Two-House built on sand: Apostles did not believe that Gentiles were the “Lost Tribes of Israel”
Outside of the relatively tiny Messianic world most people have never even heard of the Two-House or Ephraimite theology or movement. For those Jews and Christians who hear its ideas for the first time, their reaction is usually a mix of amusement and incredulity. Some, however, become quite intrigued by its amazing premises and promises, and set themselves on a journey of exploration into the fascinating new world promised by the Two-House theology. This theology, in its most popular interpretation, makes a bold claim that most if not all of the Gentiles/Christians who believe in Yeshua (Jesus) are actually flesh and blood Israelites, i.e. literal relatives of the Jewish people and are in fact members of the so called “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”. The draw of this theology becomes apparent as soon one gets deeper into it and so do the reasons behind its relative popularity. Many Christians have come to idealize the Israel of the Bible and want to identify themselves with it in some way. They read their Bibles and its focus on Israel and her future, and they want to personally identify with it. Indeed, today it has become very appealing and desirable to be not just a “Spiritual Israel” of Christianity, but a physical Israel as well. After all, Israel is described in the Bible as “special” and “chosen”, and who does not wants to be special and chosen? This theology has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past few decades, having first appeared in the form of British Israelism back in the 1860s and more recently as the defunct Armstrongism/Worldwide Church of G-d. The proponents of the theology see it as one of their main missions as a movement to reunite Israel (which they identify as Gentiles who lost the knowledge of their identity as Tribes of Israel during the thousands of years of dispersion) with Judah (which they say represent the Jewish people). They insist that not only does the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) fully support their beliefs, but that the Apostolic Writings (New Testament) do so as well. With this in mind, let us turn our attention to the apostles themselves. Did they teach the Ephraimite theology as described by the Two-House movement?
To test these Two-House claims, we will need to check if their version of theology matches that expressed by the apostles:
- Paul, who called himself “an apostle to the Gentiles”, failed to identify the Gentiles believers as the long-lost tribes of Israel at any point during his ministry. Instead of speaking in terms of restoring “two houses of Israel” and bringing the “lost Israelites” back to Torah they supposedly once had, Paul identifies Jews as the “natural branches” while Gentiles are called the “wild branches” (Romans 11:17-21). Paul taught that salvation has come to Gentiles to make Israel (by which he could only mean his own people, the Jews, because it is they who for the most part rejected the Good News) “jealous” (Romans 11:11). If he indeed believed that Gentiles under his care were the “lost tribes”, then he missed a trully great opportunity to use a historical/exegetical argument to prove to his fellow Jews that this is the one of the chief reasons they should accept the Gentiles as their fellow “lost” Israelites, indeed as fellow tribesmen coming back into the fold. Instead, over and over in his writing Paul includes Gentiles into G-d’s family solely by the work done though the sacrifice of Yeshua and not through some supposed reunification of the tribes of Israel.
- Following this pattern, Two House proponents have to contend with Paul’s supposed failure to reinforce Gentiles-as-lost-Israelites “reality” at the “Council of Jerusalem”, where he instead opposed those who wished to force Gentiles to get circumcised or to follow Mosaic Torah in the manner of Jews. In fact, it may have worked against him if he did at any point during his ministry believe or teach that Gentiles are long-lost tribes of Israel. After all, if one is an Israelite, is it not breaking of Torah to not circumcise him at an earliest opportunity? We must remember that the apostle not only claimed to be fully faithful to Torah but also to the traditions of the fathers (Oral Torah). As such, he was by no means averse to circumcising “wayward” Israelites, having previously circumcised Timothy, a son of a Jewish mother who failed to do so.
- Apostle Paul publicly chided apostle Peter for avoiding being seen eating with non-Jews. Again, logic dictates that it would have been a great opportunity to reinforce the message of “all Israel” by showing Peter that he’s been avoiding being seen as fellowshipping not with some foreigners and pagans, but with his own fellow Israelites. Instead, Paul forcefully and publicly confronts Peter for compelling Gentiles to live like Jews (Galatians 2:11-13)!
- The circumcision party, too, missed their chance to use the argument of “Gentiles are lost Israelites” to justify their push for circumcision of all Gentile followers of Yeshua (Acts 15:5). If the Two House theology of viewing believing Gentiles as tribes of Israel was an accepted belief at the time, all they had to do is show that these Gentiles were Israelites like themselves and that as Israelites they too had to obey the clear command of Torah to be circumcised. Instead, it becomes apparent that neither they, nor apostle Paul, nor any of the other apostles ever attempted to use the Two-House argument or anything remotely resembling it.
The available apostolic evidence simply doesn’t lend itself to the claims that the apostles viewed evangelizing and bringing Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, Samaritans, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Scythians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, or any other ethnic group of people to faith in Yeshua as evidence of the restoration of Israel through bringing the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel” back into the fold. It simply has not crossed their minds. This special “revelation” would apparently have to wait until our modern times to be revealed almost exclusively to the English speaking Christians of U.K. and North America.
Actually, I thought FFOZ’s Twelve Gates book did a fine job of resolving the “two-house” issue and at the same time, defining the role of non-Jews as disciples of the Master. I suspect a number of two-house proponents think the book “bashes” them, but actually, it’s extremely even handed.
Google about “soul” and “mazal”. You will find a rabbi’s blog. Then, read the post of July 27th (or every posts that have “Shem” in title, if you have time for it!). It’s all about Shem and the noahides in Torah. Noahide as a “part” of Israel, without being a part of the twelve tribes nor being so called “converts”. Also, those noahides have been exiled with the lost tribes. Maybe that’s where the confusion begin about the “two houses” theology.
“Noahide as a “part” of Israel, without being a part of the twelve tribes nor being so called “converts”. Also, those noahides have been exiled with the lost tribes. Maybe that’s where the confusion begin about the “two houses” theology.”
Neah, Yiska … it is far more mundane than that. It was started with 1) Romanticized myth of the Ten Lost Tribes. 2) A few Brits really wanted their monarchs to have a Davidic kingly connection. 3) They let their imagination run wild and concocted Anglo-Saxons as Israelites “history”.
James, I agree FFOZ’s Twelve Gates is a good starting book for those searching for a healthier, balanced Gentile identity and relationship with Israel.
“Paul, who called himself “an apostle to the Gentiles”, failed to identify the Gentiles believers as the long-lost tribes of Israel at any point during his ministry.”
Wrong. He identified them in Romans 9:23-26.
“Following this pattern, Two House proponents have to contend with Paul’s supposed failure to reinforce Gentiles-as-lost-Israelites “reality” at the “Council of Jerusalem”, where he instead opposed those who wished to force Gentiles to get circumcised or to follow Mosaic Torah in the manner of Jews.”
Wrong. Acts 15:3, 19 says that the gentiles were converts [epistrepho=teshuvah]. Jews associated immersion in mikveh with conversion (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11) and taking on the full obligation of Torah.
Here’s a few scholars if you don’t believe me:
” [tois apo ton ethnon epistrephousin epi ton theon] [those among the Gentiles who are turning to God] could be said by a Jew of Gentile converts to Judaism; to a Jewish Christian the Christian conversion of Gentiles must have had to a considerable extent the same appearance. Gentiles were turning from whatever heathen gods they had previously worshipped to the God of the OT, the God of the Jews. It was this fact that gave strength to the requirement that they should behave like converts to Judaism, that is, should be circumcised and thereafter keep the Law. [epistrephousin--which is teshuvah or turning] could be used to describe what was required of Jews (3.19). [Acts 3:19 says "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"]” pg. 728 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles by C.K. Barrett
The term…(epistrophe) refers to a change of thinking, a ‘turn’ in orientation, and so a conversion; this is the noun form of the verb…(epistrepho, turn). It is the only place the noun is used in the NT, although the verb is frequent in Acts (3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27).” pg. 495 of Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament by Darrell L. Bock
“Teshuva, a different definition of one’s identity, can change one’s whole world…” pg. 415 of Change & Renewal by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz
Shalom,
Peter
“Wrong”.
Peter, Ango-Saxons have nothing to do with Israel, no matter how hard you may wish this wasn’t so.
Also, this is not a One-Law discussion or a discussion about former pagans embracing the G-d of Israel. Instead, this is a discussion about whether or not the apostles viewed the Gentiles they ministered to as Lost Tribes of Israel rejoining their fellow Israelites, specifically. As I hinted to in this post, the apostles should have waited a few thousands years to learn about this “mystery” from John Wilson, one of the founders of British Israelism. Face the facts, my friend. Even a cursory study of the development of the Two House ideology will show that.
I proofread the book Twelve Gates and did the cover art. I was surprised at how even-handed and gentle Boaz was. He was very careful not to mischaracterize them or stretch or add to their own beliefs. So often when we disagree with others, it’s easy to describe them in hyperbole and toss in some loopy ideas that they may not believe just for good measure. Boaz avoided that temptation.
Drake… true, Boaz is a gentle soul overall, and FFOZ did a great job putting together that book (and I loved the cover, too!)
While the Two House theology comes in a number of flavors, they all have many things in common and all of them point to a common origin in British Israelism, at least to anyone who cares to do just a bit of research. Also, I am focusing on its more popular interpretations.
Interesting that Paul’s appeal to the Gentiles is that if they converted to Judaism (i.e., circumcision and being yoked to Torah rather than Yeshua) it would create the false teaching that God was only the God of Jews and NOT of Gentiles too. Rom 3:29-31.
In light of those who oppose Genes blog today, you’d expect Paul to be saying –since he doesn’t want to nullify the Torah of God but to establish it (vs 31) –
“Hey, all you Gentiles aren’t really Gentiles at all, you’re the “10 lost tribes” being re-gatherd! How awesome is that? Gods word is true! Be sure to establish Gds Torah by getting yourself circumcised like I had Timmothy do…”
(problem is, Paul himself knew he was from the tribe of Benjamin, which was a “lost tribe” too)
Oh, but this discussion does pertain to the Law. The Torah constitutes the terms of the covenant (Jeremiah 34:18, etc).
And the evidence I presented was so sound that you didn’t even bother to refute it.
lrw79,
You belong to UMJC, yes? Perhaps you should call a professional for back up. You could call Michael Rudolph or David Rudolph (any Rudolph will do). I’ll even take a Kinzer.
Let’s see if any of those guys can refute the ol’ two punch combo: Scripture and Logic.
I joke but, man, would that be fun…
I know, Peter, and the debate between you and any UMJC theologian should be televised live so that the whole world can witness you destroy their weak arguments verse by verse, quote by quote, logic by untouchable logic…
Gene,
I’d prefer if it’s pre-recorded. ; )
Peter,
I don’t know you so I’m not sure how to interpret your remark, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and not take offense.
However, I don’t “belong” to UMJC, I’m simply a gentile who is in love with God and Messiah and so utterly grateful that He expanded His kingdom to include me! I’m mostly Irish, and am simply struck at how, although He didn’t choose “all” of the Irish, He did choose me; and how He didn’t even choose “all” of my family, but again, He did choose me.
I don’t need to pretend to be Jewish or one of the supposedly “lost tribes” (which is provably false based on the scripture itself) because without Jews (physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) 1.God would be a liar (God forbid!) 2. there’s no one for all of the future prophecies to “land” on” which will bring blessings to ALL. Additionally, if gentile believers are really the “lost” tribes, then scripture make no sense at all.
The existence of the Jewish people is an essential component testifying to the existence of the God of the bible, revealing Himself as the God of Israel and of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This distinction is critical to Him, it must have meaning.
Their chosen-ness doesn’t diminish mine just as your maleness doesn’t diminish my femaleness, instead it reveals distinction, and it’s beautiful. I oppose your theology on this issue because it’s not defendable from scripture, not because of UMJC or sweet men like Boaz or Mark Kinzer. (the only ones I’ve had the pleasure of meeting in your list) oppose it as well.
Peter, our statement that “the evidence I presented was so sound that you didn’t even bother to refute it” is simply not true.
As for me, I did not respond because I have seen your online discussions and do not believe that I have any more wisdom to refute you than those who’ve already tried. I’m only responding now because your comment seems to imply that Gene, etc., do not want to address your arguments because they know them to be sound and are not interested in the truth.
Concerning your use of Barrett and R. Steinsaltz to support your position
You use scholarly quotes to support an argument that the scholars themselves would not support . But you give readers who are not familiar with their work the impression that they do support your position on the Lost Tribes.
Barrett’s commentary on Acts:
“[Gentiles who are turning to God] could be said by a Jew of Gentile converts to Judaism; to a Jewish Christian the Christian conversion of Gentiles must have had to a considerable extent the same appearance. Gentiles were turning from whatever heathen gods they had previously worshipped to the God of the OT, the God of the Jews. It was this fact that gave strength to the requirement that they should behave like converts to Judaism, that is, should be circumcised and thereafter keep the Law.”
But Barrett is explaining the position of those who opposed the apostles. The apostles rejected the argument that Gentiles who turn to God “should behave like converts to Judaism, that is, should be circumscribed and thereafter keep the Law.” While I’m sure that Barrett knows that the 10 Tribes were (mostly) lost, nothing he says here or elsewhere supports the notion that Gentile believers are the Lost Tribes.
R. Steinsaltz:
Your use of R. Steinsaltz on “teshuva” is totally out of tune with his work.R. Steinsaltz would not recognize repentance and trust in Yeshua as true “teshuva.” Likewise, he does not support the notion that converts to Yeshua are, or become, members of the Lost Tribes.
So, you quoted two scholars who do not support your ideology as if the do support it. I want to be clear, though, that I’m not accusing you of deception or dishonesty – clearly you believe what you write and are unaware of your misuse of quotes. I can only hope that you will give those who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt about their motives.
Oy – I meant, “Peter, your statement . . .”
Just to throw another monkey wrench into the machine, in reading the “Twelve Gates” book from FFOZ (I reviewed it on my blog if you want a more detailed assessment of its content), Boaz is of the opinion (I don’t have the book in front of me, so I can’t reference his sources) that the so-called “lost ten tribes” aren’t particularly lost at all. That is, there isn’t a group of human beings representing those tribes who are intermarried and blended in to the Gentile world population wandering around out there in the 21st century. The “Twelve Gates” book asserts that the “lost ten tribes” did eventually return to the Land and intermarried with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, eventually losing their tribal distinction. Ultimately, this means that the modern day Jewish people are the full inheritors of the Sinai covenant and that they really do represent the descendants of all of the ten tribes of Israel.
I don’t know how well that jibes with established and legitimate Jewish scholarship on the various passages of scripture discussing the return of Israel to the Land when the Messiah comes back, but it certainly provides a more elegant solution than imagining that God will identify each (apparent) non-Jew who has a tiny fraction of one percent of “Ephraimite” DNA and transport them to their assigned farm in the Negev.
Sorry, but if you want to know more, you’ll have to get a hold of a copy of the book.
Paul knew he was a Benjamite and Anna was from tribe of Ashur. Are there others?
Carl,
There’s a difference between blog comments and a scholarly book or article. I for one have no idea how to footnote everything I’m saying in the comment section of Gene’s blog. But my other point is I don’t need the scholars to agree with EVERYTHING that I believe. I don’t need them to accept my conclusion. That’s not how scholarship operates. David Rudolph is a fine scholar and noted up front in his book (A Jew to the Jews) that, and I’m paraphrasing, there was very little in Christian academia to support the conclusions that David was drawing. He was not embarrassed that his goal was to upset the consensus view. I am also not the least bit embarrassed that I am setting about to destabilize the consensus view of a passage of Scripture (Acts 15).
1rw79,
A single Jew from a Lost Tribe does not a quorum make. Get serious. Also, read Ezekiel 37. Reunification has NOT happened yet. Only happens during eschaton.
Peter,
If Paul knew he was from the tribe of Benjamin obviously he wasn’t a lone Jew, he must have had parents and grandparents for him to know this information, factor in his siblings, aunts and uncles and cousins and you are far from a “single” Jew.
Do you ever admit your wrong?
Peter, you wrote, “Acts 15:3, 19 says that the gentiles were converts [epistrepho=teshuvah]. Jews associated immersion in mikveh with conversion (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11) and taking on the full obligation of Torah.
Here’s a few scholars if you don’t believe me . . .
The issue is not blog vs. scholarly work but misleading statements However unintentionally, you give the seriously misleading impression that the scholars you quote support your contention that in Acts 15, gentiles who convert take on the full obligation of Torah. However, none of the three scholars agree with your ideology: Barrett and Bock assert that gentiles do not take on full obligation to Torah and R. Steinsaltz would not recognize them as true converts whose identity has changed.
And won’t you give the rest of us the benefit of the doubt about our motivations? I, for one, have no intention of discussing other matters with you until we get these issues ironed out – it is more important to me that we treat each other with respect than to win an argument.
1rw79,
Benjamin is House of Judah. This isn’t really disputed. The Lost Tribes are House of Israel. Have you studied this topic before?
Carl,
As far as the sources you mentioned, those were intended to be construed narrowly to the context at hand: the meaning of epistrepho. Trust me, when you read the book there will be no shortage of clarification as to the narrowness of the distinction that I’m drawing. As for blog comments, we’ll have to agree to dialogue in order to resolve any miscommunications.
Sound fair?
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, whole theologies don’t rest on hagling over meaning of individual words, finding this or that “authoritative” source that has the exact translation you favor the most and one that you think somehow validates your entire belief system. It’s tiresome and unimpressive when you have to do that to support your theology. This has been your favorite tactic so far. You should look into some different approach. If you tried this stuff in a live debate, you would get booed.
Peter,
You keep changing your tune! First: “A single Jew from a Lost Tribe does not a quorum make. Get serious.”
Anna was from the tribe of Ashur and the same would be true of her; she wouldn’t know she was, much less Luke know it, if it was just her, a “single” Jew without any parents, grandparents etc…
Hi Peter,
I only responded to you in the first place because of your claim that “the evidence I presented was so sound that you didn’t even bother to refute it.” I was concerned that you seemed to be implying that those who disagree with you are intentionally ignoring your sound evidence simply because it refutes our point of view!
I hope you are able to see that you can’t possibly know why we didn’t bother to refute you.
and that making a claim like that is simply wrong.
Then I showed that even if you consider your evidence to be sound, I don’t. I chose the part of your comment that related to the interpretation of Acts 15 because it is misleading (however intentionally); you could and should have mentioned that the three scholars you cite to support your argument would actually disagree with it.
Can you at least say now that you will try to avoid this mistake in the future?
All the best,
Carl
“the evidence I presented was so sound that you didn’t even bother to refute it”
Peter, it does make you sound pompous, my friend. At least you didn’t say that your evidence was “irrefutable”, but you sure came close.
Peter, lrw79 asked (above) if you ever admit when you’re wrong. I think it’s a fair question. And please don’t tell me you’re never wrong. If you’re human, you make mistakes and have biases, just like any other person.
Carl,
Do you know what a topic sentence is? The topic sentence of the paragraph in question read: “Acts 15:3,19 says that the gentiles were converts [epistrepho=teshuvah].” The topic sentence contained the premise epistrepho=teshuvah. I then supported this narrow premise with on-point scholarship specifically tailored to my narrow premise. I made no broader claim than that. You, however, claim that I did make a broader claim–that I was claiming that all scholars cited agreed with my entire Theology. Yet you are unable to cite to any evidence that I made such a bizarre claim. Would you care to cite to evidence or admit your mistake if you find no such evidence?
Gene,
Your assertion that I based my Theology on single terms is thoroughly disproven here:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/08/ffoz-and-divine-invitation-part-ii.html
James,
Silly questions are beneath you. Don’t let 1rw79 drag you down to his/her level. Aquila non capit muscas.
Shalom,
Peter
Thanks, Peter. You’ve just answered my question. I hope you and whatever you keep needing to fill your world with will be very happy together. Let me know when you figure out what the word ‘humility’ means.
Bye.
James,
Your zeal to impugn my character is a rather transparent attempt to promote the agenda FFOZ. You think that by accusing me of having bad character without any sort of proof (i.e. implying that I’ve stated that I am inerrant which I’ve said no such thing) you will achieve your goal of impugning my character? Think again. Baseless accusations only make you look desperate.
The same goes for Carl. Carl was attempting to make me look deceitful by accusing me of making a ridiculously broad claim. But I caught him red-handed and exposed his technique. I’ve done my homework: I’ve studied deception in order to identify and expose deception when I see it.
Here’s a suggestion: try addressing the substantive points that I’ve raised. Stop promoting hidden agendas for a moment and consider the Scriptural evidence that’s being presented.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter,
As I said before I don’t know you however, I have to ask you, given the way you treat others:
Is being a “mere gentile” a deal breaker for you? If you weren’t to be counted as Israel via the “lost tribe” doctrine, would you walk away from God?
Is your motivation to understand HIM more deeply and worship HIM more fully?
1rw79,
Your mistake is to assume that I view Two House as a salvific doctrine as opposed to merely an eschatological one. The truth is that I believe one is saved by grace through faith. I believe that a gentile participates in Pesach and Shavuot, the events which created Israel. Yeshua is THE Passover Lamb. The Ruach, the immerser of Shavuot, inscribes the requirements of Torah in the heart.
Bilateral ecclesiology is racist. It has no place in the body. The organizations and people that promote racist ideologies should be confronted. Now, I wouldn’t presume to tell you that you are doing it intentionally and ask you silly questions like “what is your motivation?” I know your motivation is pure. The problem is that you haven’t connected the dots. To attack my assertion that the Body should be desegregated shows that you believe in having a segregated body, separating Jews and gentiles based on class and function, encouraging the Jews to follow Torah whilst excluding gentiles from following their Father’s Torah.
Gene, I think FFOZ blogger (and noteworthy scholar in his own right) Jacob Fronczak hit the nail on the head in his latest blog on why we believers in the west seem to need everyone to be the same: http://ffoz.org/blogs/2012/08/projection.html
“Bilateral ecclesiology is racist. It has no place in the body. The organizations and people that promote racist ideologies should be confronted. ”
Peter, consider this a warning – I will not tolerate this level of slander on my blog. The fact that both Jews in general and those who hold to a version of “Bilateral ecclesiology” in the Messianic Jewish world and Christian world not only span many races and ethnicities themselves but also accept converts from all races and ethnicities proves you as grossly wrong.
Peter,
I didn’t “assume” or “attack” you about anything Peter.
I do not see anything wrong with being a gentile and I don’t see support for your claim in the bible, but people can differ! However, you vilify anyone who disagrees with you.
James is a very kind and sweet man who didn’t deserve your treatment of him.
Carl was very gracious in his gentle rebuke of how you misused the scholars you quoted.
You seem to be so defensive and unable to allow that a. You could be wrong, and b. others have the right to disagree with you and that doesn’t mean they are “attacking” you or impugning your character. Your meanness and rudeness is what impugnes you Peter, but I bet all those here who’ve felt the lashes of your tongue would be willing to forgive…
Just be nice…
James is a very kind and sweet man who didn’t deserve your treatment of him.
Thanks, Irw79. :-)
“Gene, I think FFOZ blogger (and noteworthy scholar in his own right) Jacob Fronczak hit the nail on the head in his latest blog on why we believers in the west seem to need everyone to be the same: http://ffoz.org/blogs/2012/08/projection.html”
James, yes – a very well-written article by Jacob Fronczak.
James,
Well, it’s true! :-)
1rw79,
Re: “Your meanness and rudeness is what impugnes you Peter…”
There are times when it is permissible to aggressively confront a fellow Jew in public:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/08/rambam-on-events-of-galatians-2.html
“There are times when it is permissible to aggressively confront a fellow Jew in public:”
Peter, you are not Jewish (I thought we went over this already), and yet, this has nothing to do with being a Jew or what is permissible to a Jew. However, what is sadder is that you didn’t deny or apologize for being “mean and rude”, but tried to justify it.
Gene, there are some people I’ll probably have to stop talking to on the Internet (no, not you..you’re great) because there is no hope of conducting a reasonable set of transactions with them as the Master would expect from us. But being who I am, I decided I needed to write about it. Sorry if this is way off your original topic, but it otherwise seems incredibly appropriate.
In the world of blogospheres and social networking, we are guaranteed to run into at least a few really annoying people who won’t back off. For most people, it’s just a matter of telling them who you think they are and where you think they should go and that’s that. But if you are a person of faith, if you have been taught to treat everyone with respect, no matter who they are or where they come from, how do you handle it? Do you really think Jesus said we’re supposed to be doormats, scratching posts, and punching bags (verbally and otherwise)? If we aren’t supposed to return “evil for evil” and we aren’t supposed to be doormats, how can we deal with the Internet “nudnik” (pest) and still keep our composure and dignity? Find out in today’s “extra meditation.”
From my Facebook introduction to Blessing the Nudnik. I probably botched the references to the Daf, but it’s my best effort to remind everyone, especially me, that no matter how difficult another person is, God loves them as much as He loves the rest of us.
James, seeing Peter’s behavior on here actually made me reflect on your earlier blog where you quoted:
“Only when a person has peace of mind can he really feel love for humanity. Lack of peace of mind leads to animosity towards others. Peace of mind leads to love.
Only if a person has peace of mind will he be able to pass the test of dealing properly with other people. He will be able to [be] kindhearted to everyone. His peace of mind will enable him to tolerate others and be patient with them.”
This is true…
Gene, I’m not sure if this is bloggishly appropriate, I hope I’m not committing a “no-no” by referring to an others blog.
I’ve been posting links to my different blog post here for a few days now.I don’t suppose Gene will mind you making mention of it. ;-)
Shalom all. (not to Peter). I was hopping that comments on this post will go in very good “order”, but we see him again. Peter.
“Only when a person has peace of mind can he really feel love for humanity. Lack of peace of mind leads to animosity towards others. Peace of mind leads to love.”
This is so true. This very special Peace of mind and body. But not about this man. I will call him Peter the Gentile. Is there any peace there in his mind? No. He probably will come to Australia to kill me for it. But he is only but Peter the Gentile. There is other Gentile believers like in this Blog and I’m thoroughly enjoying your company and much thanksfull to my G-d for you. May G-d of Israel be with you and bless you James, Irw79, and others that I don’t know. But then there is this another one much troubled. I’m working in mental health sector and this person remind me some of my clients. Peter have no peace of mind and no peace of body.
What kind of husband and father this man is?
How sad that people like this one can easy destroy good works and drag everyone else into endless, sick “disputes”
In all, this sound probably harsh. G-d loves Peter? Yes. Not up to me to talk on this matters. Do I love Peter? Yes. I try very hard. But then this my comment is an observation. How sad. I stop reading comments because of it.
And Gene. Thank you very much for your work.
Eli,
“May G-d of Israel be with you and bless you James, Irw79, and others that I don’t know.”
Thank you Eli! God bless you too… :-)
Lrw79,
You’re blessing Eli for his lashon hara in implying that I’m a bad husband and father and that I have murderous tendencies? Seriously?
Eli,
Any time you’re in the States, feel free to visit me and my family. I have a wonderful family. I’m very proud of my lovely wife and my amazing daughter (who is an absolute angel).
Shalom,
Peter
Peter,
“Seriously”, believe it or not, my returning his blessing had nothing to do with you Peter.
And by far the most over the top, out of bounds statements and accusations and “lashon hara” have come from you.
OK, time to concentrate on the topic and not on personal stuff.
“There are times when it is permissible to aggressively confront a fellow Jew in public:”
Peter, should you not rephrase that based on your own eschatology as “another Israelite in public?”
Just sayin…
Paul did not have a revelation of the “church age,” so his not mentioning the “two houses” would not be a criteria for the validity of such.
“Paul did not have a revelation of the “church age,”
@joan cassidy.. what is a “church age”? It’s a Dispensationalist term, an artificial division of history. On the contrary, Paul was quite aware that there will be a period of time when Gentiles will become followers of Messiah, while Jews would reject him, temporarily:
“Just as you [Gentiles] who were at one time disobedient to G-d have now received mercy as a result of their [Jewish] disobedience, so they [Jews] too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of G-d’s mercy to you.” (Romans 11:30-32)
Do you mean to say “Church age” to mean that Christianity is deeply flawed, not of G-d and that Paul did not foresee all the bad things that will happen in the name of Messiah? Let me ask you this – how did most of the Hebrew Root folks who today criticize the Church as pagan have come to faith in Yeshua if not through Christianity? Of course, Paul even foresaw the Gentile believers will seek to exalt themselves above Israel, after seeing the downtrodden state of the Jewish people. That’s why he left Christians with this stern warning:
“Do not boast over those [Jewish] branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.”Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.” (Romans 11:18-20)