50 signs you may subscribe to Replacement Theology
March 12, 2012
Replacement Theology, also known as Supersessionism, comes in many different flavors, spanning many different beliefs and attitudes. While some are quite obvious (e.g. Church is the “New Israel”), others are far more subtle. What remains to be true, however, is that after nearly two millenia of institutional anti-Judaism within Christianity very few Christians (and even those who call themselves “messianic”) today can be said to be truly immune to the pervasive effects of Replacement Theology no only on their view of Jews the people, Israel the nation, Judaism the faith, but also on their own faith and relationship with G-d. Here I’ve put together a non-exhaustive list of 50 beliefs that can be indicative of one’s Supersessionism (in no particular order):
You may subscribe to Replacement Theology if you…
- Believe that G-d divorced Israel and married the Church
- Believe that the Christian Church is the “New Israel”
- Believe that the Church is the continuation of Israel
- Believe that Gentile Christians make up most of the “lost” Tribes of Israel
- Believe that the existence of Judaism today is an aberration
- Believe that Judaism is a “man-made” false religion, one among many
- Believe that Israel is no different than any other nation in the world
- Believe that the continuing existence of Jews as a separate people today is not really part of G-d’s plan
- Believe that the modern country of Israel is not the continuation of ancient Israel
- Believe that Israel the country has no right to exist and Jews are the “occupiers of Palestine”
- Believe that G-d has already fulfilled all that He promised to Israel and cite Joshua 21:43-45 as your proof text
- Believe that all the promises G-d gave to Israel are or will actually be fulfilled in the Church
- Believe that a born Jew is not really a Jew unless he believes in Jesus
- Believe that G-d has created a “third race”, the “One New Man”, where being Jewish or Gentile is meaningless
- Spiritualize away the literal prophetic promises G-d gave to Israel
- Believe that you know what food qualifies as kosher better than Jews do
- Think that the Christian Church is superior to Israel
- Believe that Christians know, interpret and understand the Hebrew Bible better than Hebrews (Jews) themselves
- Believe that “Christ’s Law” replaced the Ten Commandments and Jesus did away with Jewish laws
- Believe that by becoming a Christian a Gentile becomes a “spiritual Jew”
- Say things like “nobody can know with certainty who is really Jewish and who is not”
- Believe that you know better who is “Jewish’ than Jews themselves
- Believe that by observing Torah, Jewish traditions and dressing like a Jew a Gentile automatically becomes a Jew/Israelite (sans conversion)
- Refer to the Jewish faith as “Rabbinic Judaism”
- Claim to follow “Biblical Judaism”
- Have a Jeremiah 29:11 poster on your wall
- Insist on calling Jewish laws “G-d’s laws” and Jewish holy days “Biblical feasts”
- Insist on observing “Biblical feasts” using an “uncorrupted” calendar put together by someone who calls Judaism “Rabbinic Judaism”
- View Messianic Judaism as divisive
- View Messianic Judaism as legalistic
- Believe that rabbis have “corrupted” the Bible
- Believe that abandoning Torah observances and Jewish traditional practices is part of the “Good News” for Jewish people
- Avoid using the word “Jewish” when referring to things pertaining to the “Messianic Movement”
- Believe that G-d’s Holy Spirit has left the Jewish people
- Refer to the experience of Jews coming to believe in their Jewish Messiah as “conversion”
- Believe that all Jews should join a church
- Believe that “Kabbalah” is some sort of demonic magic
- Believe that Jesus came to erase all differences between Jews and Gentiles
- Believe that individual nationalities and nations will cease to exist in the Kingdom of G-d
- Believe that Torah applies equally to Jews and Gentiles
- Believe that Jews don’t have the right to interpret the Torah that G-d gave them as they see fit
- Believe that Jewish followers of Yeshua are wrong to want to form their own communities
- Don’t view rampant Jewish/Christian intermarriage as an existential threat to Israel
- Believe that Jesus will “Rapture” the Church while leaving his own Jewish people behind to suffer at the hands of Antichrist
- Believe that the Church will live in Heaven but Israel will live on earth
- Believe that the Church will one day rule over Israel
- Believe that the Law of Moses was given to Israel just to show them how impossible it is to keep it
- Believe that Jesus and the apostles left Judaism to start another religion
- Believe that Jesus took the “Biblical faith” away from the rabbis and gave it to Christians
- Believe that New Testament (approx. 22% of the Bible) should comprise 95% of your Bible reading.
105 Comments
leave one →
You missed “believe that the Jews never had the Holy Spirit (except for the Prophets) and that as of Acts 2, anyone converting to Christianity receives the Holy Spirit.”
I’m sure you’re going to attract a lot of attention with this one, so I hope you’ve “battened down the hatches” and prepared for the storm, Gene.
Thanks, James. Good point that could be combined with #37. I did note that my list is “non-exhaustive”!
I think my list is a good checklist for anyone who wishes to rid him/herself completely of any vestiges of Supersessionism/Replacement Theology but doesn’t know how.
“… may subscribe to replacement …”
In addition to some Christians, there could be some devout Jews who believe numbers 9 and 10 (that is for the present situation and not the future when the messiah comes :-) without actually subscribing to replacement theology.
“In addition to some Christians, there could be some devout Jews who believe numbers 9 and 10 (that is for the present situation and not the future when the messiah comes :-) without actually subscribing to replacement theology.”
JohnSA – you are absolutely correct, although in this case these beliefs only sound similar. As you may know the Jewish reasons are about waiting for G-d to restore the Jewish people to their Land vs. relying on the supposedly human (secular) efforts – but they still believe that Israel will be restored, where’s Christians who believe these things do not believe in restoration of the Jewish people.
Gene,
(1) How do you define Replacement Theology?
(2) How would you say #4 in your list fits with your definition of Replacement Theology?
Sincerely,
Peter
“(1) How do you define Replacement Theology?”
Peter, my personal definition? Any theology that seeks to position another ideological, national, ethnic or religious group or groups to replace, displace, minimize, confuse, spiritualize, dilute or ignore Israel in full or in part in identity, purpose, promises, relationships, possessions, forms and/or functions, spiritual and/or physical, past, present or future.
“(2) How would you say #4 in your list fits with your definition of Replacement Theology?”
Actually, the RT of # 4 is an easier one to show: “Believe that Gentile Christians make up most of the “lost” Tribes of Israel.”
Here we have Caucasian American Gentile Christians primarily of Anglo-Saxon descent and with present or former Worldwide Church of God (WCG) and/or some Charismatic Pentecostal (or Charismatic Pentecostal “messianic”) affiliation (in my experience, for the most part) claiming to actually be the lost tribes of Israel, i.e. the flesh and blood Israelitish SEMITES, however diluted.They make the claims, not based on historical data, not on evidence of human migrations, not on DNA evidence, but rather they base it on nothing but wishful thinking as well as fanciful reading and (mis)application of a few biblical verses that really have nothing to do with them, i.e. white Christian Gentiles living in the American South (again, primarily – I am sure there are exceptions).
Shalom Gene, What will happen to Torah observant Jews who do not yet believe in Yeshua as the Messiah?
Because I have a Extremely Hard time believing that Jews who obey G-D’s Torah will go to hell (as many christians and Messyantics believe) .This will never make any sense to me.
Also are you familiar with a Guy named Ariel Cohen Alloro? If not, He is a Kabbalist who lives in Jerusalem and he’s a student of Rav Yitzchak Ginsburg. Here’s what he said About Yeshua:
”Even so, Yeshua never made a new religion called Christianity. He also taught that the Pharisees sit on Moses seat and to do what they say, not what they do, in he taught; don’t be a hypocrite.In many ways the Chassidut restored a correct understanding of Yeshua’s teachings, but if we refuse to bring back his name and what he said, it is as if we’ve buried him. On the other hand we deal with big and powerful Christian nations who feel they must control what we do in our Land, “in the name of Jesus”. There are plenty reasons why it’s foolish to look to Christianity to try to learn what Yeshua taught and lived for (there are now 33,800 Christian denominations) however, one of his most famous followers noted there were “two Yeshuas” an authentic and a false one. I’m a Cohen (Priest) and an Orthodox Jew. I’ve always been Orthodox and I’ll remain Orthodox, but I’ve discovered certain things about Yeshua that are very interesting”…
From this website: http://www.baagala.com/disengagement.htm
“4. Believe that Gentile Christians make up most of the “lost” Tribes of Israel.”
4a. And cite Matthew 15:24 as your proof text, ignoring Matthew 10:5;6 as to where they actually went in search of these alleged “lost Tribes of the House of Israel.”
“What will happen to Torah observant Jews who do not yet believe in Yeshua as the Messiah? Because I have a Extremely Hard time believing that Jews who obey G-D’s Torah will go to hell…”
Ken, what will happen is that one day they will believe in Yeshua. I also know that the G-d of Israel is far more merciful than much of the Christendom has historically painted him to be. Also, it seems that on Judgement Day (Matthew 25:31-46) the main question Messiah will ask, strangely enough for many “by faith alone” Christians, will not be “Did you believe in Me?”, but rather the condemning statements for those who actually claimed to believe will be “for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.”
“Also are you familiar with a Guy named Ariel Cohen Alloro?”
Yes, I’ve heard of him. Interesting quote, thanks. Apparently there are quite a few of the Orthodox who believe in Yeshua, but are in hiding, for obvious reasons.
Brad, great point on Matthew 10:5;6!
Gene,
As I understand it, the Two House doctrine is based on three rationales:
1. There is a group of Old Testament texts which contain a prophecy regarding the lost House of Israel (the Northern Kingdom of Israel composed of the Northern tribes) that indicates that the House of Israel will suffer exile, identity loss, dispersion, but will eventually find restoration through the out-working of the New Covenant [some of the primary texts include: Hosea 1:2-11; 14:5-6; Jeremiah 11:16-17; Amos 9:8-15 (LXX); Ezekiel 37:15-28; Jeremiah 31:31-37; Genesis 46:17-20].
2. Peter, Paul, and James (of the Jerusalem Council) applied this Two House prophecy to the gentile Believers in Yeshua, apparently viewing the first-century gentile Believers as evidence that G-d was beginning to restore the lost House of Israel through the out-working of the New Covenant [Romans 9:23-26;Romans 11:13-27; Acts 15:13-18; 1 Peter 2:9].
3. In addition to the intertextual argument that Peter, Paul, and James understood the Two House prophecy applying to gentile Believers, there is an argument based on first-century Jewish understanding of the Two Houses of Israel that lends credence to the view that Peter, Paul, and James could have reasonably interpreted G-d’s work among the goyim as the beginning of divine fulfillment of Two House prophecy [Antiquities of the Jews, 11.5.2, from The Works of Josephus, translated by Whiston, W., Hendrickson Publishers. 1987. 13th Printing. p 294; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 110b].
To me, this looks like a cogent theory. But you maintain that it is not. Why not?
Sincerely,
Peter
P.S. I’m on benadryl at the moment (bad allergies today) so I’m not thinking too clearly. So just to clarify: I’m not trying to persuade you, Gene. I’m just curious why you think Two House is not cogent. Thanks.
“House of Israel will suffer exile, identity loss, dispersion”
Peter, exile, dispersion, separation and great distances from other Jewish communities – of course. But identity loss (prophecies about Jews forgetting they are Jews?)? That claim is not in the Bible, and yet it makes up the the VERY CORE of the Two-House theology. Real life Jewish Diaspora communities have persisted in their Jewish identities and as unique communities ever since the time of Persian exile, including the so called “lost tribes” which have been located (which were never actually “lost”, just unknown to European Jews who lived far away from them). We also have a member of the supposedly “lost tribe” being figured prominently in the Gospels: “prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” (Luke 2:36)
To be sure, there were Two-Houses of Israel and the prophecies do address them. However, they have absolutely nothing to do with American Anglo-Saxon Christian Gentiles waking up to their identities as Israelites. If anything, it’s some yet to be identified semitic people in the Middle East somewhere who could be making such a claim.
I will address more of your points later when I get a bit more time.
Gene,
You will be pleased to know I am illustrating the FFOZ anti-2 House book for Boaz. I was accosted by someone the other day who said I was a secret Israelite, but I did not know how to tell him I was polishing a bullet with his theology’s name on it. So I didn’t.
Blessings,
-Drake
PS. The guy in the T-Shirt looks like a serious tool.
Drake… you bad man you! Looking forward to that book. Truth be told, I have acquired a bit of soft spot for the Two-Housers. I know a few nice, even smart people among their number, folks who are enamored with this off-the-wall theology. And while before I would get angry with them, nowadays I just feel bad for them and want to help them regain a healthier, reality-based self-identity that has no need for fairy tales. That’s why I am writing a post titled “The Two-House Movement – the new Samaritans?”.
I haven’t roughed out my third (of four) supersessionist article for Messiah Journal (FFOZ) yet, but in general, it will address the church today relative to a lot of the points you make, Gene. I know it’ll probably cause something of a stir, but as it stands now, I plan on including other faith communities, such as the ones you address in points 4, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 40, and 42. Granted, I may not get to all of that material, but it certainly is relevant to the MJ audience.
Gene,
Thank you for being respectful even though we disagree. I appreciate that. And I have an extraordinary amount of respect for you.
Drake,
You have a lot of faith in Boaz, a guy who tends to contradict himself. He wrote an article: “One Law” and the Messianic Gentile. In it he said the following:
“Obedience to the commandments is an expression of love for God and love for His Messiah.”
And then he indicates that Torah is NOT mandated for gentiles:
“We see a difference between Jews and Gentiles in regard to their obligation to certain aspects of Torah. The difference is that Jewish believers have a divine mandate to keep those elements as a part of covenant faithfulness and as an expression of their legal status as Jews. Gentile believers have the privilege of keeping those particulars as an expression of their status as sons of Abraham and disciples of Yeshua.”
[Does this mean that expressing love for G-d is optional?]
And he cites where the Torah IS mandated for gentiles:
“Gentile believers should also find discipleship to Yeshua as motivation to walk in obedience to the whole of Torah. When our Master commissioned his disciples to take the gospel to the nations and to make disciples of all nations, he instructed them to teach the Gentiles “to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). This instruction would include his commandments not to neglect even the smallest matters of Torah.27 This is not to say that a Gentile believer who does not accept upon himself the full yoke of Torah is a deficient disciple. There are many paths of discipleship, and walking after Yeshua is much broader than simply adopting Jewish practice. But at its simplest, discipleship should be understood as the art of imitation: Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:6). A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. (Luke 6:40)”
If the gentiles were instructed to observe all that he had commanded the disciples, then how is Torah optional under the New Covenant?
If Boaz keeps firing magical, polished bullets like this then I won’t ever need to publicly debate him (he’ll just keep shooting himself in the foot).
Sincerely,
Peter
“[Does this mean that expressing love for G-d is optional?]”
I don’t see Boaz as contradicting himself in this case (of course, Boaz is by no means perfect, and I am sure he’s not above contradictions in his writing). Peter, what may be optional is the WAY that love is expressed. For example, G-d may not require a Gentile to abstain from eating pork (and He does not), but if a Gentile wants to express his love for G-d by not eating, it’s his prerogative. Him choosing do so voluntarily for himself does not make it a requirement for others. This is quite clear in Romans 14:6:
“He who eats meat, eats to the L-rd, for he gives thanks to G-d; and he who abstains, does so to the L-rd and gives thanks to G-d.”
So, both acts can be expressions of love for G-d. Expressing love is not optional.
(of course, Boaz is by no means perfect, and I am sure he’s not above contradictions in his writing).
I’m pretty sure that statement applies to just about anyone who’s written anything, including the fine commenters here on this blog. Boaz is just a bigger and more public target.
Peter:
You are debating One Law, Peter, not 2-House.
Part of me has sympathy for One Law, as the prophets do hint at Gentiles keeping Sabbath and Sukkot internationally (which I admittedly like), but the notion that your draw to Judaism makes you a secret Israelite is sorta silly.
I can understand how a person could look at the Bible and want to keep Torah.
I cannot understand how they could look at the Bible and attribute their draw to it to some obscure lineage theory.
Apples and Planets, Peter.
When it comes to popular movements, even widely accepted religious doctrines, I have learned to question everything. If I had not, I would most likely have never accepted Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah, in light of the anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish and anti-Torah historical influence of Christendom. Two House Teaching because of its similarity to British-Israelism was no exception for me. The historical biblical record for me never supported the lost tribes theory especially in light of passages such as
And the runners went to all Yisra’ĕl and Yehuḏah with the letters from the sovereign and his leaders, and spoke according to the command of the sovereign, “Children of Yisra’ĕl, turn back to יהוה Elohim of Aḇraham, Yitsḥaq, and Yisra’ĕl, so that He returns to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the sovereigns of Ashshur (Assyria). (2Chronicles 30:6)
And the runners passed from city to city throughout the land of Ephrayim and Menashsheh, as far as Zeḇulun. But they were laughing at them and mocking them. Some from Ashĕr and Menashsheh and from Zeḇulun, however, humbled themselves and came to Yerushalayim. (2Chronicles 30:10;11)
And they went to Ḥilqiyahu the high priest, and they gave the silver that was brought into the House of Elohim, which the Lĕwites who kept the doors had gathered from the hand of Menashsheh and Ephrayim, and from all the remnant of Yisra’ĕl, and from all Yehuḏah and Binyamin, and which they had brought back to Yerushalayim, (2Chronicles 34:9)
The above passages show that there was indeed a significant remnant of the Northern Ten Tribes that had returned to and inhabited their former tribal land claims. Two House advocates claim, “There is ample evidence that individuals from the Northern Kingdom escaped to the Southern Kingdom at different times and for different reasons… and later Assyrian invasions likely caused some to flee to the South as refugees.” But that is not what the sacred texts say as quoted above. Not only had they returned from the Assyrian captivity, all the remnant of Israel and Judah were equally recognized by G-d as contributing to the repair of the temple. Subsequently they were all sent into captivity into Babylon together, where their captors did not separate them by tribal distinctions, but treated them as one homogenous people group. This is where the term “Jew” first came to be applied to the entire nation. It was an appellation that would continue throughout the rest of Israel’s national history, as it did in Yeshua’s and Shaul’s day, and still does today.
My perspective based on my experience over the years as I have grown in faith and knowledge is: when a question arises regarding the accuracy of history written by men however knowledgeable, sincere or popular they may be, if that teaching requires a plethora of extra-biblical sources, or appears to stand opposed, to the divinely inspired and preserved written word of G-d; I prefer to believe what G-d has set in record for our instruction. If I am wrong, then I prefer to be found wrong, hereafter, in my simplicity of faith rather than to be reproved by G-d for having, in preference believed man.
Sincerely,
Brad
Gene,
Boaz’s argument was that a gentile should follow Torah because Yeshua said for the disciples themselves–with their Apostolic authority–to teach everyone “everthing” He had commanded them. Yet earlier Boaz stated that there was no mandate for a gentile to follow Torah. This is a contradiction, yes?
What’s interesting is that in the very article that was intended to dispel confusion regarding FFOZ’s doctrinal shifting (from “One Law” to “Divine Invitation”), it communicates alarming contradictions. Contradiction should not be the mark of a Torah teacher, should it?
Have you read that article Gene? I’m being gentle with Boaz–that article is riddled with contradictions.
Drake,
I’m just exposing Boaz’s contradictions and letting people decide for themselves if he is the theology hitman you make him out to be. It’s difficult for me to respect someone who takes the awesome mantle of Teacher and yet has a history of doctrinal shifting and employing contradictions when attempting to explain his shiftiness.
Sincerely,
Peter
Brad,
You wrote: “…I have learned to question everything.”
So I’d like for you to apply that to what you wrote here:
“when a question arises regarding the accuracy of history written by men however knowledgeable, sincere or popular they may be, if that teaching requires a plethora of extra-biblical sources, or appears to stand opposed, to the divinely inspired and preserved written word of G-d; I prefer to believe what G-d has set in record for our instruction.”
Here’s the question to ask yourself: might G-d employ extra-biblical sources to teach us things about Him? Might he use people or nature itself? Might all these things be His “record for our instruction”?
Sincerely,
Peter
Brad,
Here’s an example of an extra-biblical source: Moses said to slaughter animals according to the manner which he showed the Israelites. It wasn’t written down in Scripture. Should we still follow it as Jews?
-Peter
James,
“I’m pretty sure that statement applies to just about anyone who’s written anything, including the fine commenters here on this blog. Boaz is just a bigger and more public target.”
It’s not that he’s a more public figure–it’s that he holds himself out as a teacher in an educational ministry.
-Peter
“Boaz’s argument was that a gentile should follow Torah because Yeshua said for the disciples themselves–with their Apostolic authority–to teach everyone “everthing” He had commanded them. Yet earlier Boaz stated that there was no mandate for a gentile to follow Torah. This is a contradiction, yes? ”
Peter, what was this “everything” that He commanded them? Perhaps Yeshua commanded his disciples something very specific and didn’t go with them through a recitation of ALL 613 (as One-Law crowd seems to imply) laws given through Moses that they were already well aware of and practiced as Jews? This would square quite well with the same disciples being in agreement regarding Gentile requirements come Acts 15. You don’t imagine that they contradicted the Master by not telling Gentiles to literally “observe everything” that Jews do (even citing the Holy Spirit as inspiration!), that is the WHOLE Torah – as One-Law theology teaches, do you? This is one thing that so bugs me about the whole One-Law thing – selective quoting that doesn’t consider the context, filling in the blanks with whatever they wish they text actually said, and ignoring texts that go against their teachings.
Gene,
I’m not making the argument–Boaz made the argument. Don’t confuse my arguments with his. Once again, Boaz’s words:
“Gentile believers should also find discipleship to Yeshua as motivation to walk in obedience to the whole of Torah. When our Master commissioned his disciples to take the gospel to the nations and to make disciples of all nations, he instructed them to teach the Gentiles “to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). This instruction would include his commandments not to neglect even the smallest matters of Torah.27 This is not to say that a Gentile believer who does not accept upon himself the full yoke of Torah is a deficient disciple. There are many paths of discipleship, and walking after Yeshua is much broader than simply adopting Jewish practice. But at its simplest, discipleship should be understood as the art of imitation: Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:6). A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. (Luke 6:40)”
Do you see what he’s saying Gene? He’s saying (not me) that this instruction included even the smallest matters of Torah. Thus, he’s saying that the disciples taught the gentiles to follow even the smallest matters of Torah. This is his argument.
Do you see the contradiction in his reasoning?
Cheers,
Peter
Gene,
Your comment is funny because you see Boaz’s argument as One Law! And this is expressly what he was trying to avoid in that article! You just proved my point: this is why people accuse Boaz of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
“Do you see the contradiction in his reasoning?”
Peter, I would agree with you that his message here does appear mixed. However, in his defense, I know that he’s aware that there were and are different requirements of Torah for different types of individuals even among Israel (e.g. “regular” Israelites do not observe commandments meant for levites or priests). So, one could say that Gentiles SHOULD observe ALL of Torah – that is things that are applicable to them. So, perhaps there’s no contradiction here after all.
Gene,
And wouldn’t this make Boaz a supersessionist by your definition? If he’s promoting that which a reasonable person (e.g. You) perceives as One Law.
“Any theology that seeks to position another ideological, national, ethnic or religious group or groups to replace, displace, minimize, confuse, spiritualize, dilute or ignore Israel in full or in part in identity, purpose, promises, relationships, possessions, forms and/or functions, spiritual and/or physical, past, present or future.”
I actually thought you gave a pretty good definition there, Gene. Better than any other I’ve heard.
-Peter
Gene,
I understand you have to be diplomatic. You probably know the guy for all I know. But I know that you can’t say he’s not advocating One Law when you look at the entirety of that passage, especially this part:
“But at its simplest, discipleship should be understood as the art of imitation: Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:6).”
He’s advocating walking as Yeshua walked? Hmm, which way was that again? Ah, yes: Yeshua was a fully Torah-observant Jew.
Cheers,
Peter
“But I know that you can’t say he’s not advocating One Law when you look at the entirety of that passage, especially this part.”
Peter,
1) Yes, his approach is to introduce Gentiles to Torah. You should commend him for that. Assuming that Boaz was contradictory in his words in the instance you cited above, I don’t think that Boaz is above mistakes or even simply being unclear about something (and no teacher I know is, apart from Yeshua himself – do you know of any?) .
But latching on to one instance of something doesn’t help your case. Have you been reading the Messiah Journal lately? Their message regarding Gentile observance has been amazingly consistent, IMHO. Believe me, Boaz would have heard it from me personally if that were not the case.
2) There’s a world of difference between One Law’s “Gentiles must” and Boaz’s Gentiles “ought to” while specifically saying that “walking after Yeshua is much broader than simply adopting Jewish practice.” Observing Torah is much more than eating kosher – loving others, per Yeshua, is a far greater commandment.
Gene,
“Have you been reading the Messiah Journal lately? Their message regarding Gentile observance has been amazingly consistent, IMHO.”
The consistent thing to do would be to print a retraction whenever he says something inconsistent (and I’ve proven he said something inconsistent). Where is the retraction? You won’t find one. And that article was one of their most popular articles to date (this is the one that caused all the uproar as you’ll recall). There’s no retraction and therefore there’s no consistency. What we’re left with is a nice comfy-cozy ambiguity for FFOZ.
Now let’s look at this question of how to interpret the word “ought” in 1 John 2:6. The verse says:
“Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:6).”
If we interpret “ought” as “ought to but not required to” then we can see the absurdity of such a translation:
“Whoever says he abides in Him ought to but is not required to walk in the same way in which He walked.” [FALSE TRANSLATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION]
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, getting beyond nitpicking over “ought”, “must”, “required”, it still leaves you with the problem of what exactly does “walk as he walked” means? You seem to think that it means that “Gentiles MUST observe every single commandment that Jews do”. You have a real problem proving it when you take the rest of scriptures and teaching of the apostles into account.
However, I do remember reading that FFOZ article when it came out. I will give you that coming fresh from their relatively sudden anti-One-Law reversal, Boaz’s article, while groundbreaking, did lack a certain clarity and exactness in their position vis-à-vis Torah obligation and Gentiles. This was quite a time for them as a ministry – they almost lost everything! However, Boaz did tell me and to many others (and it was noted publicly online) that their one-time so called “Divine Invitation” was never meant to become some sort of theology.
FFOZ have since become far more clear in their stance on Torah and Gentiles. The fact that they admitted being wrong (no THEY REPENTED PUBLICLY!) in the past regarding championing One-Law for so many years is something to be commended. It’s truly humbling and a rare thing to see in ministries. I hope to see you one day do the same, Peter.
Peter,
“I’m just exposing Boaz’s contradictions and letting people decide for themselves if he is the theology hitman you make him out to be. It’s difficult for me to respect someone who takes the awesome mantle of Teacher and yet has a history of doctrinal shifting and employing contradictions when attempting to explain his shiftiness.”
mosaic covenant w/imitation for curses and blessings – Jews
new covenant w/imitation for blessings – Gentiles
It works in a logical sentence, Peter. I don’t see a contradiction.
That said, I was personally devastated when I heard about the shift. I was. And being sympathetic to One Law, I do like the imagery of Torah Observance for Gentiles in the Messianic Age. It may not be an issue of avoiding curses as it is in possessing Kingdom Hearts.
Either way, most browsers seem to recognize you’re not a secret Israelite.
Peter said: It’s not that he’s a more public figure–it’s that he holds himself out as a teacher in an educational ministry.
I’ll split the difference with you and say it’s because he’s a public figure and because he’s the founder and president of an educational ministry.
As far as whether or not Boaz contradicted himself:
A. He’s human, so I suppose it’s possible. If you actually created and maintained your own blog (ahem) for some period of time, I bet someone could go through every single word and sentence you wrote over time and find an error or two, assuming you’re human, of course. ;-)
B. If I really wanted to devote that much time to your assertion, I’d need access to the original source material you are referencing. Don’t take this personally, but I’m not willing to judge someone based on heresay. Even if you do a copy and paste, it still doesn’t show me the actual content he wrote (I assume you’re taking about material he blogged). Also, when did Boaz make these various statements? There was a time when Boaz did support One Law, so it would be easy to take statement he made before the FFOZ shift in perspective and then statements he made afterward and, out of context, paint a picture of him as “double-minded.” I believe you said you had graduated from law school, so I’m sure you can appreciate my attention to detail here.
As far as whether or not Jesus (Yeshua, if you will) directly commanded his Jewish disciples to teach the future Gentile disciples to learn and obey all 613 commandments of the Torah with an obligation equal to the Jewish people (I don’t think you’re going to get all that out of Matthew 28:19-20), here’s my take.
(Yes, I know you said, “I’m not making the argument–Boaz made the argument. Don’t confuse my arguments with his,” but I just thought I’d throw that detail in for the heck of it.)
Besides, there’s a difference between learning the Torah and being obligated to obey its every single precept. I study much more of the Torah and Talmud than directly applies to me. There’s nothing wrong with my doing so.
Peter said: Now let’s look at this question of how to interpret the word “ought” in 1 John 2:6. The verse says:
“Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:6).”
If we interpret “ought” as “ought to but not required to” then we can see the absurdity of such a translation:
“Whoever says he abides in Him ought to but is not required to walk in the same way in which He walked.” [FALSE TRANSLATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION]
Gosh, I just hate taking one verse out of context and trying to make an entire theology out of it. Let’s broaden the context just a tad, shall we?
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. -1 John 2:1-6 (ESV)
Let’s assume that John’s audience was non-Jewish disciples. His message here is to encourage the Gentile believes not to sin. John describes Jesus as the advocate for the disciples before God the Father. John says, we come to know him if we keep his commandments. The trick here is how you interpret what the commandments of the Messiah are to the Gentile disciples (see my previous link for why I don’t believe Jesus commanded the Gentiles to be obligated to the Torah in the exact same manner as the Jews).
As far as I can tell (again, see the article at my former blog), Jesus didn’t command the Gentiles to obey the whole of Torah but those things which most Christians believe they are obligated: that is, doing good to others and loving God. Jesus didn’t teach how to wear tzitzit and, although he did mention a few things about eating, he really didn’t teach a “how to” about kosher food. He didn’t have to teach Jews how to be Jews (they already knew that). He taught how to do good in ways that were equally accessible to Jewish and Gentile disciples without attempting to turn Gentiles into ersatz Jews.
Of course, I can’t take just a couple of sections from the Apostolic scriptures and turn it into a complete theological thought, but from what I’ve been studying for the past several years, I just can’t see Jesus or Peter or James or Paul teaching Gentiles that they were all-but-Jews except for the circumcision, thereby completely devaluing and eliminating the “choseness” of the Jewish people. It would be like me going up to my wife and telling her that, because I’m a Christian, I’m just as “Jewish” as she is relative to Torah obligation, but I don’t have to go through all of that “pesky” conversion stuff including the bris.
As a Gentile believer, I find the Torah, Talmud, Kabbalah, and Chassidic Tales quite compelling, but none of that makes me Jewish or “almost Jewish.”
Gene,
What am I supposed to be repenting publicly about? What are you talking about? I’ll tell everyone out there that I’m a sinner who relies on Yeshua’s grace. I’ll tell everyone out there that I’m dialoging on these blogs in order to evaluate the merits of opposing viewpoints. For example, in this very post I asked you questions about Two House, did I not? I said I was NOT trying to persuade you, did I not? And I asked you to show me why Two House was not a cogent doctrine. So what am I to repent for here, Gene? Am I to repent for not unquestioningly accepting everything you say?
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, repent, like FFOZ did, of One-Law theology because it’s Replacement Theology. Replacement Theology is sin because it is covetousness and theft. You don’t have to repent publicly but rather simply change your mind and ways about it, although since you are talking with people online about it – publicly, it would be quite apparent if you did repent.
“Am I to repent for not unquestioningly accepting everything you say? ”
Of course not. Then again, it’s not about me, Peter.
James,
If you write for FFOZ, they’ll probably send you a complementary copy of that article. Take the time then to read it and see if I completely fabricated everything or if I told the truth. If I told the truth, it would be nice if you share those thoughts with everyone.
-Peter
If you write for FFOZ, they’ll probably send you a complementary copy of that article. Take the time then to read it and see if I completely fabricated everything or if I told the truth. If I told the truth, it would be nice if you share those thoughts with everyone.
Maybe I missed it in the rapid back and forth exchange of comments, but what is the exact source of your quotes? Were they on a blog? Were they in Messiah Journal? Can you please be specific so I know what to ask for? Thanks.
Gene,
I don’t believe in One Law theology and never said that I do! I do believe in egalitarian ecclesiology and I believe in New Covenant Nomism. But One Law, while it may have some correct conclusions, advocates many flawed premises (e.g. the “ger” argument).
I can’t repent for having a view which I do not have.
Sincerely,
Peter
James,
Messiah Journal 101. One law and the Messianic Gentile.
-Peter
“I don’t believe in One Law theology”
Peter, you could have fooled me, the way you came out swinging against Boaz and FFOZ for reneging on their former One-Law stance! In any case, repentance is not about nomenclature and word games, but about the matters of the heart. So, Peter, repenting about those “correct conclusions” you see in One-Law would suffice.
Peter,
Do you have a blog?
Peter,
Do you have a blog?
No, he doesn’t…and I’ve been encouraging him to create one for months.
Gene,
“So, Peter, repenting about those “correct conclusions” you see in One-Law would suffice.”
I have an idea! This might be crazy but I’m seriously gonna consider it: I could have a section for actual rebuttals at the end of the book I’m writing. There’s a few people (you being one) that I could invite to read the manuscript and then have the uncensored last word–in the manuscript itself!
Do you like this idea, Gene?
Cheers,
Peter
Not sure what your upcoming book has to do with you repenting (unless that’s where you are going to do in it), Peter. What will your book be about? Sounds like you already have your mind made up if you’re writing a book about it.
Peter,
You asked: “Here’s the question to ask yourself: might G-d employ extra-biblical sources to teach us things about Him? Might he use people or nature itself? Might all these things be His ‘record for our instruction‘? Here’s an example of an extra-biblical source: Moses said to slaughter animals according to the manner which he showed the Israelites. It wasn’t written down in Scripture. Should we still follow it as Jews?”
All good questions to be sure Peter, but not the focus of this particular thread by the host. If you scroll back up to my post, you will see I tried not to make my post about “me”. From what I gather by your response to my post, I was not very successful.
If you do take the time to scroll up, you will see the context of my “questioning everything” in my post was re; Two House Teaching. Keeping in context, I tried to demonstrate how the plethora of documentation used by Two House advocates completely ignores and stands in stark opposition to the Scriptures 2Chron 30:6;10;11, and 34:9.
Just to clarify Peter, when I said, “when a question arises regarding the accuracy of history written by men… I prefer to believe what G-d has set in record for our instruction.” It was in reference to the specific topic of Two House Teaching, relating to the topic of this thread, which I had hoped to make clear in my opening paragraph.
I would prefer to make any further communication between us on this thread stick to Two House Theology and how it falls under the category of Replacement Theology, if you would be so gracious Peter.
Sincerely yours,
Brad
Brad,
I see it as related to Two House. You see, Two House has both intertextual and extratextual evidence. So I was trying to get you to see the importance of (1) extratextual evidence before proceeding to (2) the intertextual argument.
Cheers,
Peter
Gene,
You wrote: “Not sure what your upcoming book has to do with you repenting…” Here’s the relevance. You said the sin was as follows:
“Replacement Theology is sin because it is covetousness and theft.”
So in the book I can show that my views are NOT Replacement Theology and just in case anything I’m saying is wrong then I’ll have you (and others) give rebuttals. In this way, I’m not a teacher but a student who is communicating amongst my peers. For we are all students of the Word. And it is not a sin to be a student, is it?
Cheers,
Peter
Peter, can you tell us some specifics about your book? When will it be published? Who is the publisher? In what formats will it be available (print, Kindle…)? Is it available for “pre-order” on Amazon or some other vendor’s site? Title? I’m curious and would like to take a “look ahead”.
Thanks.
Oh. Sorry I didn’t notice this before, Peter. It appears you are in the process of building your own blog. Good on you.
Peter,
I do understand the importance of extra textual evidence, and in many instances such as shechita by shochetim I support it, especially if it does not stand in clear opposition to inter textual evidence. Some 20 years ago I studied the extra textual evidence of British-Israelism, which Two-House Teaching admittedly draws from to make their adherents “aware of who 10-Tribe Israel is in the modern world.” {jewsandjoes.com – Two-House Theology (Reality) defined and defended, criticisms answer #2.}. I have also researched the inter textual arguments of 2HT, which as you probably know are virtually identical to the arguments BI use to support 2 house 10 lost tribes teaching. Neither support the underlying premise that Israel must have undergone some form of national amnesia, which in essence one has to believe in accepting the claims of the Ephraimite movement.
Let me just say that I try and deal with (on what seems like a daily basis presently) the things I hear from the lips of my friends who hold to Two House Teaching. Who for the most part do not go into extra-biblical sources to justify their doctrine, but use passages like Matthew 15:24, which I cited in my first post on this thread. When I try and explain the need for context in understanding any verse from Scripture and cite Matthew 10:5;6, I have yet to get a straight answer, or a logical explanation of how Matt. 15:24 does not apply to the context of Matt. 10:5;6. Instead I get deflection, usually in the form of a question on another totally unrelated passage to the one easily qualified as taken out of context.
The reason I brought forward those verses: 2Chronicles 30:10 So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh even unto Zebulon… 30:11 Nevertheless divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulon humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem. and 2Chronicles 34:9; in my second post on, is because they specifically prove that the 10 tribes were present in numbers and re-established back in their tribal homelands and cities, after the Assyrian capture and before the Babylonian destruction. Not fled to the South as refugees, merged only with the cities of Judah, as Two House teachers maintain by only citing 2Chron. 31:6 and the first portion of 30:6 on their “jewsandjoes” website, (Answering Common Criticism of the Two-House Reality). All the inter-textual evidence they use like British-Israelism before them, is demonstrative of selective quoting without considering the context. When questioned about it, rather than addressing they deflect, making it impossible to carry on a fair two sided dialogue.
In order to be fair Peter, I will ask, “Do you believe that 2Chron. 30:10;11, is an accurate record that numerable members of the Northern Tribes of Israel, escaped out of the hands of the kings of Assyria and re-established back in their ancestral tribal lands and cities?”
I can certainly understand if you chose not to answer.
Sincerely,
Brad
Brad, you certainly seem know your Two-House stuff! It is, as you noted, British Israelism re-hashed (and they used much of the same “proofs”). In fact, I’ve come across a good number of Two-House sites and Facebook pages that link to BI websites (like britam.org) and quote from them.
From britam.org:
“The USA, UK, and related Western peoples have an obligation as Israelite Nations to fulfill their destiny.”
Shalom Gene.
This post as few others about “Two ‘steaks’ people” certainly made few nervous. I’m reading some responses and just feel tension in the air. You have don excellent job to expose this lunacy. I imagine Peter will be offended. Please keep good work. May HaShem bless fruits of you hands. Dealing daily with this Anti Semitic delusion make me more convinced to speak out.
Thank you, Eli, for your kind words and encouragement. Greetings to our new friends from down under! I think folks like Peter will eventually come along, at least that’s what I’ve seen happen already with others and what I’m hoping for.
Brad,
It says some did return during the FIRST YEAR of Hezekiah’s reign. It says that the majority remained in Exile and that the Exile of the Northern Tribes was still in progress at that time. The final exile of the Northern Tribes happened in the FOURTH YEAR of the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:9)
“9 In King Hezekiah’s fourth year, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Shalmaneser king of Assyria marched against Samaria and laid siege to it. 10 At the end of three years the Assyrians took it. So Samaria was captured in Hezekiah’s sixth year, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel. 11 The king of Assyria deported Israel to Assyria and settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in towns of the Medes. 12 This happened because they had not obeyed the LORD their God, but had violated his covenant—all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. They neither listened to the commands nor carried them out.”
And 2nd Kings which was written in the time of Ezra says that the people of Israel were exiled even in that present time–meaning that the people of Israel were exiled in the time of Ezra:
2nd Kings 17:22-23
“22 The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them 23 until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there.”
Now, here’s several things for you to consider:
(1) all the prophecies about the return of the House of Israel refer to the eschaton (i.e. the latter days, which hadn’t happened yet at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah).
(2) Ezra and Nehemiah returned from Babylon and listed the tribes who returned: only Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Members of any other unlisted returning tribes would’ve been a small minority which means that the minority would still be in exile. These stragglers did not represent the lost tribes or else Ezra and Nehemiah would’ve included the names of the Northern Tribes in the list of returning tribes. Note also that Ezra and Nehemiah did not think there had been reunification at that time because they knew Torah and knew that the number 12 constituted the quorum number for a tribal confederation:
“Admittedly, the system is so bound up with the very suspicious element of the apparently artificial number twelve, that that element must obviously be regarded as a quite essential constituent of the system, as is indicated above all by the fact that the number twelve was strictly adhered to in the transition from the earlier to the later form. This number twelve proves to be a historic factor shedding light on the origin and significance of the tribal system as a whole, for lists of twelve tribes–occasionally of six tribes too-also arose outside Israel and have come down to us. H. Ewald was the first to point out that the Old Testament itself provides the nearest examples, since it contains in Gen. xxii, 20-24 a list of twelve Aramaean tribes, in Gen. xxv, 13-16 a list of twelve Ishmaelite tribes, and Gen. xxxvi, 10-14 one of twelve Edomite tribes, whilst in Gen. xxxvi, 20-28 there is a list of six Horite tribes. The Israelite system of twelve tribes does not therefore by any means represent an isolated phenomenon…the number is the result of certain established principles such as were customary in tribal societies….The number twelve was part of the institution which had to be maintained even when changes took place in the system: it proves therefore to have been neither the mere result of the natural ramification of a human group nor the invention of a later period, but rather an essential element in the historical organisation of such a tribal confederation.” pgs 87-88 of The History of Israel by Noth.
(3) note that the prophets speaking just before the Exile to Babylon record that Ephraim was still in Exile.
This is a good discussion and I hope it has benefited you as it has benefited me.
Cheers,
Peter
Eli,
Tension in the air is normal when Jews discuss opinions about Torah. : )
Cheers,
Peter
Peter, let’s assume that you are right and that Jews/Israel today represent only a small minority of Israelites alive today.
1. Where today can one find members of the “lost tribes” (which nations would contain the bulk of them?) and how can a person know whether or not he or she is a member? What historical, migrational, genealogical and genetic evidence can you offer to show that the majority of Israelites are still scattered?
2. How would you explain the fact that, if you are correct, the severe murderous persecution Israel has experienced in the last two thousands years, culminating in 6 millions Jews dying in Holocaust, focused on only three tribes (Judah, Benjamin, and Levi) while the rest were supposedly merely scattered, living in comfort as natives of other lands and may even have participated in the atrocities against the Jews (unbeknownst to them, of course, being Israelites themselves and all…)?
Gene,
(1) Two House doctrine shouldn’t be used as a means of identity. Yes, some people try to use it that way but that’s only because they don’t understand their place in the covenant and they’re desperately looking for a way to establish their desire to identify with Israel. In their zeal to identify with Israel, they expose their lack of understanding. However, just because people are wrong doesn’t mean that the Scripture about Two House doctrine is wrong. And I think that in time those people will learn to base their identity on covenant rather than misapplications of Two House.
Let’s remember the passage that Brad brought up. The House of Israel (the representative whole) scorned and ridiculed the call to return and celebrate Passover! They did many wicked things and they were unrepentant. How would they then maintain their identities as Israelites if they shun their identities as Israelites and follow other gods? I doubt anyone but Messiah could make them return and only He would know who these people are.
(2) That’s an unfair question. And I have no idea what the answer would be because I don’t know the mind of G-d.
-Peter
“And I think that in time those people will learn to base their identity on covenant rather than misapplications of Two House.”
Peter, true in as much as Christians’ identity as spiritual Gentiles is based on the NEW Covenant, to be specific. To summarize, the reunification of Two Houses of Israel as described in the Bible has less than zero direct application for Gentiles/Christians, no more than the reunification of East and West Germany had any direct application for Alaska Eskimos. The Two-House theology is the direct descendant of British Israelism. Even a cursory examination of BI and TH makes this obvious.
“How would they then maintain their identities as Israelites if they shun their identities as Israelites and follow other gods?”
The supposed “lost identities” of Israelites is a myth. Even today, whenever someone looks for a “lost tribe”, they look for groups of people (not individuals) who have preserved something of their former Jewish past for hundreds of years. Israel has sinned, worshiped idols, deserted G-d many times, but in spite of all that, as a group they have never lost their “identities” as Jews/Israel. That’s the miracle of G-d indeed.
“That’s an unfair question. And I have no idea what the answer would be because I don’t know the mind of G-d.”
That doesn’t make much sense to me either that most and the worst of Israel has somehow escaped all these punishments.
Gene,
“Peter, true in as much as Christians’ identity as spiritual Gentiles is based on the NEW Covenant, to be specific.”
If their identity is based on New Covenant then they must be obligated to follow Torah. Because Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31 say that the New Covenant includes both categories of Torat Moshe (chukim and mishpatim).
Here’s something cool for you–I’m gonna give you something you haven’t seen before. Naturally, you’ve read 1 Cor 7:19 where it says:
“19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”
That phrase “keeping the commandments of G-d” means “keeping the law of Moses.” Check this out:
“The phrase ‘the commandments of God’ is frequently used in the Jewish and Jewish Christian literature of Paul’s time to refer to keeping the law of Moses. Late in the second century B.C., for example, the grandson of the jewish scholar Ben Sira translated his grandfather’s summary of the law this way: ‘Guard yourself in every act, for this also is the keeping of the commandments [teresis entolon]‘ (Sirach 32:23). Similarly, Matthew translates Jesus’ reply to the rich young man’s question about how to obtain eternal life as “keep the commandments” (tereson tas entolas), a clear reference to the law of Moses, as Jesus’ list of commandments and summary of the first table of the law from Leviticus 19:18 demonstrate (Mt. 1917-19). Moreover, the Septuagint’s translation of Ezra 9:4 uses the phrase ‘commands of God’ as a synonym for the law of Moses. The phrase Paul has chosen to refer to God’s commandments, therefore is one that in his cultural context clearly referred to the Mosaic law.”
That’s just a little fun fact for today (naturally, I don’t base a Theology on one verse; it’s just that this was an interesting fact I learned the other day). There a myriad of places where Paul indicates that the former gentiles are supposed to repudiate their former lives as pagans and pursue a Torah-observant lifestyle like his own.
Cheers,
Peter
“Paul indicates that the former gentiles..”
Former, you say? Oh, Peter… here you go again with your “everyone is a Jew now”… – didn’t you read my post above about Replacement Theology?
So, when G-d says the following, He doesn’t really mean it?
“I have made you [Messiah] a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)
Or, when the L-rd refers to “all the Gentiles who bear my name” in Acts 15:17, he must have not been aware of the “former” part, right?
Or, when Paul calls non-Jews “Gentiles” when he quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 “Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His People.”, he’s talking about “former” ones, I suppose?
Or, when Paul writes in Romans 15:27 “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.”, what he really means “former Gentiles”?
“Gentiles” is not some bad horrible moniker, Peter – it simply means nations, non-Jews. Gentiles can be Christians, Gentiles can be atheists, and Gentiles can be pagans. Gentiles can be good, Gentiles can be bad – same as with Jews. G-d, the prophets, Yeshua and the apostles didn’t have a problem with that word. But you seem to do. It may be some major issue with self-estimate, this overriding need to be “special like Israel” that has driven some Gentile Christians into the arms of One-Law and Two-House teachers eager to tickle an ear or two.
Do you see that your “Gentiles are now Jews” theology makes a mess of scripture, Peter? Probably not. Oh well.
Peter wrote:
Gene,
I’m not making the argument–Boaz made the argument. Don’t confuse my arguments with his. Once again, Boaz’s words:
“Gentile believers should also find discipleship to Yeshua as motivation to walk in obedience to the whole of Torah.”
Then Peter wrote:
That’s just a little fun fact for today (naturally, I don’t base a Theology on one verse; it’s just that this was an interesting fact I learned the other day). There a myriad of places where Paul indicates that the former gentiles are supposed to repudiate their former lives as pagans and pursue a Torah-observant lifestyle like his own.
It’s sometimes difficult to follow what you actually believe in, since you seem to present pieces of information but sidestep actually “owning” them. You say there is Biblical evidence to support Gentiles (or former Gentiles) being obligated to the Torah in the same manner of the Jews but do not base a theology around this information.
Forgive me, but while you accuse Boaz of being inconsistent and perhaps even hypocritical, I find you also tend to “flip-flop” a bit. I certainly hope that when you finally get your own blog up and running, you’ll be able to have a venue where you can definitively present your understanding, beliefs, and proofs.
Oh, and I don’t consider myself a “former Gentile” and yet I do consider myself attached to the God of Israel through being a disciple of the Jewish Messiah. Isn’t that good enough or am I deficient?
Good Shabbos.
Gene and James,
Let’s go verse by verse. We’ll start with the following:
1 Cor 12:2
New International Version (©1984)
You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
New Living Translation (©2007)
You know that when you were still pagans, you were led astray and swept along in worshiping speechless idols.
English Standard Version (©2001)
You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
International Standard Version (©2008)
You know that when you were unbelievers, you were enticed and led astray to worship idols that couldn’t even speak.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
That you were pagans and you were being led without discrimination to those idols which have no voice.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You know that when you were unbelievers, every time you were led to worship false gods you were worshiping gods who couldn’t even speak.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
You know that you were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as you were led.
American King James Version
You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, even as you were led.
American Standard Version
Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might led.
Douay-Rheims Bible
You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led.
Darby Bible Translation
Ye know that when ye were of the nations ye were led away to dumb idols, in whatever way ye might be led.
English Revised Version
Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
Weymouth New Testament
You know that when you were heathens you went astray after dumb idols, wherever you happened to be led.
World English Bible
You know that when you were heathen, you were led away to those mute idols, however you might be led.
Young’s Literal Translation
ye have known that ye were nations, unto the dumb idols — as ye were led — being carried away;
Did Paul make a mistake here by saying that they were gentiles in the past tense?
Peter, what this an example of is a dual use of the same word. The word “ethne” can signify “idolaters” (since most nations worshiped idols in Paul’s time) and it can also mean “ones from the nations” (an term without any negative connotation – used throughout the NT as such). You have simply thrown out the good, neutral meaning and clung to the purely negative one. That is you’ve put together a theology through picking and choosing which definition of the word you want to accept and which you just don’t like.
Can anyone else see this as well, or is it just me? What Peter is doing here is as clear as day, and I have a hard time believing that he doesn’t see this himself. I think he chooses not to see it or admit to it because it would destroy his carefully constructed theology and self-perception. I understand that such a thing is painful.
Gene,
So please instruct us as to the correct reading of the verse. Offer us your translation.
-Peter
“So please instruct us as to the correct reading of the verse. Offer us your translation.”
I don’t need to offer “my” translation. “Idolaters” or “pagans” would be a far more appropriate meaning in 1 Cor 12:2, which is indeed what most modern translations use because it not only fits this particular verse, but it makes far more sense based on other uses of the word by Paul and others.
Gene,
Your separation of “ethne” into two English words is anachronistic. You must understand the word as they understood in order to understand how they employed it:
“…modern English uses two words, Gentiles and pagans, where the Greek on which these both rest has only a single word, ta ethne, ‘the nations.’ The two English words have different connotations. Gentile makes a statement about a person’s ethnicity: The person is not a Jew. Pagan refers to a person’s religious beliefs: The person is neither a Jew nor a Christian. When Christianity began to appear in first-century diaspora synagogues, however, mutatis mutandis, pagans were Gentiles, and Gentiles were pagans. …The distinction between religion and ethnicity created by the two English words is an anachronism for the first several centuries of the Christian Era…” Prologue XX in “Augustine and the Jews” by Paula Fredriksen
Do you see what she’s saying? You can’t ignore the fact that Paul was employing a single Greek word which he knew that his audience would interpret as referring simultaneously to ethnicity and paganism–they never separated the two concepts!
If you side with the majority of opinion of modern scholarship and accept Fredriksen’s assertion then you must face the following implication:
Paul never intended the gentiles to self-identify based on a term which means “pagan.”
This is corroborated many times in Paul’s writings. For example:
Eph 4:17-24
17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.
20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Do you see what I’m saying, Gene?
Peter, something doesn’t jive here. Paul tells his non-Jewish audience:
“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of YOU Gentiles” (Ephesians 3:1)
I think Paul would disagree with Paula [Fredriksen]. It doesn’t matter which word we use here – pagans or idolaters. You are being pedantic again. The point to grasp is that in Paul’s day most of those from the nations were idolatrous. That’s not anachronistic to say – that’s a fact. Yet, they were still nations. This is why the modern translations correctly use the word “pagan” or “heathen” in certain verses instead of “Gentiles”. So, to walk in the manner of the nations or Gentiles in those days was to practice idolatry. One thing that is not up for a debate (I hope it’s not, Peter?) is that there are and will be many nations and peoples in the world. This means that there is another element to being a Gentile (that is one from the nations) and it’s readily apparent to anyone who opens their Bible – it simply means anyone who is not a Jew.
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4 based on Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1; Talmud Sanhedrin 105a
“Righteous Gentiles have a place in the World to Come.”
Do you suppose Maimonides meant “idolators” or was he being anachronistic here in separating the two meanings of “Gentiles” (pagans vs nations)?
Peter, I fail to see how copying and pasting a series of Bible translations addresses inconsistencies between two of your statements in this blog’s comments and whether you do or do not support a One Law theology. One of the frustrating things about having these conversations with you is (sorry, there’s no other way to put this) getting a straight answer from you in response to a simple question.
James,
I’ve not been inconsistent; I’ve explained that there are areas of overlap between my views and One Law. One Law makes a weak argument; by contrast, the argument for New Covenantal Nomism and egalitarian ecclesiology (i.e. a desegregated ecclesiology in which gentiles have full rights/duties with respect to Torah) is a strong argument and one which I know how to make. If you’d like, I’d be happy to email you an overview of this argument. Shall I send that to you via your blog?
Gene,
“I think Paul would disagree with Paula [Fredriksen].”
You are saying then that Paul doesn’t see the term “ethne” as referring to pagans. This view is rebutted by Paul’s negative usages of the term “ethne.” I’ve already cited passages in which Paul connects paganism with “ethne.” There are many such passages and this fact of Paul’s negative usages of “ethne” is not disputed anywhere (except by you).
The unavoidable conclusion is that Paul does not wish the gentiles to continue having the identity as gentiles, neither in theoria or praxis. Under the New Covenant, regardless of circumcision, the important thing is to keep Torah:
“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”
Sincerely,
Peter
“You are saying then that Paul doesn’t see the term “ethne” as referring to pagans. ”
Not at all – Paul means both Gentiles as nations and sometimes he means Gentiles as idolaters. Ethne simply means a nation and naturally so – especially to his Greek audience!!!! (Remember, he’s not talking to Jews for the most part.) That’s clear from the text that to Paul the word “ethne” had two definitions (doesn’t the word “goy” mean a Gentile/non-Jew and also means a nation – including Israel?). However, for the most part, he means Gentiles as members of nations – that’s why he calls his own audience of non-Jewish BELIEVERS “Gentiles”, which would make zero sense if we accepted your definition of Paul continuing to insult his Gentile brothers by calling them “pagans”.
Give it up, my friend. Gentiles do not become Jews by accepting Jesus. That’s Replacement Theology 101. Someday you’ll see it for what it is, just as many former One-Law folks have already done. It’s a very weak theology, but you’ve put in a good effort trying to defend it. But, since we are starting to go in circles, let’s have our readers make the final determination which point of view, yours or mine, is correct. Have a good Shabbat and may be we can talk about a totally different topic next time.
If you’d like, I’d be happy to email you an overview of this argument. Shall I send that to you via your blog?
Maybe it can be the first article you write for your brand new blog. Shabbat is approaching and I need to start uncomplicating my life in preparation. Actually, I need to uncomplicate my life, anyway, but that’s another story.
Peter,
My question was, “Do you believe that 2Chron. 30:10;11, is an accurate record that numerable members of the Northern Tribes of Israel, escaped out of the hands of the kings of Assyria and re-established back in their ancestral tribal lands and cities?”
The reason I chose this particular verse is that it is demonstrative of a much later time in Israel‘s history than anything found in 2Kings 18:9, which is a restatement of 2Kings 17:6. But for arguments sake let’s go with the passages you decided to refer to rather than addressing my question, which does not surprise me…
You said, “And 2nd Kings was written in the time of Ezra…”
While that may be possible, it is highly unlikely. The bulk of biblical scholars agree that Ezra wrote 1st & 2nd Chronicles, seeing as the last verses of Chronicles are identical to the opening verses of Ezra. Even those who do not agree, concur that 1st & 2nd Chronicles and the Book of Ezra were written by the same source. So let’s go with that as it seems to be a less shaky foundation.
We read in 2Chronicles 34:5;6 And he (King Josiah) burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem. And did the same in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali…
Now this is something for you to consider Peter, for this took place in the eighth year of King Yoshiyahu’s reign, which would have been over 60 years after the death of Hezekiah. While I won’t go as far as you and say this took place “in the time of Ezra“, I can state with quite a high degree of certainty that it was written by Ezra or at least one of his contemporaries.
2Chronicles 34:9 states, not only were there significant numbers of the alleged lost 10 tribes that had returned to Israel during Yoshiyahu’s reign, but that they had returned to their former tribal land claims and were occupying Northern Israeli cities, . The tribes are named and according to 2Chronicles 34:9, ALL OF THE REMNANT OF ISRAEL delivered by their own hand (not by proxy as 2HT and BI theorize), donations to help rebuild the neglected temple.
How did they get there one might ask? Well obviously through the ministry of Yirmeyahu, who was instructed to GO confront them with a message of forgiveness and request to return. (Jer. 3:12-14) Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the L-RD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the L-RD, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the L-RD thy G-d, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the L-RD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the L-RD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
Did they actually return, or was this some form of prophetic message not to be realized until some latter day event?
Yes they actually returned. G-d promised to preserve a remnant and to bring back a remnant to the land of Israel, which took place over 50 years after the death of Hezekiah as you referred to Peter. (2 Chronicles 30:6) So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the L-RD G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria.
Take note of what happened after this point Peter, keeping in mind that the Scripture is referring to 80 years after the final assault on the Northern Kingdom, and the Neo-Assyrian Empire has been replaced by the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Hezekiah has long since passed, Manasseh and Amon have also passed and now Yoshiyahu sits as sovereign of Yehudah, in the 18th year of his reign.
And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the L-RD your G-d, as it is written in the book of this covenant. Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein this passover was holden to the L-RD in Jerusalem. Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the L-RD. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the L-RD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. (2Kings 23:21-25)
And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days. (2Chronicles 35:17)
Why is it said, “Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the kings of Yisrael, nor in the kings of Yehudah.”?
Because everyone was present from all the tribes of Israel, Yehudah, Binyamin and the alleged lost 10 tribes from the northern kingdom. The remnant that Yirmeyahu had gone forth and gathered from the defunct Assyrian exile. I don’t know how it can be made more clear for you Peter. Your lost tribe theory is simply untenable from a scriptural perspective.
The census taken from Ezra and Nehemiah confirms this. Ezra’s total listings when added up total 29,818, Nehemiah lists 1,765 people that Ezra does not. If you add up these numbers you get 31,583 persons. He gives a total figure (Ezra 2:64) of 42,360. The census from Nehemiah lists a total of 31,o89, Ezra lists 494 people that Nehemiah doesn’t. When you add these two numbers you get 31,583 persons. Nehemiah gives a total figure of 42,360 (Neh. 7:66), the same as Ezra. If you subtract 31,583 from 42,360 you get 10,777. This is the number of persons not counted from the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin. They were obviously from the other tribes of Yisrael that had gone into the captivity of Yerushalayim, which the Scriptures prove were present to partake of the wondrous Pesach held under the sovereign Yoshiyahu. This does not even take into account those present in Yerushalayim and the cities of Yehudah and Binyamin from all 12 tribes, that the Babylonian sovereign left behind to administer his conquered vassal provinces. The same Israeli citizens that Ezra and Nehemiah referred to and wrote to, before they returned with the remnant exiles. As I previously pointed out, so much for the 10 lost tribes theory.
Peter I ask you to seriously reconsider relying on source materials from anti-Semitic so called Christian Identity movements such as British-Israelism, which if you really do your research you will find The Two House Movement is simply regurgitating. You will find much of the research materials they cite on their websites such as jewsandjoes, is from the same polluted fountain that BI used decades before the 2HT was in embryo.
I have to thank you Peter for having to readdress this issue after over 20 years of putting it on a back burner. At first I was whining and complaining about having to fight another battle I had thought was behind me, but after much prayer and study I have truly been blessed by HaShem, in ways I had not even imagined could come from this topic I find spiritually repugnant. Praise the L-rd for his remnant which walks amongst us, who unlike 2Ht know, accept and are comfortable with who they actually are.
Sincerely,
Brad
@Peter, regarding Eph 4:17 as you quoted: “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.”
Translations based upon the Byzantium text and the Peshitta refer to the “the rest of the Gentiles” or “the other Gentiles” indicating a difference between the Gentiles who have turned to God (i.e. the “you” in the passage) versus pagan Gentiles.
Without explicit mention of the “other Gentiles” in the translation you have used of Eph 4:17-24, in the “you” versus “Gentiles” differentiation, there is still no conflict with the understanding that the term Gentiles can be used in a positive sense though in this particular case the passage is actually referring to the dominant Gentile sub-group of pagan thinking. This echoes Gene’s response.
For one example of where the term “Gentiles” is used in a positive sense, see Rom 11:13-20: “speaking to you Gentiles … you were grafted in … you stand by faith.”
So “Gentiles” does not have to be a negative identity for non-Jews just like “Arab” does not mean a negative self-identity for Christian Arabs even though the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims.
Brad, this was excellent. I may have to ask you to do a guest post on Two-House one day.
Brad,
I like you. I’m glad you have the courage to engage in civilized debate with me. There are many who simply opt to back down. But these people never get to experience the blessing of iron sharpening iron.
So let the sharpening commence:
Your argument (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be as follows:
ARGUMENT: it is recorded that there was a remnant of the House of Israel during the reign of Josiah which was before the Babylonian exile. Therefore, the Two Houses had already been restored prior to the Babylonian exile.
Assuming that is your argument, here is the rebuttal:
REBUTTAL:
There are several reasons why the restoration could NOT have happened prior to the Babylonian exile. Here are some of the primary reasons:
(1) 2 Kings, a book which records events of the Babylonian exile, says in 2 Kings 17:23 that the people of Israel were in exile in Assyria till that very day (i.e. they were still in exile well after Josiah’s reign had ended, meaning that the remnant spoken of during Josiah’s reign did not constitute the restored House of Israel;
(2) Ezekiel, a prophet during the Babylonian exile, recorded that the Houses of Israel were split at the time of his writing (i.e. Israel was still divided during the Babylonian exile–in other words, reunification hadn’t yet happened) but that the Two Houses would be reunited when David reigns over an undivided kingdom in the latter days when everyone is moved to follow Torah (i.e. reunification would happen in the eschaton). Here is the passage:
Ezekiel 37:21-28
21 and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God. 24 “‘My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.’”
(3) Ezra, who lived after the Babylonian exile, recorded that only three tribes returned: Judah, Benjamin, Levi. It doesn’t say anything about the House of Israel ever returning after the Babylonian exile.
CONCLUSION: These are just three reasons (among others) why reunification couldn’t have occurred during Josiah’s reign. I don’t expect that this evidence will move you to change your mind (although that would be awesome) and so I look forward to hearing your response to the evidence presented.
Shalom until next time,
Peter
[Gene, I'm still unsure of how to log into the comments. It still prompts me to log into my defunct wordpress account.]
Peter, you can’t log in here through your Blogger account. However, there’s no need to log into anything to post on this blog.
You said “the Two Houses would be reunited when David reigns over an undivided kingdom in the latter days when everyone is moved to follow Torah”
This would happen through “simple” regathering of all Jews back to the Land and it’s already been happening before our very eyes for the last 60 years. It will accelerate dramatically when Messiah returns (as foretold by the prophets) when no Jews will be left behind in Gentile lands. These Jews today or in the future do not and will not know which “house” they came from (except perhaps priests and levites) but the end result will be the same – regathering of Israel. Once again, none of this has any bearing on white American Gentile Evangelical Christians from Charismatic or WCG background who claim that they form one of the houses of Israel, and neither was this true when this theology carried the label “British Israelism“.
Gene,
If you were to concede to the idea that reunification has not yet happened (but will happen when King David is king over an undivided Israel), this would not be a concession to British Israelism or any of the other groups that attempt to prove the impossible and say that caucasions or any non-Jews are demonstrably descendants of the House of Israel. Note that I’ve never said that such a thing could be proven. On the contrary, I’ve stated that only Messiah could identify such and could move them to return. Therefore, my argument is different than these other groups because I’m merely interested in Two House as it relates to eschatology and would NEVER suggest that it be used as a basis for one’s identity. Do you see the distinction? To throw out these prophecies because some people misinterpret them would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Shalom,
Peter
[Gene, not to be a pain but when I log in with my email it gives me a prompt that says that email is now associated with a wordpress account and that I have to log in via wordpress before I can leave a comment. Any suggestions? Sorry I'm not good with computers]
“Therefore, my argument is different than these other groups because I’m merely interested in Two House as it relates to eschatology and would NEVER suggest that it be used as a basis for one’s identity.”
Peter, the Two-House fixation among Christians has ALWAYS been about trying to prove that they TOO have the “glorious past as Israelites”. That has always been the root of this and it has never been anything but about that. You know it, I know it. That’s why you argue so passionately about it – it matters to you on way more than eschatological level. Where did you first hear the Two-Houses of Israel theology explained? I would be surprised if you told me that you didn’t hear it from those who promote it as identity for Gentiles.
“Peter, the Two-House fixation among Christians has ALWAYS been about trying to prove that they TOO have the “glorious past as Israelites”.”
Yes, Gene, among Christians that is certainly the case. But it is not the case with me.
“That’s why you argue so passionately about it – it matters to you on way more than eschatological level.”
Not so. By the way, I argue passionately about grammar but that doesn’t mean that my identity is wrapped up in gerunds and pronouns.
“I would be surprised if you told me that you didn’t hear it from those who promote it as identity for Gentiles.”
I heard about it from the UMJC from an article entitled “Ephraimite Error.” I had only glanced at the article but I assumed that the UMJC’s conclusions were most likely correct. And, besides, my parents who were responsible for my training in Messianic Theology had never said anything about Two House which also made me think such a doctrine was extraneous at best.
And then one day a Messianic friend of mine, a very smart individual who designs computer systems that regulate hydraulics for a certain attack helicopter, asked me to look into the matter of Two House. And so I did upon his prompting. I reported to him my findings, that it seemed there was SOME truth to Two House, and he concurred.
I then consulted with my oldest friend, a man who is much smarter than me and who could probably comment on these blogs as me without anyone being able to tell the difference, and he concurred.
I then consulted with another Messianic friend of mine (who serves in the military) who holds to all of the same doctrines as me and he also concurs with Two House.
I have another Messianic friend who until recently worked for NASA as a materials engineer in the shuttle program, a “rocket scientist” as it were. I’m going to discuss Two House with him and see if he reaches the same conclusion. If he reaches the same conclusion then I will have that much more verification that this is not a silly view.
I have another friend who teaches in D.C. who recently, along with his twin brother (who has the following credentials: B.Sc., M.A.R., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.) and his younger brother, came to be Messianic and they also believe in Two House. My family will actually be visiting them in D.C. to celebrate Pesach. Interestingly enough, they are descended from holocaust survivors.
Does this answer your question of how I came to examine Two House?
Cheers,
Peter
Peter, so until now you have pretty much surrounded yourself with non-Jewish messianics who are either very interested (why?) or already subscribe to Two-House theology, including your oldest friend/mentor. It’s a good thing that you’ve stumbled upon people who see this thing for the Replacement Theology and recycled British Israelism fables that it is (like me!)
If you want to persuade me, Gene, then you need to have a Scriptural argument. Show with Scripture why my Scriptural argument is invalid. Your references to BI sound like a straw man given that I’m not arguing that the British are descendants of the Lost Tribes.
Sincerely,
Peter
“If you want to persuade me, Gene, then you need to have a Scriptural argument. ”
Peter, I don’t think I or anyone will persuade you with any argument, my friend. Remember, you once boasted that you’ve majored in this in college (that is in “debate”), which means that you’re very unlikely to admit being proven wrong even if you are (as I’ve seen already with you from our Joshua, Israelites and circumcision conversation). May be it’s a pride thing?
Just as with other kinds of Superssessionism, there’s a lot more to this than simple theology. I believe that first and foremost there’s a strong spiritual component to this that drives people to embrace this stuff – the evidence they seek or reject is only to reinforce what they already want to believe or not.
It was very interesting to read your list and I found a few things that I would appreciate further enlightenment on, most especially on Kabbalah. The only thing I, and most other Gentile Christians, know about it is that Madonna practiced it at one time and that kabbalists wear red yarn on their wrists.
Hi Alisa… welcome to Daily Minyan.
Kabbalah is a mystical esoteric Jewish method of learning about mysteries of G-d and the universe that He created, meditating on them and drawing closer to one’s Maker. It’s a very deep level of Torah study that looks at every letter and every word and seeks to find another level of meaning behind them. There are many schools of Kabbalistic thought and there’s no agreement on everything.
It’s also true that some of the teachings and customs of Kabbalah may be rightly referred to as superstitious and belong to another age. Many reputable Jewish authorities have spoken out against some of them at one time or another. However, one thing is for sure – unlike what antisemities may claim, Kabbalah has nothing to do with demonic powers. It seeks a deeper to connection to G-d and the Divine.
The Gospel of John, for example, is filled with deep Jewish mysticism and there are many mystical sayings and happenings throughout the New Testament and especially the Book of Revelation.
About the red string worn by some Jews (and some Gentiles who got involved with the so called “Kabbalah Centers”). The first mention of it is in Genesis 38, where we read that “the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first.”, that is the thread was put on to safeguard the firstborn. It has become a custom for some Jews to use is as a safeguard as well for spiritual protection against “evil eye” etc., although many Jewish authorities regard this custom as superstitious and some even consider it prohibited (the reason given is that we shouldn’t rely on any object for our protection, but only on G-d).
Hope this helps.
Gene,
“Peter, I don’t think I or anyone will persuade you with any argument, my friend. Remember, you once boasted that you’ve majored in this in college (that is in “debate”), which means that you’re very unlikely to admit being proven wrong even if you are (as I’ve seen already with you from our Joshua, Israelites and circumcision conversation). May be it’s a pride thing?”
No, I never said that I majored in debate in college. I did try to persuade Derek Leman to keep his comment system in a less moderated format and explained that based on my studies I felt that your comment was correct that the new changes would not have a broad appeal. I said this because I didn’t want him to make a bad business decision essentially that would hurt his readership.
Do you know that I am persuaded daily by Bible scholars? Each time I read a good Christian article or book I’m learning something. And you know what persuades me each time? Sound exegesis of Scripture. This is what speaks to me. Today, for example, I was rereading Rudolph’s “A Jew to the Jews” in the chapter addressing Paul’s instructions about food bought at the macellum. Rudolph’s arguments were very persuasive because (1) he acknowledges other views and the Scriptural evidence they offer and (2) he rebuts the other views by making thoroughly-researched Scriptural arguments.
That is how you should engage me.
Cheers,
Peter
“No, I never said that I majored in debate in college.”
I must have misunderstood your comment. Well, you do have that law degree – this means that you did major in debate after all!
“That is how you should engage me.”
Let’s test this theory, Peter, that you could be persuaded to admit being wrong in your assumption. Hopefully we could put some closure on the last debate we had. Tell me, did I in fact scripturally persuade you that the men Joshua circumcised were already considered and in fact were called “Israelites” in the Joshua 5:2-3 BEFORE their circumcision and before participating in Passover?
“At that time the L-RD said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again. So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth.”
Peter,
Thanks for responding. For now I will just deal with the first part (1) of your rebuttal argument that you say supports the alleged 10 lost tribes theory. Depending on how directly and convincingly you defend your rebuttal against my rebuttal of your rebuttal (lol), I will decide whether it would be fruitful to deal with the other elements of your rebuttal.
Peter said, “There are several reasons why the restoration could NOT have happened prior to the Babylonian exile. Here are some of the primary reasons:”
(1) 2 Kings, a book which records events of the Babylonian exile, says in 2 Kings 17:23 that the people of Israel were in exile in Assyria till that very day (i.e. they were still in exile well after Josiah’s reign had ended, meaning that the remnant spoken of during Josiah’s reign did not constitute the restored House of Israel;
You quoted 2Kings 17:23 where it is written; Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you Peter. What you are saying is that because the passage reads, “So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.” (עד זה יום ad zeh yom) You are interpreting that to mean, many years after the Josiah’s reign, many years after the destruction of the temple, when the writer of 2Kings was doing his scribing and wrote “unto this day” he meant all those things. What the author is saying, because he is writing 2Kings after all these things have happened, what he means is “at this present day” that I am writing these things, this is the reality, Israel is still in exile over in Assyria, there is no remnant returned.
I know for a fact Peter this is what you are actually saying the passage means. Now don’t get me wrong Peter, because this is what my friends say makes me such a hard person to debate against. I always listen to the person on the other side of the table. In my mind I actually argue their points for them. It allows me to throw their own words back at them, and use their arguments against them.
Consider this Peter if you will? The writer of 2Kings also wrote 1Kings. It is actually one single book. The division of 1st and 2nd Kings is manmade. I am not sure if you know this, but it is an indisputable fact. That being said, let us look at what the writer of Kings says in 1Kings 8:8:
And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day. ( עד זה יום ad zeh yom)
Using the logic of your own argument Peter when using 2Kings 17:23 to support the alleged 10 lost tribes theory, which is the main plank in the platform of Two House Theology. Can the heads of the staves the Levis used to carry the ark, still be seen protruding from the Kodesh HaKodashim (Holy of Holies)? Or could the writer still see them at the time he was writing 1st & 2nd Kings, which was after the temple had been destroyed and ransacked, and Israel was in exile in Babylon?
Allow me to clarify Peter. Seeing that 1Kings 8:8 uses the exact same words “unto this day” as used in 2Kings 17:23, and seeing it is one single book, and if as you say Peter “unto this day” means well after Josiah’s reign had ended. Then the partially drawn out staves of the Ark of The Covenant, must also have been still visible at the same time?
Sincerely,
Brad
What I would like to know is how did that remnant from Assyria end up attending Two-House congregations in U.S.? <grin>
Gene,
I agree that they were Israelites who had been cut off from the people of Israel because it is written:
“Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
I have to believe ALL of Torah, not just part of it. Show me how to get around Gen 17:14 if you don’t mind.
Sincerely,
Peter
Brad,
1 and 2 Kings can certainly be considered as a single book. But here’s a question for you: how long did it take to write this book? Was it written in a day? A year? Ten years? Do you see what I’m getting at?
Sincerely,
Peter
“I agree that they were Israelites…”.
I thought it would never come.
However, it is halfhearted (as I expected) and therefore still not acceptable, since you just had to add “…who had been cut off from the people of Israel because it is written”
Peter, they were either cut off or they were not. The text doesn’t give even a slightest indication that Joshua was circumcising Jews whose souls and bodies were cut off from Israel. It’s ludicrous to even suggest – I truly expected better of you. Were these people sinners who willfully disobeyed G-d and neglected Torah, and therefore were deserving of the punishment you imply they somehow already received, or was their circumcision simply delayed because of circumstances beyond their control? Were they not like the Jewish newborns waiting for their brit milah? Are you suggesting that the newborn Jews awaiting circumcision are cut off from the people of Israel? What about hemophiliacs who can’t be circumcised for medical reasons, are they cut off?
I don’t know Peter – I am not sure our debates will ever be fruitful with you throwing stuff like that my way. Care to reformulate your concession one more time?
Gene,
I’ll agree that they were not suffering karet, that they were individually Israelites, and that G-d wanted them to be circumcised in order to be restored to a tribal confederation via Pesach.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, much better this time.
However, your suggestion that a Jew’s membership in Israel somehow depends on Pesach is both unscriptural and untenable because the celebration of Passover is not a one time initiation rite (as you seem to view it). Also, it would effectively mean that for the last two thousands years ALL Jews have been cut off from Israel. It would mean that Jews like Prophet Daniel were cut off from Israel because he couldn’t eat of the sacrificial Passover lamb in the absence of the Temple (since all later Passover sacrifices were to be made on Temple grounds and all Jews had to be purified before they could partake in it).
Gene,
Give me your opinion of the following quotes:
Covenant & Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations & Jewish Expressions by Daniel Elazar
“Between Exodus 12 and 23, we are given a step by step description of the process of the founding of the Israelite polity. At the beginning of chapter 12, God commands Moses and Aaron to initiate a new calendar for the Israelites, beginning with the spring month of Nissan (12:1-2). He then names the new polity Adat Bnai Yisrael (12:3) and sets down procedures for establishing citizenship in it through the sacrifice of the pascal lamb and the observance of Passover (12:3-28 and 43-51).” pg. 178 of Covenant & Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations & Jewish Expressions by Daniel Elazar
Moses: the revelation and the covenant by Martin Buber:
“The clans slaughter the preordained animals at the same time. Each family eats of its own, each in its own house, which nobody may leave; but they all eat at the same time, a single meal unites them into a community. Blood is smeared on the portals and lintels of the houses; …all the tribes jointly devote themselves in blood, and thereby simultaneously redeem the debt of the human first-born, which they owe him.” pg. 70-71.Moses: the revelation and the covenant by Martin Buber
“The process is a preliminary form of the blood covenant which the people as such was to conclude with [Adonai] on Sinai. What is now being prepared in the form of diversity will be completed there in that of unity. ‘It is a passover for [Adonai]‘ which, though called an ‘offering’, does not resemble anything referred to in the Bible as sacrifice; it is a sacramental meal…The essential thing to realize is that here a natural and customary human activity, that of eating, is elevated by the participation of the whole community to the level of an act of communion; and as such is consecrated to the God. It is eaten ‘for him’.” pg. 71 Moses: the revelation and the covenant by Martin Buber
“If our assumption is correct, Moses transformed the clan feast of the shepherds (the matzoth too, the unleavened flat cakes, are the bread of the nomads) into the feast of a nation, without losing its character of a family feast. And now the families as such as the bearers of the sacramental celebration; which, however, unites them into a national community.” pg. 72 Moses: the revelation and the covenant by Martin Buber
“Every celebrating generation becomes united with the first generation and with all those that have followed. As in that night the families united into the living people, so in the Passover night the generations of the people unite together, year after year. What was established then, found expression in the introductory sentence ‘Let this month be the head of the months for you’, which does not appertain to the message to the people, and which therefore seems to be of an esoteric character….the establishment of the Passover in any case means a regulating of the time of Nature by means of the time of history; the foundation of a new beginning.” pg. 73. Moses: the revelation and the covenant by Martin Buber
“First, and clearly before the dawn, Moses builds an altar at the foot of the mountain and erects, clearly in a circle round about himself, twelve standing stones–stones which, according to the ancient conception, could see, hear and testify–’for the twelve tribes of Israel’. Something analogous is reported in the story of Elijah who, in order to ‘heal’ the broken [Adonai] altar on Mount Carmel, employs twelve stones ‘according to the number of the sons of Jacob.’ The word ‘Jacob’ is followed by the noteworthy relative clause, ‘unto whom came the word of [Adonai] saying, They name shall be Israel’. When Eliah prays to God at the altar the name Israel is again repeated twice, obviously of set purpose, in the fashion of a refrain; the first time in a passage where, on the one and only occasion in the Bible apart from certain very late texts, the names of Abraham and Isaac are followed not by Jacob but by ‘Israel.’ The implication cannot be misunderstood. Just as the one single altar was reconstituted with the twelve stones, so has the one Israel been constituted anew now that the people have united afresh around their God. What appears in the narrative of Elijah as a symbol of the restoration is an act of foundation in the narrative of the Covenant made by Moses….The Covenant entered into between the tribes and [Adonai] contains in its very core the Covenant entered into between the tribes themselves; they became Israel only when they became partners in the Covenant of the God.” pg. 112 Moses: the revelation and the covenant by Martin Buber
Peter,
Yes I think I see what you are getting at. It would be rather foolish to claim that the writer of 1Kings 8:8 when writing: “And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day;” was writing it after the destruction of the temple by the Neo-Babylonians. Even as it would be hubristic to claim when 2Kings 17:23 states: “So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day;” he was writing it from a chronological viewpoint that one can emphatically state with unquestionable confidence that it was written after the remnant return brought about by Yirmeyahu, the Great Passover with all 12 tribes present, and the death of Yoshiyahu.
Sincerely,
Brad
Don’t know what to tell you Peter, from your quotes of opinions by a professor of political science (Elazar) and an existentialist philosopher (Martin Buber). Try to keep your comments shorter for reader’s sake and with not so much cut and paste.
What would be interesting, however, is to know what these two (departed, sadly) gentlemen would have thought about your opinion of them both being cut off from membership in Israel, seeing that neither of them have partaken in the proper biblically prescribed Passover celebration that involves sacrifice and eating of Paschal lamb at any time during their lives. Now THAT would have been a far more relevant question to ask to see whether their opinions on Pesach match your ideas.
Gene,
“What would be interesting, however, is to know what these two (departed, sadly) gentlemen would have thought about your opinion of them both being cut off from membership in Israel, seeing that neither of them have partaken in the proper biblically prescribed Passover celebration that involves sacrifice and eating of Paschal lamb at any time during their lives.”
Elazar would see himself as connected to Judah certainly but I doubt he would assert that he belonged to a twelve-tribe confederation. How could any of us claim to be in a twelve-tribe confederation? Keep in mind that this doesn’t affect anyone’s Jewishness. A Jew living outside a twelve-tribe confederation is STILL a Jew in the deepest possible sense.
-Peter
Brad,
So it’s agreed you don’t like point #1. I would still like to hear your thoughts about the other two points if you would honor me.
Shalom,
Peter
Gene,
By the way, I’m really proving to you that I am persuaded by Scripture more than anything else because I’m used to scholars like David Rudolph saying stuff like this:
“To forego circumcision of one’s son was to have him cut off from the covenant of the [L-rd] with Abraham and his seed (Gen. 17:14).” pg. 68 of Paul and the Torah According to Luke.
Rudolph seems then to have a different interpretation of “karet” than you.
But I preferred YOUR analysis over Rudolph’s analysis–and this is saying a lot because Rudolph has a Ph.D. in the New Testament from Cambridge! Your analysis was that the Joshua 5 gave every indication that the Israelites were NOT suffering from karet. You could still be wrong and Rudolph correct but I’m currently leaning toward your assessment of the passage.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, well, I certainly appreciate it. However, I think Rudolph is also correct because he appears to use an example of a willful failure to circumcise, while I am showing that there’s an allowance for those who couldn’t get circumcised for reasons beyond their control and that circumcision is not a prerequisite for born-Jews to be considered Israelites. If your father fails to circumcise you, your relatives should do it. If they fail, the community leaders should do that. If they fail, you must do so yourself at earliest opportunity. However, if you willfully fail, you get cut off (that is if G-d always applies Torah punishments to people to the strictest letter of the Law – which He, fortunately for all of us, usually does not). That’s the Jewish Law. Also, and this is very important: as with any punishment that is meted out after a wrongdoing and not before, one gets punished with karet (cutting off) AFTER one fails to get circumcised – it’s not a state one is in BEFORE circumcision.