Jesus’ attitude towards Gentiles as a reflection of their Ephesians 2:12 state
Just about everyone knows that Jesus (Yeshua), during his ministry, had unflinchingly confronted those among his own, the Jews, who were unfaithful, unjust, unmerciful, ungrateful, self-righteous and hypocritical. Because of that, some have imagined that through this criticism Yeshua had turned on Judaism and his own Jewish people. Some go so far as to claim that the New Testament is filled with antisemitic sentiments. They do so by ignoring the even stronger words of the Jewish prophets that came before him. Jesus didn’t turn his back on Judaism or the Jews – nothing could be farther from the truth. He remained a quintessential Jew of his day, devoted to his nation. In fact, and quite paradoxically, if anyone should be offended having read the New Testament and words of Jesus, it’s the Gentiles, not Jews!
Professor Leander Keck, of the Yale Divinity School, writes that the gospels reflect in Jesus’ own behavior, words and attitude his stance toward Gentiles (as a group, not individuals). Jesus, being a devout Jew, viewed and treated them as strangers, generally avoided them except in a few exceptional circumstances (primarily when children were involved and great humbleness was demonstrated), never entered their homes, never ate with them, and certainly had a very low opinion of their behavior:
…every time Jesus is reported to have mentioned Gentiles, he expresses negative judgment about their ways. They strive for material things (Mt 6:22); they are a closed group, greeting only one another (Mt 5:47); their prayers are heaps of empty phrases because they think that effectiveness requires many words (Mt 6;7). Gentiles arc cited as an example of authoritarian leadership to be avoided (Mt: 10:42-43)…. According to Jesus’ instructions for community discipline, the banned person is to be treated like a Gentile or (despised Jewish) toll collector (Mt 18:7). …[W]hen rebuffing the Syro-Phoenician woman he implied that she was a dog. (Who is Jesus?: history in perfect tense By Leander E. Keck)
That untold millions of Gentiles have embraced Jesus the Jew who scarcely wanted anything to do with them, is in itself a powerful reflection of the truth found in the Gospels. The authenticity of the Jewish Jesus that has been faithfully preserved in the pages of the New Testament has proved to be a powerful magnet that drew Gentiles in:
Even if one argues that these disparaging references to Gentiles were coined by Christian Jews, it is doubtful that the increasingly gentile churches presented them simply to appease the prejudices of their fellow believing Jews or that they reflect Matthew’s alleged anti-Jewish bias. It is much more likely that they were retained because it was agreed that Jesus might well have said such things and probably did. Evidently there was no contrary memory strong enough to censor such words out of the text. In short, it is altogether likely that Jesus had not one good thing to say about Gentiles as a group. Although Gentiles later were attracted to him through the gospel, he was not attracted to them, nor was he the least interested in attracting them to him.
Distressing though this “underside” of Jesus’ particular Jewishness may be, it must be taken on board by any serious consideration of the perfect tense of the Jew Jesus was. At the same time, since historical reconstruction requires balance and proportion, it should not be overlooked that the gospels do not report that Jesus’ message was marked by a polemic against Gentiles either, as if their non-Jewishness were the problem. Whatever may have been the cultural or psychological roots of his disparaging remarks about Gentiles, they appear as the obverse of his passionate commitment to recovering his people’s true identity as Israel. (Who is Jesus?: history in perfect tense By Leander E. Keck, pp 57-58)
Should anyone be surprised at this? After all, Ephesians 2:12 does describe the spiritually sorry state of Gentiles (not just in the past, but today, here and now as well) and that their only hope is found in the Jewish Messiah of Israel:
“…separated from Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without G-d in the world.”
I don’t think it’s surprising that Jesus had a generally negative attitude about the Gentiles since they stood for everything that was against God. On top of that, Israel was a nation occupied by a hostile Gentile army, so that couldn’t have made we non-Jews seem particularly endearing. Nevertheless, there is this:
The Master’s final instructions to his Jewish disciples was to do the unthinkable. To actually go to the goyim and make disciples out of them. The Bible doesn’t record the reactions of the Jewish disciples, but I can only imagine they must have been absolutely shocked. But apparently, Jesus had this plan in mind for the future of Messianic discipleship all along…or God did, if we understand John 3:16 correctly.
Still, it took 15 years and a vision Peter had on a rooftop, as well as the Roman Centurion Cornelius having his own “miraculous encounter” during prayer, before these instructions began to be carried out. This goes to show how difficult it was to overcome the barrier that stood between the “evangelical directive” of Jesus and his disciples actually beginning to seriously believe God could bring His love and grace to non-Jews.
Yes, we Gentiles were aliens and strangers, but we have been given the opportunity to draw close to God, thanks to the covenant made available to us by the Jewish Messiah, who is King over all humanity.
Gene,
“That untold millions of Gentiles have embraced Jesus the Jew who scarcely wanted anything to do with them, is in itself a powerful reflection of the truth found in the Gospels.”
Saying that Jesus’ ministry to the Jews implies that Jesus scarcely wanted anything to do with the gentiles is like saying that a general who spends all of his time with military personnel implies that he dislikes his civilian countrymen.
“Saying that Jesus’ ministry to the Jews implies that Jesus scarcely wanted anything to do with the gentiles is like saying that a general who spends all of his time with military personnel implies that he dislikes his civilian countrymen.”
Peter, my friend, what a breathtakingly bad analogy!
Let’s see:
Major General Jesus Josephson to his soldiers:
“When addressing the Commander in Chief, do not use meaningless repetition as the civilians do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.”
A civilian woman with a starving daughter came to Major General Jesus Josephson:
“General, help me, my daughter is going to die if she doesn’t eat something” General said in reply, “It is not right to take the rations of my officers and throw it to the dogs, by which I mean my “civilian countrymen”.”
It’s surprising what we learn when we read the Bible for what it actually says rather than what we’ve always thought it says.
“But apparently, Jesus had this plan in mind for the future of Messianic discipleship all along…or God did, if we understand John 3:16 correctly.”
James, true – and Jesus drops strong hints to this here and there, as evidenced by Matthew 8:11 and John 10:16. However, he sticks to his mission (Matthew 15:24), never openly welcoming them, never preaching the message of the Kingdom to them, or going into any detail on the plans to reach out to Gentiles. The task of outreach to the nations, including figuring out HOW to do it, was an assignment left to Jesus’ Jewish disciples.
“It’s surprising what we learn when we read the Bible for what it actually says rather than what we’ve always thought it says.”
Mike, after two millenia of anti-Jewish and anti-Jesus bias are stripped away, it’s quite eye-opening to see Jesus the authentic and devout Jew shine through.
Gene,
Who do you think Yeshua favored more, the arrogant members of the Pharisees or that humble gentile woman? What mattered more, genetics or heart?
Sincerely,
Peter
“Who do you think Yeshua favored more, the arrogant members of the Pharisees or that humble gentile woman? What mattered more, genetics or heart?”
Peter, no doubt that Yeshua made multiple examples when holding up righteous and humble Gentiles by comparing them to those among his own people, to their shame, who didn’t demonstrate the same attributes.
However, with Jesus it’s not about playing favorites based on some superior qualities. Quite simply – Jesus was sent to his own, both good and bad. So, the question about who “Yeshua favored more” is akin to asking who YOU, Peter, would favor as a father – your own child who has disobeyed you and who you hope would become a better son or daughter, or someone else’ kid next door who is sweet and always smiles at you. Jesus cried about Jerusalem – he had many other places on Earth he could have cried about.
Gene,
“the question about who “Yeshua favored more” is akin to asking who YOU, Peter, would favor as a father – your own child who has disobeyed you and who you hope would become a better son or daughter, or someone else’ kid next door”
So it’s your position that Yeshua does not consider the gentile Believers to be His children?
Sincerely,
Peter
“So it’s your position that Yeshua does not consider the gentile Believers to be His children?”
Peter, everyone is technically a child of G-d regardless of who we are and who we worship (Acts 17:28). But that apparently is not enough for G-d. Thankfully, Gentiles through Yeshua become G-d’s children.
At the same time, Jesus had a unique relationship with Israel, a family-type of kinship: “He came unto HIS OWN, and his own received him not.” (John 1:11)
Gene,
“…Gentiles through Yeshua become G-d’s children.”
“…Jesus the Jew who scarcely wanted anything to do with [the gentiles]…”
So they are His children but He doesn’t want anything to do with them and thinks that they are dogs compared to Jews, is that correct?
Sincerely,
Peter
“So they are His children but He doesn’t want anything to do with them and thinks that they are dogs compared to Jews, is that correct?”
Peter, you’ll have pose that question to Jesus on why he acted the way he did and said the things he said, not me. I am just thankful that Jesus was sent to redeem Israel and that G-d, through Jesus, has gifted the spirit of adoption to many Gentiles so that one day we can all sit down around Messiah’s table.
Gene,
Don’t dodge the question. YOU said that Yeshua “scarcely wanted anything to do with [the gentiles].” YOU said that “Gentiles through Yeshua become G-d’s children.” So that means you are already saying that Yeshua doesn’t want anything to do with HIs gentile children, correct?
How about it, audience?
There’s no way around it Gene. Hiding from that particular question only makes you look afraid to face the implications of what you’ve ALREADY asserted.
Cheers,
Peter
“Hiding from that particular question only makes you look afraid to face the implications of what you’ve ALREADY asserted.”
Peter, you really should read my “About” page on the top of the site.
“How about it, audience?”
Yes, let’s hear it from others.
According to Gene, we should all understand that yeshua equated the good Sameritan to the Boogy-Man….
You can take Gene out of the “Galut” but you cannot take the “Galut” out of Gene….OH, well….
Gene’s not hiding or dodging. He’s simply pointing out what the text points out, which is that, for some reason, Yeshua wanted little to do with Gentiles. He rarely had encounters with them. After all, He came for the “lost sheep of Israel.” Why He set up His earthly ministry that way is a mystery.
That actually smarts a twinge to consider. Religious leaders on both sides of the Christian/Jewish spectrum always said “Yeshua was thinking of you on the Cross.”
I’m confident Gentiles mean more to Him than fungible labor in the World to Come, as Ovadia Yosef suggested. To ruminate on that being of love spending any stretch of time not considering the oceans of humanity is actually quite disturbing to me.
Drake,
Do you agree or disagree with Gene’s assertion that Yeshua wants nothing to do with His gentile children?
Sincerely,
Peter
@Drake
I am certain that Messiah had Gentiles in mind when he said “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 8:11)
“Do you agree or disagree with Gene’s assertion that Yeshua wants nothing to do with His gentile children?”
@Peter, it’s wrong to twist someone’s words and I hope you’ll stop doing that. If Jesus doesn’t want (in the present tense, as your question above implies) anything to do with his Father’s children outside of Israel, would he had sent his disciples to make disciples of all nations after his resurrection?
True, Jesus said that he was sent only to Israel – this he made very clear, very explicit. This bothers you to no end. Because this doesn’t sit well with you, it has led you to seek a workaround which you found in your Two-House theology, a system of beliefs which teaches that Gentiles are in fact the ten lost tribes of Israel. This helps you see the “lost sheep of Israel” as encompassing not only Jews but Greeks, Romans, Russian, and Eskimos, etc. But it is wholly unnecessary and ultimately unhealthy for you and others to engage in these fantasies. G-d, after he accomplished through Jesus his immediate mission of sanctifying Israel and atoning for her sins through Messiah’s death and resurrection, has extended its salvitic power to those outside of Israel – just as it was G-d’s plan all along. This was done because G-d blesses the world through Israel. That’s how he operates.
Gene,
“has extended its salvitic power to those outside of Israel”
“its” salvific power was extended? You’re saying that Israel’s salvific power was extended? No, Gene. That’s quite wrong. Yeshua has salvific power, not Israel.
Would you care to revise/rephrase that? Most Believers (Messianics and Christians alike) would consider that line of reasoning to be heretical.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, the heresy hunter, re-read my words again. I understand it’s late and your eyes must be tired.
The “it” in my statement is Jesus’ “mission”. Israel I refer to as “her”, not “it” – in the same sentence, no less! Nice try, though.
However, come to think of it, even if one imagines that I meant to say what you thought I said (which I clearly did not and wasn’t even implying), it still would not be very far off from Jesus’ own words regarding Israel, that is “salvation is from the Jews”. Jesus could say and did say that without hesitation, because G-d operates through Israel.
Gene,
Just explain one thing to me: how did Yeshua go from “scarcely want[ing] anything to do with [the gentiles]” to giving the gentiles a spirit that cries out “Abba!” (Gal 4)? At what point did He change His heart toward these gentiles? Or would you say that it was possible that He always loved them from the beginning of the world?
Sincerely,
Peter
Not sure where Leander Keck goes with all of this, but I would add a few balancing points from the Jesus-is-for-faith-even-gentile-faith side. Consider Luke 4 and Yeshua’s references to Elijah and Elisha’s successes with gentiles. You already mentioned those coming to dine at Abraham’s tale from the east and west. Even Matthew makes much of gentiles in the genealogy. To be fair, I rather suspect the pagan-gentiles talk for Yeshua was natural (as a Galilean who had gentiles nearby in Sepphoris) and for the movement at the time of the gospels reflected enmity between gentile Yeshua-followers and the Roman authorities.
“At what point did He change His heart toward these gentiles? Or would you say that it was possible that He always loved them from the beginning of the world?”
Peter… first of all, I would like to point your attention to what I actually said in my post: “the gospels reflect in Jesus’ own behavior, words and attitude his stance toward Gentiles (as a group, not individuals)“.
“Or would you say that it was possible that He always loved them from the beginning of the world?”
I don’t believe that G-d loves everyone. (Rom. 9:13) – but yes, Jesus certainly loves all those that the Father gave him to disciple, including the Gentiles who have placed their faith in him as the Good News went out to them too.
“Consider Luke 4 and Yeshua’s references to Elijah and Elisha’s successes with gentiles. ”
Derek, good point. There appears to be a pattern of G-d doing something special for individual Gentiles in order to shame / make an example for Israel. Naaman’s story, Luke 7:9 and Matthew 8:10 (and even perhaps Matthew 15:28) are all good examples of that.
Gene,
“Jesus certainly loves all those that the Father gave him to disciple, including the Gentiles who have placed their faith in him as the Good News went out to them too.”
Then how can you contradict yourself and say that He scarcely wanted anything to do with them? Shouldn’t you revise one of those statements so that there is no contradiction?
Sincerely,
Peter
“Then how can you contradict yourself and say that He scarcely wanted anything to do with them? Shouldn’t you revise one of those statements so that there is no contradiction?”
Peter, how many Gentile disciples did Jesus make prior to his death and resurrection?
Also, “scarcely” doesn’t mean the way you’re trying to use it – it doesn’t mean “not at all”. Rather, it means “almost not”. And this is a very important distinction. The “almost not” is very well reflected in the Gospels – Jesus didn’t actively reach out to Gentiles, never went into their homes, never made a sermon to them, never ate with them, healed only a few of their children, but when the circumstances brought a few of them into his path, he didn’t reject them. True to his mission, even those encounters with Gentiles were designed to teach his Jewish audience a powerful lesson about faith and being humble.
“Peter, how many Gentile disciples did Jesus make prior to his death and resurrection?”
How is this relevant? If there is a low number, does that mean that He loved them less? If there is a high number, does that mean He loved them more? Irrelevant. Stop implying that He plays favorites. He is no respecter of persons, Gene.
“Also, “scarcely” doesn’t mean the way you’re trying to use it – it doesn’t mean “not at all”. Rather, it means “almost not”. And this is a very important distinction.”
The way you’re using it is NOT to show that He loved them. Rather, you’re implying the opposite. Because everyone knows that if you love someone enough to die for them (the greatest love possible) then you want to have a close relationship with them. Everyone knows that the phrase “scarcely wanted anything to do with” is not how to convey “He loved His children enough to die for them.” These are two antithetical sentiments. In other words, it’s a glaring contradiction. Yeshua can’t be (A) a father who wanted VERY LITTLE to do with His children AND (B) a father who wanted a CLOSE relationship with His children.
How can you not see the contradiction? Don’t say that it’s all in the text. It’s not in the text. There’s no verse that says “Yeshua wanted very little to do with His gentile children.” That is an INFERENCE that you’ve made (and quite incorrectly as I’ve demonstrated).
Cheers,
Peter
“The way you’re using it is NOT to show that He loved them. Rather, you’re implying the opposite. ”
OK, I told you what I meant by “scarcely” – I would know what I meant / what I implied, considering that it was I who wrote this, not you. Overruled!
“Stop implying that He plays favorites. He is no respecter of persons, Gene.”
G-d doesn’t “play favorites”, Peter – he CHOOSES whom to favor, and he chose Israel.
“I who show favor to whom I will” (Exodus 33-19)
“G-d doesn’t “play favorites”, Peter – he CHOOSES whom to favor, and he chose Israel.”
The idea that He only chose from Israel is in direct conflict with the Prophets and the words of James:
Acts 15:14 “14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name FROM THE GENTILES. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this…”
He CHOSE a people from out of the gentiles to join His people, to be grafted in.
It’s also in conflict with the words of Peter (the apostle):
Acts 10:34-35 “Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but ACCEPTS FROM EVERY ETHNICITY the one who fears him and does what is right.”
So you need to revise your statement from “he CHOOSES whom to favor, and he chose Israel” to “He chooses whom to favor and He chose everyone who fears Him and does what is right, regardless of ethnicity”
Wouldn’t you agree that such a revision is in order?
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, you said: “The idea that He only chose from Israel is in direct conflict with the Prophets and the words of James:”
And yet, just last week YOU argued ad-nauseum that G-d only chooses Israel, “exclusively”. You did this to “prove” to me that because G-d only made the covenant with Israel, that must mean that all those who believe are actually members of lost tribes of Israel, i.e. “Israelites”, whom G-d is returning back to Israel from all the nations, per Two-House theology
Here are your exact words:
“I’ve shown that the Torah (Septuagint version) says that Israel was chosen out of all the “ethne” (gentiles) in the world to be His exclusive people (laon).”
My friend, you seem to be arguing with yourself, one week it’s one set of beliefs and another set next week. Do you expect me to keep track of them all?
In my last comment I also said “He chose a people from out of the gentiles to JOIN His people, to be GRAFTED-IN.”
Gentiles have always been elected to join Israel. It was from of old and it still occurs today. And that is not a contradiction but rather a way of resolving an apparent contradiction. (we’ve already discussed that)
Cheers,
Peter
“In my last comment I also said “He chose a people from out of the gentiles to JOIN His people, to be GRAFTED-IN.””
Peter, yes – only a few comments ago – today! You said many things today. That’s why I pointed out that you’re arguing against yourself, because just last week you argued that G-d is bringing back “Israelites” back to Israel and that Israel is his “exclusive people”.
One must always be mindful that you are arguing from a point of view of a Two-House devotee in order for things you claim to make sense to those of a different persuasion.
Gene,
(1) Here’s my belief: He chose ethnic Israelis and ethnic gentiles to join Israel by looking at their hearts and not at their genes (Rom 2; Eph 2; etc).
(2) Here’s your statement: He chose Israel and only Israel because of genetics.
Your statement fails to account for the inclusion of the gentiles into the family of Israel.
My belief system harmonizes the exclusivity of Israel with the inclusivity of the gentiles by saying that the gentiles can both be (1) elected in their gentile state and (2) elected to join the mishpochah echad known as Israel.
Which view portrays Yeshua as someone who loves the gentiles? Which view attempts to resolve the apparent discrepancy that there could be a people from the gentiles while at the same time Torah says that Israel is the exclusive people out of all the peoples on earth? Which view emphasizes the heart in the same way that Yeshua did?
I’ll leave that to the readers to decide.
Cheers,
Peter
“(2) Here’s your statement: He chose Israel and only Israel because of genetics.”
Now, that’s a ridiculous statement that I have never nor would ever make. Tracing long-lost blood “Israelites” to Gentiles who believe in Jesus is a Two-House belief, not a Jewish one. Judaism has always held that G-d will grant life in the World-to-Come to the righteous among the nations, with no need to become “Israel”.
“Torah says that Israel is the exclusive people out of all the peoples on earth.”
Bible never claims that and I wish you stopped saying that. It was chosen to be G-d’s special possession, no an exclusive “ethnic group” to the exclusion of others. I already showed you that even the nation of Egypt will be called by G-d “My people”.
Gene,
You wrote: “Bible never claims that [Israel is the exclusive people out of all the peoples on earth.”
Deut 14:2 “for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.”
In reference to “He chose Israel and only Israel because of genetics”, you wrote: “Now, that’s a ridiculous statement that I have never nor would ever make.”
But you’ve already said as much:
“he CHOOSES whom to favor, and he chose Israel.”
I then asked you if you wanted to revise that statement to be more in line with Scripture and offered an example of how you might revise it: “He chooses whom to favor and He chose everyone who fears Him and does what is right, regardless of ethnicity”
You didn’t want to revise that statement to include gentiles. You didn’t want to face the truth that G-d chose from out of the gentiles a people that He would in-graft into Israel based on their hearts (and His grace) and not based on physical/genetic criteria.
““He chooses whom to favor and He chose everyone who fears Him and does what is right, regardless of ethnicity”
That’s statement is true – the part that is NOT true is that G-d chooses Israel and the nations for the same purpose and same plans and that everyone is now “Israel”, no matter if one is a Jew or not. That’s called Replacement Theology.
With everyone being Israel, where do all those eschatological references to “the nations” come in?
Mike,
The answer is that the Apostles believed the gentiles were from the House of Israel. Peter and Paul refer to the Hosea prophecy regarding the promised restoration of the House of Israel:
1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Romans 9:23-26
24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”26 and,“In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”
Hosea 1:10-11
“10 “Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘children of the living God.’ 11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will come together; they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.”
Then you have James in Acts 15 taking a passage from Amos regarding the restoration of the House of Israel and applying it to the gentiles.
In conclusion, that’s the way the Apostles would’ve answered your question. They saw the inclusion of the gentiles to be the restoration of the House of Israel (Eze 37).
Cheers,
Peter
Peter,
The term Israel is used only once in the entire Ketuvey Hashlihim where it does not explicitly refer to ethnic Israel. Of course as a follower of Two House theology (vis-à-vis Replacement Theology), you will no doubt refute this, as surreptitiously as all those who hold Replacement Theology do, when interpreting Hosea’s yet to be fulfilled prophecy regarding Israel on yom Yizre’el, as a fulfilled event.
One would do well to follow through Paul’s midrash from Hosea in Romans 9:23-26, to his conclusion of the teaching, in Romans 11:25-33, lest they should be wise in their own self-validation. For if one keeps Paul’s or Peter’s quote of Hosea in its proper context, regarding the nation of Israel and the land of Israel. One would not make the exegetical error of wresting a subtext out of context as a pretext for a proof text, as Replacement and Two House theologians are prone to do, and applying verses clearly meant to convey a message about (or towards) ethnic Israel.
A thorough reading of Hosea will quickly dispel any misinterpretations Two House or Replacement Theologians commonly make. Hosea clearly distinguishes that the people he is referring to as Israel, are the sons of Yacov that he brought up out of the land of Egypt (Hosea 2:15). How confusing this must be to those who hold Replacement or Two House theology? They must do some ethnic acrobatics to make Egyptians part of the Gentile nations and yet part of Israel at the same time. Thus rendering the passage to say that The L-rd brought Israel up out of the land of their fellow Israelites. This form of exegesis is useless for any proper understanding of scripture.
One can clearly see upon reading 1st Peter, that Peter is clearly writing to Jewish believers in 1:1;10, even using the same terminology in chapter 2:6-8, as does Paul in Romans 9:33, to describe their fellow (stumbling) ethnic Israelites, who are both quoting Isaiah 8:14. Both Peter and Paul when referring to non-Jewish people groups make very clear distinction, even when speaking of them within their subgroup of Messianic Judaism, refer to them as Gentiles defining them as those of a different racial ethnicity than Israelites (Romans 11:13 1stPeter 2:12).
Peter, shame on you! To say,
“Then you have James in Acts 15 taking a passage from Amos regarding the restoration of the House of Israel and applying it to the gentiles.”
When James is obviously doing no such thing! Like Hosea, Amos makes a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the other non-Jewish peoples. Even using the same terminology to make it abundantly clear to the reader that Israel are those, “I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt,” (Amos 9:17) while referring to the other nations not only by their racial affiliations but also their specific lands and cities.
I have noticed though Peter when using my e-sword bible application, that all the same scriptures you use to justify that Israel is exegetical nomenclature for Gentile believers in Jesus Christ. Are exactly the same verses the e-sword commentators who hold Replacement Theology use. So I guess you are in appropriate company anyway, if that is any consolation to you.
Double shame Peter! Have you no sense of common decency? To use Gene’s blog as a platform for your Ephramite Error and Two House Theory, by answering questions posted by visitors such as Mike Miller, to Gene’s blog is just downright dishonourable. I have lost a lot of respect for you Peter and consider hijacking another persons blog very gauche, very gauche indeed.
Brad
Brad,
“answering questions posted by visitors such as Mike Miller, to Gene’s blog is just downright dishonourable.”
Considering Mike’s previous stance and considering the line of dialogue leading up to his question, I reasonably concluded that his question was directed at me and gave a sincere answer. How is reason and sincerity to be equated with dishonor?
Brad, it makes you sound a little conceited and dogmatic when you repeatedly say that everything is clear:
“…clearly meant to convey…”
“…clearly distinguishes…”
“One can clearly see…”
“…make very clear distinction…”
“…James is obviously doing no such thing!” [you switched it up a little there]
“…abundantly clear…”
The only thing that is “clear” or “obvious” is that intelligent, rational people can look at the same passages in Scripture and arrive at different conclusions. This does not mean that people are purposefully trying to misinterpret Scripture; it merely means that the endeavor of Scriptural interpretation is a difficult task. I say difficult because things are seldom clear. Things are seldom obvious. Let’s at least be civil and not imply that the other guy is “shameful” to have a different opinion.
If I occasionally cross the line in my discussions with Gene and say something unsporting then for that I am sorry. But I’m not sorry for engaging Gene in dialogue. And I’m certainly not going to apologize for having an opinion. Ever hear the joke about Jews and opinions?
: )
Cheers,
Peter
“Ever hear the joke about Jews and opinions?”
I am of the opinion that Gentiles have far more opinions than Jews. But that just my opinion:)
Peter, you said that “The answer is that the Apostles believed the gentiles were from the House of Israel.”
Saying it like that, you’re implying that all Gentiles, or at the very least, all Gentile believers in Messiah, are/were from the House of Israel. You’d have a very hard time proving that from history or Scripture.
I think that Paul and the other Apostles were clear on two things:
1. The Jews and Gentiles were two distinct people groups (Acts 15, Galatians, Romans 10-12), which is why it was such a shock that the Gentiles were being included in the Kingdom.
2. The Jews and Gentiles had very distinct responsibilities (Acts 15,21; Galatians 5:3).
Mike,
YOU WROTE: “You’d have a very hard time proving that from history or Scripture.”
I just proved it’s what the Apostles believed. I’ll leave it to you to prove the Apostolic beliefs wrong.
YOU ALSO WROTE: “The Jews and Gentiles had very distinct responsibilities (Acts 15,21; Galatians 5:3).”
2 POINTS: I’ll address Gal 5:3 first and then finish by addressing Acts 15:
(1) When you quote Gal 5:3 you really need to cite verse 4 which shows the context. Observe:
“3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
You see Paul wasn’t talking about proper circumcision but only the false doctrine which some were falling prey to which said that circumcision was the way to salvation (i.e. works-based salvation). Don’t feel too bad though because many Bilateralists in the Messianic movement like to take this passage out of context and you’ve probably just picked it up from them without thinking. When you look at the context, you can see that Paul was not prohibiting the gentiles from Torah or ritual circumcision but was only saying that they shouldn’t circumcise themselves thinking that the act of circumcision was going to save them (cross reference this with Acts 15:1).
NEXT:
(2) Check out where the provisions of the Apostolic Decree come from–regulations for natives and for PROSELYTES (SEPTUAGINT–LXX). I’ve cross-referenced them with Leviticus for your convenience:
Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9
Blood Lev. 17:10-12
Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14
Porneia Lev. 18:6-18
This shows that the Council determined that the gentiles were to be bound to the same regulations as the novice proselytes:
“…Luke regards these conditions [of the Apostolic Decree] as rooted in Torah, and that Torah’s own NORMS FOR PROSELYTES…” pg. 267 of Sacra Pagina: The Acts of the Apostles by Luke Johnson
You’ll naturally try to come back by saying that there were TWO issues in Acts 15 and that one of those was whether the gentiles should follow Torah. The text you would attempt to make this argument from would be Acts 15:5. However, the Greek grammar (particularly a periphrastic “te”) confirms what was already stated in Acts 15:2, that there was but one single issue. The Pharisees were arguing that forced circumcision was the proper way to command and keep the Torah of Moses:
“But some Believers from the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying that they must circumcise them in order to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). The New Testament, North Point Press.
OR
Acts 15:5 “But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees having believed, saying, It is right to circumcise them, to command and to keep the law of Moses.” The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, One-Volume Edition, Hendrickson Publishers.
And as further corroboration that there was but one issue, note that Peter’s argument was a direct rebuttal to the opening attack in 15:1. He said that it was by grace the gentiles were being saved (i.e. salvation was by faith not by works). Some like to suggest that Peter wanted to discourage gentiles from following Torah because Peter refers to an “unbearable yoke.” Two things preclude such a reading: (1) Torah itself says that it is not unbearable; (2) the immediate context of the passage shows that Peter is differentiating between grace-based and works-based salvation and so it follows that works-based salvation is the truly unbearable yoke.
In conclusion, these passages do not support the conclusion that there is a different Torah for the uncircumcised (under the New Covenant). On the contrary, Acts 15 actually evidences that the gentiles are a protected class. These gentiles were not to be “harassed” based on their uncircumcised status. Further, they were to continue following the Torah that they’d been learning about in synagogue each Shabbat (Acts 15:21). They were to continue following the normative introductory provisions of Torah that had always been required even of the novice proselytes (Apostolic Decree as borrowed from Leviticus 17 and 18).
Cheers,
Peter
I strongly recommend to you D. Thomas Lancaster’s “The Holy Epistle to the Galatians” available from First Fruits of Zion as well as Torah Club Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles. “Galatians” in particular explains the Gal. 5:3 passage well, as does this article: http://ffoz.org/blogs/2009/09/one_simple_verse.html
The Apostles believed that Gentiles were being included in the Kingdom of God, to their surprise, but they never stated that these Gentiles were Israelites to begin with. That’s a concept that didn’t occur until British Israelism and Two-House theologies began popping up.
There is only one Torah, but it applies differently to different people: to men, women, Levites, cohens, Gentiles, Israelites.
@ Mike… what you say is true. I want to add, that Christianity did (and much of it still does in one way or another) hold that Christians are “spiritual Israelites” and the Church is either the continuation/fulfillment of old Israel or the New Israel – a concept known as Supersessionism. The European/Anglo-Saxon Gentiles as Lost Tribes of Israel (British Israelism / Two-House / Ephraimites / Mormonism) is a much later invention, as you noted.
Mike,
It seems like if those FFOZ guys actually had a response then you would’ve employed it against me. Your attempt to outsource your argument makes it seem like you’ve found yourself in a losing fight and can only defend yourself by referencing your big older brother. I would encourage you to fight your own fights. Don’t just believe something because FFOZ told you. By the way, those guys are afraid to debate me. I’ve offered. They show themselves to be false teachers by acting as if they are accountable to no one. However, true teachers know they are accountable and will humbly go before a council to have their arguments tested before a panel of elders–just like Peter and Paul did in Acts 15.
While you had no rebuttal to my previous response, you did make a last-ditch attempt to discredit Two House doctrine. You wrote:
“That’s a concept that didn’t occur until British Israelism and Two-House theologies began popping up.”
This is called a genetic fallacy. You’re afraid to face the merits of the Two-House argument and so you attempt to discredit the origin of Two House (which I’ve already demonstrated exists completely in Scripture and nowhere else).
@ Gene,
The genetic fallacy also applies to you, Gene. That was a particularly smooth move trying to associate Two House with Mormonism of all things. Wow! But I think when you stretch the genetic fallacy that far it becomes much less effective for your purposes. People can see that you’re getting desperate and unable to attack Two House on the merits.
Cheers,
Peter
“Gene. That was a particularly smooth move trying to associate Two House with Mormonism of all things…..People can see that you’re getting desperate and unable to attack Two House on the merits. ”
Peter, that shows how little you know about Mormonism. Just like the “Ephraimites” of the Two-House movement, Mormons believe that they represent descendants of Ephraim and the Ten Lost Tribes and that Judah is the other house. They go so far as using the term “Two Houses of Israel” when referring to themselves and the Jews. British Israelism and Mormonism have common origins in Ango-saxon Israelism, and so does the Two-House “israelism” theology you hold to. All these “Israelisms” are peas in the same pod. You should really investigate the origins and history of your beliefs.
Oh, one more thing, before I forget – Peter, would you be so kind as to point me to a good well-researched book that deals with the subject of the Two-House theology, especially one that has the beliefs that are most inline with your own? If you can also point me to an authoritative well-cited scholarly paper, I would really appreciate it as well.
Peter, you either don’t read what I write or don’t understand it.
As for deferring to FFOZ, they explain things better than I can. Why not read what they’ve written?
As for everything else, I encourage you to avoid the arrogance that eventually overtakes Two-House proponents–the same arrogance I was guilty of.
Nice conversing with you.
and this is how new branches within religions are formed.
Gene,
“If you can also point me to an authoritative well-cited scholarly paper, I would really appreciate it as well.”
I’ve already cited to THE authority: the Bible. If that didn’t convince you then I doubt a lesser authority would.
Gene, you get the prize for the most fallacies today in a single comment:
(1) the genetic fallacy: as I’ve already explained this is when someone is unable to face the merits of the argument and so they play to the crowd and say that their opponents beliefs come from a bunch of disreputable sources, especially sources that the audience is likely to hate. So you could also say that this includes the fallacy of “appeal to fear.” It’s sheer manipulation.
(2) ad hominem fallacy: when you imply that your opponent is ignorant (e.g. “Peter, that shows how little you know”), it shows that since you’re unable to counter your opponent’s arguments on the merits, you are resorting to attacking the opponent himself out of sheer desperation.
(3) authority fallacy: this is like flat-earthers saying to Columbus “Name ONE scientist that says the earth is round! Can’t do it? Well, case closed, Chris!”
Cheers,
Peter
“As for deferring to FFOZ, they explain things better than I can. Why not read what they’ve written? ”
Actually, Peter defers all the time too, except from him it comes as gobs and gobs of cut and paste in the comments..
Benicho,
Mormonism was formed because one guy said “hey, guys, an angel gave me in the woods and gave me a new Bible! And guess what! It turns out that that other Bible was wrong about everything! We can have all sorts of gods–all of you will be gods! And here’s something else to sweeten the deal: you can have as many women as you want!”
Islam was formed because one guy said “hey, guys, an angel came to me in a cave and gave me a new Bible! And guess what! It turns out that the other Bible was wrong about everything! And here’s something else to sweeten the deal: you can have as many women as you want!”
You get the picture.
I only preach the Bible and I only preach Yeshua.
Cheers,
Peter
“I’ve already cited to THE authority: the Bible. If that didn’t convince you then I doubt a lesser authority would.”
Peter, every Christian religion, denomination and cult cites the Bible as their authority, no matter how wacky their beliefs are.
You can offer no scholarly support for your beliefs, no scholars, no books, no papers – and you even claim not having read the few books that Batya and Angus Wooten, the mother and father of your movement, have put together for their followers.
“Mormonism was formed because one guy said “hey, guys, an angel gave me in ”
Two-House movement you subscribe to was formed when a woman (Batya Wooten) said – “hey guys, we are the lost tribes of Israel!”… and before that, a guy in England said “Hey, my fellow Britons, we are the lost tribes of Israel!”.
Same story repeats itself. You’re fooling yourself, Peter, if you think that you have discovered something special that everyone else missed. The pseudo-Israelism you subscribe to is nothing new.
Gene,
“Peter, every Christian religion, denomination and cult cites the Bible as their authority…”
You forgot to mention that Jews like to cite the Bible as their authority too. You’ll forgive then for my Jewish behavior.
Cheers,
Peter
“You forgot to mention that Jews like to cite the Bible as their authority too. You’ll forgive then for my Jewish behavior.”
@Peter.
Jews have learned scholars, sages, rabbis, professors and authors. You have NOTHING, zilch, efes. Don’t tell me you are practicing “my Jewish behavior” when you offer your own interpretations of the Bible without backing them up by reputable sources and authorities who have investigated and opined on the matter (also, to have “my Jewish behavior” you have to be “Jewish” for that – I’ve already discussed this with you).
well Peter, from reading everything you and Gene discussed about the Messiah in this post I can see you’ve taken it out of context. whether he is right or you are right, in your own mind you should stay true to what you believe regardless of your disagreement. when you try to change someone’s mind on something like this you’re purely catering to your own ego.
also, try not to pit the Messiah against any other follower of the Messiah, it’s evil.
@ benicho,
“also, try not to pit the Messiah against any other follower of the Messiah, it’s evil.”
What are you talking about?
@ Gene,
“Jews have learned scholars, sages, rabbis, professors and authors.”
Yes, I know. They told me my whole life that Yeshua was NOT the Messiah. But those “scholars” are not considered to be authorities OVER the Scripture. So what I said was true: Jews hold Scripture to be their authority.
Cheers,
Peter
this:
“I only preach the Bible and I only preach Yeshua.”
insinuating that Gene doesn’t preach the Bible and Yeshua.
Benicho,
Ah, you misunderstood. I was differentiating myself from Mormonism, not from Gene. Gene and I are brothers (from different mothers). : )
Shalom,
Peter
@benicho….
What’s is flabbergasting and disingenuous about Peter’s “I only preach the Bible and I only preach Yeshua.” is that for his One-Law beliefs he has no qualms citing author after author in support of his views by copying and pasting more text from books and papers that should be legally allowed. But, when it comes to his Two-House theology, he’s mum and defers to “I only preach the Bible”.
Folks, am I the only one who sees through this?
my apologies Peter.
Gene,
Again, I was differentiating myself from Mormonism (which I wouldn’t have to do if you wouldn’t keep making the genetic fallacy). Of course I like to do good scholarly research! But this is different than claiming that there is another Bible (like the Mormons claim). And when I research and I see that there are very few scholarly authorities on a given claim then I do acknowledge that.
I will say that Two House is an interesting doctrine regarding eschatology. I don’t see it as a separate religion or even a separate Theology. And I don’t see all of my beliefs hinging upon Two House. If Two House were totally wrong then I’d still have ample Scriptural evidence to make the case for a desegregated, egalitarian ecclesiology. In fact, Two House can actually be seen as hurting my argument for a desegregated ecclesiology because if we’re all from different tribes then it seems like there would be some merit in differentiating between our tribal identities (i.e. a twelve-lateral ecclesiology. ha!)
Cheers,
Peter
@Gene
i see it a lot in these blogs, I personally don’t understand all the facets of the one-law and two-house takes because I just don’t bother reading those takes. i have too many primary sources to read over dogma driven literature. reading ancient historians, talmud, even apocrypha give you far more understanding of 2000 years ago than reading these modern takes on those primary sources.
this is completely off topic, but a few months ago i was reading Plutarch’s history of a man named Numa Pompilius (the legendary second king of Rome) and thought of you for some reason. Numa was the king who established the “Vatican”, not to be confused with catholicism. anyways he was an interesting pagan in history, and one worth trying to understand because of his deductions on divine things. also worth a look is stoic thought, because it very much resembles the way Yeshua and Paul thought and preached, which i also found very intriguing.
here is an excerpt from Plutarch’s history:
“[Numa] forbade the Romans to represent the deity in the form either of man or of beast. Nor was there among them formerly any image or statue of the Divine Being; during the first one hundred and seventy years they built temples, indeed, and other sacred domes, but placed in them no figure of any kind; persuaded that it is impious to represent things Divine by what is perishable, and that we can have no conception of G-d but by the understanding”
the life of Numa is an interesting read in general, especially how he established peace in Rome for his whole reign.
what i found interesting in stoicism is that the stoics deduced 2 things on their own purely through thinking and without Torah. the first being that the only “good” or “truth” in life is living morally, everything outside of that is vanity (which i find interesting in relation to Shlomo’s writing). the second being that the so-called “gods” could only have been created by one ultimate Gd, as it was illogical to believe that many gods created life itself.
how ’bout that.
@Peter…
“If Two House were totally wrong…”
It is.
“Two House can actually be seen as hurting my argument… ”
It does.
You better stick to “One-Law” theology where you may get that scholarly support, at least for some parts of it – after all, Christianity has been teaching it under a different name (the Law of Christ) via Supersessionism (i.e. the church is the “New Israel” where the differences between Jews and Gentiles are obliterated) for almost two thousand years.
@benicho
Very off topic, but quite fascinating nonetheless. This tells me that it’s possible to get at least a glimpse of G-d and Torah even without having a direct divine revelation (Romans 2:14). Thanks for sharing.
Thought-provoking revisionist article, the poncy picture of the poofta “Jesus” could have been left out thought. What does Yeshu`a look like? No doubt with a beard and forelocks, wearing tefillin and tsitsit. I’m writing this in New Zealand where the “church” and its institutions are currently enjoying an anti-semitic hatefest with vile Stephen Sizer from the UK as the guest of honour.
“the poncy picture of the poofta “Jesus” could have been left out thought. What does Yeshu`a look like? No doubt with a beard and forelocks, wearing tefillin and tsitsit. ”
Thanks for the comment, Wally. About the pic – if you were to turn Yeshua in the pic around and zoom in closer, you’d see all the things you mentioned:)
Sizer – yes, the guy has a bone to pick with Israel. Then again, Christian philosemitism is a recent (post WWII) and relatively limited development and today confined primarily to American evangelicals and a few of their friends abroad.
Ah, petty Jewish tribalism strikes yet again. And I have a feeling no serious discussion will be had because of the Judeo-Christian and various Rabbinical cults that infest the internet. Even though the Old Testament is a Hebraic-centered, there is hints and mentions of God being among the Gentile people. King Cyrus was a monotheistic Zoroastrian who had God’s favor and did His will. The Bible subtly implies the Gentiles would embrace Jesus, while the Edomic-Jews rejects Him with the Magi story. There you have three wise Zoroastrian gentile priests embracing the new born Messiah. Foreshadowing.
Jesus went to the House of Israel due to the fact that true Mosaic Judaism was still alive in His time. He needed to get their fellowship and love before Christianity could become a serious movement. Pharisees had largely perverted and corrupted the Mosaic Faith, which is why we have the heretical Judaism cult that we have today. Anyways, once the Mosaic Jews embraced Christ, they could spread their message to the Gentile people. It is really as simple as that, and attempts to make it more complicated are going against God’s will.
I also am perplexed at the assertion that Jesus was fighting against an “evil Gentile occupation.” I guess that’s a reference to the Romans. For one, calling the Romans evil is simple-minded. They were the most civilized and advanced civilization by far, spreading wisdom, mathematics, science, etc.. across uncivilized parts of the world. And I don’t know what Bible you have been reading, because Jesus cared little about Rome. In fact that is probably the source of why the Pharisees hated Him. They expected Him to be a freedom-fighter and win independence for Judea or at least greater autonomy within Rome. When Jesus showed He couldn’t care less about the Romans, they were furious. And how could He hate Rome? The Romans became one of the earliest people to embrace Him and make the religion powerful.
Also I think there is some awful confusion over the word “Jew.” People don’t understand that ethnicities are a rather new invention. We have to put everything in context at the time. Being a Jew simply either meant you were from the land of Judea or a descendant of the Tribe of Judah. Many Judeans followed true Mosaic Law, many followed the Pharisees, many followed paganism. Jesus was a follower of the Mosaic Faith has perfectly been transformed into the Apostolic Church. Modern day Judaism is nothing more than an anti-Jesus heretical cult. And it’s sad to see so many Christians being duped. For more information on this subject, I would advise looking up David Goldstein. (see here: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=577801.0 )
“Ah, petty Jewish tribalism strikes yet again. And I have a feeling no serious discussion will be had because of the Judeo-Christian and various Rabbinical cults that infest the internet.”
Japeth’s Son, a “serious discussion” might only be prevented because you’ve chosen to initiate this conversation by spewing the same old tired antisemitic/anti-Judaic garbage that has blighted Christianity and condemned millions of Jews to suffering for generations. However, since you included a link to a Catholic resource, I will remind you of the apology issued in 2000 by Pope John Paul II to the Jewish people on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church:
“We’re deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”
One thing that puzzled me in your comment: “I also am perplexed at the assertion that Jesus was fighting against an “evil Gentile occupation.” I guess that’s a reference to the Romans. For one, calling the Romans evil is simple-minded.”
What are you talking about? Where do you see me so much as mention any of the above? You must have been reading some other blog or simply decided to create a straw man to attack!
I also would like to alert readers to the link you’ve included in your nickname – to the American Renaissance magazine, a “racialist” (ahem, racist) and overtly white-supremacist publication.
Well that was all over the place.
Japeth,
I think you’re confused. Gene’s blog is called “Daily Minyan”; not “Daily KKK Rally.”
Peter
Mmmm…such succulent hate from Japheth’s Son. Reminds me of the “salo” Gene posted.
Which reminds me. Gene: Google your name and there is this huge picture of pork lard. Just FYI.
Japheth’s Son – most everything he said, just reverse it, and you’ll get the truth.
Also, thanks for the tip, Drake. Pictures of salo have been removed from the site:)