a Gentile?" The answer is usually "Jew". Then I show them this quote of Paul where we are to be former Gentiles. Then I watch their head spin. :)
Longtime reader and friend Lou Vasquez comments on the confusion surrounding terms like Jew and gentile,
Most of the confusion comes from the English translations and doctrine over the past 2000 years. It’s like the word “law” in scripture. Every time it is said it does not necessarily mean Torah. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
So too with the word Gentiles. Sometimes it means “Physical bloodline” other times it means “Nations that don’t know God”.
Look at the scripture,
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.Does this mean that when we are “in Christ”, woman are no longer female? Of course not.
So I believe that what is being said by Paul is God is about reconciling, and they have now (Gentiles) come into the household of God.
Messianic Jew Gene Shlomovich has a different take on things,
I do not interpret that passage in the way you did, nor I believe that Paul meant for it to be interpreted this way at all - to say that Gentiles are no longer such.
All it says, the Gentiles in the flesh were once (formerly) alienated from the covenants of Israel. The formerly part speaks about their lost CONDITION, not their past or current ethnic identity. It doesn't say that they are no longer Gentiles.
And not to be forgotten, Todd, our resident Catholic, adds his 2¢,
The early church fathers often divided people into 3 categories: Jews, Christians, and Gentiles. In Greek the third word is literally translated "nations" I believe. And could also be translated as heathen or pagan. But as you probably know, the oldest Jewish term of the non-Jewish people is probably "the nations". Basically, from their Jewish-Christian teachers the gentile Christians learned that they had become something else...in that sense they were "former gentiles". And of course in a mysterious sense they were joined to Israel and in another sense the "New Israel".
Wow! So we have a lot of varying opinions. My own opinion of this Scripture is something I’m working out as I continue to study this and align it with the rest of Scripture.
Before we interpret the first part, however, we must understand the whole of what Paul’s saying. Here is the rest of Ephesians 2, which contains some big theological swords!
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
-Paul, in his letter to Ephesus
Uh oh.
I guess I should stop celebrating the Father’s feasts, because it looks like Paul is saying Messiah has abolished the Torah, which includes the Feasts I’ve been so gung-ho about. And somebody better tell all those Jews who are keeping the Torah because God said it would be an "everlasting, eternal convenant" with Israel - I guess God just meant "eternal, until Jesus comes".
Didn’t Paul get the memo where Messiah said he wouldn’t abolish the Torah? Are Paul and Messiah in conflict?
Stay tuned. Later on we’ll get out our scalpel and dissect this sucker.
In the meantime, what do you fine blog readers think Paul is saying here? Has Messiah abolished the Torah so that Jews and gentiles can together become one?
Judah,
ReplyDeleteRock on brother man! This is starting to get where we need to go.
Did you find the poster you used as a graphic as separate item, or have you read Batya Wooten's book, "Who is Israel?"
The portion of Ephesians you quoted is often misunderstood when taken at the face value of the text to the exclusion of all other scripture.
I really don't believe that Yeshua would make it clear that He was not going to abolish the Torah or the prophets and then have Sha'ul say that it was His purpose on the earth to do just that.
What Sha'ul is trying to communicate in this portion of his letter is the transition from the flesh to the Spirit. Nothing else makes sense.
The people groups being discussed here are obviously the Jews and the gentiles. There existed both a genetic and lifestyle difference that could not be bridged by any human means. And Messiah's stated purpose was to make them into one people group from the two, a goal that could not be reached in the flesh.
When I use the word "flesh" I am meaning our fallen nature which manifests its weaknesses through our fleshly bodies. This nature has already been judged and cannot be redeemed.
Creating a new man in Messiah has nothing to do with the flesh. Unless a person understands that very basic principle, the words of Sha'ul will be confusing at best.
A key phrase of this letter is this:
"He has made us both one and has broken down the m'chitzah (dividing wall) which divided us by destroying in His own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances".
Destroyed in His own body is a reference to His flesh, as no other portion of Messiah could be destroyed.
Please understand this next statement as it explains what Sha'ul is trying to explain.
While the commands of Torah have a spiritual meaning and embody truth, they are indeed practiced in the flesh. And those practices had caused a separation between the ones who followed the practices and those who did not. This is part of the reason why a person cannot be saved through the observance of Torah commands.
And it was the main reason why those of the "nations" who did not practice Torah would not be allowed into the fold of Israel as defined by the religious ruling class at that time.
Taking the two people groups and leveling the playing field by requiring only faith in Messiah as the price of admission took away the enmity, not by removing the demands of Torah, but by not requiring the practice of those commands to obtain eternal life.
Which is why Sha'ul said this to the believers in Rome:
"therefore, He will consider righteous the circumcised on the ground of trusting and the uncircumcised through that same trusting. Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we confirm Torah."
No contradictions. No confusion. No Jew and no gentile. No slave and no free. No man and no woman. At least not within the context of what Sha'ul is teaching.
Saying that men are still men and women are still women and so on is to try and force fit a spiritual truth into a temporary fleshly condition. No one has been successful in making that work so far. Might be time to give it up and explore the spiritual realities of the Kingdom of YHVH.
I speak to myself as well.
We all share the same fallen state with its problems and failures. And if we try to take two different people groups and make them into one in that same fallen state, our efforts will fail.
Sha'ul is simply explaining how YHVH will accomplish this uniting of the two groups in Messiah, where it had always been planned to take place, before the foundation of the world.
I certainly welcome any comments or questions about what I've written. And any scripture that someone feels would support or disprove is welcome as well.
Gene,
I do hope you add your insights. You cause me to think and have to dig a little deeper, which is a good thing.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim... let's review the points we agree on:
ReplyDelete1) Torah has not been done away with (Matthew 5: 17)
2) Gentile and Jewish believers become one flock in Messiah (John 10:16) and are now equal in his eyes (Romans 10:12).
3) Gentiles were once far away from spiritual blessings given to Israel, but now they share them (Romans 15:27).
However, I disagree with you on the following points:
1) G-d didn't do away with ethnic differences. The second part of Romans 10:12 explains in what sense there's no difference: "They all have the same Lord, who gives his riches to everyone who calls on him."
I like the way the Weymouth New Testament translates it: "Jew and Gentile are on precisely the same footing; for the same Lord is Lord over all, and is infinitely kind to all who call upon Him for deliverance."
On close examination of the scripture, we see that it's not that G-d has not made us all the same and has undone his own beautiful diversity, but that he has put Jew and Gentile on the same spiritual level, and has extended his love to ALL.
2) The New Testament never teaches that Gentiles believers are now to observe the Law of Moses or even Abraham. If he did, all newborn Gentiles would now be REQUIRED to be circumcised on the 8th day and all adults would have to be circumcised as well.
You can say "Well, Timothy had a Greek father, why did Paul had him circumcised"? I believe you'll find the answer in the scripture:
"Paul wanted Timothy to go with him. So he circumcised him because of the Jews..."
There, it's pretty clear - Paul didn't do it because HE HAD to do it since the half-Jewish-half-Gentile Timothy now had to obey and live under the Jewish Law. No, Paul did it because the yet-unbelieving Jews wouldn't even talk to him if he was bringing an uncircumcised Gentile (Timothy) in their midst - they would consider him unclean!
Messiah Yeshua has broken that wall - no man was to be considered unclean (Acts 10:28). Gentiles can be Gentiles, and Jews can be Jews, Italians can be Italians, and Russians can be Russians (you get the point). It's not important to G-d what your ethnicity, gender, or social status is - we are equal in his eyes. It doesn't mean that we are all the same, one Generic New Man, with same gifts and responsibilities - how boring would that be?
That's all I have for now...
Gene
"2) The New Testament never teaches that Gentiles believers are now to observe the Law of Moses or even Abraham. If he did, all newborn Gentiles would now be REQUIRED to be circumcised on the 8th day and all adults would have to be circumcised as well."
ReplyDeleteGene, how do you reconcile this with the "memo" above?
Robyn... I am sorry, am not certain what exactly you're referring to. A lot of points have been made by both Efrayim and myself, with which one of them do you want me to "reconcile this with"?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteIt's ok. I wasn't very clear. I was talking about the quote Judah had mentioned in the original post. Here's the link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:17-20;&version=31;
Take care!
~Robyn
Gene,
ReplyDeleteI did not say that ethnic differences would disappear. In a previous post I used the example of someone born Chinese immigrating to America. Their ethnicity does not change, but their national identification does.
Hence the question for everyone:
"Who is Israel?"
The idea of the whole House of Israel is not to remove all diversity or to demand unity at the cost of individual discipleship.
The purpose of the House of Israel, or nation of Israel if you prefer, is to provide an identity to all who come to YHVH through trusting in Messiah.
That is why in Ezekial chapter 37 YHVH gives us a clear picture of what happens when He joins the two houses together in His hand.
This is what Sha'ul is alluding to in Ephesians chapter 2.
All I said was that it was not a work of the flesh. Which is why circumcision is not required for entrance into the Kingdom of YHVH.
I agree with you about Timothy. It was expedient for Sha'ul to have him circumcised because of the Jews he knew they would encounter on their journey.
But I do find it interesting that you would call Timothy a half-Jew/half-gentile. Just how exactly would that be possible? And which half would be the Jewish half?
It seems to be the spiritual realities we struggle with when exploring the details of the work Messiah has done among His people.
Is it too hard to conceive of a nation called Israel, inhabited by people from all nations, kindreds, tribes and tongues, where the reality of who they are is defined by YHVH and not the prejudices of mortal man?
By the way, the observance of the Feast Days of YHVH are not involved in this aspect of Torah keeping or the requirements of gaining entrance into the House of Israel. He is currently using them to realign His people with His time clock in these last days. Becoming aware and participating in them is essential for understanding YHVH's plan for mankind. And for understanding who we are in Him.
And rather than being filled with pride for observing them, we should be humbled to think that YHVH cared enough about us to deliver us from empty traditions that are rooted in paganism.
I look forward to more comments. Especially from Judah.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Hi guys. Todd again. In my first post I was just adding a little early church history flavor. Note that there was a sense in which gentiles became something else. But of course there is a sense in which they are still Gentiles. I will try to lay out my view/interpretation (which I believe is an acceptable interpretation though not required interpretation in the Catholic Church). My view is probably closest to Gene’s and also to David Stern’s in the Messianic Jewish Manifesto.
ReplyDeleteI basically accept the Olive Tree Theology. There is messiness in defining Israel as Efrayim points out. I think Jew and Gentile are a little less messy. I don’t want to go off on tangents so I will just lay out some assertions:
Israel includes Jews who don’t follow Yeshua and Jews who do (I’ll call them Messianic Jews for this post) as a natural part of the Tree. Non-Messianic Jews broke off and whether they can be saved in that state is beyond the scope of this post. Gentiles who join themselves to Yeshua by the grace of god and associated with the mysterious breaking off the majority of Jews, were grafted into Israel as wild branches. In that sense they become something else , a Christian, and are part of Israel, if you wish , the New Israel. But the New is not a break with the old but a transformation of the old.
However, just as the Jews were not eliminated as a special people in general (see Romans 11), Messianic Jew’s important identity as Jews should not be eliminated within the Body of Messiah. This can only be preserved if the identity difference is real, i.e. they can be distinguished from Gentiles in the body of Messiah. So they join through the Messiah in one Israel but with distinct roles in the body (recall Paul’s analogy to arms, legs, heart, etc when he taught on different roles in the one body). What are those roles? At this point, I don’t have clear answers, I only discern that it is apparently G-d’s will that they do have separate identities and potentially different roles (in the Catholic Church we could make an analogy to women not being priests). So G-d knows and maybe will grant the Body greater understanding over time since the Body is seeking His will on this question in a way it hasn’t since the first century. One speculation is that a collective entrance into the Body of Messiah by the majority of Jews will bring a supernatural infusion of grace into the Church to renew it and prepare it for its final tribulation (I don’t believe in the rapture but lets skip that for now). That is certainly a role with a capital R.
The verse you quote is somewhat ambiguous in the original Greek. I think Efrayims translation (similar to David Sterns) is plausible. I don’t think it is an impermissble translation /interpretation. My view is similar to David Sterns. To me it seems clear that the Mosaic Torah commands were given only to natural Israel, i.e. what I would say call the Jews. Gentiles only had the moral law and noahide. Seems clear to me that the Jerusalem council described in Acts made it clear that Gentiles didn’t have to become Jews to be joined to Yeshua/Israel. They didn’t have to obey the Mosaic Torah commands in the same way or sense that the Jews did. Obviously, they needed to obey Yeshua and take concrete steps towards holiness, but their particular path to holiness would not involve, for example, a requirement to keep kosher or be circumcised. It appears to be the case in the NT that it is assumed that the Mosaic Torah commands were still obligatory on the Jewish members of Yeshua at that time. We all know what direction that ended up going in history (I won’t rehearse it). From a Catholic point of view now, there seems to be there have been some explorations by eminent non-dissenting theologians (Cardinal Dulles) that perhaps if a Jewish Catholic made a personal decision to keep the Mosaic Torah, that would be acceptable if one did not believe that this was necessary for salvation. However, the Catholic church would not obligate under its own discipline for Jews joining the Church to keep the all the Torah. Not clear Catholic Church could accept the following statement yet: “I don’t believe keeping all the Mosaic Law is necessary for my salvation – I am saved by Yeshua- but I do believe I am simply obligated to keep the Mosaic commands because I remain a Jew. Yeshua has saved all Catholics, but Catholics are still obligated to cooperate with G-d in pursuing sanctification. As a Jew, Yeshua has saved me, but I remain obligated by G-d to pursue holiness through the particular path He has prepared for me which has not been abrogated” We aren’t there and may not get there. However, it is probably acceptable for the individual to take it on as a purely personal obligation, rather than one that the Church recognizes as a discipline.
Sorry if I’ve mixed up some Messianic and Catholic terminology here.
Todd
Efrayim...
ReplyDelete"But I do find it interesting that you would call Timothy a half-Jew/half-gentile. Just how exactly would that be possible? And which half would be the Jewish half?"
The nudnik part:)
"Is it too hard to conceive of a nation called Israel, inhabited by people from all nations, kindreds, tribes and tongues, where the reality of who they are is defined by YHVH and not the prejudices of mortal man?"
Sure, it's not too hard to imagine. But it's not the Biblical reality. To be sure, I can envision "inhabiting" IN Israel instead of being "called Israel". After all, aliens have lived in Israel in times past and G-d commanded Israelites to love them.
I also believe that the New Yerushalaem will be a place where saved of all nations may dwell (or at least "walk in the light of") in the presence of the L-rd - without becoming Jews (and yes, Jews=Hebrews=Israelites in most people books - including the Bible).
Todd... we seem to hold very similar views. The one difference that I do see, is that you view the Church as the New Israel. I do understand that this is the classical Catholic view. While many people who hold this view are labeled "Replacement Theology" adherents, unlike them YOU don't view the physical Israel as obsolete.
So, in one sense, your view is similar to that of Efrayim (minus his belief that many Gentiles are actual physical Israelites) - although you Todd seem to give the Jews MORE freedom to be Jews and the Gentiles freedom to be Gentiles:
1) Both of you believe that there's a NEW Israel - one that's composed of BOTH Jews and Gentiles.
2) Both of you believe that Jews - which in case of Efrayim only means a handful of tribes of Israel - Judah, Benjamin, and some Levites - are still somewhat relevant. At the same time, Efrayim views this as no longer as relevant as it used to be - all can be Israelites, physical lineage doesn't matter much.
Shalom
Gene - your comments are fair. But if I had just said saved gentiles are grafted into Israel my guess is you would accept that based on Romans 11. I don't know what the olive tree is if it is not Israel. If I simply hadn't said "new israel". I was just trying to account for the use of that phrase in the NT (I think it is used only once.). I think the "new" is essentially superflous or at least not significant. I do reject classic replacement theology. Gentiles being grafted in to Israel does not replace the unique role of the Jewish people. If it did, then all converted Jews should simply assimilate and cease being Jews if they join the "Church." Which was the classic position. I don't buy it and the Church is starting to move against it. The RC Church has conceded that the "election" is irrevocable. But that doesn't quite get us there. The RC Church also views to my understanding that the Jewish people continue to have a unique vocation in salvation history (without defining exactly what that is for both Jews outside the Church and Jews who may join themselves to it...RC Church moves at glacial pace in these matters). But RC I would say has rejected "replacement theology" and some within it, like myself, have speculative opinions about the details of what that rejection of "replacement theology" should consist of. The Church (and Messianic Judaism) is still supercessionist at least in the narrow sense that we believe that Yeshua has brought the fullness truth in a way that rabbinic judaism has not...or we wouldn't be following Yeshua. In that sense His truth supercedes other understandings of the truth in Judaism (i.e. normative Judaism). But I think "supercedes" is a messy word because of unfortunate connotations. Due to ugly history.
ReplyDeleteTodd
"But if I had just said saved gentiles are grafted into Israel my guess is you would accept that based on Romans 11."
ReplyDeleteTodd... I am not so sure that the tree is "Israel". I know that it's a common and popular interpretation - but I think, like other many popular views, it is very wrong.
I think Israel is simply the natural branches of the tree - branches that can be cut off if G-d so willed (but he always leaves a remnant). I believe that the tree, with its nourishing roots, being the sustainer of life of all the branches, is none other than G-d Himself, His MEssiah and the Abrahamic promises on which Israel rests. I think you and all would agree that Israel itself is not the sustainer of life. I think it would be wrong to elevate Israel to such a level.
At the same time, you may recall the words of our L-rd:
"I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who continues in me and in whom I continue bears abundant fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."
As you can see, Yeshua's disciples (Jews and Gentiles) are the branches, but he himself is the Vine (or a tree, if you will, to which the branches are attached).
"If I simply hadn't said "new israel". I was just trying to account for the use of that phrase in the NT (I think it is used only once.)"
The phrase "new Israel" doesn't appear in the scriptures. You may be referring to the phrase "Israel of G-d" - which is commonly intepreted to mean Israel other than the physical one (e.g. "new").
Todd, I can see that G-d in you have cultivated an independent and sensetive spirit. It's refreshing.
Shalom,
Gene
One thing I haven't heard you guys discuss is the piece where Paul says,
ReplyDeleteFor he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
I know too well many Christians say, "There it is. Paul says the Torah is abolished in Messiah."
Is this indeed what Paul is saying?
Judah,
ReplyDeleteMy first post in this discussion is all about that portion of Sha'ul's letter.
"A key phrase of this letter is this:
"He has made us both one and has broken down the m'chitzah (dividing wall) which divided us by destroying in His own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances".
Destroyed in His own body is a reference to His flesh, as no other portion of Messiah could be destroyed.
Please understand this next statement as it explains what Sha'ul is trying to explain.
While the commands of Torah have a spiritual meaning and embody truth, they are indeed practiced in the flesh. And those practices had caused a separation between the ones who followed the practices and those who did not. This is part of the reason why a person cannot be saved through the observance of Torah commands."
As Yeshua said quite plainly, "the flesh profits nothing, the words that I say to you, they are spirit and life."
The wall that divided then is the wall that divides today. The flesh and all its skewed variations of what the truth may happen to be.
If it is not obvious that this is the root of the current Jew/gentile controversy, then much more study is needed to make it obvious.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim,
ReplyDeleteLet me restate what you're saying, and tell me if I'm understanding this:
"Israel following Torah and the gentiles ignoring Torah created a barrier between the two. The barrier still exists today. But Paul is saying that barrier shouldn't exist because he gave eternal life regardless of Torah observance."
Have I understood you?
Judah,
ReplyDeleteYes, you have the essence of what was said, but it needs to be expanded upon to keep it in the proper context.
Your statement/question was this:
"Israel following Torah and the gentiles ignoring Torah created a barrier between the two. The barrier still exists today. But Paul is saying that barrier shouldn't exist because he gave eternal life regardless of Torah observance."
The entrance requirements to obtain eternal life have always been based on what YHVH has demanded and nothing else. That has been well established and has never changed, regardless of the introduction of Torah to mankind.
But because people tend to think that the outward observance of specific commands in the form of ordinances makes them better than someone who does not follow the same observance, for whatever reason, perhaps they chose not to or perhaps they were not allowed to, a line of division was established between the nation of Israel (the Jews) and the rest of the nations (the gentiles).
That the division exists is not a problem. YHVH used Torah to separate His people from the rest of humanity. It is where we get the concept of being "holy" which means to be "set-apart".
The problem was that there were those among the genetic descendants of Jacob who decided that the line of division could not be crossed by just anyone who happened to come to trust the Elohim of Israel.
They began to establish their own requirements based on their fleshly observance of Torah commands in the form of ordinances.
Someone who came to faith in Messiah Yeshua and was granted the full fellowship of the children of Israel with all of its promises contained in the covenants by virtue of the process of adoption (grafting) should have been welcomed by the ruling religious class in Jerusalem.
But they were not.
Which is why I said the following:
"Creating a new man in Messiah has nothing to do with the flesh. Unless a person understands that very basic principle, the words of Sha'ul will be confusing at best."
I understand wanting to break down the argument to its simplest components for the sake of those who are new to the whole idea of being a significant part of Israel. As long as the original premise remains intact.
So yes, Paul is saying that the wall should not exist. It was removed in Messiah. Now everyone has access to the life promised to Israel regardless of their obedience to Torah commands. And once life is given, it is not up to any of us to add anything else to that fact just so we can feel good about ourselves and maintain our position of power over others.
And yet here we are today.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim...
ReplyDeleteSo, let me see if I understood your following statement correctly:
"The problem was that there were those among the genetic descendants of Jacob who decided that the line of division could not be crossed by just anyone who happened to come to trust the Elohim of Israel.
They began to establish their own requirements based on their fleshly observance of Torah commands in the form of ordinances."
Are you saying that it was the Jews ("they") who have built the wall that the scriptures refer to - the infamous wall that divided Jews from the Gentiles is actually Israel's doing, and it was accomplished through Rabbinic ordinances?
Gene,
ReplyDeleteYour question:
"Are you saying that it was the Jews ("they") who have built the wall that the scriptures refer to - the infamous wall that divided Jews from the Gentiles is actually Israel's doing, and it was accomplished through Rabbinic ordinances?"
Unfortunately there isn't a simple, easy answer to your question.
I'm sure that you, as well as others, have studied the religious / political realities of that period in time and the events that lead up to it.
If not, then when you do that study you will find that many of the so-called P'rushim and Tz'dukim had purchased their positions within the respective groups and were holding on to what they considered to be their rightful place at any cost. Those type of folks are mentioned by the prophet Ezekial and their punishment is severe.
I wouldn't call those people "Jews". Not in any real sense of the word. They may have had an Israelite genealogy, but they wanted to be part of the emerging (at the time) religious rulers, the P'rushim and/or the Tz'dukim. Yes, they were called rabbis by many who saw them as having the authority to regulate the lives of others.
But Yeshua spoke against them in the strongest terms. He did not speak against those who kept Torah and loved their neighbors as themselves. Do we need to review the statements of Yeshua about how those false rabbis would not enter the kingdom themselves and kept others from entering as well?
I'm not being a bigot or a racist here. But this is not a format where a person can easily go into great detail. So I am trying to put forth a few spiritual concepts to help clarify the answer that Judah was looking for. The reader must try and understand what is being said in the context of scripture and their own experience.
So the short answer to your question is, yes, I am saying that the religious rulers of the day, whatever their origins may have been, had constructed a wall of division between the people of Israel and the rest of the nations.
Remember Yeshua's statement about their proselytizing activities? They were not complying with YHVH's command to bring the light of Torah to the nations. They were strengthening their positions at the expense of both the truth and those who followed them.
Hence the wall.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Dear readers, I suspect Gene is trying to bait Efrayim with a, "Aha! You're blaming it on the Jews and rabbinic tradition!" gotcha moment. We'll see.
ReplyDeleteGene, what is the dividing wall? I want to understand what is the dividing wall and how it's related to Torah.
Efrayim, your view has influenced my own to a degree. You've made your view clear, I think, and you did so without a theological ax to grind - no gotchas, no silly accusations of racism. Thanks.
I'll respond to both Judah and Gene.
ReplyDeleteJudah - I wasn't clear on that. I said the phrase you quoted was apparently ambiguous in the Greek due to unclear syntax. Not clear that "abolished" refers to the torah commands as opposed to the emnity occasioned by the mosaic commands applying to the Jews and Gentiles differntly. Which I thought efrayim's translation showed- and that I understood that translation to be a legitimate )though minority) alternative as far as I know.
The Jerusalem Bible had translated this: "destroying in his own person the hostility caused by the rules and decrees of the law."
Sorry anonymous above was posted by me - Todd.
ReplyDeleteNow to Gene-
Your argument about the Olive Tree seems plausible. It wouldn't bother me. I would like to think about it more.
On "New Israel" You are right. I was thinking of the "Israel of God".
Todd
Judah... thanks for the running play-by-play commentary on my intentions. I trust that your readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.
ReplyDelete"Gene, what is the dividing wall? I want to understand what is the dividing wall and how it's related to Torah."
Fair enough, allow me to paraphrase Ephesians 2:14-17, in my own words:
But G-d through Christ has broken down the wall that divided Jews and Gentiles, and did away the enmity that Torah has CAUSED with it's commandments (note: Law wasn't done away with, rather the enmity against Gentiles caused by the Law - laws which in Torah expressly FORBID Jews from closely associating with Gentiles, who were mostly pagans, for fear of idolatry).
So, Efrayim, the wall between Gentiles and Jews was the Torah itself and the commandments it contained that kept Jews as a separated nation, and not some NEW teachings of the rabbis of Yeshua's day. The wall existed way before that, before there even were any rabbis.
So, in Nehemiah 13:3 (before "corrupted" rabbis came along), we can read the story about when Israel heard the law read once again to them after a long period of time. What was Israelite's response to the Law? Let's see:
"Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." We can see here that their first reaction when they heard G-d's laws was separation from those among them who were NOT Israelites and thus were not following the Torah. The Torah of G-d was the SEPARATION, or the wall.
By sanctifying, purifying, or making clean the Gentiles (see Acts 10:1-35), G-d has finally removed that barrier between them and the Jews.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteI thought that I had said that by saying this:
"That the division exists is not a problem. YHVH used Torah to separate His people from the rest of humanity. It is where we get the concept of being "holy" which means to be "set-apart".
The problem was that there were those among the genetic descendants of Jacob who decided that the line of division could not be crossed by just anyone who happened to come to trust the Elohim of Israel.
They began to establish their own requirements based on their fleshly observance of Torah commands in the form of ordinances."
Was that not clear? I could try again if you like.
Shalom,
Efrayim
"Was that not clear? I could try again if you like."
ReplyDeletePlease, don't bother. I answered your points in my last post if only you took a few moments to really read them - Jews didn't create the wall, G-d himself put it there through Torah to protect His People. We should let the readers draw their own conclusion at this point.
Shalom,
Gene
Gene,
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is my fault. I was not clear enough. Trying to keep my posts to some reasonable length does not always work out well.
So here is a brief summation of my thoughts about the wall of division.
YHVH used the Torah to separate His people from all the other people on the planet.
YHVH allowed anyone who put their trust in Him to cross that line of separation based on His requirements. If that person, once they had crossed over, refused to keep His commandments, they would be put back across that line and no longer be a part of His people Israel.
At the time of Yeshua there existed a rabbinical order that did not follow the commandments of YHVH and yet were considered the spiritual authority of the day.
It was those people who had decided that the requirements to cross the line of division established by YHVH would need to be changed to accommodate their positions of power within their communities.
"Jews" did not create the wall of division. But there were those who called themselves "Jews", whether they were or not YHVH knows, who had made it impossible to cross the line of division on any terms other than their own.
It was the prevailing thought and culture at that time. An accepted part of the "Jewish" and "gentile" communities.
Yeshua said very plainly that His disciples were not to allow anyone to call them "rabbi".
And yet there are those today who insist that they be given that title by the very fact that they so readily accept it when conferred and even attend schools to attain it.
Those who claim to be rabbis in Messiah are walking in disobedience and risk subjecting themselves and those who put their trust in them to error by establishing rules by which some of the household of faith are excluded.
By doing that, once again it becomes difficult to cross the line, the "wall of division", that had been set by YHVH long ago.
The pattern is the same, the reasons are the same, the results are the same.
Which is why the idea of one nation called Israel that contains all His people is not a bit of fluff and fancy. But rather a reality that will remain when all other man made ideas and constructs have disappeared.
Because it is based on YHVH's plan and purpose.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim...
ReplyDelete"Yeshua said very plainly that His disciples were not to allow anyone to call them "rabbi".
Those who claim to be rabbis in Messiah are walking in disobedience and risk subjecting themselves and those who put their trust in them to error by establishing rules by which some of the household of faith are excluded.
By doing that, once again it becomes difficult to cross the line, the "wall of division", that had been set by YHVH long ago."
I suppose you don't call your father "father" or let your children refer to yourself as one, in obedience to Matthew 23:9? And the teachers in school or in the congregation you attend, you don't refer to them as such either, right (per Matthew 23:10)?
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Efrayim, this seems to be turning into a diatribe against Messianic Judaism and its leadership. I think we should stop at this point.
Shalom,
Gene
Gene,
ReplyDelete"Efrayim, this seems to be turning into a diatribe against Messianic Judaism and its leadership. I think we should stop at this point."
If it were simply a diatribe against Messianic leadership I would agree about stopping.
But it is not.
It can't be too difficult to see the difference between true leadership and false leadership.
The command to not call anyone "rabbi" or "father" was to warn about and hopefully eliminate those who would put themselves in a position of spiritual authority over others that only YHVH was meant to occupy.
The true hierarchy of spiritual leadership within the body of Messiah is valid and functions quite well as intended by the gifts of the Ruach HaKodesh.
False leadership establishes additional "walls of division" between believers who, for whatever reason, put their trust in that false leadership.
That's why we see so many different and opposing religious groups of all types. Churches, synagogues, home fellowships, you name the group and it will become apparent where the divisions are quite quickly if they are being run by false leaders.
Is it the fault of the leadership, the congregations, the world, the flesh, the devil? All of the above and more probably.
Is it part of the plan and purpose of YHVH? If it is I would have to admit to being a little confused. Because that certainly did not seem to be the goal of Messiah.
I agree with and support true spiritual leadership. I don't have much patience with anything else.
Shalom,
Efrayim
"I agree with and support true spiritual leadership. I don't have much patience with anything else."
ReplyDeleteJudah... other than Yeshua Himself and other than speaking in generalities, who are the actual leaders so true and spiritual that YOU personally support, would recommend to others as examples? If you don't want to reveal their names publicly, you can send me a personal message through Beth Avinu forum. I certainly would want find out who you view as such exemplary leadership for Messiah's community.
Thanks
Last post was meant for Efrayim... Judah, please ignore (unless you too have the leaders you can exemplify).
ReplyDeleteefrayim - I am not sure I see the formal disconuity you do between the pharisee's of Yeshua's time and earlier sages/prophets who you would say truly followed the Torah. I can see a purely personal hypocrisy among some or perhaps many pharisees (certainly not all). But in terms of continuity of teaching authority just a few verses before the one about rabbi's Jesus says (Matt 23:2)
ReplyDelete"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."
That's been a difficult verse with various explanations in traditional christianity but I would think it was a difficult verse for you as well.
Todd
Todd,
ReplyDeleteThe verse you mention in Matthew has been the subject of much discussion in the past few years.
Probably the best commentary, at least a plausible one, that I have heard is from Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon on the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew.
When explained by someone who is fluent in the original language it becomes clear that Yeshua did not contradict any previous or subsequent statements He made concerning the mandate to keep Torah or keep the rabbis rules. He makes a clear distinction between the two and underscores the need to walk in Torah.
You're right, it does drive traditional Christianity crazy to try and interpret what He was saying. It also has an unsettling effect on many Messianic believers as well when read in the mainstream translations.
You may want to at least give a listen to what Nehemiah has to say. It certainly clears up the authority issue.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Todd... while checking out Michael Rood's and Nehemiah Gordon's materials, also do some research on those two guys.
ReplyDeleteTodd,
ReplyDeleteYes, please DO research on those two fellows. And after an exhaustive search you will discover this one amazing fact:
They are only men!
That's right, just two human beings like the rest of us.
Except maybe Gene, who seems to have reached a higher plane and can look down on those he disagrees with.
Yes, do check them out and see what problems you can find that may hopefully disqualify them in your mind so that their teaching will fall on deaf ears.
Perhaps then you will realize that you must only learn from those who have the proper credentials. Who live lives they approve of and can demonstrate loyalty to the cause.
I mean really, where could it lead if you started learning from the likes of Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon. Would you then fall off the deep end and start reading about the two houses of Israel being united in Messiah? Oh my!
Be careful Todd. The world is full of hidden dangers and crafty deceptions. Watch out for those folks who may not meet the "special" criteria for being allowed to speak in public.
...................
Sorry for the rant but it makes mad that someone would try and take the search for truth and turn it into a political campaign by offhandedly suggesting that there might be some thing wrong with the "other" guys.
You can delete this if want Judah. But it is how I feel.
Efrayim
Dear readers,
ReplyDeleteTo clarify what's being said,
Todd had pointed out Matthew 23, where Messiah makes a statement about the authority of rabbis. Efrayim responded that 2 teachers, Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon, have researched this verse and interpreted it using Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, which reads differently.
Gene has theological disagreements with these two teachers:
Michael Rood, a Messianic gentile who disregards rabbinic authority and has some pro-2 Houses of Israel teachings.
Nehemiah Gordon, a Karaite Jew who also disregards rabbinic authority, rejects Talmud as binding, and generally rejects Rabbinic Judaism as authentic.
This doesn't sit well with many in Judaism, including some Messianics. (Presumably including Gene.)
Judah... I couldn't have said it better myself:)
ReplyDeleteAnd all, do take a look at Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew - certainly a book to check out to see how it differs from Matthew you have in your Bibles and what make it so attractive to Rood and many others in the 2-House movement.
Shalom.
"...other than Yeshua Himself and other than speaking in generalities, who are the actual leaders so true and spiritual that YOU personally support, would recommend to others as examples?"
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of question is that Gene?
Be honest. Are you personally looking for new leadership and would really like to know who is approved by YHVH and who is not?
And if so, why would you ask me?
Would you take my advice as being true and reliable enough to move your family to another part of the country so that you could be lead by those I approve of?
Or are you talking global leaders? Perhaps national ones?
I don't know about anyone like that. At least I haven't heard about anyone fitting that description.
And what would the name of someone I respected locally mean to anyone outside of my neighborhood?
Perhaps you have a rabbi in mind who could pull us all together and straighten out all our differences. I would certainly be willing to listen to someone with those skills.
..........................
"And all, do take a look at Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew - certainly a book to check out to see how it differs from Matthew you have in your Bibles and what make it so attractive to Rood and many others in the 2-House movement."
And just what is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that the errors in the two house teaching are supported by the errors in the Shem Tov gospel? Or what exactly?
Besides, you seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Rood and Gordon are both pro-Torah and that the scripture in question, as translated in Shem Tov, supports a Torah observant lifestyle. It has nothing to do directly with the two houses of Israel being brought back together.
What I tried to point out earlier was that the Shem Tov translation helped remove the confusion many people have when reading that passage as it seems that Yeshua is telling the folks to obey the very ones He just got finished condemning for doing things YHVH did not approve of!
I'm quite certain that Yeshua was not confused at the time. Nor that He intended for others to be confused over the next few centuries.
Just take it for what it is worth. If the Shem Tov translation does not conflict with any other scripture and does not remove the original thought out of context in order to make some obscure theological point, would it really be problem to search it out?
Probably not.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim and Judah...
ReplyDeleteI know that Judah adores FFOZ, as evidenced in his recent post where he said "I really love First Fruits of Zion organization. They’re intellectual yet readable and approachable. They are firmly grounded in the Scriptures while shying away from many of the conspiracy theories that afflict some of the hard line Christian and Messianic circles."
Well, Tim Hegg from FFOZ wrote a very interesting article on Shem Tov Matthew, and Rood and Gordon's trumpeting of it. You can read it here:
torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Matt23.3Gordon.pdf
Tim Hegg is not too kind to Rood and Gordon - see the last paragraph of the paper.
Gene
Gene,
ReplyDeleteTimm Hegg has no reason to be kind to either Michael Rood or Nehemiah Gordon. They challenge the rabbinical authority that FFOZ uses to establish their credibility.
Nehemiah Gordon has rejected the rabbis and their teachings where they stray from scripture. That is the essence of the Karaite Jews. Scripture only.
So? Is that so bad?
Nehemiah also rejects Yeshua as Messiah. Which means that his interpretation of the passage was not intended to try and gain traction with the Messianic believers. He really doesn't care about that.
And he certainly is not trying to impress the rabbis. Orthodox or Messianic.
Which was one of the main reasons that he was asked and agreed to the task.
By the way, FFOZ will not openly embrace the two house position because they see it as a threat to their "Jewish" identity.
Although privately Boaz Michael has said that he does not see it as a false doctrine or a deception. He just doesn't see where it fits exactly. Fair enough.
A person would do well to study both sides of the Shem Tov translation and interpretation.
And it would also be a good idea to ask what problems might occur in scripture if Tim Hegg's interpretation stood as correct.
Shalom,
Efrayim
I think it would be nice for Judah, as a strong supporter of FFOZ, to chime in on Tim Hegg's view of Shem Tov, Rood and Gordon.
ReplyDeleteSomeone at FFOZ doesn't see things precisely as I see them! Oohhh noooeees!
ReplyDeleteThere, I've chimed in. :-)
I love FFOZ because their excellence in teaching Torah and Messiah. Not because their views align perfectly with my own. (They don't.)
Ding! :-)
Judah,
ReplyDeleteI wish I could keep my posts as short as yours. Nice job.
Btw, we went through HaYesod with our previous fellowship. There was a good amount of easily understood basic instruction in how Torah can be applied in our lives today.
Although we didn't agree with everything, there was much to learn.
Shalom,
Efrayim
From Todd-
ReplyDeleteOn Shem Tov Matthew. A fascinating document. But more tantalizing than definitive. Just too messy. Here's my take although I will continue to study articles on the Shem Tov as they emerge(first looked at this a while ago).
1. First all, I accept the views of those scholars who believe there was an original aramaic/hebrew Matthew.
2. But that doesn't mean it was preserved and that Shem Tov Matthew is essentially that text. Shem Tov could be translated from Greek or Latin. Or perhaps Shem Tov is derived from a hebrew/aramaic original but its transmission over the centuries was not well done. Because it would have had to preserved in the non-believing Jewish community. Thus, it was hardly a sacred text like the Torah and could have been transcribed carelessly or even polemically over the centuries. Still that could leave some nuggets but we wouldn't really know how to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Note the variant texts in the article by pegg.
I basically think we just don't have enough data to say much that is certain - I certainly wouldn't change my beliefs based on this text. It is fascinating though.
I'll bring up some other books in this general area that you folks may not have come across.
"The Birth of the Synoptics" by Jean Carmignac. Catholic Old Testament Scholar wanders into NT scholarship equipped with in-depth knowledge of Hebrew that NT scholars usually don't have since they are always immersed in Greek. He concludes that all three synoptic gospels were likely originally redacted in hebrew/aramaic. This is based on a linguistic analysis. He also believes that their final redaction was much earlier than the consensus. Its a short little book about 100 pages. Has a baffling typo at beginning and the end. Let me know if you want the correction.
Another scholar who posits hebrew/ara is David Flusser, who was an Modern Orthodox Jew (very liberal)who wrote a book simply entitled "Jesus". Great book by the way. What he says is: " My research has led me to the conclusion tha tthe Synoptic Gospels are based upon onre or more non-extant early documents composed by Jesus disciples and the early church in Jerusalem. these texts were originally written in Hebrew. Subsequently, they passed through various stages of redaction. Itis the Greek trnaslation o fthese early Hebrew sources that were employed by our three evangelists."
Finally, "The Hebrew Christ" by Claude Tresmontant. A French Catholic historical scholar with a fluency in Hebrew. He attempts to show the underlying Hebrew stratum of not only the synoptic gospels but also John. Interestingly, both he and Flusser appear to agree that Luke (not Matthew!) shows the most signs of being a slavish translation from Hebrew (except for the opening paragraph). Wow. This is a longer book about 300 pages.
Todd
Efrayim,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in what you have posted here. Sorry Gene, but when God says that He is not a man that He could lie..When He says that He does not change....When He says, "Have I not said it and will I not do it?" I believe HIM/GOD, not man. I do not believe that Yeshua came to do away with the Torah, I believ He came to fill it up, to make it more understandable. He saw that His sheep were being led astray and therefore He was bringing them back to Him.
Unfortunately, Paul's/Shaul's words and the way they have been interpreted has made him more the authority than Yeshua. I have found out that unless you understand the Hebrew idioms and the Hebrew language you will not understand Paul/Shaul's teachings.
I don't understand how people can say that Yeshua is God and yet not follow His instructions. How many times did He say, "If you love Me, keep My commandments/instructions."? How many times is that said in the Torah?? Who receives the blessings? Those who love God and keep His commandments/instructions.
Shalom
S.C.
When a gentile becomes a believer in Yeshua the Messiah, they become the seed of Abraham. Who inherits the kingdom? The seed of Abraham, those who are saved through faith and hold to the instructions of God. Why did Yeshua say that Abraham was accounted for righteousness? Because Abraham believed God and had faith in the Messiah.
ReplyDeleteBecause I believe, follow the instructions of Torah and have faith in the Messiah, I am a wild olive branch that has been grafted in to the Tree which is Yeshua.
Has anyone listened to any of Brad Scott's teachings? How about Bill Cloud? Both of these men have awesome teachings although I think Brad Scott goes deeper into the Hebrew and Greek definitions. I also like FFOZ's teachings.
Shalom,
Sara
Sara... you said:
ReplyDelete"When a gentile becomes a believer in Yeshua the Messiah, they become the seed of Abraham. Who inherits the kingdom? The seed of Abraham, those who are saved through faith and hold to the instructions of God. Why did Yeshua say that Abraham was accounted for righteousness? Because Abraham believed God and had faith in the Messiah.
Because I believe, follow the instructions of Torah and have faith in the Messiah, I am a wild olive branch that has been grafted in to the Tree which is Yeshua."
Thanks for your input. Let me make a few points for you:
1) Being a child of Abraham doesn't make one a child of Israel/Ya'akov. After all, Abraham is called the "father of many nations" - which includes Gentiles nations. Therefore, for some to claim that Gentiles are Israelites or Jews because they have been adopted as children of Abraham by faith, is not only not supported by any scriptural verses, it is also covetousness. Neither, as some preach, do Gentiles become "Hebrews" (also, an ethnic designation which covers everyone from Abraham on).
2) Not being children of Ya'akov (spiritual or otherwise) means that one is not bound by the covenant that G-d has established SPECIFICALLY with Israel. G-d doesn't expect, want or requires that Gentiles live as Jews. This is reflected quite well in Acts 15:
"To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. ... It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with ANYTHING BEYOND the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
No, for anyone to simply IGNORE these words and continue to insists that it's a G-d honoring thing for Gentiles to take one something that G-d never gave them - that would certainly bring on the same rebuke that the Jewish Messianic Community in Yerushalaem has issued to those who teach it.
Did G-d LIE to the Jerusalem leadership when He said that he didn't require of Gentiles any further requirements?
3) You have to also remember that Yeshua came to Israel - almost everything he said, he said to Israelites/Jews. When teachers of the Torah asked Yeshua which one was the greatest commandment, he started his answer with "'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." To take things out of this context and to reapply them to Gentiles believers - one would do no better than those who teach Replacement Theology and say tjat everything that belonged to Israel now belongs to us - and what's more, WE ARE the New Israel. It's just not supported by the scripture.
Shalom,
Gene
4)
Gene,
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting scenario you propose.
Two different people groups with two different genetic backgrounds come through the same gate to receive eternal life through trust in Messiah Yeshua.
But then something amazing happens right after they step through the gate.
One person, due to their genetic background, are told to stand over in one part of the kingdom and do very little because what they do is not that important.
Another person, due to their genetic background, is told to stand over in another part of the kingdom and that they will have much to do because they are special in a special way and the requirements for them are quite different.
Ok, so now what?
The folks with the genetic disadvantage are given very little instruction. Like, stay away from a few foods under certain conditions and don't be sexually immoral.
Gene, you do realize that the letter which the apostles carried to the gentiles did not tell them to love one another. Or how to worship. Or how establish competent leadership within their congregations. Or even where or on what day to worship or rest or whatever they were supposed to do.
Whoa, wait a minute you say. There are other letters that explain all those things in detail.
Yes, but they did not have them in their possession did they?
Many were written later, or sent to other congregations far away. Who knows if those who received the letter from the apostles in Jerusalem ever saw the other letters?
You like to talk about what was contained in that letter as if it was the summation of teaching that the gentiles would need for the next two thousand years.
While at the same time you argue that the Jews would have to continue to labor under Torah, regardless of what Messiah had done, as it was only meant for them.
Quite a position to take. I really can't see how you make it work within the totality of scripture.
On the one hand you say that Messiah came to bring us together as one in Him.
On the other hand you say that Jews and gentiles are to remain separate due to the different genetic backgrounds, the lineage passed on from father to son with the seed of man.
Covet? Really? Once again I will ask you just what exactly do you think it is that someone wants to steal from you? Your heritage?
Since your heritage can't be stolen I am left thinking that what you're having trouble with is the idea of sharing your heritage with others.
Although you say that it is fine with you if gentiles partake of the life that is in Messiah, you also say that they need to keep their place while doing so and not try to be or act like "Jews".
Hmmm...doesn't sound to me like what I read in scripture.
Does anyone else see what Gene is saying as being contained within scripture? I'll gladly stand corrected if it can be shown that what he, Gene, is proposing is actually the plan and purpose that YHVH has for His people. And that YHVH put that plan in motion through His Son Yeshua.
Chapter and verse would be fine.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim... you wrote a lot, again... let's see if I can go through it quickly...
ReplyDelete"Two different people groups with two different genetic backgrounds come through the same gate to receive eternal life through trust in Messiah Yeshua."
It's not about DNA - it's about having one's forefather Ya'akov/Israel who have been given promises for himself and for all of Israel by G-d himself. You try to minimize that - but I suggest that you turn to the "Old Testament" and see the end-time promises given to Israel specifically.
"One person, due to their genetic background, are told to stand over in one part of the kingdom and do very little because what they do is not that important."
That's nonsense - and gross misrepresentation of my position. No one is being told to stand anywhere, no one is being told that they are less important - we are all equally loved by the Father when he adopts us as his children. Different roles and responsibilities given by G-d Himself to different people DO NOT mean that one is inferior to another. We are all different parts of one body - and different parts have different functions.
"The folks with the genetic disadvantage are given very little instruction. Like, stay away from a few foods under certain conditions and don't be sexually immoral."
Hold on a second now - G-d already gave commandments to the ALL of mankind before on many occasions before Israel ever came along. What's more, the Bible already says that Gentiles have the Law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). Because of that they already know right from wrong, as most people do. At the same time, the Law of Moses was given specifically to Israel to follow, and when Yeshua came, Gentiles were not told to start observing Mosaic Laws.
In fact, there are many verses that speak against them trying it. Like the one that says that if a person becomes circumcised, they would have to observe the WHOLE LAW (Galatians 5:3):
"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."
Since Paul was speaking against Gentiles getting circumcised in the verses preceding the above, it's quite obvious (to me at least) that he didn't expect Gentiles to obey the WHOLE law either (as would be expected of Jews). Let's see:
1) Circumcised (i.e. Jews and Jewish converts) - MUST obey the WHOLE Mosaic law (meaning not just the circumcision part of that law).
2) Not-circumized and NOT required to be (e.g. NT Gentile believers) - NOT required to obey the Mosaic law.
So, what are Gentiles to do if they are not to live as Jews and are under no obligation to observe Mosaic Law? Are they free to live a lawless life? No! Paul writes in Gal 5:13:
"But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."."
Efrayim, you wrote:
"Whoa, wait a minute you say. There are other letters that explain all those things in detail."
Are there later letters that tell Gentile believers that they are to observe all of the Mosaic Laws that Jewish believers observe? Are there letters that condemn Gentiles for violating Shabbat, eating pork, not circumcising their children, not keeping ritual purity, etc? Of course not. Why? Because G-d didn't require that of Gentiles.
"Since your heritage can't be stolen I am left thinking that what you're having trouble with is the idea of sharing your heritage with others."
Sharing - I am and other Jews have shared plenty of our heritage already!
"Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things." (Romans 15:27)
What more do you want? Do you want to be an Israelite when you're not? Have you ever tasted real antisemitism, a hatred for the Jewish blood that runs in your veins? I have, many times, growing up in Ukraine. And I expect more of the same in the coming future before Yeshua returns. There will not be many Gentile people who will claim to be Israelites.
"Although you say that it is fine with you if gentiles partake of the life that is in Messiah, you also say that they need to keep their place while doing so and not try to be or act like "Jews".
Efrayim, I'll let Shaul answer your question in 1 Corinthians 7:17:
"Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the congregations."
Shalom,
Gene
Efrayim-
ReplyDeleteI think looking at Scripture as a whole and the verses Gene cited, his view does conform better to Scripture than the 2 house idea. It seems a strained reading to bring in the idea of other letters or instructions to the gentile churches when the letter from Jerusalem council sprung from addressing the very issue we are talking about - whether followers of Yeshua of gentile origin had to convert to Judaism via circumcision and follow all the mosaic law to join the Body.
Gene's is a more natural reading. I don't say I don't have any problems/questions with normative Messianic Judaism (I'm Catholic for heaven's sake!). But their view seems more in line with Scripture to me.
Todd
Gene,
ReplyDelete"That's nonsense - and gross misrepresentation of my position. No one is being told to stand anywhere, no one is being told that they are less important - we are all equally loved by the Father when he adopts us as his children. Different roles and responsibilities given by G-d Himself to different people DO NOT mean that one is inferior to another. We are all different parts of one body - and different parts have different functions."
I agree with the sentiment, but not in the context of what is currently being discussed.
"Hold on a second now - G-d already gave commandments to the ALL of mankind before on many occasions before Israel ever came along. What's more, the Bible already says that Gentiles have the Law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). Because of that they already know right from wrong, as most people do. At the same time, the Law of Moses was given specifically to Israel to follow, and when Yeshua came, Gentiles were not told to start observing Mosaic Laws.
You're mixing things up there with that statement. Sha'ul mention of the Torah being written on the hearts of the gentiles was limited to the believing gentiles, not everyone on the planet. As far as people in general having the option to see that all things were made by YHVH from the beginning and give Him praise for that, well, the blind have a terrible time with that concept.
And by the way, the gentiles were not told to NOT keep Torah either. And since love is the ultimate goal of Torah, I would say that they were told quite plainly TO keep Torah with all their heart.
As far as the Mosaic law, no one is keeping that today, regardless of how much some people would like to think that they are.
I won't copy your circumcision part.
But here is what Sha'ul was saying to the congregation in Galatia:
if you try to justify yourself before YHVH by observing one portion of the law you will then be required to finish justifying yourself by keeping the entire law. Do you see the difference? Sha'ul's argument was against those who were trying to get the gentiles to come under their authority by requiring them to keep the law for their salvation. Once they came under the strict keeping of the law, the Jews would have complete rule over them as experts in the very things they were saying were needed to obtain eternal life.
It was not an argument for or against the gentiles getting circumcised. It was about being circumcised for the wrong reason.
"Are there later letters that tell Gentile believers that they are to observe all of the Mosaic Laws that Jewish believers observe? Are there letters that condemn Gentiles for violating Shabbat, eating pork, not circumcising their children, not keeping ritual purity, etc? Of course not. Why? Because G-d didn't require that of Gentiles."
Well, since you put it that way, why are Jews still trying to do the things that YHVH isn't requiring the gentiles to do? You say that we are on the same footing through faith in Messiah. While we do have different functions but not different importance, why make different rules for the different functions of the different believers?
The "rules" for gentiles did not change from that of the Jews until the time of Constantine. He had grand plans for strengthening his hand over the people and folding of the "Christians" in with the general sun-worshipping society was part of that plan. And there are adequate historical proofs available to see that the keeping of Torah was very much a part of the gentile believers lives.
Large issue there with Constantine. Not enough time or space. Maybe later.
""Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things." (Romans 15:27)"
This has to do with the mutual sharing of the promises of the covenants through faith in Messiah, not the taking away of anything from the Jews.
""Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the congregations.""
Once again, context, context, context. What was Sha'ul explaining to them and why? He was trying to answer their questions about how they should navigate their culture while trying to serve Messiah. It had nothing to do with gentiles remaining gentiles and Jews remaining Jews.
And where is the scripture that describes the Jewish believers as "former Jews"? Is it missing, or was it not even a consideration. If the new creature was to be taken from both groups of people, why does it seem like a one way street?
If DNA really has nothing to do with it then why keep bringing it up?
The new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven has twelve gates, not two. Nor do I see a mention of an outer court.
"It's not about DNA - it's about having one's forefather Ya'akov/Israel who have been given promises for himself and for all of Israel by G-d himself. You try to minimize that - but I suggest that you turn to the "Old Testament" and see the end-time promises given to Israel specifically."
Please, if you want to go through the previous covenants and what was promised to who, I would be glad to oblige you. But not here.
Shalom,
Efrayim
In closing, Efrayim...
ReplyDelete...enough words have been posted - now let's let the readers decide for themselves by looking at the presented evidence from scripture.
Shalom
Todd,
ReplyDeleteGene's reading of the text in Acts ch. 15 is a simple reading of the words on the page, while tending to ignore everything else that was going on at the time.
I would call it more of a "safe" reading than a natural one. But that's just me.
In the sense you're meaning it could be a more "natural" reading as it does not present any complications for the reader to consider.
Perhaps it is just me, but I tend to see what it is not said as well and weigh it against the sparse record we have to work with.
I agree Gene. Let the comments begin.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Gene,
ReplyDeleteCould you please explain to me Ephesians, specifically 1:4&5, Eph 1:4 even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be set-apart and blameless before Him in love,
Eph 1:5 having previously ordained us to adoption as sons through Yahshua Messiah to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His desire
And: Eph 2:8 For by favour you have been saved, through belief, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of Elohim,
Eph 2:9 it is not by works, so that no one should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Messiah Yahshua unto good works, which Elohim prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles1 in the flesh, who are called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called ‘the circumcision’ made in the flesh by hands, Footnote: 11 Cor. 12:2.
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra’ĕl and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah Yahshua you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.
Eph 2:14 For He is our peace, who has made both one, and having broken down the partition of the barrier,
Eph 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity – the Torah of the commands in dogma – so as to create in Himself one renewed man from the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and to completely restore to favour both of them unto Elohim in one body through the stake, having destroyed the enmity by it.
Eph 2:17 And having come, He brought as Good News peace to you who were far off, and peace to those near.
Eph 2:18 Because through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the set-apart ones and members of the household of Elohim,1 Footnote: 1Rom. 11:17-24, Isa. 14:1.
Eph 2:20 having been built upon the foundation of the emissaries and prophets, Yahshua Messiah Himself being chief corner-stone,
Eph 2:21 in whom all the building, being joined together, grows into a set-apart Dwelling Place in God,
Eph 2:22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of Elohim in the Spirit.
And: Eph 3:1 Because of this I, Sha’ul, am the prisoner of Yahshua Messiah on behalf of you gentiles
Eph 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the administration of the favour of Elohim that was given to me for you,
Eph 3:3 that by revelation was made known to me the secret, as I wrote before briefly.
Eph 3:4 In reading this, then, you are able to understand my insight into the secret of Messiah,
Eph 3:5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His set-apart emissaries and prophets:
Eph 3:6 The gentiles to be co-heirs, united in the same body, and partakers together1 in the promise in Messiah through the Good News, Footnote: 1Rom. 11:17-24, Isa. 14:1.
Eph 3:7 of which I became a servant according to the gift of the favour of Elohim given to me, according to the working of His power.
Eph 3:8 To me, the very least of all the set-apart ones, this favour was given, to bring the Good News of the unsearchable riches of Messiah among the gentiles,
Eph 3:9 and to make all see how this secret is administered, which for ages past has been hidden in Elohim who created all through Yahshua Messiah,1 Footnote: 1John 1:3.
Eph 3:10 so that now, through the assembly, the many-sided wisdom of Elohim might be known to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies,
Eph 3:11 according to the everlasting purpose which He made in Messiah Yahshua our Master,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access, with reliance, through belief in Him.
And also: Rom 8:3 For the Torah being powerless, in that it was weak through the flesh, Elohim, having His own Son in the likeness of flesh of sin, and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 so that the righteousness of the Torah should be completed in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the matters of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the matters of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the mind of the flesh is enmity towards Elohim, for it does not subject itself1 to the Torah of Elohim2, neither indeed is it able, Footnotes: 1Or does not obey. 2John 15:5, 1 John 4:4, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:18.
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh are unable to please Elohim.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of Elohim dwells in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Messiah, this one is not His.
Rom 8:10 And if Messiah is in you, the body is truly dead on account of sin, but the Spirit is life on account of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 And if the Spirit of Him who raised Yahshua from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Messiah from the dead shall also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit dwelling in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of Elohim, these are sons of Elohim.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of Elohim,
Rom 8:17 and if children, also heirs – truly heirs of Elohim, and co-heirs with Messiah, if indeed we suffer with Him, in order that we also be exalted together. Rom 8:28 And we know that all matters work together for good to those who love Elohim, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Rom 8:29 Because those whom He knew beforehand, He also ordained beforehand to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, for Him to be the first-born among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And whom He ordained beforehand, these He also called, and whom He called, these He also declared right. And whom He declared right, these He also esteemed.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to this? If Elohim is for us, who is against us?
Rom 9:1 I speak the truth in Messiah, I do not lie, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Set-apart Spirit,
Rom 9:2 that I have great sadness and continual grief in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I myself could have wished to be banished from Messiah for the sake of my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Yisra’ĕlites, whose is the adoption, and the esteem, and the covenants, and the giving of the Torah, and the worship, and the promises,
Rom 9:5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, Elohim-blessed forever. Amĕn.
Rom 9:6 However, it is not as though the word of Elohim has failed. For they are not all Yisra’ĕl who are of Yisra’ĕl,
Rom 9:7 neither are they all children because they are the seed of Aḇraham, but, “In Yitsḥaq your seed shall be called.”
Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of Elohim, but the children of the promise are reckoned as the seed.
Rom 9:15 For He says to Mosheh, “I shall favour whomever I favour, and I shall have compassion on whomever I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So, then, it is not of him who is wishing, nor of him who is running, but of Elohim who shows favour.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this same purpose I have raised you up, to show My power in you, and that My Name be declared in all the earth.”
Rom 9:18 So, then, He favours whom He wishes, and He hardens whom He wishes
Rom 10:1 Truly brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to Elohim for Yisra’ĕl is for deliverance.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have an ardour for Elohim, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For not knowing the righteousness of Elohim, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not subject themselves to1 the righteousness of Elohim. Footnote: 1Or did not obey.
Rom 10:4 For Messiah is the goal1 of the ‘Torah unto righteousness’to everyone who believes. Footnote: 1Or end purpose; not termination.
Rom 10:5 For Mosheh writes about the righteousness which is of the Torah, “The man who does these shall live by them.”
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness of belief speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who shall ascend into the heavens?’ ” – that is, to bring Messiah down; or,
Rom 10:7 “ ‘Who shall descend into the abyss?’ ” – that is, to bring Messiah up from the dead.
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” – that is, the word of belief which we are proclaiming:
Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth the Master Yahshua and believe in your heart that Elohim has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, and so is saved.
Rom 10:11 Because the Scripture says, “Whoever puts his trust in Him shall not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 Because there is no distinction between Yehuḏite and Greek, for the same Master of all is rich to all those calling upon Him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the Name of God shall be saved.”
Rom 3:27 Where, then, is the boasting? It is shut out. By what Torah? Of works? No, but by the Torah of belief.
Rom 3:28 For we reckon that a man is declared right by belief without works of Torah.
Rom 3:29 Or is He the Elohim of the Yehuḏim only, and not also of the gentiles? Yea, of the gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since it is one Elohim who shall declare right the circumcised by belief and the uncircumcised through belief.
Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Torah through the belief? Let it not be! On the contrary, we establish the Torah.
Rom 2:11 For there is no partiality with Elohim.
Rom 2:12 For as many as sinned without Torah shall also perish without Torah, and as many as sinned in the Torah shall be judged by the Torah.
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the Torah are righteous in the sight of Elohim, but the doers of the law1 shall be declared right. Footnote: 1Mt. 7:21-27, James 2:14-24.
Rom 2:14 For when gentiles, who do not have the Torah, by nature do what is in the Torah, although not having the Torah, they are a Torah to themselves,
Rom 2:15 who show the work of the Torah written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or even excusing,
Rom 2:16 in the day when Elohim shall judge the secrets of men through Yahshua Messiah, according to my Good News.
Rom 2:17 See, you are called a Yehuḏite, and rest on the Torah, and make your boast in Elohim,
Rom 2:18 and know the desire of Elohim, and approve what is superior, being instructed out of the Torah,
Rom 2:19 and are trusting that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
Rom 2:20 an instructor of foolish ones, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Torah.1 Footnote: Ps. 147:19, Rom. 3:2, Rom. 9:4.
Rom 2:21 You, then, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who proclaim that a man should not steal, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abominate idols, do you rob temples?
Rom 2:23 You who make your boast in the Torah, through the transgression of the Torah do you disrespect Elohim?
Rom 2:24 For “The Name of Elohim is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you,” as it has been written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision indeed profits if you practise the Torah, but if you are a transgressor of the Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 So, if an uncircumcised one watches over the righteousnesses of the Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And the uncircumcised by nature, who perfects the Torah, shall judge you who notwithstanding letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the Torah!
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Yehuḏite who is so outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
Rom 2:29 But a Yehuḏite is he who is so inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart,1 in Spirit, not literally, whose praise is not from men but from Elohim. Footnote: 11 Cor. 7:19, Ex. 19:5, Dt. 10:12-16, Dt. 30:6-8.
When did God make a difference between Jew and Gentile?? If I understand correctly from the Torah when He gave the instructions at Mt. Sinai to Moshe He did not distinguish between them. His instructions were given to both, Jew and Gentile. One Torah for ALL peoples.
"When did God make a difference between Jew and Gentile??"
ReplyDeleteSara... you pasted a lot of scripture verses, but none of them prove anything you're trying to show - namely, that G-d wants Gentiles to follow the Laws of Moses as given to Israel and to live the same way as Jews do.
You asked me: "When did God make a difference between Jew and Gentile?"
He made this difference when he chose the TRIBES of Israel as His People. Tell me - are not the Gentiles called the "wild olive branch" and the "Jews" the "natural branches"? How can that be if G-d has not made a difference between Jews and Gentiles?
Or, how about the following verse in Amos 3:2:
"You only have I chosen of all the FAMILIES of the earth"
Sara, you said:
"If I understand correctly from the Torah when He gave the instructions at Mt. Sinai to Moshe He did not distinguish between them."
I don't think that in the above case you have understood the Torah correctly, and I'll tell you why. You seem to believe that the mixed multitudes that left with Israel have become Israelites and were part of the Covenant. You know that G-d doesn't contradict himself, right? OK, then - surely you know of the following law as stated in the Torah (written by Moshe):
The Law of Moshe says that foreigners can enter the congregation of Israel ONLY in their THIRD generation (meaning only their grandchildren are eligible for membership):
"Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. The THIRD generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:7-8)
As you see, when it comes to the mixed multitudes that have joined Israel on the way to the Promised Land, in accordance to the above Law NON-ISRAELITES, even the best and most acceptable of the strangers are only allowed to enter the congregation of the L-rd in the THIRD generation.
Not only that, but the mixed multitude was in part the instigators of murmuring against G-d and Moshe:
Numbers 11:1: "And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some that were in the outlying parts of the camp."
Please note that this fire started in the outlying parts of the camp - why is that? As it turns out, the mixed multitude lived in those parts. The mixed multitude included the Egyptians and perhaps other foreigners who had left Egypt with the children of Israel.
As you will also see next, it was the mixed multitude that was among the children of Israel that began to complain about leaving Egypt for the wilderness and had thus prompted Israel to also weep to G-d about their own predicament.
Numbers 11:2-4:
"And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burned among them.
And the MIXED MULTITUDE that was among them HAD A STRONG CRAVING: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?"
Did you know there was another time that Israel had a mixed multitude in their midst? Do you know what happened then? Do you think there were just accepted as part of the Covenant? Let's read:
Nehemiah 13:3, "...they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude."
I hope it has been helpful.
Shalom
Gene
Gene,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting about the mixed multitude, isn't it?
Paul talks about how the Torah had created a wall of enmity between Jew and Gentile, and now that enmity is destroyed, making gentiles first-class citizens in the commonwealth of Israel.
"It's interesting about the mixed multitude, isn't it?
ReplyDeletePaul talks about how the Torah had created a wall of enmity between Jew and Gentile, and now that enmity is destroyed, making gentiles first-class citizens in the commonwealth of Israel."
Amen!
Gene
And since gentiles are first-class citizens, on par with Israel, I think Torah generally applies to gentiles too.
ReplyDeleteCan I get another amen? ;-)
"And since gentiles are first-class citizens, on par with Israel, I think Torah generally applies to gentiles too.
ReplyDeleteCan I get another amen? ;-)"
Ame... you were so close, Judah!:)
It depends on what you mean by "applies to gentiles too". If you mean the great moral truths in it apply to Gentiles too, you'd be correct. If you mean that Gentiles are obligated or even encouraged by G-d (I am not talking as a means to salvation hear, btw) to take on a Jewish lifestyle and Mosaic Laws(get circumcised, eat Kosher, observe all the Jewish holy days and Shabbat, wear tzit-tzit), than I must withhold my "amen" for that:)
At the same time, Judah - as we've discussed in the past - if Gentiles want to keep the Mosaic Law - well, I am not here to stop anyone. It only bothers me when people teach that Gentiles SHOULD be keeping the Mosaic Covenant in order to live a G-d pleasing life (again, not talking about Salvation here). Gentiles are not obligated to observe Mosaic Covenant - and NT makes it clear. Jews, however, are. At the same time, some of the great MORAL truths contained in the Mosaic Covenant have preceded it.
Can I get an "Amen!" too?:)
Gene
Gene,
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you wanted this verse...?
Nehemiah 13:3, "...they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude."
Let's see, according to one of the bible dictionaries I have on the shelf, Ya'acov lived about 3500 + years ago.
Quite a long time and many generations back in the past.
Now it would not be much of a stretch to imagine that over that long a period of time there were many instances of children being born from mixed relationships ( marriage or otherwise ). And that maintaining an untainted lineage directly from the sons of Ya'acov to today would be impossible.
Yes, impossible. That is the word I wanted to use. Impossible.
Though I have come across a few who claim that they can document their line from there to here, they also do not accept Yeshua as Messiah and would have zero traction with the ones they influence without that claim.
In fact, I truly believe that there isn't a person alive today who can prove without a doubt that they have an unbroken line to Ya'acov.
We're all mixed.
So if someone were to, say, try and blame the "mixed multitude" for bringing trouble to Ya'acov's kids as well as on their own heads, well, I would be left thinking that the person simply had an ax to grind and was overlooking the obvious.
But let's just say for the sake of the current discussion that someone was an unmixed descendant of Ya'acov. Where exactly does that fit in the new covenant we are currently living in? Is it important? What does it mean?
Sha'ul had some thoughts about his provable lineage which he mentioned to the believers in Philipi. Though he didn't deny his background, he didn't use the example to make the point that he had different obligations than they had due that very same lineage. It would have been a good time to put forth the argument you are proposing exists today don't you think?
My point is that if the requirements of how to live one's life in Messiah is dependent upon one's genetic disposition, why isn't that elaborated on in the letters? Why isn't the distinction you are trying to make not already made by plain by the Jewish apostles? I know you say it has been, but it hasn't. Not like that.
Though I may choose not to, according to what you are saying, it would be alright for me to eat pork, but not for you, because it is wrong for you, but not wrong for me.
And this is based upon lineage, right?
So I can break YHVH's commandment and get a pass because my genetic line does originate in the right location?
Hmmmm....it's ok for me to be disobedient to YHVH because my ancestors are not descended from Ya'acov. Or were they?
Well that does give me quite a bit of liberty doesn't it? I mean, if you're right, most of Torah does not apply to me. Or anyone else of mixed heritage for that matter.
Wow...I don't know what to say. If you're right, I might as well go back to church land and eat ham on Easter and put up a Christmas tree and so on and so on...
Of course, on the other hand, since it's ok for me to decide on my own, without implying any biblical imperative, to be obedient and keep what portions of Torah that I can, that would be alright. As long as I didn't try to think that I was in any way "Jewish" or an "Israelite".
Right?
I don't know, you can find scriptures that you say support your view and I can find scriptures that support mine.
But how is it that a person receives the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh, by the works of the Mosaic law, or by exercising trust in Messiah Yeshua?
In the end I have to go with what I know and have experienced personally with the Creator of the universe.
See you at the conclusion.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Efrayim...
ReplyDelete"In fact, I truly believe that there isn't a person alive today who can prove without a doubt that they have an unbroken line to Ya'acov."
You'd like to really believe that, don't you? Lots of two-house people believe that - it's one of their key points: "Hey, for all I know, I am an Israelite TOO!"
However, the history doesn't support that. There have always been identifiable Jewish people and always will be. Just like there were Greek people, and still are. Jews are descendant from Yaakov, our forefather.
Historically, Jewish people had very little intermarriage, since the Torah and traditions discouraged that. Not a lot of MEN wanted to be part of the most hated of nation either. Those Gentile men (or women) who did join Israel, didn't become Jews - unlike the modern rabbis the Bible never claims that they not became Hebrews or Israelites, but continues to identify them by their Gentile origins (remember Uriah the Hittite, Ruth the Moabitess,Rahab)
Yes, they played a great role in Israel, and many indeed had become part of our nation (primarily through intermarriage of the women to Israelites) - but they still were not Jews.
So, as you see from the Bible, even when Jews DID intermarry, it usually was Israelite men marrying Gentile women. As both of us with agree, this fact really has no affect on Jewish linage (which Biblically always passed through fathers).
Why is that important? The Two-House people like to accuse Messianic Jews of racism and anti-Gentilism for not accepting Gentiles as Israelites. They accuse Jews of shunning Gentiles, of wanting to keep "poor" Gentiles down. All this is nonsense.
Was is not the Gentiles who were told not to be arrogant towards the Jews, the natural branches, and not the other way around? (Romans 11:18)
Who was Shaul talking about if, as you Ephrayim claim, NOBODY knows for sure who is Jewish OR not? Your words just don't compute in the light of the Bible.
But I tell you that G-d knew what he was doing - G-d has preserved Jews as a nation until today and is bringing them back into their own land.
"My point is that if the requirements of how to live one's life in Messiah is dependent upon one's genetic disposition, why isn't that elaborated on in the letters?"
The ancients didn't think in terms of "DNA", as you like to put it - the Israelites kept good genealogical records until the destruction of the second temple. They KNEW exactly who was Jewish or not. Shaul KNEW that he was from the tribe of Benjamin. The letter plainly teach that Gentiles are not to get circumcised - circumcision is part of the commandments, but Gentiles are told NOT to do it. Furthermore, Acts 15 plainly shows what Gentiles were to observe - and that the Holy Spirit himself commanded NOT TO LAY any greater burden on the Gentiles that some of the things mentioned in Acts 15.
But if you still want to talk in terms of DNA, I am sure you've seen numerous studies that, at the very least, if not proving one's Jewish, show a common MALE ancestry among Jews of disparate geographical regions, distinct from surrounding populations.
I don't know if they are any Gentiles in my blood line (perhaps Ruth?) - but I DO know that as far as I can go back in my own genealogy to my great-great-grandparents some of whom I know by name, all of my ancestors were Jews. I have relatives living right now in Israel. I grew up in a Jewish town in Ukraine. G-d knew what he was doing when he preserved my people so that he promises would come true.
Shalom
Gene,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't saying that there aren't any people who have a lifestyle that could be identified as "Jewish". Most culture groups in the world today can be identified by their traditions and practices.
What I was saying is that a person would be hard pressed today to establish a unmixed genealogical link directly to Ya'acov. Many, like yourself, have recollections of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, or perhaps even farther back from stories told and records kept.
But remember that the children of the mixed marriages had to be returned along with the wives (see Ezra chapter 10). Apparently they did not hold your current position at that time and considered them unclean too as Torah demands.
Also, if you look at Nehemiah chapter 7 verse 61 you see that the children of those who could not prove their lineage were considered unclean along with the fathers.
So it would seem from scripture that the Torah did not allow any mixture at all in marriages. Nor the children of those marriages.
But the promises are based on the seed of Avraham.
So how was YHVH going to get the seed of Avraham into all the nations of the world, so that they could receive Messiah when He came, without violating His own Torah?
Yosef, son of Ya'acov. That's how He did it.
So that you understand, I am not against my brother Judah (the people, not the guy who runs this blog, although I am not against him either) and I do not suffer from "Jew envy". I know that YHVH has kept a remnant alive and recognizable as a distinct people group for all the world to see.
I am not disputing that fact.
Where we really disagree is to the current status of the starting to be recognized House of Israel and how that relates to the very recognizable House of Judah.
Based on your argument, there wasn't any reason for Sha'ul to say "former gentiles", as there isn't any such thing. Not in any real sense, since after coming to Messiah they still didn't have to keep Torah.
So I said this:
"The people groups being discussed here are obviously the Jews and the gentiles. There existed both a genetic and lifestyle difference that could not be bridged by any human means. And Messiah's stated purpose was to make them into one people group from the two, a goal that could not be reached in the flesh."
You cannot reach unity while maintaining a division. Or, how can two be at peace when their house is divided?
Something to consider.
Shalom,
Efrayim
Hi Judah,
ReplyDeleteWow what a spirited debate you have had while I have been gone. I would like to go back to the question of the "wall".
I believe that verse 14 should be translated "For he is our peace who has made both one, he loosed the partition hedge."
Check your Strongs numbers, they fit. From a Jewish perspective, to "loose" something means to change the halackic rule (see Matt 5:19) and a "hedge" is something placed by someone to prevent their breaking the Torah commands. The Jews of Yeshua's day had placed hedges between themselves and even righteous faithful gentiles. (This was the point of Acts 10. God was breaking down one of Peter's hedges.)
As an Hillel Pharisee, Paul would have been taught to reach out to gentiles verses the Shammai Pharisees (like Peter?)who would not reach out to the gentiles. I think Paul was stating that Yeshua had taught the Hillel view.
The above fits if you understand that Yeshua wanted people to call him Rabbi, ie follow His halachah. That is why he said:
Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
It was the Rabbinic habit of adding "hedges" that had created many of the problems of the day. Personally, I want to be a Hebrew (one who has crossed over) not a Jew.
Shalom, Jeff.
"Personally, I want to be a Hebrew (one who has crossed over) not a Jew."
ReplyDeleteIt's good for all of us (especially Jews) that you can't be either.
Shalom,
Gene