One-Law Gentile has a change of heart
During the last Messianic Jewish Conference in Maryland I had a chance to meet and talk to many interesting people. Some of my conversations stood out more than others. During one of the conference days, Boaz Michael of FFOZ asked me if I wanted to come along and meet with three One-Law proponents (who will remain anonymous). The three friends wanted to discuss the merits of their One-Law theology, having just attended Boaz’ lecture on One-Law and Supersessionism. While I regularly talk to many One-Law folks through my blog or through email, the circles I am part of rarely grant me an opportunity to sit down and talk to them in person. So, naturally, I said yes.
During our intense but very cordial conversation with them, Boaz expounded on many of the points he addressed earlier in his lecture, and answered many of their questions and objections. I, in turn, offered my own insights on the subject, having studied and written extensively on the topic of One-Law and Gentile relationship to Torah. We reasoned with them, with both passion and respect. After a lot of back and forth, we could see that two of our three One-Law debaters were struck to the heart (while the third one held to his deeply set understanding, conceding a point here or there). That is, they came to the realization just how wrong and harmful, even if well meaning, their One-Law approach to Torah has been, especially how it affected their relationship with the Jewish people and Judaism. Frankly, this was quite amazing to me, as this was not the result that I expected, having been jaded by my often antagonistic encounters with One-Law promoters on the internet.
A week or two after the conference, one of our conversation participants, a bright man in his twenties, having remembered my name, searched for me online and came across my blog. He sent me an email, part of which I present below.
Dear Gene, if I’m not mistaken, I believe we met during the Messianic Jewish Conference here in Maryland. We had a conversation with a few of my friends and Boaz Michael over ignorant gentiles not observing Torah properly.
I am starving for a deeper knowledge of Torah. I used to believe that all of the Torah applied to everyone, even a gentile as myself. Then I started coming to a conclusion that the Torah is applied to different people differently, and then our conversation during the conference helped confirm my suspicions.
I’m still learning my place as a gentile, or “God-fearer” as FFOZ has put it. I no longer wish to find the outward signs of Torah to wear and show everyone my “enlightenment”. I want to first and foremost put Torah in my heart, to honor G-d in the secret places before I even think about wearing the Tzitzit.
But I don’t know where to start…. Please help me. I’m begging for wisdom.
What an amazing transformation in understanding and what a contrite heart! Having already seen it first hand a number of times, I’ve come to believe that many One-Law Gentile believers will indeed come, with time, patience, grace and education, to similar conclusions. I want to encourage them to view being Gentiles (which simply means people from the nations) in a healthy light. It’s not a second class designation. There’s no second class in G-d’s Kingdom! Every single one of us was created with a clear purpose in mind, a building block in the Temple that is the Messiah. Neither is being a Jew a guarantee either of G-d’s favor or salvation. In fact, we are always first to be judged and disciplined, and the discipline we Jews receive is often extremely severe. You don’t have to be “Israel” to be loved and cherished by G-d as His beloved child, and you don’t have to live as a Jew to love and obey G-d.
NOTE: Are you a former One-Law (and/or Two-House) believer? If so, I would like to hear from you. Please email me with your story at jewishthoughts@gmail.com. You have my word that your identity, if you so choose, will remain completely confidential. I will publish your story only with your permission.
Gene. Excellent observation and so true. I have, one after another, the same experience with One Law people. True, with patience and education we may see more transformations of the heart. On a personal note, I’m glad I’m not alone in such a situation. How many long hours spend in such a talks and already we have results. Glad to hear about your experience.
Thanks, Eli. If we don’t lose heart, we’ll see much fruit for the Kingdom. People can and do change, although that’s not true in every case.
Former “one-law gentile” here. Tell your friend he’s not alone. Also, tell him that technically, we’re not “God-fearers.” My understanding (and I use Cornelius in Acts 10 as my example) is that God-fearers were/are Gentiles who recognize that the God of Israel is the God of all and who worship Him, but they are outside a covenant relationship with God. As disciples of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, we non-Jews are afforded the opportunity to enter into covenant relationship with God and be equal in God’s love with the Jews, thanks to certain provisions in the Abrahamic and New Covenants. Look at the shift in Cornelius and his household when they accept the Spirit and Peter recognizes that even we non-Jews can enter into covenant with God without converting to Judaism and accepting the full yoke of Torah.
Change is hard but not impossible. The level of personal integrity it requires to enable such a paradigm shift is enormous. I’m not saying that many One Law people lack integrity. I’m saying it takes a lot of effort and the ability to admit error when you change any long-held personal belief, especially a belief attached to your faith.
I’m available if this person (or anyone else) wants my perspective on how all this works from a non-Jewish point of view.
James, I am sure that you’ve have inspired many by your story. I also remember your own transformation and I know that it didn’t come easy. I recall our clashes, even though you were always cordial even back then.
“Also, tell him that technically, we’re not “God-fearers.”
Well, “technically”, we all are or should be!
You know what I mean. ;-)
Gene,
As usual, your post is worth reading! What a blessing to see such humility. I never quite understand when a person is UNwilling to examine scripture to challenge their beliefs, as if God is somehow ultimatly bound to “perform” for them, or that if they think something, it automatically must be correct.
As a NT professor told the class once: ״beware if your theology never changes” meaning that as we grow in the Lord and mature, have more experiences with Him, and engage in more study, one’s theology SHOULD change and mature too. I applaud the young man you speak of and I’m grateful for you (and Boaz) to take the time to invest in these people.
I’m particularity interested in this subject as God has put me in the midst of some folks who are very open to seeing the bible and their (Christian) faith from a Hebraic mindset. They׳ve gone through some material already but I’m noticing one individule who seems to be somewhat arrogant against seeing it from that perspective (not extremely, at least outwardly) and yet declared that he wants to begin laying Tefilin. Others seem very enomoured of kashrut issues etc. I’m perplexed because I watch them go from varying degrees of arrogance to crises regarding this issue and I don’t want to lead them into this One Law craziness.
It sure takes a lot of patience.
Gene,
Even the G-d-fearers like Cornelius kept Torah BEFORE being inducted into the New Covenant:
“The most commonly identified characteristic of God-fearers in ancient sources are Sabbath-keeping and the observance of food laws and Jewish holidays. Stegemann’s social history of the first-century Christianity notes the following: ‘God-fearers attend the synagogue on the sabbath and also hold to Jewish prayer customs (Acts 10:2)…” Are Christians the ‘Aliens Who Live in Your Midst’? Torah and the Origins of Christian Ethics in Acts 10-15 by John Perry
If they obeyed even OUTSIDE the covenant, how much more would they have obeyed once INSIDE the covenant?
And, lest we all forget, the New Covenant contains the same Torah as the Old Israeli Covenant. It was re-established because Israel broke the covenant (Jer. 31). If gentiles under the Old Covenant could be brought into covenant through participation in a feast of a lamb, how much more can they be brought into covenant through participation in THE Feast of the Lamb (Yeshua)?
The Prophet Joel said that this would happen on the New Covenant Shavuot (Shavuot meaning “covenantal oaths”) that the Ruach would be poured out on even the goyim. Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2 on the day of Shavuot (the day of the giving of the Torah). Why would the gentiles be included in the day commemorating the giving of the Torah? Should they be included in order to be excluded? No! They were included that they might follow the Torah even more!
The G-d-fearer was outside the covenant and, hence, an alien. But in the New Covenant the gentiles are no longer “alienated from citizenship in Israel” ( “apallotrioo politeia Israel”) as it says in Ephesians 2. They have more rights/duties now–not less!
How could the New Covenant define citizenship in Israel and offer it to even the gentiles? Because the New Covenant INCLUDES the Israeli Covenant. It doesn’t abolish the Old Covenant; it builds upon the Old Covenant.
James (the commentator/blogger) likes to say the gentiles are in the Abrahamic and New Covenants. He leaves out the Israeli Covenant. But you can’t leave out the Israeli Covenant. Without the Israeli Covenant, there would be no New Covenant! : )
Ancient Rome classified its citizens in various ways. So did Israeli. It classified even according to race. But citizenship under the New Covenant is not classified according to race. The New Covenant is RACE-NEUTRAL. Citizenship in the New Covenant OF ISRAEL is RACE-NEUTRAL. This means that gentiles can be citizens in the New Covenant of Israel by spiritual birth, a birth that is as effective as physical birth was to a child born into the Old Covenant.
But groups like FFOZ and UMJC don’t accept this idea of race-neutrality in the New Covenant of Israel. Whereas One Law promotes a racially-egalitarian Messianic Judaism, FFOZ and UMJC (and our friend Gene) promote a racially-classed Messianic Judaism. The racial classification needs to stop now.
When you send those gentiles back into communities that preach against the Torah (i.e. the predominant Christian stance), it reverses the progress they’ve made (unless they are exceptionally strong and able to resist the antinomian teachings in church).
They’ve just begun to eat meat and you send them back for milk mixed with junk food. What a pity.
Shalom,
Peter
Well said Peter, if that gentile who was easily persuaded is reading this blog, consider Peter’s comment, before you fall any farther backwards.
It’s the ugly and ironic legacy of antisemitism and Supercessionism that to many people around the world and for many One Law folks being a Jew, a minority historically persecuted and murdered like no other, means being a “racist”. For a Jew to have his own movement, it is “racist” to some of these folks. “Zionism is racism” Jewish enemies around the world scream a the top of their lungs. “Messianic Judaism is racism” says Peter and others of the same mindset. For a Jew to worship in his own synagogue, it’s also “racism” and “exclusivism”. For a Jew to want to marry another Jew, it’s “racism”. For a Jew to have his own country where Jews can live as Jews without being at the whim of others, it’s “racism” and one that many in our world want to stamp out.
I am not going to wring my hands every time someone has this ugly attitude toward the Jewish people. THAT attitude itself is prejudice that must be confronted.
The whole “Judaism is racism” thing is what I was trying to address in my Equality Puzzle series. There are “entitlement” aspects to the One Law position where a sense of absolute equality is to be forced upon the intent and covenants of God as He made them with the Children of Israel. It’s an interesting application of “political correctness” in the religious realm. Why can’t we just take God at His word (or His Word) and believe that the Jewish people are a unique and splendorous treasure in His sight?
Everyone,
Gene has resorted to calling me an anti-semite and supersessionist. This is called an “ad hominem attack” and in rhetoric it’s known as the attack of last resort. He didn’t have any response to the substance of what I said because the substance of my argument is Scripture. Note how many references to Scripture were in my comment as compared to Gene’s comment to me.
By the way, I run a pro-Zionist blog for those who don’t know. For any doubting this, see my recent post about Yoni Netanyahu. I’m working tirelessly to build Israeli morale right now in our hour of crisis. I’ve also linked to the churches campaigning right now for Americans to support Israel. See the link to Grove Ave. Baptist Church live broadcasts (archived) which just this past Sunday featured an international day of prayer in support of Israel. I was there that day supporting Israel, praying for Israel, encouraging others to support Israel.
Always an engaging topic, very interesting conversion you noted Gene.
“I want to first and foremost put Torah in my heart, to honor G-d in the secret places before I even think about wearing the Tzitzit.”
I found that admission very telling; the humility in such a statement is worth being noted.
It’s that kind of attitude (humility) that needs be essential to any and all wanting to learn the ways of The Lord. In fact, I have always believed that lowliness and an honest heart are the most important characteristics of a man after G-d’s heart.
He seems to be on the right track there.
Nate
Nate:
“It’s that kind of attitude (humility) that needs be essential to any and all wanting to learn the ways of The Lord. In fact, I have always believed that lowliness and an honest heart are the most important characteristics of a man after G-d’s heart”
I agree with you, instead of being demanding of our “rights” I prefer to have the attitude that I’ll take whatever crumbs fall from the table. There’s no place for arrogance or demanding anything because His gifts and salvation isn’t “fair” at all. We don’t deserve a thing…
Blessings!
Oops, sorry, that should be “aren’t” fair.
Gene,
Again, thank you for your measured, gracious, and intelligent remarks.
It’s impossible for me to read a blog post like this and not respond. It’s even more difficult for me to read opposition to a topic of such importance and not react. In my case, to react is to write. We Christians are not to take the Torah from the Jews or claim co-ownership of the Jewish identity. I firmly believe that the mission we have been given by God is to restore Israel by supporting and encouraging Jewish obedience to the mitzvot.
That belief in writing is today’s “extra meditation,” Returning the Torah.
James:
“I firmly believe that the mission we have been given by God is to restore Israel by supporting and encouraging Jewish obedience to the mitzvot”
YES, YES, YES! And AMEN!
We who are the called and blessed of the nations have a LOT of work to do– and because of deeply entrenched rancor on both sides, it will take much love, patience, grace, and commitment, but it IS our calling, and our HONOR do do so…
Or, as one of my favorite young commentators said last Shavuot, when we fulfill this specific mission from God, we become “the crown jewels of the nations.” The tragedy is that, by thinking we have to “jockey for position” and compete for the Torah against Jews, and particularly Messianic Jews, we completely miss the boat as far as this mission is concerned. I think even Sesame Street teaches about cooperation across different distinct groups as we all proceed toward a common global goal. The Jewish and non-Jewish disciples of Messiah need to do the same.
Interesting thoughts all around. It seems fair to conclude that the new covenant, while “race-neutral,” is not nationality neutral, and that the commonwealth of Israel is itself multinational. There are some covenantal responsibilities for the nation of Israel which are not put upon other nations in the commonwealth, such as the responsibility of circumcision. This does not mean unequal blessings or freedoms in Messiah between circumcised and uncircumcised.
Matt, well said.
Good report. It was a pleasure to have shared the conversation with you. As you know our conversation was not destructive, but rather constructive. Our goal was not to dissuade anyone from pursuing God through their zeal of Torah, their desire to reflect their devotion to our Jewish Messiah, etc. We simply encouraged balance and proper application of the Torah with sensitivities towards the Jewish people and kindness towards other Christians. We helped these great guys see how one who loves the mitzvoth can actually harm or diminish them if not applied properly, or in haste. The beauty of this particular conversation is that they loved the Torah and respected the commandments enough to respond positively.
A careful reading of the response above shows that he simply is putting things in proper order. They heard from us affirmation and encouragement, which resulted in on-going constructive dialog.
Matt,
Nationality is a political concept referring to citizenry. You would say a man carrying Irish citizenship is of the Irish nation, yes? Likewise, you’d agree that a man carrying American citizenship is of the American nation, yes? So if you agree that citizenship determines nationality then you’d have to agree that there’s no such thing as plural “nations” in the eschatological sense. There is but one citizenship (Eph 2)—and only one level of citizenship–and therefore only one nation.
Boaz,
To be sensitive to Orthodox Jews you would need to publicly reject the belief that Yeshua is G-d:
“They will ban you from the synagogue; indeed, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will suppose that he is serving God,” (John 16:2).
We should “walk in His paths” (Isaiah 2) REGARDLESS of what the synagogue thinks. The fact that Boaz and Gene say that gentile practice should be determined based on what is acceptable to non-Messianic Jews should tell everyone here that their teaching is not of G-d.
Thank you, Boaz. You are correct – the thrust of the conversation was not to dissuade Gentiles from studying and obeying Torah precepts applicable to them. Not at all. In fact, anyone who has ever read FFOZ materials knows the overwhelming emphasis they put on teaching Torah to the Gentiles, both those in Hebrew Roots/messianic circles and in churches.
What was addressed, however, among other things, was the prevailing undercurrent of Supersessionism, the general attitude of entitlement to Torah and all things Jewish/Israel, anti-rabbinism, the misuse of Jewish sancta, i.e. things that today are so prevalent among many of those those involved in Hebrew Roots.
Chiming in here, I’m having a sort of parallel conversation on my own blog post (which was written in response to comments made here yesterday) that addresses identical issues. Seems like this is getting to be a “hot topic” (or re-heated, at any rate).
God is doing an amazing work amongst the Nations–He is opening the eyes of the Nations to their connection to and partnership with Israel. It is a beautiful thing to be a part of–I think each of us play a part in this restoration, I am blessed to serve on some level with each of you. Gene, you mentioned our resources, but if you do not mind, I would like to post a link to our vision, mission, and values that birth our resources. FFOZ Mission: http://ffoz.org/info/about.html
Daily I am engaged with Gentiles that are seeking a to reconnect to their roots–the early foundations of their faith. Yesterday, I had lunch with a pastor who leads what he calls a, “Learning Congregation.” I am encouraged daily with my engagement with Christians that are humbly reassessing their paradigms.
Everyone,
Boaz says that you are like the heretic Korach if you question the Mosaic authority of the Rabbis:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/08/ffoz-says-you-are-no-better-than-korach.html
This is how he scared those former One Law guys into reverting to racially-classed M.J. He tells the gentiles they are heretics on par with Korach if they go against the Rabbis. So they got scared and gave in. Good ol’ scare tactics.
But guess what, folks? If you believe Yeshua is G-d then you’ve already gone against the “Mosaic” authority of the Rabbis. You want you should be a more acceptable heretic to them? A more pleasing apostate?
Peter, with your angry, vitriolic way I doubt you will persuade any undecideds reading this blog – who will take you seriously? I also already warned you against race-baiting / painting Jews as racists on this blog. It will not be tolerated.
R” Russ Resnik (Executive Director of the UMJC) gave a warm and gracious blurb on the back of our new book, “God-Fearers: Gentiles & The God of Israel.” He states,
“The role of Gentiles within the Messianic Jewish community has been a source of controversy and discord for years. In God-Fearers, Toby Janicki provides information, insight, and wisdom that can transform this discord into fruitful dialogue. God-Fearers will help Gentiles enter into the riches of Torah in ways that support a genuinely Jewish movement for Messiah Yeshua.”
Many people try to paint the Messianic Jewish movement as exclusivist—but that is 100% false. Messianic Judaism can be a special place for Gentiles that desire to connect with the God of Israel and the Jewish people in a unique way. At the same time authentic Messianic Judaism recognizes the good work of the Church and affirms the church as part of God’s majestic plan.
As well, FFOZ recognizes the need for Gentiles to connect into, deeply, authentically, the Messianic Jewish movement. While at the same time affirming the unique roll of the church and God’s work amongst Gentiles that choose not to participate in Messianic Judaism.
What’s difficult about these debates is that they seem to create the illusion that Judaism (Messianic and otherwise) is trying to take something away from the Christians who are part of the One Law or Hebrew Roots movement. But as Boaz has pointed out and as I’ve been trying to talk about on my own blog (see the link I posted in my previous comment above), it’s about the fabulous, interrelated roles that believing Jews and Gentiles have together that are not identical, but that are interconnected and completely complementary to each other.
If we could just look past the surface issues and get down into what I believe is the real mission of Christianity and our relationship with the Jewish people, I think we’d find something a lot more exciting and fulfilling than what we traditionally debate about.
@James. Excellent.
The prophets envisioned an eschatological scenario in which Gentiles, members of the nations, join together with Israel and worship the God of Israel together—yet retaining their distinctive roles. This prophetic vision requires both Jew and Gentile to apprehend and live out their unique role and calling.
R. Kendall Soulen wrote:
“Apart from Israel, Gentiles would not exist. Upon consideration, this is not hyperbolic speech but a sober statement of theological reality. A Gentile is by definition a non-Jew. At a semantic level, therefore, there could be no Gentiles without Jews. This linguistic reality points to a more basic theological truth. The Lord’s election of Israel is a situation-creating reality that determines the existence and identity not only of Israel, but also of the rest of human creation. Gentile identity is a category of covenant history just as certainly and irrevocably as is Jewish identity. To be a Gentile means to be the other of Israel and as such a full participant in a single economy of mutual blessing anchored in God’s carnal election of the Jewish people.”
The original role and calling of the non-Jewish Christian, then, is a member of the nations who cleaves to the Messiah of Israel and participates in God’s blessings along with the Jewish people, as part of the commonwealth of Israel.
Ex 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.Nu 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
Nu 15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
FFOZ is trying to increase their marketshare and appeal to more Christians and not offend the Jews so they have changed to this position.They can sell the concept of two law to more people. This will appeal to more Christians if they feel they don’t have to keep God’s law.This also allows them to become more rabbinical in their teachings which leads down the wrong path as well.
(the above was not written by me but by a well respected teacher of the Word)
@Peter, I want to thank you for backing your arguments with scripture completely. I am sorry that you have been accused of speaking evil or vitriolic against Israel I have read no such thing. In fact I note a man of true conviction and with integrity. some of you here speak of “transformation of the heart” if we follow Two Law., this is a sad way of judging the heart as I recall its by our fruits we will be known. I came to Torah by hearing the voice of G-d calling me to go back to Moses and the giving of Torah. Whilst as a Christian I always prayed for Israel, I never wanted to be jewish nor do I even now. I wanted to be obedient and follow after My Saviour. I have/am looking/ed at both One Law and Two Law proponents and I’m sorry to say that Two Law doesnt not hold much water there are way too many scriptures left hanging, I may be stoned for this in this blog but I’m trusting Mr Shlomovic to be a man that can handle such an opinion specially, since I have read as much as material as I possibly can and in the end, it will be I that has to answer for myself and the choices I make. I have also abserved the character of the people who hold to Two law and I have seen as much as “agenda” that the christians are accused of for holding to One law. So maybe it is an issue of the “heart” after all and not necessarily scripture.
Anonymous…
I hope that in trying to prove that Torah didn’t differentiate between Israelites and foreigners/soujoirners living among them, you will not forget this very special verse that cuts down the One Law argument in one fell swoop:
I quoted the above verse to show to you that you are using an old, obsolete argument, Anonymous. Many of your fellow One Law promoters have already moved on and today no longer even insist on using the verses you cited to prove that the sojourners had to observe to the exact same civil AND ceremonial laws as the Israelites. Instead, they use the “upgraded” argument that the Gentile believers in Messiah have become Isrealites and therefore have become obligated to the same Torah laws as Jews. That argument, however, is also anti-scriptural (please note that I do not use the word unscriptural), as it completely twists and directly contradicts what the Holy Spirit and the Apostles directed to Gentile believers in Acts 15:
Could it not be more clear that Jews and Gentiles do not have the exact same set of Torah obligations? Now, One Law proponents are quick to come back with this oft repeated line (if I had a dime for each time I heard it said): does it mean, then, that Gentiles can now murder and steal, since those requirements are not specifically mentioned?
That’s a very weak retort, as it ignores whole tracks of scripture and common sense. This is because even before G-d gave Torah to Israel, all the people of the earth already had moral requirements of Torah written by G-d on their very hearts. Every Gentile on earth already knew that it was wrong to murder and that it was wrong to steal:
And of course, the Roman law, to which all first Gentile believers were subject, already punished murderers (by death) and thieves (by flogging and repayment). To restate the obvious would be pointless.
“FFOZ is trying to increase their marketshare and appeal to more Christians and not offend the Jews so they have changed to this position.They can sell the concept of two law to more people. This will appeal to more Christians if they feel they don’t have to keep God’s law.This also allows them to become more rabbinical in their teachings which leads down the wrong path as well. (the above was not written by me but by a well respected teacher of the Word)”
Anonymous… what a cynical, slanderous and grossly unfair thing to say. If that “teacher of the Word” is as “well respected” as you claim, it is really beneath him. If you want to be in the business of citing “respected teachers”, you better reveal who they are.
Anonymous said, “FFOZ is trying to increase their marketshare and appeal to more Christians and not offend the Jews so they have changed to this position.They can sell the concept of two law to more people. This will appeal to more Christians if they feel they don’t have to keep God’s law.This also allows them to become more rabbinical in their teachings which leads down the wrong path as well.
(the above was not written by me but by a well respected teacher of the Word) “
Spoken like a person making an assumption with little or no real data. Actually, FFOZ lost a great deal of income as a result of changing their theological stance and moving away from the One Law position. If they wanted to make money, they’d have kept their mouths shut, regardless of what they actually believed, and continued to market One Law to Christians such as yourself. In fact, FFOZ’s change is one of the factors that made me question my own (previous) One Law beliefs. I couldn’t understand why they’d shoot themselves in the foot financially…unless they had (and continue to have) more compelling priorities than even economic survival as a ministry.
In their case, after much studying of scripture and prayer, they realized that their support of One Law was not sustainable, and they made the extremely difficult decision to change their course and acknowledge Jewish and Gentile distinction within the body of Messiah (and remember while the body is one, not all of the parts are identical in form or function).
Very few companies, profit or non-profit, would have acted with such integrity upon realizing that they’d made a mistake. They knew they’d take severe criticism for their decision and lose many customers. They proceeded forward anyway because that’s what you do if you love God and take His commandments seriously.
Anonymous, whoever your equally anonymous “well respected teacher of the Word” may be, he or she couldn’t be more wrong.
FFOZ went into our change with the full expectation that we would be devastated financially. We had to lay-off staff and others (including myself) started looking for other employment options. We would have never allowed the doors of FFOZ to shut, but if I had to throw boxes on the back of a UPS truck all night to provide for my family and then be able to perform my FFOZ responsibilities during the day—that is what I would have done. In fact, we all would have done it.
Thank God FFOZ was sustained. I like to think it was a miracle of God.
Perhaps there is another way to view this. Maybe the ones who were alarmists, exaggerated our positions, or spread slanderous gossip where the ones trying to profit? Was there a scramble of teachers, ministries, etc. that were trying to pick up all of the disenfranchised FFOZ supporters? What kind of teacher would use a platform to share slanderous information about another ministry—what where they trying to gain?
Gene,
I’ve already addressed Deuteronomy 14:21 on Derek’s blog. Here’s my comment:
“…note that ger is here translated as “paroikos” here rather than as “proselyte.” The LXX translated ger as “proselyte” when the passage indicates that the ger (sojourner) has covenanted with Israel and is thus bound by Torah in the same way as a citizen; it translated ger as paroikos when the gentile in question had no covenantal affiliation with Israel. Since it’s translated as “paroikos” here, we know that Deuteronomy 14:21 is referring to non-covenanted gentiles.”
So Deuteronomy 14:21 supports One Law. It shows that there was indeed one law for all members of the covenant. “Paroikos” does not refer to members of the covenant. For those IN the covenant, the polity of Israel was a community of one law:
“…hakahal chukah achat…” (Numbers 15:15).
Nice try though.
“So Deuteronomy 14:21 supports One Law.”
And black is white, up is down.
Gene,
I thoroughly demonstrated how Deuteronomy 14:21 can not be construed as referring to a covenanted member of Israel. Why don’t you just admit that I’m right? Why fight against something which is plainly true? Is there any error in my exegesis? Your sole rebuttal is going to be sarcasm?
Peter, your whole argument is based on your (mistaken) belief that Gentiles who’ve come to believe in Messiah legally become de-facto Jews (Jewish”proselytes or “Israelites”, the term you prefer to use), obligated to Torah in the same way as Jews. You desperately try to support this weak argument by relying on conflicting dictionary definitions of various Greek words. Does this word here mean “convert”, does another word mean “turn to”, does it mean “proselyte”, etc…ad nauseum. However, once your whole theology becomes depended on a dictionary, you’ve already lost.
I agree Gene. No one can create a credible theology based on one or two words taken from isolated passages of the Bible as they’re translated from ancient Hebrew and Greek into English. The Bible is a collection of narratives, poems, proverbs, and tales that, from my personal viewpoint, work much like Chasidic tales, imparting different views of God’s relationship with human beings in order to teach us different aspects of that relationship. Some of the Bible is written in the form of ancient treaties, but that’s probably more for the convenience of the human beings of that era in which that part of the Torah was written so the people involved (Jews) could comprehend what God was saying, not because God actually “thinks” in those terms and is locked in to our human interpretation of them. That’s why we study the Bible all our lives to try and enrich our connection with God. It’s not a novel that you can shoot through in a couple of days or a legal document written last week pursuant to a local court case.
Peter,
No matter what word you like, there’s no way to support your claim regarding the Apostles themselves. Do you suppose you know better than they? If you’re correct we’d see this in the NT and yet what we see is Paul saying that people –Jew and Gentile — should stay what they are when they are called, in other words: “hey you guys, get a GRIP! God has already covenanted with you Jews, so don’t remove your marks of circumcision as there is much advantage in every way, and He has already revealed that you Gentiles are acceptable to Him. Peter and James have agreed and DECREED that you all have full access to God THROUGH Yeshua Messiah.
This teaching could not make any sense if all the Gentiles now became Jews obligated in the same exact way to Torah, nor would it make any sense if these Gentiles really were the 10 lost tribes of Israel being regathered in. Where do the apostles teach and marvel at this supposed reality?
I wish that the energy you put into your demands would be spent on feeding, clothing and comforting Yeshua’s brethren instead of demanding equal status. We gentile believers have a beautiful and important task that gets ignored while focused on identity. You’d be a powerful force if your energy was dedicated to it.
[race-baiting comment removed by Administrator]
Gene,
An early outline for the One Law argument is here:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/08/ffoz-and-divine-invitation-part-ii.html
Best prove that גֵּר (GER) and also its translation in the LXX (Septuagint) προσήλυτος (PROSELUTOS) just meant sojourner and not a proselyte in the books of Mosheh we get from Shemoth, Bo 12:48: “And when a גֵּר / προσήλυτος stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to HASHEM, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.”. So we see clearly in this passage that such person was called גֵּר / προσήλυτος – sojourner before being circumcised, which implies גֵּר / προσήλυτος – sojourner did not have the meaning of a convert, and also was such sojourner not obliged to offer up the Pessach for himself, even when living in Eretz Yisrael, only when wanted to keep it.
b”h
@Anonymous
“Ex 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.Nu 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. Nu 15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.”
One thing is very clear in Hebrew (and clear enough in English) – the application of these three commandments is to be determined by Israel, not the sojourners. It is Israel who is commanded by Hashem to make sure the גרים (gerim) dwelling in their midst obey the Torah. Conversely, Hashem is not commanding far-flung gentiles to start observing Israel’s unique Torah. Israel is obligated to regulate and ensure the conduct of non-Israelites who dwell in their midst.
@Shmuel haLevi…
Great points and welcome to the blog and thank you for your well-thought-out contribution to the discussion.
One Law proponents would have us believe that any foreigner who lived among Israelites was automatically bound by all of precepts of Torah that a Jew was responsible for, even without having to first swear to take on all the commandments or undergo circumcision.
As I already noted earlier, some OL folks, realizing that one can’t wrest “One Law” from Deuteronomy, have switched to this workaround: “under the New Covenant the Gentile believers become Israelites, therefore are obligated to Torah in the exact same manner as Jews”.
Of course, to claim that believing Gentiles do not remain Gentiles but become Israelites requires even more imagination and outright jettisoning of scripture.
“Israel is obligated to regulate and ensure the conduct of non-Israelites who dwell in their midst.”
benkeshet – indeed! One Law theology, by the very nature of its core tenets, has an antagonistic relationship with both Messianic Jews and those they would call “rabbinic Jews”, since both groups regard the theology as an affront to both Judaism and what it means to be a Jew.
Shmuel,
“Ger” is not always translated the same way in the Septuagint. And, in the Septuagint, “proselyte” always means full convert. I encourage you to read some academic articles about this subject because it gets even more complex when you take the different phraseologies of “ger” into account. The basic point to remember is that Deut. 14:21 can’t be used in the way Gene tries to twist it.
benkeshet,
Re: “Hashem is not commanding far-flung gentiles to start observing Israel’s unique Torah”
Every convert in history became part of Israel. How much more now under the New Covenant? Yes, it surprised everyone that the uncircumcised would be included in Israel despite not having gone through certain rituals. But they had been accepted by the Ruach and so no one could prevent them from immersion in a mikveh (something only permitted to converts). See Acts 10.
Peter the Apostle explains in Acts 15 that it’s the Ruach who has accepted the gentiles into the covenanted people (“A people for his name”) and so it’s not for any man (or even all of Israel) to prohibit their acceptance. And if you doubt that Peter saw the gentiles as Israel then read the following from 1 Peter:
“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.”
Gene rejects that this was written to gentiles because this annihilates his argument. But the proof that 1 Peter was written to gentiles is manifold:
-the “futile way of life handed down by your forefathers” can’t refer to Jews
-”once not a people” can’t refer to Jews
-”3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you” This passage says that the readers were pagans living a pagan lifestyle and talks about how the pagans (gentiles) will be surprised that the readers (ex-pagans) are living out a Torah-lifestyle. Why would pagans be surprised that Jews would keep Torah? So this is obviously written to gentiles.
In conclusion, Peter the Apostle saw the gentiles as covenanted and identified them as Israel: “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession.” These terms only apply to Israel.
Shalom,
Peter
” The basic point to remember is that Deut. 14:21 can’t be used in the way Gene tries to twist it.”
Peter, I don’t need to twist anything – there were two types of sojourners in the Torah – ones who converted to Judaism (through circumcision, and most likely mikvah and sacrifices) and thus were fully obligated to Torah, and ones who did not convert and were only obligated to certain things as required to live among Israelites (this explains why they were permitted to eat meat that wasn’t slaughtered in a kosher manner). Two types/
The first type are what we call “converts” today. New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Gentile believers are not converts to Judaism in that sense and therefore are not bound by the full ‘strength” of prohibitions and obligations of converts.
The apostles went to great lengths to explain it in the way that couldn’t be twisted to mean the complete opposite of what they actually directed to the Gentiles – that is NO full Torah obligation in the same manner as Jews was required of them. One Law theology blatantly nullifies the decision of the Holy Spirit and the apostles.
And of course, most Gentiles believers are not sojourners among the Jews.
Gene,
Re: “Peter, I don’t need to twist anything – there were two types of sojourners in the Torah – ones who converted to Judaism (through circumcision, and most likely mikvah and sacrifices) and thus were fully obligated to Torah, and ones who did not convert and were only obligated to certain things as required to live among Israelites (this explains why they were permitted to eat meat that wasn’t slaughtered in a kosher manner). Two types/”
There were two classes of gentiles: those covenanted (proselytes) and those not covenanted (paroikos). Ephesians 2:19 says that the gentiles are no longer “paroikos”. Yet you use Deuteronomy 14:21 to define current gentiles in the New Covenant! This is twisting Scripture!
Not only does Paul refute your assertion that the gentiles are paroikos (non-covenanted) but he states explicitly that they are citizens in Israel (politeia).
Two classes of gentiles? Yes! Paroikos and politeia. Just like before. The only difference now is that the gentiles can become politeia just like native-born Jews under the Old Covenant—just by being born into the family (even without circumcision). There’s your precedent: you have a Jewish father (i.e. earthly Jewish father) and they also have a Jewish father (Yeshua).
I will repeat what you ignored:
“The apostles went to great lengths to explain it in the way that couldn’t be twisted to mean the complete opposite of what they actually directed to the Gentiles – that is NO full Torah obligation in the same manner as Jews was required of them. One Law theology blatantly nullifies the decision of the Holy Spirit and the apostles.”
Also..
“they also have a Jewish father (Yeshua).”
That’s a rather odd belief, Peter. Perhaps that’s what causing some of your theologies to be so skewed. Since when did Yeshua become a “father”?
“Yeshua said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my G-d and your G-d.’” (John 20:17)
Gene,
Do you believe in the Trinity? If one believes in the Trinity then what I said isn’t strange at all but simply logical.
Peter, actually your belief appears to be ANTI-Triniterian, and more akin to Oneness Pentacostal theology, that is they likewise claim that Jesus is the Father [and Jesus is the Spirit]. Look it up!
Gene,
Is that a “yes” or a “no”?
As a Jew, I do not speak about the relationship between G-d (and His Spirit) and Messiah in terms of “Trinity”. I just do not. I think that some parts of the doctrine make sense [and very much Jewish] while other parts get out of bounds of historic Judaism. Because of that, I think that this relationship is far too complex to be put in the neat classic “trinity” box as early Gentile Christians tried to do.
However, as I noted to you, your belief that Jesus is the Father is right from the Oneness Pentacostal theology. Which means that, oddly enough, while claiming to believe in Trinity, you reject it!
Gene, I can see that you’re having a “Monday” on your blog. As the concept of building up rather than tearing down has been on my mind lately, I thought I’d offer a brief word of encouragement. Blessings.
Gene,
Have you not read 1 Corinthians 15? It says that Yeshua is like “Adam.” So just as “Adam” was our father, Yeshua has become a spiritual type of father. This isn’t Pentacostalism; this is just Scripture.
And thank you for clarifying that you reject the doctrine of the Trinity as being “out of bounds of historic Judaism.” This will explain to people where you’re coming from.
If Yeshua is not G-d (non-trinitarianism) then the gentiles don’t become family. But if Yeshua is G-d (and also an Israelite) then as the gentiles become sons of G-d (and therefore Yeshua) they become part of Israel.
So your position on the Trinity (which is heterodox) leads inevitably to an ecclesiology that is not unified. If He is not echad, then His people will not be echad. But One Law believes in the Trinity and therefore the oneness of the Body of Believers.
Shalom,
Peter
James,
I take you reject the doctrine of the Trinity as well?
Peter, I wasn’t talking to you and my comment had nothing to do with the content of this conversation, only the attitude contained within the transaction. You’ve made two assumptions about me so far in a single sentence. For the sake of my own sense of peace, I have no intention of continuing to address you. Good-bye.
James,
If I asked a question then it’s specifically because I didn’t want to make an assumption about you. Shouldn’t you be glad that I asked?
Peter: “Do you believe in the Trinity? If one believes in the Trinity then what I said isn’t strange at all but simply logical”
As a lifelong Christian I can tell you there’s nothing close to “logical” about saying Jesus is our Father. He prays to the Father, tells his disciples to pray to the Father, says he submits to the Father and testifies about the Father, but he NEVER refers to himself as the Father.
Additionally no mainstream Christian denomination teaches this. Wherever you picked that one up is a mystery to me but considering your stance on Israel and Jews I suppose it does make some sense.
As Gene pointed out, the nature and relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit is far too complex to fit into a trinity doctrine which I believe was created as the best effort of certain folks to try to describe that complex relationship. However, it always seems to reduce the nature and relationship too much for me.
“And thank you for clarifying that you reject the doctrine of the Trinity as being “out of bounds of historic Judaism.” This will explain to people where you’re coming from. ”
Peter, what part of “I think that some parts of the [Trinity] doctrine make sense [and very much Jewish] while other parts get out of bounds of historic Judaism” don’t you understand??
“One Law believes in the Trinity and therefore the oneness of the Body of Believers.”
Peter, you speak of “One Law” as if has some sort of defined theology or any sort structure.
“It says that Yeshua is like “Adam.”
OK, let’s run with this analogy. Adam, as everyone knows, is the father of many (actually all, in his case) nations, just like Abraham is. Which means that even if I were to use your claim that Yeshua (a Jew) is somehow a “father”, this would still not make his Gentiles “children” into Jews (i.e. Israelites, to use your vernacular), no more than Abraham’s children are all “Jews/Israelites”.
Peter: “If Yeshua is not G-d (non-trinitarianism) then the gentiles don’t become family. But if Yeshua is G-d (and also an Israelite) then as the gentiles become sons of G-d (and therefore Yeshua) they become part of Israel”
Whoa, slow down Bucko.
I believe in Yeshua’s Divine nature and in no way call him Father. That heretical from an orthodox Christian perspective. Sorry Charlie.
Additionally, I know I’ve become a chosen one of God as you quoted from 1Peter above, but that doesn’t make me one of the “lost” tribes either.
Peter,
““Ger” is not always translated the same way in the Septuagint. And, in the Septuagint, “proselyte” always means full convert. I encourage you to read some academic articles about this subject because it gets even more complex when you take the different phraseologies of “ger” into account. The basic point to remember is that Deut. 14:21 can’t be used in the way Gene tries to twist it.”
Well Peter, in my quote from Exodus 12 it was clear that it was on the contrary; “And when a גֵּר (GER) / προσήλυτος (PROSELUTOS) stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to HASHEM, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it”. I’m sorry, but this really is the LXX, and it states clearly that if this “proselutos” wants to slaughter a Pessach lamb and eat it, he should first circumcise. Well, if he was a FULL convert, as you claim such one to be, because he is already called a ger / proselutos. Than he would already be circumcised, because that is one of the actions one has to have performed before being called a proper convert. Since those are called ger / proselutos before they are circumcised, this proves that ger / proselutos means sojourner and not convert, because he is not.
Deuteronomy 14:21 doesn’t prove anything: the word ger is used on there and the Septuagint is not claimed to be authoritative, it’s a translation, this means partly a translation. Translators sometimes chose between different possibilities of meaning, but also sometimes for individual preference or desirable or ordained non translations, because of doctrine, theology, social pressure or politics. It is true that the word proselyte in later times meant convert, but ger did not in the writing of the Chumash (5 Books of Mosheh).
The big problem in christianity and also messianic judaism is that there seems to be little knowledge on why Yeshua came an what His proclaimed Kingdom of Heaven / Kingdom of G-d meant and what the goal of entity for the Jews really was.
If everyone would see that, than there was not so much competition on to be or to be not Yisrael (though important still) and urge to take the law upon him or herself because of thinking that is the goal.
Did Yeshua come to bring the law? He certainly didn’t come to take it away! But why did he come and what was His message?
“Did Yeshua come to bring the law? He certainly didn’t come to take it away! But why did he come and what was His message?”
You are absolutely correct, Shmuel! One-Law is a movement whose very name tells everyone that it’s all about bringing already-Yeshua-believing-Christians under the Mosaic Law to live as Jews. It also postures itself as a “civil rights” movement against the “racist” Messianic Jews. What about the Kingdom of Messiah???
“If everyone would see that, than there was not so much competition on to be or to be not Yisrael (though important still) and urge to take the law upon him or herself because of thinking that is the goal.”
That’s an excellent point, Shmuel. If people think that the goal of Yeshua’s coming was to give the Torah to the Gentles, so to speak, then the entire goal of their (our/my) faith will be in “keeping the (mechanics of the) Law,” which is what we see in the One Law movement. Alternately, if he came to bring the nations into reconciliation to God and to allow us to become members of the Kingdom as the goal, then our entire focus changes. Love, grace, compassion, mercy all become our focus and the mitzvot of feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, and granting mercy and grace as it has been granted to us becomes the fabric woven into our lives as believers.
If that’s the case, then there shouldn’t be any room left in us for contention and hostility, particularly among other brothers of the faith.
James: ” then our entire focus changes. Love, grace, compassion, mercy all become our focus and the mitzvot of feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, and granting mercy and grace as it has been granted to us becomes the fabric woven into our lives as believers.”
And this is impossible to do while full of insecurity that leads to envy, vain ambition. Humility is the only way to get there.
Admittedly, I sometimes have problems with humility, but I strive toward that as one of my goals, Lrw. I appreciate the reminder. Thanks.
Shmuel,
Your quote from Exodus 12 says that the proselyte must have all his males circumcised. What it specifically DOES NOT say is that he becomes circumcised (since as a proselyte he was ALREADY circumcised).
To have proven your point, you would’ve needed Exodus 12 to say “then let the proselyte circumcise HIMSELF”. But that’s not what it says. It ASSUMES that he’s circumcised and only asks that he circumcise his males (servants, etc).
Shalom brother,
Peter
James: you are indeed humble, as I wasn’t directing that to you! :-)
Peter, stop this pedantry – does it really need to be explained that the words “must have ALL the males in his household circumcised” by default include the foreigner himself, especially when it says just a few verses above “No foreigner may eat it.”?
@Lrw: To be fair, it was as much a “demonstration” of humility as a person admission that I could be better. ;-)
Gene,
If you want to argue that the authors of the Septuagint are all wrong, that they all used proselyte consistently everywhere else to refer to a circumcised convert but that in Exodus 12:48 they just were too busy or whatever and used the wrong word, that’s fine.
But I don’t see it as a mistake. I believe that the leaders of Israel who composed the Septuagint knew exactly what they were doing. And the consistency with which they used the term “proselyte” attests the validity of my view. Furthermore, the Rabbis whom you purport to follow also accept my view:
“Because of the wide disparity in the use of the term ger, the rabbis saw it denoting two different statuses. When the term seemed to denote a full participant in Jewish religious life they defined him as a ger tzedeq, a proselyte. When, on the other hand, the term seemed to denote a quasi-citizen of the Jewish polity they defined him as a ger toshab, a resident-alien.” pg. 15, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism.
Lastly, since the Apostles used the Septuagint, I’m fully confident in its reliability.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter, you have once reverted to arguing from a dictionary, bringing up translations to prop up your version of disputed meanings of this or that word. As I said before, when one has to do that as often as you do it can only mean one thing: your theology is too weak to stand on its own solid two feet and requires elaborate and shaky support structure. It’s also very boring to many readers.
Gene,
The Apostles didn’t think the Septuagint was “shaky.” So why do you?
Peter: “Because of the wide disparity in the use of the term ger, the rabbis saw it denoting two different statuses. When the term seemed to denote a full participant in Jewish religious life they defined him as a ger tzedeq, a proselyte. When, on the other hand, the term seemed to denote a quasi-citizen of the Jewish polity they defined him as a ger toshab, a resident-alien.” pg. 15, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism.”
This is later rabbinic doctrines, which is not necessarily in line with the theology of the time of Mosheh. These terms are not to found back in TaNaCH.
But I studied some longer on what you said on Shemoth, Bo 12:48 and came to the conclusion that your reading might be right; that it says that a proper proselyte may not take part of the preparing and eating of his own Pessach lamb, if he did not circumcise the males from his household as is also required of the inborn Yisraelite. He may not take a more free stance in that. This is also in consistence with the teachings of what the Amorim in the the Mechilta de rabbi Yishmael, a Halachic Midrash from the 4th century C.E., commented on the passage. Thank you for correcting me there, although it could have meant otherwise also.
And no בֶּן־נֵכָר [ben-naychar] stranger (vs.43) or תּוֹשָׁב [toshav] foreigner (vs.45) may eat thereof and indeed are those different terms than גֵּר [geir] (yes, translations don’t help sometimes).
Still Peter, what is the point that you want to make with the geirim? If one is coming to belief in the Kingdom of G-d and Yeshua and His work in redemption, it does not make someone a geir, or somehow a Yisraelite. If you think that, you missed the point. Yeshua, when he was teaching and living according to his call never said at that moment that he was busy with the gentiles as a focus but claimed: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matth.15:24) and also said to his shlichim: “Go not into the travelers way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not”. If so, he certainly didn’t come to give them Torah, because Torah they already received from Mosheh. He came to disclose something else…
Peter: “The Apostles didn’t think the Septuagint was “shaky.” So why do you?”
Onthis I would study more. It is known that many of the TaNaCH quotations of the envoys of Yeshua are not taken from the LXX, the translation differs often.
So Peter, like many others you discovered there were geirim in TaNaCH. And there was the same law for them and for the inborn Yisraelites. But that was not the reason why Yeshua came. The Hebrews had already received the Torath Mosheh and Gentiles were welcome to join, becoming Jews in nationality. So, that could not have been the reason for the coming of the Mashiach. Gentiles already could be righteous, adhering to the Torath for Adam weNoach. That was enough. But if one insisted, felt drawn to join Yisrael and wanting to serve HASHEM in the same way, that was possible but certainly not obliged. Nor is it in the New Covenant.
Peter: “immersion in a mikveh (something only permitted to converts)”. You alluded to this to point out de similarity with becoming a ger, not? Correct if I am wrong.
בס”ד
@Peter
“Every convert in history became part of Israel.” ???
But not every true servant of the Most High became part of Israel.
“Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.”
Nebuchadnezzar remained King of Babylon.
“The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”
The city of Nineveh sincerely repented in sackcloth, and remained Assyrian.
“When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.” (possibly from consideration of corpse uncleanness, a defilement Yeshua might have incurred by entering the house) …When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
The Roman Centurian, who loved Israel, remained Roman.
@Peter
“Yes, it surprised everyone that the uncircumcised would be included in Israel despite not having gone through certain rituals.”
The uncircumcised listed above were true servants of G-d and did not become part of Israel.
@Peter
“But they had been accepted by the Ruach and so no one could prevent them from immersion in a mikveh (something only permitted to converts). See Acts 10.”
I take a very different view of the salvation of Cornelius’s house in Acts 10-11. You can find my explanation beginning on page 82-86 (which is page 24-28 of the PDF) of the paper that was published last year, at the link. I admit my view is not a typical, but I believe the evidence is very clear.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74588540/Ezekiel%2036.25-27%20as%20the%20Besorah%20with%20notes.pdf
In short, Peter purified these gentiles out of a serious, life-long Jewish obligation to purity. But shortly after that he realized they had actually already been truly Purified by the Ruach Hakodesh, and that the water rite was superfluous for the gentiles. Peter certainly had not performed “proselyte baptism,” a rite which many scholars conclude didn’t even exist yet.
Hodesh Tov
“But not every true servant of the Most High became part of Israel.”
benkeshet, thanks – these are great examples. I just thought of another from the Tanakh:
Naaman the commander of the army of the king of Aram. (2 Kings 5:1)
“In short, Peter purified these gentiles out of a serious, life-long Jewish obligation to purity. But shortly after that he realized they had actually already been truly Purified by the Ruach Hakodesh, and that the water rite was superfluous for the gentiles. Peter certainly had not performed “proselyte baptism,” a rite which many scholars conclude didn’t even exist yet.”
Interesting take. I’ll have to look into that. Is this related to Paul’s 1 Corinthians 1:10–17: “Messiah didn’t send me to baptize”?
Shmuel,
Re: “Yeshua, when he was teaching and living according to his call never said at that moment that he was busy with the gentiles as a focus…”
When someone is about to leave this world and enter eternity, they often say their famous last words. They speak of something that is most important to them. In the same way, Yeshua, when He was leaving this world, He told His followers what was most important that He wished for them to accomplish:
“18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28)
So His last words were that His students should teach the Torah (i.e. everything He commanded) to all peoples in order to make disciples of them.
In conclusion, we have to assume that the gentiles were very much a focus of Yeshua. In fact, one might say that it became the greatest focus given that He issues this command at the very end of His ministry–as though everything had been leading up to that moment.
He didn’t say for the Jews to send the goyim off to church; rather, He said to make disciples of them. This is a big difference. To disciple someone, one must put all of one’s energy and focus into them.
Benkeshet,
Was Paul wrong to say that the gentiles were without hope when they were excluded from citizenship in Israel? (Eph 2).
Famous last words:
I know His last words, just before that the focus was different. Paulos said the be the Jews as a Jew, Greeks as a Greek. You cannot come in the same way with the Good Message to the Jews as to the Gentiles. So the way he spoke and the focus in the words of Yeshua before His last instructions where Yisraelite centered.
Shmuel,
The focus of Moshiach has always been the entire world.
“3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
Yeshayahu was speaking of Yeshua Rabbeinu. Yeshua didn’t change plans. His plans are consistent. His plans ALWAYS included the gentiles–even if it appeared as though He didn’t care about the gentiles.
Peter: what I ask myself is if Paulos meant here that they now became citizens of Yisrael. Also the Yisraelite had not jet reached their destination. Yeshua said, in the house of my Father are many mansions (John 14:2). The resemblance on earth of the Fathers House was the Temple, which had on each side the mansions of the Cohanim – the Priests. This was the promess that Yeshua disclosed since it was done and proclaimed in Shemoth 19:6. According to Yeshayahu 61:6 it would occur in the Messianic age. Making it possible to come to this status, the heavenly Heichal was disclosed for those, the Heichal (Temple) is were the King resides on His throne, so there is were the Kingdom is. That day that the heavenly Heichal will be joined with Yerushalayim, the Kingdom of HASHEM wil be established to rule over all the aerth. But we can chose to be part of it right know and spread the good message that was spread through our Mashiach to Tzion: That their G-d is King (Yeshayahu 52:7).
So it is my question if the focus was to only being brought near to Yisrael, or even something which was not jet reached by Yisrael itself: The Mamlecheth Cohanim – the Kingdom of Priests. This citizenship might be where Paulos pointed at. The higher plan that was promised! We Jews all know that the land of Yisrael is Holy, but Yerushalayim even more, and The Templecourt even more, and Holy place even more and and the Holy of Holies even more. It is because what they represent and are as, connected with it, as in Heaven also on Earth.
Peter: The focus of Moshiach has always been the entire world.
“3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
Yeshayahu was speaking of Yeshua Rabbeinu. Yeshua didn’t change plans. His plans are consistent. His plans ALWAYS included the gentiles–even if it appeared as though He didn’t care about the gentiles.”
I didn’t say so. He came first to the Jews and than the maessage came to the Greeks as prophecied: Yeshayahu 49:3-6.
בס”ד
@ Peter
Was Paul wrong to say that the gentiles were without hope when they were excluded from citizenship in Israel? (Eph 2).
———–
Ephesians 2
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—3 among whom we all once lived in othe passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Messiah—by grace you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Messiah Yeshua, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Messiah Yeshua. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Messiah Yeshua for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you [as children of wrath] were at that time separated from Messiah, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Messiah Yeshua you who once were far off [as children of wrath] have been brought near by the blood of Messiah. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both [Israel and the Nations] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man [or one new Humanity] in place of the two [i.e. Israel at enmity with the Nations], so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both [Israel and the Nations] to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off [Nations who had been children of wrath] and peace to those who were near [Israel]. 18 For through him we both [Israel and the Nations] have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you [Nations] are no longer strangers and aliens [or children of wrath], 4 but you are fellow citizens with the saints [Israel] and members of the household of God, [Genesis 22:18 and in your Offspring shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed - i.e. redeeming them from being children of wrath] 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Messiah Yeshua himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
——————–
Israel and the Nations do not lose their distinctiveness. Rather, what was lost was the enmity between them, which has been destroyed by Messiah’s sacrifice. Both Israel and the Nations have access to the Father via ONE SPIRIT because of faith in Messiah. There is absolutely no mention of One Law – otherwise all would either have to be circumcised, or else all would have to cease from circumcision. So circumcision remains for Israel, and uncircumcision for the Nations. But for those who repent, both from Israel and the Nations, the enmity has ceased because of Messiah’s sacrifice.
Ultimately there is only Torah from Heaven. Noah was given an international Torah from Heaven that applies to all his offspring, i.e. all the Nations. Generations later Israel was singled out at Sinai for further revelation, a national covenant and comprehensive national Torah. But from Noah to Sinai, the world was obligated to an international Torah from Heaven. Sinai never cancelled that international Torah for the Nations. The international Torah of the Nations does not usurp Israel’s special covenant and national Torah given at Sinai. In fact, if you read the Tanakh you find that the Torah tells Israel that they can make covenant alliances with other nations, except for the seven nations of Canaan. So there is a provision in Israel’s national Torah to enter international covenant relationship – i.e. Israel and the Nations in covenant alliance.
So Messiah’s Covenant and Kingdom reign trump all other covenants and alliances, first of all making [potentially anyway] both Israel and the Nations righteous by faith in him. Then, Yeshua is the King of Israel and the King of all the Nations. He is the King of the World. “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to him.” So he is actually supposed to be the ruler of every Nation on earth. But that doesn’t make all those Nations into the nation Israel. It does make every Nation allied with Israel in a “commonwealth” with Messiah as ruler over all. This is the same as Nebuchadnezzar, the city of Nineveh and the Roman centurion all recognizing the Most High and remaining righteous Gentiles along with the repentant of Israel.
Blessings.
בס”ד
Gene שלום,
“Is this related to Paul’s 1 Corinthians 1:10–17: “Messiah didn’t send me to baptize”?
Yes, over several decades of study I have become convinced that the usual beliefs about the eschatological Messianic water rite have missed the original intent greatly. One thing is virtually certain in 1Cor 1, Crispus had been the synagogue president and was obvioulsy Jewish. Stephanos and family were the first believers in the region and Paul’s custom was to announce the besorah first to Israel, then to the nations. So it is likely that Stephanos and family were also Jews. I believe that Paul performed Israel’s eschatological purification for Jewish believers in Messiah, but that wasn’t his primary calling by Messiah. Hence he would say that he wasn’t actually sent to perform that purification.
In short I conclude that 1) Yohanan Ben Zechariah inaugurated Ezekiel 36:25 to purify Israel immediately prior to the Kingdom promised in Ez 36. 2) There was never any other Messianic water rite other than Yohanan’s. 3) Messiah publically endorsed Yohanan’s rite in the Temple (He asked was Yohanan’s rite from Heaven or men?) and since he expected the answer to his question to be “from Heaven” then Yohanan’s rite was and remains a mitzvah for Israel. 4) the Shlihim, who were left alone without either Yohanan or Messiah Yeshua, proclaimed Israel’s eschatological Messianic rite “in the name of Messiah Yeshua” (i.e. by his authority) since Messiah had publically endorsed Yohanan’s rite to Israel, making it was a mitzvah for Israel. 5) The written besorot have Messiah use the words “baptize and baptism” in metaphorical ways – Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50 – (in other words Messiah spoke of real events that were not actual physical water rites) 6) I conclude that in Matthew 28:19 Messiah is not commanding the Shlihim to perform a “water rite” on the Nations, but rather to “transform” them, or “purify” the defiled idolatrous Nations, by teaching them the truths about Hashem.
The paper at the link above goes into much greater detail. For anyone who reads it you see that I actually call for a thorough investigation of this extremely complicated topic by the Messianic Jewish community.
Blessings.
HBK, really nice to see your comments here. I look forward to connecting with you next time I’m in IL. I will be there for 3 days in Nov. and then for an extended time in March / April–we can connect then. Until then be well.
To be honest, I don’t believe that Yochanan took the rite from Yechezekel. I Agree with you, benkeshet, that Yochanan didn’t just copy the mikvah practices. But I believe immersing has an other origin and is connected with a very ancient promise.
I did also study some decades on the subject of immersing by Yochanan and Yeshua, especially the origins and come to other conclusions. Maybe when compared there will follow new insights.
You can read or download my study, which has not finished jet, here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6iLoDnEhIdNd2MxQ1hMSjRQOHM
Sorry, had to change something:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6iLoDnEhIdNbHMzd2tiRXNaME0
Benkeshet,
You’re misreading Ephesians 2, inserting in your own comments and prejudices. It doesn’t say “commonwealth”; rather, it says gentiles are politeia in Israel. They are citizens of Israel. He says nothing of a commonwealth nor does any of Jewish history. Rather, the Tanak shows that either you’re a citizen of Israel or you are a member of the nations.
This other comment about the Noahide laws shows another bias. You’re trying to insert Noahide “laws” into the New Testament. But what we find is that the gentiles of the New Testament, starting with Cornelius and progressing with the Corinthians and Colossians, these gentiles followed Moedim and kashrut law. They were immersed in mikvaot. What did Noah ever say about the Moedim or kashrut or mikvaot? Nothing. Not to mention that the supposed Noahide laws weren’t concocted until long after the New Testament was completed.
In conclusion, when you examine the political context of Judaism, there’s no such thing as commonwealth but rather a citizenship-based polity in which all citizens were equal before the law (hakahal chukah achat). In Judaism, there’s one class of citizen; in a commonwealth, there are multiple classes of citizens, each with a different set of rights/duties. Lastly, when you examine the so-called Noahide laws you see that they are ethical but when you see the laws imposed on gentiles in the New Testament you see they are much broader than mere ethical precepts (e.g. immersion, Moedim, kashrut).
Peter, you are stuck in the importance of Yisrael, though Yisrael is and remains important, it was not in her end goal, so to say. I did from scripture glance at it briefly. If one doesn’t understand the Malchuth Ellokim / the Malchuth haShamayim, one cannot come near to understand the implications of the coming of the heraut Yochanan haMatbil and Yeshua haMashiach.
If it was only Torath Mosheh, no Mashiach had a need to come.
Shmuel,
This whole idea of a commonwealth with different classes of citizens is a hellenistic concept, not a Jewish concept. In Judaism (and all Jewish political scientists will agree with me on this), there is one class of citizen. In Roman law, for example, you have many different classes of citizens with different sets of rights/duties. Judaism is different. Furthermore, we must assess the rule of law in the Jewish polity to see whether there are built-in classes of citizens via laws that discriminate based on alienage. But we see only one such classification: the gentiles couldn’t own land under the Old Covenant. However, Ezekiel explains that this is changed under Yeshua. Under Yeshua, the rule of law relaxes the descent and distribution code of Torat Moshe. Therefore with single-class citizenship and a rule of law that allows for equal protection as well as property rights, the Yeshua polity is the most egalitarian polity ever seen in Judaism. It is truly a community of One Law.
Peter, classless society, equal distribution, egalitarianism – are you describing Israel or the U.S.S.R.?
Peter, it is very simple, there are laws concerning man, and laws concerning women. There are laws concerning masters, and laws for slaves. There are laws for Kings and there are there for Levites and more distinguished for Cohanim (Priests. Why can there be no difference between the laws for the common Jews and gentiles? Don’t throw everything on one heap or be consequent and become a proper Geir, by going to the orthodox.
It is just not true that the Gentiles participated ion the whole law of Mosheh and were meant to. The whole Galatian letter wouldn’t had have written. If they al performed and were al circumcised, no one could seduce them.
Do you think the Perushim (Farisees) would have accepted any of those converts? Well, we know in Acts 21 how there was a mob. Paulos had been accused bringing gentiles into the Temple. This was many years after the first gentiles came to faith in Yeshua. Well, it seems to be quite a special event that gentiles would come that way in the Beih haMikdash. But if we follow the One Law reasoning, and all the gentiles were all zealous of the law, there would have been riots for decades, because they would have felt obliged entering the Templecourt, because of the Moadim. No, this thing of Paulos, which he didn’t do, was seen as a scandal. It would have been only a one in a row routine of the like scandals. But we read nowhere of these, do we? Because there were no believers from the gentiles that felt themselves urged to do so in that time, because the weren’t asked to.
Gene,
Egalitarianism refers to a government that respects people’s dignity and values the decentralization of power. Does that sound like the U.S.S.R. with its pogroms, etc? And I never used the terms “classless society” and “equal distribution”. This is a false statement on your part that you fabricated intentionally to try to discredit me. I think there’s a name for that when someone says false things about someone that they know are false and damaging to someone’s reputation.
Shmuel,
Re: “It is just not true that the Gentiles participated ion the whole law of Mosheh and were meant to”
Shmuel, listen closely. When a gentile covenanted with Israel, he became obligated in the same way as any other non-Levite, non-King, Israelite male. Period. That’s why it says he shall be the same to you as a native-born Israelite (ezrach). So when you say “there were different laws for priests and kings” (etc) this is irrelevant. We’re not talking about priests and kings. We’re talking about common Israelite males (or females). A male gentile proselyte was REQUIRED to follow the same laws as a common Israelite male. Likewise for female proselytes.
Would you seriously dispute what I’ve just said? If so, then I’d love to see what version of the Tanak you’re using.
“Egalitarianism refers to a government that respects people’s dignity and values the decentralization of power.”
Peter, Wikipedia, from where you seem to have copied the above, has a lot more to say on Egalitarianism, including on transferring of belongings of others to those who don’t have them. You wish to transfer to others those things which rightfully belong to Jews and are meant to stay with them. Are not Israel’s spiritual blessings through Messiah enough for you?
“Does that sound like the U.S.S.R. with its pogroms, etc?”
You are confusing the U.S.S.R. with the Tsarist Russia.
“This is a false statement on your part that you fabricated intentionally to try to discredit me.”
Not so – I merely summarized and pieced together the bits you sprinkled in your comment. You want to level the playing field through redistribution and nullification of Israel’s very identity and distinction. You will not succeed in this – those before you have not.
I don’t dispute what you said, but I dispute that it is necessary to become a fullblown geir like described in TaNaCH when believing in Yeshua. Than we should have chosen the side of the the talmidim that had been first Perushin and were used to proselytize!
According to the orthodox rabbi’s a gentile does not require to become a Geir and still seen bij G-d as righteous. About the same way, and call it the Noachid laws, but not exactly the same, was thought by Yeshua’s Spirit filled envoys, members of the great assembly of Yerushalayim. You didn’t become Yisrael! And the coming of Yeshua was not to bring the message of Torah and Teshuvah in order to become a proper Geir. That was already established. Now take the next step in revelation!
Gene,
Re: “You are confusing the U.S.S.R. with the Tsarist Russia.”
Oh, so I suppose that Vladimir Putin is a federalist. Well, that’s fantastic. We’ve got nothing to worry about then.
“Oh, so I suppose that Vladimir Putin is a federalist. Well, that’s fantastic. We’ve got nothing to worry about then.”
Peter, now you are confusing Tsarist Russia (where pogroms actually took place) with post-U.S.S.R. Russia.
Shmuel,
Re: “but I dispute that it is necessary to become a fullblown geir like described in TaNaCH when believing in Yeshua.”
Then your dispute is with Paul, not me. He said that they were no longer “paroikos” (Eph 2; Deut. 14:21) and called them current “politeia” in Israel (Eph 2). In contradistinction to the so-called Noahide “laws”, Paul commanded the gentiles to put into practice EVERYTHING they observed him practicing (Phil 4:9). In the New Testament, we see that the gentiles kept the Moedim and kashrut and mikvaot. They studied and practiced Torat Moshe (Acts 15:21). They were members of the Sinaitic Covenant via Yeshua the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).
I’ll pray for you that your eyes will be opened to this. But you should pray as well. Let’s pray now, brother, okay?
Shalom,
Peter
Gene,
Re: “Peter, now you are confusing Tsarist Russia (where pogroms actually took place) with post-U.S.S.R. Russia.”
So if you know a guy named Bob and you know he’s a murderer but he comes to you and says his name is Kevin then you’ll invite him into your house? No, because a change in name is meaningless. I don’t care what Russia calls itself–it’s the same political ideology. The threat remains the same.
בס”ד
@Peter
You’re misreading Ephesians 2, inserting in your own comments and prejudices.
Ohhhh… I’ve simply snagged the ESV (using Messiah Yeshua instead of JC), and very clearly inserted my comments so that everyone knows my point. Paul writes “both” several times and the only possible meaning is Israel and the Nations.
It doesn’t say “commonwealth”; rather, it says gentiles are politeia in Israel. They are citizens of Israel. He says nothing of a commonwealth nor does any of Jewish history.
ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ
Perhaps “aliens from the civil governance OF Israel” (not bIN Israel).
The following link contains a long list of translations of the verse and the majority use commonwealth, though some use citizenship. Personally I don’t see much difference. But you say there is, so you should rigorously prove your position.
http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-12.htm
The following link is Strong’s entry on the word πολιτεία
http://biblesuite.com/greek/4174.htm
It could mean citizenship or commonwealth. Strong’s entry says,
“with a genitive of the possessor, τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, spoken of the theocratic or divine commonwealth, Ephesians 2:12.”
So dude, knock yourself out and prove your position on this word.
This other comment about the Noahide laws shows another bias. You’re trying to insert Noahide “laws” into the New Testament.
The non-sequiturs throughout your comments….
I never said that. I said from a divine point of view Hashem already established a Torah for all humanity through Noah, irrespective of whether any Nation has kept it or not. Then I said Hashem LATER singled out Israel for a special national covenant and Torah. That is all I said. Surely in the first century there were gentiles, G-d fearers, who allied with Israel, but without circumcision and full observance. That is how I believe the Torah of Noah and the Torah of Moshe should complement each other (whether anyone recognizes that there actually was a Torah of Noah or not). That’s all I’m saying.
Cheerio and Blessings.
Benkeshet,
Check this out:
http://www.tnnonline.net/faq/C/Commonwealth_of_Israel.pdf
Benkeshet,
In that article, take particular notice of how Paul employs the term politeia in other passages:
“The commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship [politeia] with a large sum of money.’ And Paul said, ‘But I was actually born a citizen’” (Acts 22:28).
So that’s Paul’s own words telling you how he understands the term “politeia.”
Yeshu talks frequently of the Kingdom of G-d. That citizenship is Paulos talking about. Both Jews and gentiles have to go into there for the true government.
This doesn’t mean the historic and geographic Yisrael is of no issue anymore.
What I appreciate:
1.) Shmuel’s comments and focus on the KoH. I think he is right on with this.
2.) HBK’s demonstration of nations that attached to or respected Israel’s God yet remained their sovereign nation.
3.) Gene.
Good discussion guys.
Thanks, Boaz! HBK and Shmuel have really upped the quality of discussion on this blog.
I have to add, especially since I had my own recent “bout” with Ephesians 2, that I’ve appreciated the insight. I actually added a link to Benkeshet’s Ephesians comments to my own blog post. Well done, guys.
Boaz is talking out of both sides of his mouth again. First, he says that gentile nations partner with Israel and THEN he says that gentiles are spiritual members of Israel. Check it out:
Boaz: “He is opening the eyes of the Nations to their connection to and partnership with Israel.”
(http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2539)
Boaz: “Through Paul’s gospel, they considered themselves co-heirs to the messianic promises and spiritual members of the people of Israel.”
(http://mymorningmeditations.com/2012/10/17/do-christians-practice-judaism/)
So how does he resolve this contradiction? By suggesting that there’s a commonwealth. What’s his evidence? A mistranslation of the word “politeia” in Ephesians 2. I’ve already shown how Paul himself used the word politeia in Acts 22:28 (he uses it to mean citizenship). What else? By suggesting that there were other nations which were saved that existed outside of Israel. What’s the evidence? Zero. Paul says that gentiles outside of the covenant were “without hope” of salvation. The only way to be saved was to covenant with Israel and receive the prescribed blood atonement. So that idea of a commonwealth is totally bogus. This is not a Jewish concept at all. Were there political alliances? Sure. But a political alliance doesn’t confer the blessings of the covenant (e.g. salvation). Paul makes no suggestion WHATSOEVER of different classes of politeia. Yet Boaz hides behind this idea. But where is the evidence for it?
בס”ד
Since this week’s פרשה is נח…
Here’s part of the Habadniks’ the parasha in a nutshell.
“Noah builds an altar and offers sacrifices to G‑d. [worship of Hashem] G‑d swears never again to destroy all of mankind because of their deeds, and sets the rainbow as a testimony of His new covenant with man. G‑d also commands Noah regarding the sacredness of life: murder is deemed a capital offense, and while man is permitted to eat the meat of animals, he is forbidden to eat flesh or blood taken from a living animal.”
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/3155/jewish/Noach-in-a-Nutshell.htm
So even though mankind soon went astray and fell into idolatry, it wasn’t that Hashem had not instructed them (הורה, כלומר נתן תורה) from the days of Noah. Today’s Noahide movement is a modern attempt to recover that awareness, however rabbinically influenced it might be.
@Peter, Acts 22:28 – yes, I was aware of that verse as well. But there are several references listed in the Strong’s entry, including in Maccabees. If there are variations of meanings, as Strong’s says there is, then it is not enough to say that in Acts, since Luke used it a certain way, THUS it MUST be used that same way by Paul in Ephesians. It might be, but it might not be. IMHO you have not proved your point that Paul used it the same way.
Second, the “citizenship” of Acts 22:28 is ROMAN citizenship and Roman citizenship could include nationalities of all kinds, including Italians, Jews and Syrians, etc. Many native Syrians became Roman citizens and soldiers – Josephus tells of a number of Syrian Romans soldiers in his account of the Jewish War. The civilian chief of staff of the Roman invading army was the nephew of Philo, the Alexandrian Jew. So, Jews like Paul and Silas could be Roman citizens, and Syrians could be Roman citizens, and Italians certainly could be Roman citizens… Just to emphasize the fact that Jews in Roman Empire were legally exempt from offensive pagan religious practices, and Judea as a nation within the Roman Empire was legally exempt from those pagan practices. So the Roman Empire, of which Paul and the Roman Garrison commander had “citizenship,” recognized national differences in religious practice. Citing Acts 22:28 appears to work against your view of Ephesians 2:12.
שבת שלום
“Second, the “citizenship” of Acts 22:28 is ROMAN citizenship and Roman citizenship could include nationalities of all kinds, including Italians, Jews and Syrians, etc….So the Roman Empire, of which Paul and the Roman Garrison commander had “citizenship,” recognized national differences in religious practice.”
benkeshet, that’s exactly right and a great point!
Even if the nations will be circumcised, which will be required in the time to come, they are still called the mishpachoth haaretz, the families of the earth. They have to come up to Yerushalayim for the festival of Sukkoth (Zecharyah 14:17). At the same time it is written that no more shall come into Yerushalayim the uncircumcised and the unclean. You could conclude that they are geirim, but they are not called Yehudim, nor Yisraelites here. Hw do you explain that. Being as/like an inborn, does not necessarily mean one is one. Being as. Grafted into the tree, doesn’t mean the branch is now the same as the original. But it gets the same food.
At this time there is no Beith haMikdash. The nations are not yet asked to come to the holy city. And the city is not jet in that holy status (exalted) that it is required to be clean en circumcised. Yechezekel informs us on this: Thus says the Lord HASHEM: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter into My sanctuary” (44:9).
Well there is no Temple now.
“Even if the nations will be circumcized, which will be required in the time to come”
Shmuel, you mean in the flesh? if so, what support is there for this? If you mean that they are to have a circumcision of the heart, then definitely!
“Thus says the Lord HASHEM: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter into My sanctuary” (44:9).”
The Temple area or the sanctuary? In times past, Israel has brought in uncircumcised Gentiles into the sanctuary itself (where the priests can only be), which was a grave sin:
“In addition to all your other detestable practices, you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant.” (Ezekiel 44:7)
Benkeshet,
No, it’s not Luke’s usage; it’s Paul’s usage. This is an important point for you to understand. Paul is the one speaking in Acts 22:28, not Luke.
That alone should convince you because Paul wrote Ephesians and Paul’s usage of politeia is the controlling context. However, if you need additional convincing then here’s the famous Harvard professor/scholar/rabbi Shaye Cohen:
“JUDAISM AS POLITEIA…The Greek word politeia means in the first instance ‘citizenship,’ the quality of being a citizen (a polites). By extension the word also refers to the institutions and conventions within which a citizen exercises his citizenship. In the latter sense the word is often translated as ‘constitution’ but in many texts the translation ‘law of the land’ or ‘way of life’ would be better. The politeia of an individual is his citizenship; the politeia of a state is its way of doing things.
The Judaeans too had their own way of life, given to them by their lawgiver Moses. Hecataeus is the first (ca. 300 B.C.E.) Greek writer to describe Moses and his ‘constitution,’ and his description is the first of many. Upon his conquest of Judaea in 200 B.C.E. Antiochus III decreed: ‘Let all those from this nation conduct their way of life (politeia) in accordance with their ancestral laws.’ The decree is the first official document extant that demonstrates that the ancestral laws of the Judaeans–that is, the laws of the Torah–constituted the law of the land. Both Philo and Josephus explicitly label Judaism a politeia and speak of outsiders who become insiders by adopting the politeia of the Judaeans. In a passage cited above, Josephus remarks that Hyrcanus had altered the way of life (politeia) of the Idumaeans to make it conform to the customs and laws of the Judaeans.
If the ancestral laws of the Judaeans constituted their politeia, then the Judaeans themselves, not only in Judaea but even in the diaspora, will have been politai or ‘citizens.’ ….Judaeans are ‘citizens,’ and Jewishness is their citizenship.” pg. 125
This is Cohen’s speciality. He has a Ph.D in ancient history. He sees politeia as referring to citizenship, not a commonwealth.
Of course, if Cohen doesn’t convince you, I know of 15 other sources off the top of my head that I could throw at you. Shall we go through them one by one?
But I’d rather stay focused on the context of Ephesians 2. Harold Hoehner explains how it would be a mistake to construe the “poltieia” of Ephesians 2 as “commonwealth” because it completely misses the context:
“Besides, in reality there was no commonwealth of Israel functioning as an independent state in Paul’s day. Rather it was part of the commonwealth or political state of Rome…What [the Greeks] sought was the citizenship of Israel because of the special privileges God bestowed on her. Up to this time, some Gentiles were admitted into Judaism as proselytes, but as a whole, Gentiles were excluded and thus alienated from the citizenship of Israel.”
Notice his points: (1) there was no commonwealth of Israel in Paul’s day; (2) the addressees of the letter, the Ephesians, weren’t interested in Roman-styled citizenship but rather Israelite citizenship because of the covenantal privileges associated therewith.
So on ancient history, you lose. On context, you lose. On academic support, you lose.
Would you care to revise your position?
“So on ancient history, you lose. On context, you lose. On academic support, you lose.”
Peter, you lose on your arrogance alone.
Gene,
Even the most flawed person in the history could say something truthful and his flaws wouldn’t negate the truth of a true statement. In the same way, feel free to list my flaws and your readers should feel free to examine the truthfulness of my statements.
But there are several references listed in the Strong’s entry, including in Maccabees. If there are variations of meanings, as Strong’s says there is, then it is not enough to say that in Acts, since Luke used it a certain way, THUS it MUST be used that same way by Paul in Ephesians.
I agree that it is possible and in fact, highly likely, that a single human being can use one word in different ways given different circumstances. While we are forced to look at the writings in the Bible as ancient texts and problems of translation, in real life as human beings, we all tend to use a word one way in one particular context and another way (if the word lends itself to being used in more than one way) in other circumstances. Why would anyone believe that Paul (or any other person recorded in the Bible) was “forced” or locked into using a word in ancient Greek in only one single way, especially when scholars are aware that the word can have multiple meanings and applications?
I’m no language scholar, but even I know it’s an amateur’s mistake to believe that word “A” in Greek (or any language) must always mean word “B” in English, even if recorded as spoken by the same person but under different circumstances at different times. Cheers for your insights, Benkeshet.
James,
Re: “Why would anyone believe that Paul (or any other person recorded in the Bible) was “forced” or locked into using a word in ancient Greek in only one single way, especially when scholars are aware that the word can have multiple meanings and applications?”
Absolutely! That’s why we have to look at the passage to see how the word was employed in the context of that passage. In the case of politeia in Ephesians 2 we see IN THE SENTENCE in which it occurs that it is connected to Israel. Now, if you want to say that “commonwealth” is an option then we’d have to ask “What is the evidence in this passage that Paul thinks Israel is part of some sort of commonwealth?” What might such evidence look like? Well, if we’re talking about disparities in citizen being a defining characteristic of a commonwealth then we’d be looking for any evidence that Paul was attempting to separate citizenship into classes. But instead what we find is that the context is all about going from exclusion to inclusion, from denial of privilege to bestowal of privilege, from hopelessness to hopeFULness, etc. It’s all about gaining something, not losing anything. Lastly, we would have to be honest and consider that in Paul’s day Israel was not a commonwealth. This means that Paul could not expect his readers of that day to assume that Israel operated as a commonwealth. It didn’t and they wouldn’t have construed it as such.
So what are we left with? Context of the passage: privilege, equal rank, rights, hopefulness, covenant, etc. All things one would associate with Israel. What else? A direct association of politeia with Israel. What else? Paul, familiar with the Greek Septuagint says that the gentiles are no longer paroikos. Paroikos is the term used in the Septuagint for a gentile who is not a citizen of Israel, one who has dubious rights and is underprivileged. Does this point toward a commonwealth in which citizenship carries dubious rights/duties? Not at all. It points quite clearly toward the citizenship of Israel (non-commonwealth) which conveys the full rights/duties of a common Israelite citizen (common as opposed to specialized instances of Levi’im, etc).
Shalom,
Peter
“privilege, equal rank, rights….all things one would associate with Israel.”
This pretty much sums up the core of the One Law agenda (lest anyone mistake it for “Torah observance”).
Gene,
Torah commands you to treat citizens of Israel the same under the law. This comes straight from Tanak.
“Torah commands you to treat citizens of Israel the same under the law. This comes straight from Tanak.”
Peter, I seek to treat all human beings justly, irrespective of who they are, where they come from, or what their station in life is. Torah speaks of equal justice not “sameness”.
Gene, the “equal justice” vs. “sameness” argument reminds me of something a local (Boise, ID) commentator named Dennis Mansfield said in response to what President Obama said at the end of the latest debate. Here’s part of Mansfield’s blog post:
Obama (according to Mansfield) wants all Americans to have a “fair (or equal) share” of all available resources, but traditionally, the American value has been a “fair chance,” where citizens have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals, but what each person achieves depends on how hard they work, not just the fact that they exist and breathe air.
This analogy isn’t exactly applicable to the current discussion, but it seems related. There’s a struggle within Hebrew Roots (which contains the One Law movement) to define roles between Jewish and Gentile disciples. Do we all get an equal and “fair share” of all of the blessings the Bible records, or is there another mechanism in operation that distinguishes which blessings go to which populations? Obviously, I support the latter perspective, but as you know, the battle for a “politically correct” sort of equality across the board is causing a few (metaphorical) bloody noses in the blogosphere. As you say, some people have difficulty understanding that unity does not mean uniformity.
The issue isn’t “rights.” The issue is reality as defined by God and after all, God has written the definition for each of us, Jew and Gentile alike. We don’t have to necessarily like God’s version of reality, but it’s the only one we have since God made everything.
Gosh, James. Making faith into a political agenda? I think some folks try. Let’s make it fun then.
What’s the One Law political platform?
Wow, Gene. Don’t tell me that the Jews are the “one percent?” ;-)
Actually, I was being metaphorical rather than political, just using politics as a “tool” to illustrate my point. Your bullet point list does make an interesting statement, however. Be careful though. I’m sure your “adversary” will come up with how it looks politically from the other side of the fence.
“Be careful though. I’m sure your “adversary” will come up with how it looks politically from the other side of the fence.”
James, what I listed IS how it looks to our friends from that side of the fence.
Yes, but I’m not sure some of them realize that those points aren’t desirable.
“Wow, Gene. Don’t tell me that the Jews are the “one percent?”
James, make it 0.19% (that’s zero point 19 percent of the world’s population)!
True, but you *know* what I meant (in a tongue-in-cheek fashion).
This whole thread has led me to articulate what I believe to be the three foundational principles of One Law Theology. Perhaps this assist future discussions. Here’s the link:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-three-foundational-principles-of.html
I genuinely hope everyone has a good shabbos (yes, I still love you all despite our disagreements), : )
Peter
Peter… you wrote in your post: “One Law is a type of Messianic Jewish Theology [MJT] that promotes unity between Jews and gentiles on the basis of three principles. that promotes unity between Jews and gentiles”
I have two questions:
1. What right do you have to call your theology “Jewish”. What Messianic Jewish organizations and leaders support One Law theology and where are the Jews who embrace it??
Personal observation (take it for what it is worth): my blog has been around for 3 years and has now become one of the most frequented personal Messianic Jewish blogs on the internet. Not a single Jew has EVER spoken up in defense or in support of the One Law theology (except for our mutual buddy, the lost confused old soul that is Dan Benzvi). Plenty of both Jews AND Gentiles have spoken out against it in the strongest terms.
2. How’s the “unity between Jews and Gentiles” working out for the One Law folks? I mean, really?
Gene, you bring up an excellent point about unity. I don’t believe that unity between the non-Jewish Christian and Jews, Messianic or otherwise, can be brought about by deleting our covenant distinctions. This discussion thread is an example in miniature as to why “unity by uniformity” doesn’t work. No one, especially the Jewish people, enjoy being minimized or discounted for the sake of “the whole,” since the world has been trying to minimize the Jew (sometimes to the point of extermination) for thousands of years.
One of the reasons I present my blog as Christian rather than “Messianic” is that I don’t want to speak to a small, niche audience. There’s this conversation that endlessly goes on back and forth between the same group of people and the same few “Messianic” blogs and it, as we have seen time and again, goes nowhere.
By emphasizing that I’m Christian (albeit an unusual one), I’m trying to bring in a larger audience to discuss unity and brotherhood between Christian and Jew (Messianic and otherwise). While anyone can read the public comments on my blog, I also have a number of private email conversations with folks who normally wouldn’t associate with “Messianic” or “One Law” venues. These are church-going Christians and (non-Messianic) Jews, for the most part, who feel they don’t have to be threatened or put off by what I have to say, since I’m not telling them they have to change anything (such as Christians having to take up “the Law” or Jews who feel they’re being told they’re no longer uniquely a people) about their identity. To me that’s the core of the unity we should be pursuing. We need to talk to the much wider audience of Christians in the various churches, and to Jews (Messianic and otherwise) in the synagogues, and people who are intermarried and although personally religious Christians and Jews, don’t have a home in either the church or the synagogue (see my latest blog post for more details).
One Law will never create unity between Christians and Jews because, at least as far as this conversation goes, we can see the need for One Law to develop “equality” by dumping Jews and Christians (and I include One Law Gentiles in the Christian group) into a large mixing bowl, jamming the blades of a high-powered mixer among them, and pressing the “puree” button.
I think unity (I’m not sure equality is a real factor in this sort of conversation) will be realized when we all recognize the uniqueness of our roles in God’s plan (and make no mistake, we non-Jewish disciples have a unique and even a vital role in that plan that only we can fulfill) and begin to live it out, rather than continuing to “jockey for position.”
The goal for Gentile believers then, from my point of view, isn’t to turn them (us) all into One Law followers and teach them to model their lifestyles after observant Jews, but to help them (us) get past their (our) long history of supersessionism (there, I said “that word” again), and to clarify how the roles of Jews and Christians fit in to who we are in God and for His purpose in building the Kingdom and the return of the Messiah.
@Peter
“Besides, in reality there was no commonwealth of Israel functioning as an independent state in Paul’s day. Rather it was part of the commonwealth or political state of Rome…What [the Greeks] sought was the citizenship of Israel because of the special privileges God bestowed on her. Up to this time, some Gentiles were admitted into Judaism as proselytes, but as a whole, Gentiles were excluded and thus alienated from the citizenship of Israel.”
Notice his points: (1) there was no commonwealth of Israel in Paul’s day; (2) the addressees of the letter, the Ephesians, weren’t interested in Roman-styled citizenship but rather Israelite citizenship because of the covenantal privileges associated therewith.
So on ancient history, you lose. On context, you lose. On academic support, you lose.
Would you care to revise your position?”
——–
No, I would not care to revise my position at all. But you may want to revise yours.
I already said above that I don’t think it makes much difference whether the word is taken as citizenship or commonwealth.
So take it as citizenship. But remember that Paul wrote Philippians 3 as well:
18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Messiah. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, 21 who will transform four lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
The citizenship of Ephesians 2 is certainly this same citizenship of Philippians 3. In Eph 2 the One New Humanity of Israel and the Nations is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Messiah Yeshua himself being the cornerstone,” This is no earthly citizenship that either earthly Israel or the earthly Romans recognized when Paul wrote either Ephesians or Philippians.
But the source you cite evidently takes Eph 2:12 to be literal citizenship in Israel that would change their legal status in the Roman Empire.
Are you saying that Paul is telling the Ephesians that they can now go to Judea and be recognized as citizens by the priestly leaders of the Temple as well as the Sanhedrin, and all the Jewish people of Judea will accept them as literal citizens of Israel???
Pardon me, but that is so absurdly ridiculous that words fail.
Just to refresh your memory…in the days Paul wrote Ephesians the priestly leaders of the Temple and the majority of the sanhedrin opposed Yeshua’s claim of Messiahship. In fact Ephesians is a “prison epistle” written after Paul had been arrested by either the earthly leadership of Israel, or by the earthly representatives of the Roman Empire.
But you say:
Distant gentile followers of the rejected Messiah are recognized by the earthly governing leadership of Israel and accorded a legal status of full citizenship in Israel that is recognized by the Roman Empire?
The “logic” you subscribe to…
Another thing that is important in this discussion is Ephesians 3:
“For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Messiah Yeshua on behalf of you Gentiles—2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Messiah, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are…
συγκληρονόμα – fellow heirs, [co-heirs with Israel]
σύσσωμα – members of the same body, [co-members of the body with Israel]
καὶ συμμέτοχα – and partakers [co-partakers with Israel]
of the promise in Messiah Yeshua through the gospel.”
So whatever the new status of citizenship in Eph 2 and Phil 3 is for the Nations in the “Household of G-d” it was not known to prior generations. So there is no basis to justify your views by using גר from the Torah.
Shalom.
Benkeshet,
Re: “Are you saying that Paul is telling the Ephesians that they can now go to Judea and be recognized as citizens by the priestly leaders of the Temple as well as the Sanhedrin, and all the Jewish people of Judea will accept them as literal citizens of Israel???”
I’m puzzled how you’re getting that from Cohen’s statement. Let’s look at Cohen’s statement again:
“the Judaeans themselves, not only in Judaea BUT EVEN IN THE DIASPORA, will have been politai or ‘citizens.’ ….Judaeans are ‘citizens,’ and Jewishness is their citizenship.”
Israeli citizenship is a covenantal concept in addition to being a civil concept. This duality means that even if you destroy the nation of Israel, the surviving Jews remain citizens of Israel. It’s a citizenship not limited by geography.
Think of it this way: the nation of Israel began outside Israel proper. In fact, it was established in Egypt via Passover. Don’t you agree?
After you answer that question, we can proceed.
Peter, you don’t get to make up your own facts. The nation of Israel are Israel, his sons, and their descendants. This didn’t begin at Passover or after any other event.
Gene, it’s statements like this that inspired me to write Attack Dogs. It’s not the disagreements that are problematic in the blogosphere, it’s those individuals who use the Internet as a platform, not just for their issues, but for their attitudes. Would the above quoted comment have been said if this were a face to face conversation? It’s a mistake to think that arrogance is anything more nobel.
Still I think there is a confusion. Paulos says in his letter to the Ephesians that the gentiles, were fare of the citizenship of Yisrael; it means, the time afore they had not that citizenship is being one amongst Yisrael, G-ds chosen people. Now they are part of the blessings. Does this mean the became citizens of Yisrael? Would that be what was meant, crowding haEretz? No, they became citizen of the Kingdom of heven, which came to us with the coming of Yeshua, because he disclosed it by his offer, by finally giving the long hoped for opportunity to become priests, by becoming born again, revived in the heart and spirit, immersed, like all priests should, and clothed with white linen like a cohen schould, that is to say, clothed with righteousness. An out Mashiach Himself is our righteousness, as He is called HASEM tzidkenu – the L-rd our righteousness, thats why the rabbis call him Mashiach Tzidkenu.Anointed wit the Spirit of G-d and so able to enter the Holy place, remember, only the priests may do.
If you don’t know anything about the connection of the Malchoet Elokim Kingdom of G-d / Malchoet haShamayim – the Ohel Mo’ed / the Heichal and Gan Eden an what kohanim (priests) have to do with that. Than you now little on the message of Yeshua to Yisrael and the nations.
One can not take a few sentences of Paulos out of line and giving an own interpretation to it, while on the Kingdom there has been thought things, not only Paulos refers to the heaven as Kingdom where the citizinship should be from but Yeshua the King Himself said: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John.18:36). Many other times He talks of the Kingdom of Heaven. Citizenship there is important. This doesn’t the earthly Kingdom of Yisrael, which will not pass until Heaven and Earth will.
Shmuel,
Where Benkeshet was confused was the difference between citizenship in Medinat Yisrael and Adat Yisrael. Medinat is mishpat ivri (civil law) and the Edah is chukah ivri (religious law). The Edah is the covenantal entity of Yisrael. Membership in it is defined through covenantal parameters.
The Edah was created through Pesach. Once the Edah was established, all descendants of that Edah were automatically deemed to be citizens of Adat Yisrael. This is why in Joshua 5 we see that the uncircumcised Israelites were citizens via patrimony (yet this flagrant violation of the covenant required a re-covenanting as we see later in that same passage they celebrated a Passover).
So the question then is “What type of citizenship is Paul talking about in Ephesians 2?” I believe he’s talking about citizenship in Adat Yisrael and not citizenship in Medinat Yisrael. He’s talking about covenant in that passage so it stands to reason that the type of citizenship being discussed is covenantal citizenship.
Gene,
Re: “Peter, you don’t get to make up your own facts. The nation of Israel are Israel, his sons, and their descendants. This didn’t begin at Passover or after any other event.”
What facts do you think were baseless? To what exactly are you referring?
James,
Re: “Would the above quoted comment have been said if this were a face to face conversation?”
Absolutely! : )
“After you answer that question, we can proceed.”
Peter, if you insisted that I answer a particular inquisition of yours before we can continue a conversation, that would probably be the end of it.
Gene, a person who admits they’re as rude and disrespectful of others in person as they are on the Internet is not commending themselves.
Peter, if you insisted that I answer a particular inquisition of yours before we can continue a conversation, that would probably be the end of it.
Exactly, Gene.
בס”ד
@Peter
Think of it this way: the nation of Israel began outside Israel proper. In fact, it was established in Egypt via Passover. Don’t you agree?
After you answer that question, we can proceed.
and this gem…
I believe he’s talking about citizenship in Adat Yisrael and not citizenship in Medinat Yisrael.
Peter, I do truly have concern about your views and am willing to point out where your concept fails. However I really was not drawn to comment at this blog because of you, but because of “Anonymus” way up towards the start. Other readers need to see a clear response to what you promote. So if I comment, it is not at your mercy, it is for other readers who need to consider alternative views to what you promote. Gene, James, Shmuel, Boaz and others have also added to the weight of evidence against your view, which you mostly fail to address.
In any case, I didn’t notice your response to Paul’s Philippian comment of Citizenship in Heaven, which a careful scholar would have to take into thorough account in relation to Ephesians 2:12.
If I understand the modern One Law view properly, what is promoted is not actually One Law for every believer since you don’t observe circumcision, which the texts of the Torah demand for the ger in order to be joined to Israel. So One Law, as applied by your theory, is a misnomer and a misappropriation of Israel’s Torah.
That failing, you next try One Citizenship, a la Ephesians 2:12, but even there you run into trouble and have to whittle that down to Adat Yisrael and not Medinat Yisrael. So from One Law, to One Citizenship, and then to One Citizenship in Adat Yisrael, but not Medinat Israel.
However you already cited the Roman Citizenship of Acts 22:28 to support your view. But as I pointed out above Roman Citizenship is not about an “edah” (Adat Roma’im, i.e. descendents of the Romans), but “davka” about a Medinah, i.e. the Government of the Roman Empire, which included all kinds of “edot” including “adat Israel.” So the “citizenship” of Acts 22:28 is not giving you the aid and support you need, even though you already claimed it as your saviour. Just to reiterate, Paul’s Roman citizenship was for Medinat Roma, not for partying around with the tribes of the Tiber eating pork and lobster, etc.
So you are down to Ephesians 2:12 and the citizenship of what you say is Adat Israel. After rereading the verse a few times it appears that Paul’s comment is general, and not specific, and that he does indeed speak of Israel’s advantage, just as he wrote in Romans 3:1-2:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way.
In truth, compared to the rest of the world Israel has been blessed with a comprehensive national Torah that serves as a constitution both for civic and spiritual matters.
But please read the rest of Romans 3-4 and understand that these advantages have not granted Israel the perfection that G-d requires or intended for his sons and daughters. Both Israel and the Nations must believe the Good News about Yeshua and receive the transformation of life provided by the now-outpoured Ruach Hakodesh.
Your unwitting error is in assuming that the solution to the problem of the Nations being separated from G-d is to make them citizens of Israel.
But that is a faulty reading of both Ephesians 2 and Romans 3-4. Paul said Israel too must be transformed, just as the Nations are transformed.
17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off [Nations who had been children of wrath] and peace to those who were near [Israel]. 18 For through him [Messiah Yeshua] we both [Israel and the Nations] have access in one Spirit to the Father.
The promise of the New Covenant is not citizenship in the provisions of Sinai, but rather new life by the Ruach Hakodesh. This is a different kind of citizenship (Phil 3:20) that Yeshua offers to Israel first, and certainly then to the Nations.
So the citizenship of Israel in Ephesians 2:12 that you hang your misnamed One Law view on is not the solution, because otherwise that citizenship, on its own, would have provided Israel access by the One Ruach to the Father, which it did not, and still does not. Access to the Father is via Yeshua the Messiah.
But now in Messiah Yeshua you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both [Israel and the Nations] one …
The solution to the problem of the Nations being separated from G-d is to believe the Good News of Yeshua and receive the Ruach Hakodesh. Everyone who does become part of the “Household of G-d.”
19 So then you [Nations] are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints [Israel] and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Messiah Yeshua himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
This transformation by the Ruach Hakodesh provides the New Covenant relationship to Hashem, as Paul wrote in Titus 3:4-7:
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Messiah Yeshua our Moshiah, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Because of this transformation Paul would write such strong words in Galatians, and could write the following in 5:16-26:
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Messiah Yeshua have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
This is completely in keeping with what Paul wrote in 1Cor.12:12-20
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Messiah. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or whether Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
So Paul maintains a clear distinction between Jews and Greeks, way out in Corinth, which is farther away from “Medinat Yisrael” than Ephesus. Greeks did not cease being Greeks, but they did become part of a Body via the Ruach Hakodesh. The Body consists of many different members, like Israel and the Greeks.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. . . . 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
And this corresponds to what I pointed out above in Ephesians 3:6:
σύσσωμα – co-members of the body with Israel
So the crux of your error is that you assume Israel’s citizenship of Ephesians 2:12 supplies the solution to separation from G-d when it does not. Rather, the New Covenant Yeshua established provides that solution, first for Israel, and then, as Paul said in Ephesians 3, though it had been hidden from previous generations, it is now revealed that the New Covenant also provides the same remedy for the Nations.
What more shall we say?
benkeshet, just excellent, thorough, well supported! At the same time, it is sad that we still have to spend our time rebutting such errors.
Actually, in a sense, this rebuttal of errors can be more educational than any given blog post that initiates them. There’s far more solid and sound material being presented here than I was previously aware of; enough for several blog posts, if I chose to use what benkeshet and shmuel are writing as “jumping off” points. Really, I’m having a blast reading what they’re saying here but I do see your point. As I said before, it’s not disagreement and error that are particularly upsetting. We’re all capable of making mistakes (I know that better than most). The only real sadness involved is any lack of graciousness that occurs during such debates, and only a minority of folks (as far as this conversation goes anyway) are making *that* mistake.
Benkeshet,
Is Ephesians 2 talking about Roman citizenship? No. Look at how Paul connects citizenship IN ISRAEL to the masoret habrit (covenantal tradition):
“…remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise…”
Why does he connect citizenship in Israel with membership in the covenants? Because this is how citizenship operates in the Edah. It’s not a regional citizenship; it’s the citizenship of being in the family of Israel. Daniel Elazar writes:
“Persons who were not full members of the edah were excluded from the celebration of the Passover rite, while failure to participate on the part of those who were ezrahim (citizens) incurred the penalty of karet (death by Divine punishment; Exod. 12:43-45).”
So we see that citizenship in the Edah conveys the right/duty to obey Torat Moshe. This is what the One Law passages are all about: if someone is initiated into the masoret habrit (i.e. the covenants of promise to which Paul refers) then he/she is obligated to obey Torat Moshe.
How did Israel get created? You still didn’t answer. Israel first acted as a tribal confederation by participating in Passsover. This national family meal symbolized all of the twelve tribes acting as one federal entity. This was like a marriage, the betrothal occurring at Passover and the ceremony occurring at Sinai on Shavuot. The product of this covenant was Adat Yisrael.
Once Adat Yisrael, the covenantal entity of Israel, was formed then it perpetuated through the family (e.g. patrilineal descent). But people could also join by circumcision, tevilah, and sacrifice–rituals that conveyed being born into a family and having the blood of that new family.
So how do the gentiles join Adat Yisrael? Through the blood of Yeshua. Here’s how Paul explains it in Ephesians 2:
“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
What is this blood of Moshiach? It is the blood of Passover:
“For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5)
“The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11)
So when you read Ephesians 2 does it read like gentiles are being excluded from Passover, from the blood of the Lamb? Or does it look like they are being included in Passover and the blood of the Lamb?
If you say included then that means citizenship. And that’s why Paul says that they are citizens (politeia). The context is not Rome nor is it a Commonwealth in which people are excluded from citizenship (for that’s what a Commonwealth does–it excludes races from having the full rights of citizenship); rather, the context is Israel and the covenants and the blood of Yeshua, our Passover Lamb.
You can’t escape this context.
“excluded from citizenship in Israel”
That’s what the New International version says. However, just about ALL other translations render it like this (or a variation thereof):
“having been alienated (or estranged) from the commonwealth of Israel”
The gist is that Gentiles were alienated from G-d and whatever He was doing in Israel. In Messiah they are no longer alienated but are drawn closer. This does not make them “citizens” of the nation and people of Israel, but they do get something far better – they become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Through Messiah, they are drawn closer to Israel and her covenants.
בס”ד
The gist is that Gentiles were alienated from G-d and whatever He was doing in Israel. In Messiah they are no longer alienated but are drawn closer. This does not make them “citizens” of the nation and people of Israel, but they do get something far better – they become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Through Messiah, they are drawn closer to Israel and her covenants.
QFT – Very nice Gene.
@Peter
Is Ephesians 2 talking about Roman citizenship? No.
Man, you brought up Acts 22:18. I’ve just pointed out that it is an epic fail for your Ephesians 2:12 theory. I grant that Eph 2:12 speaks of Israel’s specific national blessings, but you have failed to respond to the fact that even those cannot provide ultimate satisfaction with Hashem, not for Israel, and not for the Nations. Only the New Covenant can.
So we see that citizenship in the Edah conveys the right/duty to obey Torat Moshe. This is what the One Law passages are all about: if someone is initiated into the masoret habrit (i.e. the covenants of promise to which Paul refers) then he/she is obligated to obey Torat Moshe.
Again your astounding non-sequiturs…
You already said you don’t obey Torat Moshe, which includes mishpatim and citizenship in Medinat Yisrael. You said there is a difference between citizenship in Medinat Yisrael and Adat Yisrael. Medinat is mishpat ivri (civil law) and the Edah is chukah ivri (religious law).
But sorry. Your proposed difference between Adah and Medinah based on “misphat” and “hukkot” is purely imagined.
וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אַתֶּם אֶת-חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת-מִשְׁפָּטַי,
וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה:
הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם.
According to the Torah both the native Israelite ezrach as well as the ger are obligated to “hukkotai” and “mishpatai” of Hashem. (And just to point out yet again, in this verse Israel is told to guard the conduct of the gerim in their midst. This mitzvah was not directed to the gerim.) You say you want the Nations to be “One Law” with Israel, but you only really want to observe “religious hukkot” and not the bulk of Israel’s Torah. So you are not “One Law” with Israel and it is actually a lie, wittingly or unwittingly, to say you are. You pick and choose what suits you. But who gave you the authority to pick and choose? Paul didn’t. Where do you get the authority to choose what part of the Torah you think applies to you, to the point of calling yourself citizens of Israel? Oh sorry, citizens of Adat Israel. And where does the term “masoret habrit” come from? My guess is your imagination.
Messiah is the Passover Lamb for the Universe, not just Israel.
“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29.
Yeshua the Passover Lamb is not constrained by the Pesach of the Torah, but far supersedes it. Yeshua’s sacrifice did not cancel or replace the Pesach for Israel, but should make it far more meaningful. At the same time Messiah’s Sacrifice does not in any way obligate the Nations to observe Israel’s Pesach.
Yet of a truth the so-called Lord’s Supper is a gift to all in the Body, Israel and the Nations, to recall Messiah’s Sacrifice until he returns. But that supper is not part of the Torah of Moshe, so observing the Seudat HaAdon still does not make the Nations obligated in any way to other observances of the Torah.
You also propose faulty views on עדת ישראל (Adat Yisrael)
You say Passover formed עדת ישראל
How did Israel get created? You still didn’t answer. Israel first acted as a tribal confederation by participating in Passsover. This national family meal symbolized all of the twelve tribes acting as one federal entity. This was like a marriage, the betrothal occurring at Passover and the ceremony occurring at Sinai on Shavuot. The product of this covenant was Adat Yisrael.
First of all, you are reading in all kinds of things that were not in the minds of the Israelites on the first Pesach. That makes it convenient for you, three millennia later, to say it applies to you. But you mistakenly say the Pesach covenant produced “Adat Israel.” Wrong…
The Torah says Hashem told Moshe to tell עדת ישראל (Adat Yisrael)BEFORE the Passover how to perform the Passover. So Israel was already עדת ישראל before the Passover.
דַּבְּרוּ, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר,
בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה:
וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית-אָבֹת–שֶׂה לַבָּיִת.
So your extrapolations of Pesach-to-Adah-to-One-Law are all based on faulty logic, and you ought to cease from promoting it.
I already said that Ephesians 2:12 does not speak of a commonwealth, but of Israel’s specific national covenant. Yet that national covenant will not provide the reconciliation the Nations need, because Israel too needs the reconciliation of the New Covenant in Messiah Yeshua. You have failed to acknowledge that even that Israel’s national covenant is not enough for Hashem’s pleasure. Only Messiah’s New Covenant, for both Israel and the Nations, provides the redemption. That Covenant provides the Citizenship in Heaven for both Israel and the Nations. You have not dealt with Philippians 3:20 in relationship to Ephesians 2:12.
“The Torah says Hashem told Moshe to tell עדת ישראל (Adat Yisrael)BEFORE the Passover how to perform the Passover. So Israel was already עדת ישראל before the Passover.”
Wow, that’s great, benkeshet. Some time ago, Peter tried to pull almost the exact same stuff by claiming that Israelites who were not circumcised in the desert [because Israel was on the move] were NOT actually Israelites until they were circumcised by Joshua.
When I showed him in the Torah where G-d Himself tells Joshua “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” (Joshua 5:2), i.e. G-d considered these men/boys Israelites even before circumcision by virtue of their birth, finally, after MUCH delay, Peter had to admit that he was wrong on this.
I wonder if he has the guts to do likewise again.
Benkeshet,
No, Passover created Adat Yisrael. Daniel Elazar, the great Jewish political scientist, writes:
“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
Re: “but you have failed to respond to the fact that even those cannot provide ultimate satisfaction with Hashem, not for Israel, and not for the Nations. Only the New Covenant can.”
In fact, I’ve already explained that. Israel always re-covenanted through Passover. The New Covenant is no exception. I quoted 1 Corinthians 5 and 11 which show that Yeshua saw the Passover as referring to Himself and His blood which was the blood of the New Covenant. Thus, Yeshua is the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant.
Re: “I already said that Ephesians 2:12 does not speak of a commonwealth, but of Israel’s specific national covenant.”
Now I’m confused. We’ve got Gene over there saying it refers to a commonwealth. But you’re agreeing with me that Eph. 2:12 refers to the Israel covenant? Do you also agree that Paul is saying that the gentiles are included in this Israel covenant?
Gene,
Re: “I wonder if he has the guts to do likewise again.”
See my response to Benkeshet. All of the Jewish scholars agree with me that Passover created Adat Yisrael. It is you who should admit that you are wrong.
“ALL of the Jewish scholars agree with me“, says Peter, while citing a “political scientist” to support his conclusion.
ARE YOU TROLLING???
I think you are. If you are actually serious, I really doubt that an adult conversation is possible with you.
Gene,
You’ve got a lot of chutzpah to disagree with Elazar and Cohen and Buber and Noth and Alt without citing any evidence to support your view. Where’s YOUR evidence? I dare you to do better than all those guys.
It doesn’t matter when Yisrael became a nation and which focus you will give it. it was even enclosed in prophecy that the reign and law would not cease from Yehudah until Mashiach would come to whom it belongs (Vaychi 49:10), also it is said that the crown would be taken and turn, turn, turn, untill He comes to who it belongs (Yechezekel 21:31,32) – turn from the house of David, turn from the house of the Chashmonaim, turn of beth Horredos… Yeshua didn’t become Mellech Yisrael installed, he was unrecognized, but declared the Malchut hashamayim was near and come and amongst and how to enter it. In Acts 1 He refused to tell when the Kingdom of Yisrael would be raised again.
Yisrael nowadays is no human accident. Claiming so, would not be recognizing G-ds work. That doesn’t mean it is right as it is; right after leaving Egypt Yisrael was neither perfect, they were still partly Idol worshippers. The Maharal of Prague said that like then when Yisrael will return, there first will be a non-consecrated state, but that that it will become Holy state in the end (see Gevuroth HaShem 82:18)*. The sanctification an making pure of the Am Yisrael will follow. And the it is no Kingdom either now. It will, when the King returns.
What I say here is that claiming part of the Machut Ysrael is not correct in this technical way. What I said earlier is that the Malchut Hashamayim – the Kingdom of Heavens is intended by Shaul. First the gentiles were alienated even from the citenship of Yisrael, but have now the chance to have a bigger citenship with them in the Kingdom of heaven, which doesn’t make them Yisraelite. At the end of the letter to the Galatians Paulos distincts between the gentiles and Jews in Yeshua that are born again, saying: “For in the Mashiach Yeshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace on them, and mercy, AND upon the Israel of G-d.” (6:15,16)
* if you cannot reach the text:
השלימות נגרר מלכות המשיח אל אדום. וזהו דכתיב שם ירעה עגל ושם ירבץ. קרא מלך המשיח כאשר לא נמצא עדיין בשלימות מעלתו כמו עגל שלא נשלם גידול שלו. וזהו שאמרו בסוף פרשת שמיני בויקרא רבה (פ’ י”ג) ואת החזיר זו אדום והוא גרה לא יגר שאינה גוררת מלכות אחריה ולמה נקרא שמה חזיר שמחזרת עטרה לבעליה הה”ד ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה’ המלוכה. ולפיכך יושב עמהם במדינה שהרי כרוך וקשור בהעדר שלהם, שההעדר שלהם מביא לקבל מלכות אחרת. ותבין בזה דברים עליונים, והוא כי האומה הנזכרת מצד עצמה מחזרת את המלכות לבעליה, כי יש לזאת האומה ולזאת המלוכה אפיסה מן המלכות מאשר היא מלכות נפסדת מצד עצמה, ולא תהא אפיסה הזאת אפיסה מוחלטת אל לא דבר לגמרי דהיינו שלא יהיה מלכות בעולם, כי אין הנהגת העולם חסר מכלות, ולפיכך גורם שתהיה אפיסה זאת אל מכלות שמים. וזהו שרמזו חכמים בהגדת חלק (סנהדרין צ”ח ע”א) שאמר שאליהו ז”ל לרבי יהושע בן לוי היכן יתיב אמר לו אליהו ז”ל שהוא יושב על פתח המדינה של רומי, הראה לו הקשה המשיח שהוא דבק ומחובר בעצמו אל מלכות רביעית בסוף שלהם, וזהו שאמר אפתחא של מדינה שהוא סוף העיר שההעדר כרוך בסוף והבן זה היטב, ויתבאר בספר הנצח (פרק כ”ח) בעה”י. ומזה הטעם היה גדל משה רבינו עליו השלום בפלטין של מלך פרעה, כמו שהמשיח יתיב אפתחא דרומי, כי לולא אותו ההעדר שיש בנמצא לא תחול צורה אחרת המקוימת אחר כך. ועוד יש לך להבין כי מלכות ישראל בהתחדשה, כמו שהיה ביציאת מצרים שהתחיל ממשלת ישראל, שלא היה מלכות קודם זה לישראל, ולעתיד מלכות המשיח שתתחדש מלכות חדשה היא יוצאה מן המלכות הראשונה שלפני זה. וזה כי מלכות ישראל הקדושה שיש לה מדריגה אלהית פנימית היא צומחת מתוך מלכות בלתי קדושה, שכך ראוי למלכות שיש לה מעלה אלהית מעלה פנימית, והכל רמזו במה שאמר ואוציא אש מתוכך כי יציאת הקדושה הנמשלת באש לדקות האש תצא מתוך דבר חול ושורף את הכל. וכן תמצא שהפרי כאשר הוא בלתי נשלם הוא בתוך הקליפה, עד שהפרי גדול ועומד על שלימותו, ואז כאשר הפרי גדול נפסדה הקליפה מכח גידול הפרי, שכל דבר שיש לו מדריגה פנימית הוא יוצא מתוך דבר שהוא חיצון לו, ולכך היה גדל משה רבינו עליו השלום בבית פרעה להיות יוצאת המדריגה הקדושה האלהית שהיה למשה מתוך דבר החמרי, דאם לא כן לא היה אל הנבדל מדריגה פנימית. והבן דבר זה כי הוא עמוק מאוד והוא ידוע למי שיודע בענין דברים הנבדלים היוצאים ומתעלים מתוך הדברים החמרים, וכן משיח יושב במדינת אדום. והנה הארכנו בזה מאוד כי הוא דבר גדול מאוד להבין הסבה מה נתגדל משה רבינו עליו השלום בבית פרעה ודי בזה
Shmuel,
Re: “What I said earlier is that the Malchut Hashamayim – the Kingdom of Heavens is intended by Shaul. First the gentiles were alienated even from the citenship of Yisrael, but have now the chance to have a bigger citenship with them in the Kingdom of heaven”
If that was true then reductio ad absurdem, Paul would be saying “formerly you were excluded but now…well, you’re still excluded.” That view just doesn’t work.
The beauty of the New Covenant is that the gentiles are included in Adat Yisrael by virtue of Yeshua’s blood which renders them as family.
Peter,I only can conclude that you are still not near (understanding about) the Kingdom of G-d! which is more than HaEretz. You should become a proper geir than!
““The Torah says Hashem told Moshe to tell עדת ישראל (Adat Yisrael)BEFORE the Passover how to perform the Passover. So Israel was already עדת ישראל before the Passover.”
Wow, that’s great, benkeshet. Some time ago, Peter tried to pull almost the exact same stuff by claiming that Israelites who were not circumcised in the desert [because Israel was on the move] were NOT actually Israelites until they were circumcised by Joshua.
When I showed him in the Torah where G-d Himself tells Joshua “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” (Joshua 5:2), i.e. G-d considered these men/boys Israelites even before circumcision by virtue of their birth, finally, after MUCH delay, Peter had to admit that he was wrong on this.
I wonder if he has the guts to do likewise again.”
Gene,
Are you admitting that circumcision is NOT a requirement to be a part of Adat Israel? Just asking……
“Are you admitting that circumcision is NOT a requirement to be a part of Adat Israel? Just asking……”
A Jew is a Jew, circumcised or not. A Gentile is a Gentile, circumcised or not. A Gentile is not a Jew, but can convert to Judaism and become a Jewish proselyte or a Jew in a religious sense.
P. S. I use words Jew and Israelite interchangeably, just as the Bible, NT and the Jewish people do.
Let me put it in easier terms for you to understand….
If a gentile want to become a Jew does he have to be circumcised? Can he join Adat Israel without being circumcised since Joshua 5 shows us that there were members of Adat Israel and not cirucumcised?
“A Jew is a Jew, circumcised or not.”
How do you know this? What criteria are you following?
That can be tricky to use Jew and Yisraelite interchangable, because in the Brit haChadasha it was used for Yehudim in competition with Galilim. See: Who Were the ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ?, Malcolm Lowe, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 101-130, Published by: BRILL
“A Jew is a Jew, circumcised or not.”
How do you know this? What criteria are you following?
Are you saying that if a boy is born of two Jewish parents but they don’t have them circumcised by a mohel on the eighth day (let’s say they’re atheists), that the child is not Jewish and would never be accepted into any Jewish community until circumcised, Dan?
If a Jew was not a Jew being not circumcised, why is he asked to be circumcised? That would mean that the child would not be Yisraelite the first 7 days? Than it would not be necessery. But since he is Jewish, he should, or do we want to risk being sought to die? (see case of Mosheh with his sons).
“That can be tricky to use Jew and Yisraelite interchangable, because in the Brit haChadasha it was used for Yehudim in competition with Galilim. ”
Shmuel, I am talking in a religious sense and in overall ethnic sense. Yeshua was from Galilee, yet he was called a Jew (John 4:9). Yes, there’s a distinction being made in NT between Judeans (Jews living in Judea) and Jews living elsewhere (Galilean Jews), but that was a temporal distinction and all of them were Jews regardless.
“If a gentile want to become a Jew does he have to be circumcised?”
Dan – yes. I don’t make the rules. BTW, Jews HAVE to be circumcised because they are obligated to do so by the terms of the covenant, but not to become or remain Jews, since they already are. If they (voluntarily) do not, they sin gravely and Bible says that they will be punished by being cut OFF from the people of Israel for breaking the covenant (Genesis 17:14), mostly likely in the World to Come.
I know Gene, I just wanted to remark that sometimes…
James, this is not answering my question….
Gene,
“Dan – yes. I don’t make the rules. BTW, Jews HAVE to be circumcised because they are obligated to do so by the terms of the covenant, but not to become or remain Jews, since they already are. If they (voluntarily) do not, they sin gravely and Bible says that they will be punished by being cut OFF from the people of Israel for breaking the covenant (Genesis 17:14), mostly likely in the World to Come.”
I think you are going to have big problems with Orthodox Judaism telling them this.
As far as Joshua 5, how do you know that some of the mixed multitudes were not included in the people to be circumcised? If this is the case, then they were a part of Adat Israel before becoming circumcised, no?
Indeed Gene: the Kareth haAm [cut off from the people (of Yisrael)] is what Paulos talked about when he said that circumcision doesn’t help when someone does do things by which he is culpable to the sentence from heaven “kareth ha-am” (see the letter to the Romans, ch.2), oftenly misunderstood as if circumcission is not important. Lacking the knowledge of the Torath Mosheh which includes Kareth HaAm…
Shmuel,
For someone to be cut off from his people, doesn’t he need to belong to a people first? There is where Gene is wrong. One will be cut off if not circumcised, which mean that there is no thing like “a jew is a jew circumcised or not…”
“One will be cut off if not circumcised, which mean that there is no thing like “a jew is a jew circumcised or not…”
“WILL be cut off” is not the same as “IS cut off”, and being punished in this life is not the same as being punished in the afterlife.
Israelites who had to wait for forty years for Joshua to circumcise them were certainly NOT cut off from Israel, which means that there’s a such a thing as an uncircumcised Jew.
“Israelites who had to wait for forty years for Joshua to circumcise them were certainly NOT cut off from Israel, which means that there’s a such a thing as an uncircumcised Jew.”
What would have happen if they would not have been circumcised?
Together, loudly… “They WILL be cut of…
Thanks for participating…..
Dan, and your point is….?
My point is that according to the Rabbis, A Jew is not a Jew if not circumcised. any questions? Ask the interior ministry of Israel…..
He is an Yisraelite, which should conform himself to the covenant, if not, he will be cut of: “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”, so after keeping to disobey. It is a law from the covenant with Avraham. It says shall be cut off,meaning belonging to unless keeping himself in that status. So Jews among us uncircumcised: get it done now!
Dan, great point.
בס”ד
Just a reminder:
Paul wrote in 1Cor.12:12-13
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Messiah. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or whether Greeks, whether slaves or whether free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Ephesians 2:
“17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off [Nations who had been children of wrath] and peace to those who were near [Israel]. 18 For through him [Messiah Yeshua] we both [Israel and the Nations] have access in one Spirit to the Father.”
Ephesians 3:
“For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Messiah Yeshua on behalf of you Gentiles—2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Messiah, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are…
συγκληρονόμα – fellow heirs,
[co-heirs with Israel]
σύσσωμα – members of the same body,
[co-members of the body with Israel]
καὶ συμμέτοχα – and partakers
[co-partakers with Israel]
of the promise in Messiah Yeshua through the gospel.”
So whatever the new status of citizenship in Eph 2 and Phil 3 is for the Nations in the “Household of G-d” it was not known to prior generations.
So there is no basis for citing the גר … or the “Adat Israel” from the Torah…
I was hoping Peter would keep going. In a light-hearted fashion I occasionally stop by this thread still to see who is doing what and if you guys are still on this same kick.
בס”ד
Hate to be so pedantic, but just in case you missed it above:
Paul still calls Greek believers in Messiah Greeks in 1Cor12:13, an epistle where he earlier mentioned Messiah as “Passover Lamb”…
Paul still calls the Gentile believers Gentiles in Ephesians 3, which obviously follows Ephesians 2 and citizenship in the “Household of G-d.”
There’s no sign from Paul that either the Greeks of 1Cor 12, or the Gentiles of Eph. 2, were now Adat Israel, which does not consist of “Gentiles,” and Paul clearly distinguishes Jews from Greeks in the “Body” in 1Cor 12.
Concluding, there is no sign from Paul that the Body of Messiah consists solely of Adat Israel.
Drake, 187 Comments!!!
The Drake! I was wondering if you were still out there… But of course you’re always out there…a silent guardian…a watchful protector…a Dark Knight. : )
Benkeshet,
Re: “There’s no sign from Paul that either the Greeks of 1Cor 12, or the Gentiles of Eph. 2, were now Adat Israel, which does not consist of “Gentiles,” and Paul clearly distinguishes Jews from Greeks in the “Body” in 1Cor 12.”
Ha! It’s funny you should bring up 1 Corinthians 12 which says the following:
οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι
In English it says:
“You know that when you WERE gentiles, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.”
There’s only two possible statuses for a goy: (1) paroikos (uncovenanted) or (2) ezrach (covenanted citizen). Novak explains the Rabbinic position:
“Because o f the wide disparity in the use of the term ger, the rabbis saw it denoting two different statuses. When the term seemed to denote a full participant in Jewish religious life they defined him as a ger tzedeq, a proselyte. When, on the other hand, the term seemed to denote a quasi-citizen of the Jewish polity they defined him as a ger toshab, a resident alien.”
In Ephesians 2, Paul rules out paroikos when he says that the goyim are no longer paroikos. So what’s left? CITIZENSHIP. And that’s why he says “politeia.”
[That one was for you, Drake]
בס”ד
@Peter
“Because of the wide disparity in the use of the term ger, the rabbis saw it denoting two different statuses. When the term seemed to denote a full participant in Jewish religious life they defined him as a ger tzedeq, a proselyte. When, on the other hand, the term seemed to denote a quasi-citizen of the Jewish polity they defined him as a ger toshab, a resident alien.”
So now you agree with the rabbinical view, i.e. that you are not a Jew!
Full participation in “Jewish religious life” is founded on circumcision.
So are you a “quasi-citizen of the Jewish polity” ? Too bad.
Paul tells the Ephesians Gentiles that they are full members of the Body of Messiah, and fellow citizens of the “Household of G-d.”
Benkeshet,
Re: “Full participation in “Jewish religious life” is founded on circumcision.”
Full participation in Jewish life is believing in Yeshua the Messiah. Period.
Well said Peter, I would also like to add, that all through the Torah, the Sojourner(ger/gentile) always maintained his ger/gentile status, you will never see a case where it is lost. He takes on the national identity of Israel as a nation, but he never loses his sojourner status.
Some say, comparing gentiles place today within the covenant to that of the sojourner is without basis, but I think it is very evident, from there is where we actually get the details of a gentiles place within covenant, and no it is not the same as a native born. We have gone over this time and time again. One specific is that the sojourner could not own land, that is a very clear command.
But even if the sojourner argument is lacking, Paul takes it to a whole other level, that gentiles are now potentially in a greater position than the sojourner was, as per Ephesians. In saying: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints…”
[This one is also for Drake, even though I don't know who you are!]
I would also like to add, that all through the Torah, the Sojourner(ger/gentile) always maintained his ger/gentile status, you will never see a case where it is lost.
Really? So the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Israelites and stood with them at Sinai; they and all their descendants forever never lost their Gentile identity, but perpetually, throughout the Tanakh record and into the time of the New Testament, co-existed side-by-side with the native born Israelites?
Could you point out a few obvious parts of the Tanakh that supports Gentile descendants never intermarrying and assimilating into the tribes? I don’t seem to recall any in my ten plus years of reading through the Bible. Thanks, Zion.
Really? So the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Israelites and stood with them at Sinai; they and all their descendants forever never lost their Gentile identity, but perpetually, throughout the Tanakh record and into the time of the New Testament, co-existed side-by-side with the native born Israelites?
I never said that, I said the sojourner never lost his identity, whether or not the sojourner had descendants is moot. Try to address what I actually write.
Could you point out a few obvious parts of the Tanakh that supports Gentile descendants never intermarrying and assimilating into the tribes? I don’t seem to recall any in my ten plus years of reading through the Bible. Thanks, Zion.
No need, that was never my point. My point is again, and I will repeat it for you. The sojourner, who was covenant is maintained all through the Tanakh.
בס”ד
Full participation in Jewish life is believing in Yeshua the Messiah. Period.
According to the quotation you cited about the Ger Tzedek, you are not fully participating in “Jewish religious life” if you are not circumcised, which is the whole point of the status of Ger Tzedek. Your quotation has nothing to do with faith in Yeshua the Messiah.
Real faith in Messiah Yeshua does not circumcise your body, it circumcises ones heart, but by a circumcision made without hands via the Ruach Hakodesh.
Peter, Zion. Ignoring the teaching of the Kingdom, rejecting one part of the law, while suggesting to be geir and Yisraelite alike, is indignantly trying to take what is not in you’re calling, and if it is, than take the whole Torah on you’re shoulders. Who do you think you are that you can take and leave after the like, and draw status upon yourself. Be consequent and take responsibility! I do not prevent you to become a geir, though I wouldn’t recommand it either, but be a proper one than!
But still I get very strong the impression that One Law fans don’t understand anything of why Yeshua came. He didn’t have to come in order that the gentiles could become geirim and attend the full body of mitzwoth; that path was always already open for them and don’t see any response on the teaching of the Kingdom of Heaven and everything which is included therein. If you missed that or see that as minor, well I don’t know in what position you really are, but that is not mine to judge.
Ignoring the teaching of the Kingdom, rejecting one part of the law, while suggesting to be geir and Yisraelite alike, is indignantly trying to take what is not in you’re calling, and if it is, than take the whole Torah on you’re shoulders.
I don’t ignore the teaching of the Kingdom, and neither do I reject a part of the Law, and neither am I or anyone I know trying to take or steal anything, we are simply seeking to serve God, thus you are making quite a lot of assumptions, if you would like clarification, just ask questions, I would be more than happy to share with you.
Shmuel,
Have you read Matt. 28:19-20? Does it include Matt. 5:17-20? Where does it say that one has to become a Ger in order to follow this?
I never said that, I said the sojourner never lost his identity, whether or not the sojourner had descendants is moot. Try to address what I actually write.
Thanks for the clarification. Then your point isn’t relevant. It’s not a model for non-Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah as I’ve previously stated in other blogs, since it wholly negates any contribution of the Jewish Messiah in our lives. Also, as I’ve previously stated, the intent of the Ger in the days of Moses, was never to create a permanent “class” of Gentiles who enjoyed an all but equal status in Israelite society except for being an actual Israelite. It was to provide a method for the descendants of the Gerim to enter into the Assembly of Israel after the third generation. (see Deut. 23:7-8)
Apples and oranges comparison with we Christians today, Zion.
“Matt. 28:19-20? Does it include Matt. 5:17-20? Where does it say that one has to become a Ger in order to follow this?”
Dan, Yeshua came for the Jews [he said "only" in Matthew 15:24] , so we know that he was addressing his Jewish audience when he spoke about Torah. But you want to argue from silence. Yeshua never sent the few Gentiles he healed to the Temple to be checked out by the priests there nor do we have any record of him telling any of the Gentiles he came across to become “Torah observant” (nor did the apostles go around preaching to Gentiles to abstain from non-kosher animals or to circumcise themselves).
On the other hand, a Gentile SHOULD obey whatever Torah is applicable to him or her, since G-d put an “internal” Torah into the heart of every human being ever born (Romans 2:14-15):
Gene,
Re: “…so we know that he was addressing his Jewish audience…”
So did Yeshua say “Go into all the world teaching the goyim everything I addressed to the goyim”? What version are you using over there? : )
Thanks for the clarification. Then your point isn’t relevant. It’s not a model for non-Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah as I’ve previously stated in other blogs, since it wholly negates any contribution of the Jewish Messiah in our lives.
It is only irrelevant if you do not understand covenant relationship. Also what you are saying, is that anything before the actual coming of the Messiah negates the Messiah, this is simply not accurate. All of scripture points and is purposed around the Messiah, the Mosaic Covenant is not in contradiction to the Messiah, neither are the commands. The Mosaic covenant can not provide eternal redemption and neither was it the purpose to do so, thus there is no negation or contradiction. Regardless, Paul gives the impression that gentiles status in covenant, is greater than that of the sojourner and alien. If the sojourner argument is moot, why did Paul use it.
Also, as I’ve previously stated, the intent of the Ger in the days of Moses, was never to create a permanent “class” of Gentiles who enjoyed an all but equal status in Israelite society except for being an actual Israelite. It was to provide a method for the descendants of the Gerim to enter into the Assembly of Israel after the third generation. (see Deut. 23:7-8)
I have no problems with this, the intent of One New Man, shares the same theme.
Apples and oranges comparison with we Christians today, Zion.
I disagree, the point of Paul’s arguments being made from the Tanakh themselves, is relevant, they all work cohesively.
Shmuel,
For this is the love of G-d, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 1John 5:3
Are you seriously suggesting that the goyim that have been called by His name refuse to keep His commandments?
Or perhaps you’d like to split the Torah? I’m very eager to see how you propose to accomplish such a splitting.
Read some of the comments above, Zion. The Messiah didn’t have to come for Gentiles to perform the Torah mitzvot. That avenue was already open to them, even in Yeshua’s time. Just convert. Obviously, there’s a gift we are meant to receive that can only come from the Messiah himself. It’s through him that we have access to the covenants at all. I don’t want to have to copy and paste large sections of what I’ve already written on my own blog, but, in brief (you must already know this), the Abrahamic covenant promises that we will benefit from Abraham’s seed (singular) who is Messiah. The New Covenant confirms this blessing for us and Yeshua himself mentions the New Covenant in his blood in the “Last Supper” narratives?
If I have the covenant connection to God through the blessings of the Messiah, what else do I need? Why do I have to seek more? What could be missing if it is provided by God?
We are “one new man” in the Kingdom of God, but as it has been said before many times, unity in God’s love does not require uniformity in identity. We will disagree until the Messiah comes and who knows, maybe after that. I engage you not with any hope that you’ll see my point of view, but to present the other side of the coin for those who are reading this conversation but are not commenting.
As I’ve been recently reminded, it’s not just what we say or who has the sharper or wittier argument, but how we treat each other that really matters. As I’ve also said before, this sort of conversation almost never brings out the best in us as professed disciples of the Master. More’s the pity.
If I have the covenant connection to God through the blessings of the Messiah, what else do I need? Why do I have to seek more? What could be missing if it is provided by God?
Nothing, just to be clear, the purpose of referencing the Sojourner or any of the Torah for any purpose is for education and understanding what God expects of us, and for the purpose of obedience. I don’t travel back in time before the Messiah came, on the other hand, if one wants to learn about the place of a gentile in covenant, then the ger is a great place for understanding. Paul thought it was, so should you and everyone else, trying to say it is moot because that was a long time ago or before the Messiah, is an illogical argument, the Law is included in the New Covenant, thus the commands of the Law are still present and valid.
We are “one new man” in the Kingdom of God, but as it has been said before many times, unity in God’s love does not require uniformity in identity.
I partially agree, the simple understanding of the sojourner shows, that there was not complete uniformity, but there was a form of uniformity, which your position ignores. Having a command that says a sojourner cannot own land is a clear distinction. Also having Paul confirms uniformity in saying: There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Your theology has us believe there is Two Bodies, or One Body with two parts, either way, this is not what Paul taught.
I’m continuing to explore the relationship between the different states or relationships we non-Jews may have in relation to God on my own blog. Doubtless you will disagree with my premise, my study materials, and my conclusions, but we each have to proceed on the path we believe is right for us. For me, that does not mean emulating a Jewish person as my method of responding to God’s expectations for me.
Actually, in a sense, my understanding of God’s expectations for me are emulating Jewish people, since we share the same values (or we should, anyway): Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Visit the sick person and the prisoner. Comfort those who are grieving. Be kind to everyone as you can. Are these not the way God wants us to respond to Him and to each other? I don’t need to covet someone else’s identity to obey God.
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Torah, do by nature things required by the Torah, they are a torah for themselves, even though they do not have the Torah. They show that the requirements of the Torah are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”
Gene,
Who do you think Paul identifies here as: “Gentiles who do the things of the Torah?”
1) Some pagans, on the basis of natural moral law, fulfill God’s Torah demands and so merit His favor?
2) If gentiles could keep the Torah out of conscience sake, they would be regarded as righteous?
3) That some pagan have a hidden faith, known only to God, and in their paganism still manifest some regard for the Torah of God as far as they are able?
4) Or that “Gentiles” here refers to Gentile believers who, though they have not been schooled in the Torah throughout their generations, still show humble hart of willingness to obey God and to live according to His Torah, which in itself is an expression of their love?
I am sure you will agree with me that # 4 applies. and if so, then read the verse just before this one: 13 “for not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the DOERS of the Torah will be justified.”
Be kind to everyone as you can. Are these not the way God wants us to respond to Him and to each other? I don’t need to covet someone else’s identity to obey God.
I agree.
I don’t want to covet anyone elses identity either, I don’t want to be Jewish, I just want to serve God, and to imitate the Jewish Messiah, if I end up looking Jewish on the way, that is not a problem with me. If Jesus was a Mexican, I would not mind if I looked Mexican. We all just want to serve God.
Zion, from my perspective, I just listed some of the more important things I think God wants us to do. The rest is commentary.
Some people try to aVoid a clear question: If you say you are a geir alike, than act after it. Since I don’t see consequent behavior after peoples claims, I am entitled to question that.
In our congregation gentile believers came also for quite some time, because it was so authentic, Jewish, etc. which was not difficult with more than 80% of them had a Jewish background, halachic or patrilineal, reform and even orthodox. Those gentile believers wanted to serve G-d in the best way they could. They were fixed on Thorah and rarely spoke of Yeshua, nor power of the Ruach haKoddesh. They wanted to act in every respect as a Jew, wanted to wear yarmulkas, wearing talles gadol and arba canfoth. They even wanted to become circumcised.
I personally think that is incorrect in respect of what the Scriptures read. We are all one but have our own calling. It says there is no Jew nor Greek, man or woman, slave nor master in Mashiach. This text is several times repeated and added is to what contend the oneness is. Paulos elsewhere gives instructions that clearly are intended for the calling of each of the different groups. Arnold Fruchtenbaum his most brilliant chapter in his book from back to the seventies “Hebrew Christianity, It’s Theology, History, and Philosophy is on this subject. Very recomendable and seldom read.
Paul is very clear: “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Gal.5:3). This doesn’t seem to me like a recommendation. But if you are to take the whole law on the shoulders, what was Paulos then murmuring about?
Paul is very clear: “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Gal.5:3). This doesn’t seem to me like a recommendation. But if you are to take the whole law on the shoulders, what was Paulos then murmuring about?
Paul answers in the very next verse, but you have to look at the whole context to understand what he was saying.
“…you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”
Paul was addressing a group who for some reason were seeking justification by law. And in trying to be justified by the Law, they have thus denied the Messiah. This has nothing to do with simply keeping the command of circumcision. And the reference to obligated to the whole Law, means: trying to be justified by it (one would have to be flawless), that is what they would be obligated too, this is not saying that circumcision obligates one to the whole law so do not do it, or we would have to ignore the very context of the next verse.
There’s more flip flopping in here than Mitt Romney! I think we need to stop dippin in and out of the Talmud so much! We’re starting to float too much in the Sud, come back down to the P’shat buddies… come on down… it’s nice an easy here! :-)
Romans 2: 28-29 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.
Mike! Still this is about a Jew for Paulos here from verse 17 is adressing the Jews. You can’t take this out of context, like the church has done for the past 1700 years. It just says that if he is only circumcised in the flesh, but not in the heart, he will fail in keeping the law and doesn’t live it natural after the heart of flesh en the revived spirit and the inhabitance of the Spirit of G-d. This is the Yisrael of G-d. The Yisraelite that came to the promised goal: a Kingdom of priests priest. That one can go into the heavenly Kingdom and intercede with power!
Hello again, Mike. Since you made the same comment on one of my blog posts, I’ll just post the link to my response rather than a copy and paste.
Shmuel,
Funny you should mention Galatians 5! Just wrote about that the other day:
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/10/whats-harm-two-different-messianic.html
Did I explain your view correctly?
Shalom,
Peter
I know that creative solution of the context of Galatians for 16 years by now. It doesn’t disqualify that Paulos said: “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”, nor does it set it in a different pretext and does it fit with other things said: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:… For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;” (Acts 21:24,28) and “and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”. So these texts clearly do not suggest that it is from the emmisaries of Yeshua to keep every precept in the law. It seems not forbidden, but to teach that it is better, or even obliged, as some do, I oppose.
Gene, I just posted this on JP’s blog, but thought I would post it here as well to assist in the efforts to push your comment count above 300! I had a great, but painfully long, discussion with about 80 non-Jews on Shabbat about mission, vision, opportunities, and needs. One kind lady came up immediately after and said that for the first time in her involvement in the MJ she felt affirmed as a Gentile. I also received this note:
***
I would like to thank you for visiting our congregation in NYC. As a gentile your message of redemption and the differences of it for the Jewish people and the Christian Gentile was and is extremely important for those of us who seek to work together to achieve the goal of redemption. Your message to the Gentiles, on returning to the Church and sharing the Jewish perspective of the life of our Messiah Jesus, the land, the people and scriptures of Israel made so much sense, and will allow Christian Gentiles to work side by side with Messianic Jews to achieve the redemption God has granted us through Messiah Jesus.
***
I look forward to the day in which we can all have a clear vision and sense of mission and work towards redemption. Thanks for the patience you have on your blog–people are watching and learning.
Thank you, Boaz, this means a lot to me. I appreciate all the tangible and spiritual effort that you put into this sorely needed work that G-d has you do on behalf of the Kingdom. Healing relationships between Jews and Gentiles, educating Christians to appreciate , learn from and apply Torah to their lives, reclaiming Yeshua the Jew, cultivating love and support for the people of Israel, proclaiming the Kingdom of Heaven – there’s much work to be done.
This is exactly the kind of encouragement we non-Jewish disciples need to help us realize that we do have a special and sacred mission in the plan of God. Oh, by the way, for those of you who missed it, I’m “JP.” ;-)
Shmuel and Everyone,
That verse you quoted isn’t in the Bible. All scholars now agree (and all modern Bible translations) that what you quoted is not in the Bible. It’s called a non-original, scribal addition. It was written by anti-Judaic copyists. It’s not found in ANY of the earliest manuscripts.
Here’s what you quoted that’s NOT in the Bible:
““Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:”
Here’s what’s actually in the Bible (and, by the way, it’s in Acts 15 not Acts 21):
“24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.” (Acts 15:24, NIV. See also NASB, ESV, etc)
Your quote is a translation from the Western textual tradition. Porter says this of the Western textual tradition:
“…from the scribe’s standpoint, changes were made to promote a doctrinal or ideological view not in the text being copied….INTENTIONAL ALTERATIONS include….often small changes…or longer additions such as found in manuscripts of the ‘Western’ textual tradition, where ANTI-JUDAIC…and other tendencies have been detected.”
So it’s amusing to me and to all One Law proponents reading your comments that you’ve had to resort to anti-Judaic, non-original, non-Biblical statements in order to substantiate your position. All of the modern Bibles throw out those anti-Biblical additions but you have clung to them in a desperate attempt to substantiate your crumbling argument.
For anyone out there who wishes to know which textual traditions are reliable:
“Most agree that two early and therefore highly significant text types have their roots in the second century and are represented in identifiable groups or clusters: (1) the Alexandrian text type (or B-text, formerly called ‘Neutral’), exemplified predominantly in [P]75 (third century) and Codex Vaticanus (B, fourth century), along with [P]66 (c. 200 CE), Sinaiticus ([aleph], fourth century)…(2) the ‘Western’ text type (or D-text), represented by Codex Bezae (D, fifth century)…. “Because of the high quality of the text found in the B group in contrast to the often rough form in the D group, most critics favor B as the ‘best’ kind of text and generally accord to it preeminent authority in textual decisions.” (Porter)
Shalom,
Peter
Peter, go ahead, pick and chose translations and versions of manuscripts that you like, cast aspersions on the veracity of this verse or that. It still doesn’t help your case, regardless. The text, no matter the manuscript or translation, STILL does not support your idea that the apostles actually taught that Gentile Christians are to take on the full yoke of the Torah of Moses, to observe everything that Jews do, to circumcise themselves, or in other words be fully obligated to the Law.
What’s the next step, Peter? Will you do what some of your OL friends did in the past – tell me that by freeing Gentiles from the full yoke of Torah the apostles erred greatly, disobeyed and went against Yeshua’s command to “teach all nations to obey everything I commanded”, and perhaps were racist and discriminatory toward Gentile believers? I certainly hope not!
Gene,
I think that about covers this one. How many comments was that? Is it a new record? : )
Yes Peter, you can be right on one verse, I don’t know. My library is on this moment not available to me (five bookcases with Judaica and early christianity, critical Bible versions in Greek, etc.). And yes, when at work, I’m sometimes hasty, putting a wrong chapter number. You know. I’m 21 years involved in Messianic Judaism, and you would think I don’t know these verses? Mentioning it is just showing bad taste!
The second quote was indeed from chapter 21 and I never met one responding to it or talking from the start about chapter 21. It was the chapter opening my eyes that Jews still should keep Torah, despite what was preached in the church. This chapter was not from anti Judaic copyists, showing clearly the contrary in content, but mentions the difference between what was expected from the believing Jews and the believing gentiles. This chapter is often omitted!
Shmuel,
Acts 21 is a very interesting chapter. It’s about the means by which Paul, as a Jew, is requested to demonstrate his allegiance to not only Torat Moshe and the masoret habrit but also his loyalty to the Edah. However, only a circumcised Jew could prove his fidelity in the manner that Paul did. As I understand it, Paul went up to Jersualem with some other pilgrims and most likely participated in a nazirite vow. As I understand it, an uncircumcised gentile would not have been able to complete this process because they were prohibited by the Temple authorities. And so the Council acknowledged that the gentile Believers in Yeshua were not required to make such a demonstration but rather they were to continue demonstrating their status as Believers by abstaining from the pollutions of idolatry (note that the Decree of Acts 15 is entirely about idolatry and the “pollutions” of such practices). Naturally the new converts couldn’t demonstrate their allegiance to the Torah in the same way as Paul because, in addition to being prohibited from certain aspects of Temple, they did not yet know the Torah. One cannot be expected to practice that which one does not yet understand. And, again, the expectation was that they would learn Torat Moshe (Acts 15:21).
Shmuel, I like you and I’m sorry if you’re offending by my harshness toward you in this thread. I do this because I’m obligated by Torah to help victims of certain false teachings. But I do genuinely like you and would even like to correspond further with you in private if you desire. If you do, feel free to contact me via by blog. If we correspond privately, I can be gentler.
Shalom,
Peter
I see someone found their way around the Chavruta Illusion in order to justify rudeness on the Internet.
And I thought this conversation had finally settled down, Gene.
“If we correspond privately, I can be gentler.”
Peter, that was funny!
בס”ד
Well, I saw an open field that could use a fence…
@Peter
Think of it this way: the nation of Israel began outside Israel proper. In fact, it was established in Egypt via Passover. Don’t you agree?
The Torah itself certainly does not agree. You say in other of your writings:
“Since Passover was the institution that created Israel and, hence, citizenship in Israel…”
To the contrary, in Exodus 3:7-10 we are told:
The narrative in Exodus continues in vv 15-16:
So Hashem, G-d of Israel’s fathers Avraham, Itzhak, and Ya’akov, decided to bring “his people” out of captivity. But by all means, if peoples of other Nations in the mixed multitude want to join in, great, according to the provisions established for them. In fact Egypt itself. led by Pharaoh, should have repented and blessed Israel as a nation in its midst.
Contrary to what you assert, prior to the plagues and the Passover, Israel existed as a nation and had recognized national elders who were to go with Moshe to confront Pharaoh, the national leader of Egypt.
Yetziat Mitzraim at Passover did not “create” Israel, nor did it create “citizenship” in Israel. It liberated an enslaved nation.
Since we are studying לך לך the seventh portion details the specifics of Hashem’s covenant with Avraham. Even Ishmael was circumcised, though his blessing was different from Yitzhak’s. Avraham’s covenant is an earthly type of Messiah’s New Covenant, where everyone in Messiah’s house must be spiritually circumcised.
שבת שלום
Benkeshet,
The first mention of the Edah is in Exodus 12:3 and it’s in regard to the Passover. There’s a difference between Bnai Yisrael, Am Yisrael, Adat Yisrael, etc. Adat Yisrael is the form of a tribal confederation. There were certainly tribes of Israel in Egypt but they did not function as an Edah and that’s why Torah is careful to delineate between Bnai Yisrael and Adat Yisrael. Adat Yisrael was a new term that had to be created to describe a new entity.
Also, note that there’s a difference between tribal zekenim and leaders of the Edah itself. The political term for the national leaders was “nesi-ai ha-edah” (Joshua 9:15). These are the ones who met in the Ohel Mo’ed. Note that it functioned like a Senate. The American political system is actually patterned after this model.
Shalom,
Peter
I debunked this on Peter’s blog and he has yet to answer…..
Peter, you seem to be trying very hard to cram your agenda regarding what constituted Israel and when. You have people from both sides telling you that you’re wrong on this, and they are making a far more compelling case than what you’ve been able to muster thus far. Take it easy – it seems that you are trying to win a case before a jury by defending a client you know is guilty. The jury is not buying! Admit defeat, shake the prosecutor’s hand and move on.
Dan,
Then please explain to us all why the Torah doesn’t refer to Israel as Adat Yisrael until the Passover? Does the Torah invent terms for no purpose?
The simple fact is that the Passover was the first instance where we see the tribes operating as a single entity. The covenant of Israel (via Passover and Sinai) was made with a tribal confederation (Edah) and this did not occur prior to Passover. They existed as a people—as an Am. But to say that the Edah pre-existed Passover is impossible. There’s zero evidence for that.
But prove me wrong: show me where Adat Yisrael or the Edah is mentioned prior to Exodus 12 in connection with Passover.
Gene,
If I’m wrong, then show me where the Torah says “Adat Yisrael” prior to Exodus 12:3. If you can show me that then I’d be happy to concede. If you can’t, then you should admit that I’m correct.
To Everyone,
The reason why Gene and Dan are wrong is because the Torah doesn’t make mistakes. It shows the establishment of a new political entity in Exodus 12—Adat Yisrael. This has been documented, as I’ve mentioned, by Stuart Cohen, Daniel Elazar, etc, etc. I just want to make sure these men get credit for this scholarly observation.
Somehow, I think this is going to wind around to Peter declaring himself a “Jew” or an “Israelite” (and thus, having the “rights” to the entire Torah of Israel) as opposed to a Gentile Christian (like me). I wonder if Stuart Cohen, Daniel Elazar, etc… will agree with his ultimate conclusions? My guess is “no.”
“Then please explain to us all why the Torah doesn’t refer to Israel as Adat Yisrael until the Passover? Does the Torah invent terms for no purpose?”
On your blog someone mentioned Samson when he saw עדת דבורים ( a sworm of bees) in the lion. were the bees a political entity?
“But prove me wrong: show me where Adat Yisrael or the Edah is mentioned prior to Exodus 12 in connection with Passover.”
I just did. Now you tell me, what is your knowledge of Hebrew? Do you read, write and speak it fluently? If not, then what gives you the right to think that you can overrule Hebrew scholars who determine that EDAH is an Ethnic term?
I will tell you one more time: If you are not willing to take off your western minded layer hat, you will not get far with your assertions….
James,
Re: “I wonder if Stuart Cohen, Daniel Elazar, etc… will agree with his ultimate conclusions? My guess is “no.””
Are they going to agree that the Passover is about Yeshua? Probably not. : )
Dan,
A swarm of bees is not “Adat Yisrael.” : )
Here’s that quote again:
“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
Here’s Buber as well:
“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
Here’s Stuart Cohen:
“Altogether, then, by Samuel’s generation what had begun as a somewhat amorphous conglomeration (Am Yisrael) had been transformed into a clearly defined political unit (Adat Bnei Yisrael), each of whose citizens possessed distinctive rights and duties within the parameters of the uniformly accepted constitution.”
Shall I keep going?
Yes, keep going and tell us what is your knowledge of Hebrew? Please don’t let me ask you this the third time?
Peter, what’s your point??
Your whole philosophy regarding what constitutes Israel seems to be constructed entirely from a book by POLITICAL SCIENTIST Daniel Elazar The Jewish Polity: Jewish Political Organization from Biblical Times to the Present. This is why you keep quoting from Elazar’s book (and that of Stuart Cohen, his co-author) to support your agenda.
What is our duty but to serve God with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40 quoting Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) How can anyone accomplish this who devotes so much energy and emotion to satisfying his internal drive for significance and to be “right?”
Peter,
If “Adat Israel” is the end of ruling by tribal affiliation, then please explain the first 4 chapters of the book of Numbers?
What is our duty but to serve God with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40 quoting Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) How can anyone accomplish this who devotes so much energy and emotion to satisfying his internal drive for significance and to be “right?”
James, should we shut down all seminaries or are you simply responding from your emotions?
“should we shut down all seminaries”
Zion, is the purpose of seminaries “to satisfy our internal drives for significance and to be “right?” If that were the case, then shutting them down may not be so bad. (Thankfully it’s not.)
James, not everyone is like you, not knowing if you are coming or going…..But, then again, it is much better than one who changes his beliefs according to where the Dollar flies…
Zion, is the purpose of seminaries “to satisfy our internal drives for significance and to be “right?” If that were the case, then shutting them down may not be so bad. (Thankfully it’s not.)
To the layman, the academic world looks no different. From this point of view, all academia should go out the door… this was simply an appeal to emotion. Pot meet kettle.
But if you agree with James, I will expect your blog to be shut down at any moment… or with close to 250 comments, maybe not. :P
Zion: James, should we shut down all seminaries or are you simply responding from your emotions?
What do seminaries have to do with it? I’m saying (apparently, I need to be more direct) that Peter’s continually flying in the face of information offered to him which contradicts his own position and which is presented to him from both sides of the argument seems to be overriding the two greatest commandments Jesus gave. Try to keep in mind that Jesus didn’t teach that he who argued the longest and hardest “wins”. Perhaps you’re confusing Jesus with Charlie Sheen.
A life in faith isn’t just some curious intellectual exercise or a competition of some sort. It’s not just about learning some mechanical formula of behaviors that we believe will make God find favor in us. Really, are we reading two different Bibles, Zion? It a relationship with God through the Messiah nothing more to you than what happens when we argue on blogs? Is that all you think? Don’t people even matter in your equation or in the One Law philosophy, or just the nuts and bolts of performing mitzvot?
Dan: James, not everyone is like you, not knowing if you are coming or going…..But, then again, it is much better than one who changes his beliefs according to where the Dollar flies…
At least I don’t have a mind or a heart set in cement, Dan with no ability to learn, adapt, and (gasp) have the grace to admit when I’m wrong. No, I’m not accusing you of such, but I suspect I’m a tad more transparent about the actual meaning of a life of faith than most folks, at least according to what people have been saying to me lately. Is that such a crime in the world of One Law?
Oh, and you are the third voice to allude or to outright say that FFOZ changed it’s theological stance because of financial profit (I assume you’re not talking about my change, since I don’t make a dime regardless of what I believe or blog about). I can only say (again) that whoever your source is, they are woefully misinformed. If anything, FFOZ lost a great deal of income as a result and they knew that was going to happen before they ever publicly disclosed their new position. It may satisfy some twisted need in people who were disappointed in FFOZ’s change to attack them baselessly, but the accusation is not only completely untrue, it is wholly graceless (and as people who have been shown grace by God, perhaps it’s time for us to consider giving grace to others a passing thought).
Apparently the core teachings of the Messiah are not well accepted in One Law, since I’ve been attacked by two of it’s representatives simply because I mentioned them.
If what the both of you are saying represents what One Law is selling, then I’m glad I left it.
“It may satisfy some twisted need in people who were disappointed in FFOZ’s change to attack them baselessly, but the accusation is not only completely untrue, it is wholly graceless”
In the eyes of the One Law crowd, FFOZ committed an unforgivable, traitorous offense in siding with both Messianic and mainstream Jews on the nature of relationship of Jews and Gentiles to Torah. So convinced they have become in their own version of “truth”, they believe that the people at FFOZ could not have possibly changed their minds based on facts and personal conviction. Only the worst possible motive would do and one worthy of a Judas-like treachery – greed! And so they revert to the good old standby that has comforted many a small mind world over from time immemorial and to this day – a conspiracy theory!
Sorry, I had to vent.
James, I am not sure how we went from your ‘appeal to emotion’:
What is our duty but to serve God with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40 quoting Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) How can anyone accomplish this who devotes so much energy and emotion to satisfying his internal drive for significance and to be “right?”
To the whole paragraph of hate and anger you hold towards One Law, does Jesus teach this hate? No. If that is what you believe then I am glad I am not part of it, etc etc….
That is a basic pot meet kettle. We are having a debate here, I don’t agree with Peter, but you on the other hand resorted to emotional attack, and I pointed that out. If you do not like debating, just stay back, most people do not engage in these debates, as they feel they are fruitless, if you feel the same… so be it.
Zion: Anger = yes. Hate = no. Really Zion, you never, ever expect me to respond with anything but sweetness and light after you and Dan decide to wade in on me? Why is it that you or Dan or Peter feel it’s perfectly acceptable to become hostile in your comments, but the minute I lose my cool (which I try not to do most of the time but after all, I’m only human), I’m suddenly a “hater?” I have bent over backwards to try to foster civil conversation and every time I do, I’m criticized, typically by you or another One Law supporter.
I set aside your this is just a debate defense sometime ago. I also discussed how easy it is for some folks to behave like attack dogs on the web, so I’m familiar with the dynamics of these transactions.
Your idea of a “debate” is that you get to say whatever you want but the opposing side must not defend itself and if they do, oh my, suddenly they’re not being fair or they’ve committed some other transgression. Sorry Zion, but you’re not the injured party here.
Debates expose information that can be valuable to an audience and I don’t oppose that. However, this isn’t a debate, it’s an argument and both you and Dan threw the first “emotional” punch. If you’re offended that I returned kind for kind, I can’t help that.
Oh, and where is the civility in taking a cheap shot at FFOZ?
Good stuff,James, I know Boaz will let you kiss his ring for taking the bullet for him….FYI, I don’t use assassins like Boaz does with you, I told him this straight to his face, so lay off…
Gene, “changed their mind” to what? they themselves after being attacked cried that ” we really did not meant for DI to become a doctrine…” I am glad they are making money now, they can buy more violins…..BTW I did not bring them up in this conversation, you guys did….
However, this isn’t a debate, it’s an argument and both you and Dan threw the first “emotional” punch.
Can you point to the first punch, you make a lot of claims about me, but maybe you could pinpoint them for me? Remember the context of your claim was on Peter’s argument, if you are referring to something outside of this, then we are clearly not on the same page.
Oh, and where is the civility in taking a cheap shot at FFOZ?
Honestly, I don’t even remember saying what you claimed, can you link the source for me, and I am not sure how we even came to the topic of FFOZ, as the last few post have been on claims of what Edah means…
Although since FFOZ it is now the subject, I believe they teach in error, and I try to help those who were hurt by their ministry, and I don’t believe it was based on any one reason, I read their paper and I still do not understand why they shifted beliefs, there is much to speculate about their ministry. Regardless, I am still missing your point here.
James, I think you need some memory adjustment…Guess who wrote this?
“What is our duty but to serve God with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40 quoting Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) How can anyone accomplish this who devotes so much energy and emotion to satisfying his internal drive for significance and to be “right?””
And then you have the chutzpah to cry wolf?
Oh, BTW, thank for noticing that i will correct not only you guys, but people in my own camp….
Zion said: James, should we shut down all seminaries or are you simply responding from your emotions?
Dan said: James, not everyone is like you, not knowing if you are coming or going…..But, then again, it is much better than one who changes his beliefs according to where the Dollar flies…
Apparently, my memory is fine. However, I should also remember that I don’t have to go to every fight I’m invited to. I guess I forgot that if someone is offering a gift that lacks grace, I don’t have to accept it.
No more today, gentlemen. Whatever our differences, Good Shabbos to you. The week is over. Time to enter peace.
בס”ד
@Peter
Also, note that there’s a difference between tribal zekenim and leaders of the Edah itself.
As a learned man your failures are not merely amusing.
Exodus 12:21
וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְכָל-זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
For those who can’t read Hebrew, here the leaders of the “Edah” first mentioned in Exodus 12 are “davka” the zekenim.
בס”ד
The first mention of the Edah is in Exodus 12:3 and it’s in regard to the Passover. There’s a difference between Bnai Yisrael, Am Yisrael, Adat Yisrael, etc. Adat Yisrael is the form of a tribal confederation. There were certainly tribes of Israel in Egypt but they did not function as an Edah and that’s why Torah is careful to delineate between Bnai Yisrael and Adat Yisrael. Adat Yisrael was a new term that had to be created to describe a new entity.
I’d say Genesis 21:30 is the first mention of עדה
וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶת-שֶׁבַע כְּבָשׂת תִּקַּח מִיָּדִי בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה-לִּי לְעֵדָה כִּי חָפַרְתִּי אֶת-הַבְּאֵר הַזֹּאת
Nor does your other assertion hold, cf. Exodus 16:9:
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן אֱמֹר אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
כל עדת בני ישראל
How Edah is to be understood in Exodus 12 is very likely from Hashem’s perspective, since HE is the first one to use the term in the passage. That might mean that he has something far different in mind than a mere “tribal confederation.”
…וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן
דַּבְּרוּ, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר
“וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶת-שֶׁבַע כְּבָשׂת תִּקַּח מִיָּדִי בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה-לִּי לְעֵדָה כִּי חָפַרְתִּי אֶת-הַבְּאֵר הַזֹּאת”
Wrong interpretation. Here Edah means witness, not a community.
Dan,
Re: “If “Adat Israel” is the end of ruling by tribal affiliation, then please explain the first 4 chapters of the book of Numbers?”
What about the first four chapters of Numbers would you like me to explain? I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
Benkeshet,
Where in 21:30 does it mention Adat Yisrael? I can’t seem to find it… : )
Re: “For those who can’t read Hebrew, here the leaders of the “Edah” first mentioned in Exodus 12 are “davka” the zekenim.”
What’s your point?
Gene,
Re: “Peter, what’s your point??”
That just as Passover and Shavuot, the two stages of a single Israeli national covenant (much similar to the betrothal and marriage stages of an Israeli marriage covenant), established Israel as a federal entity (as opposed to merely being Bnai Israel, descendants of the common ancestor Ya’akov/Israel), the renewal of this Israeli national covenant through Yeshua and the inclusion of the gentiles in this “New Israeli National Covenant” shows that Yeshua has deemed the gentiles to be included along with Believing Jews as citizens of Adat Yisrael–He has accepted them as full members of the family.
It all comes down to how you view Yeshua’s first coming in relation to the New Covenant and whether you see the New Covenant as being a renewal of the Israeli National Covenant. I see His first coming as the betrothal (Passover). I believe that His second coming will be the marriage ceremony (e.g. marriage supper of the Lamb, etc). I see the New Covenant as a renewal of the Israeli National Covenant. I see the New Covenant as being made with all of Israel and also with gentiles.
Yeshua came for Israel–His family. But He also invited the gentiles to become adopted into that Israeli family. And He did this by becoming a Passover Lamb for not only Israel but also the gentiles. So when someone enters into relationship with Yeshua, they’re also entering into relationship with Israel.
The tragedy is that the Judaism practiced by Christians is an unrecognized Judaism (for the most part). Only recently have they begun to realize the underlying Jewishness of their Bible. Only recently have they begun to realize that to follow the New Testament as it was intended to be followed, means embracing a form of Judaism that the Apostles believed to be the true form of Judaism.
I believe that the Passover is one of the primary educational tools that Yeshua is using to get the Christians to recognize that the religion taught by the New Testament is Judaism in its truest form.
That’s my point.
Did you guys like the new term that I coined “Unrecognized Judaism”? Not bad, eh? : )
Reading what you say, Peter, it still gives me the impression that you didn’t grasp the meaning of the why Yeshua had to come for Yisrael and the nations.
בס”ד
@Dan
Wrong interpretation. Here Edah means witness, not a community.
If there are two different words with different developmental background that are both spelled עדה (edah) then what you say is true.
But if the use of עדה (edah) in Exodus 12 is not simply to indicate “community” then we might have to rethink the idea of two different words that are spelled the same way.
In my opinion, when Hashem says עדת ישראל in Exodus 12 he is thinking along the lines of Israel being HIS “witness” or “testimony” of HIS creation of the world and calling of nations, including his special nation, Israel. For Hashem, Israel is something like the seven lambs of Genesis 21:30 that were meant as a “testimony”:
ישראל יהיה לי לעדה כי אני ה’ בראתי את העולם ויצרתי את כל הגויים
That is what I think Hashem means when he says עדת ישראל (adat Israel) in Exodus 12, that Israel is HIS testimony of ownership of the world to the nations, and thus it is why HE can inflict plagues on Egypt for refusing to obey Him. Pharaoh said, “Who is Hashem that I should obey him?” (Exodus 5:2). But Pharaoh was already given the “testimony” – עדת ישראל – by Hashem himself that he should obey Hashem.
Since this “testimony” is comprised of a nation then it is communal, which evidently becomes a secondary meaning of the word as in עדת דבורים.
@Peter
You commented:
Also, note that there’s a difference between tribal zekenim and leaders of the Edah itself.
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2680
I simply point out that your assertion seems מצוץ מן האצבע (entirely fabricated) when the very term זקני ישראל (zikney Israel) appears a few sentences after עדת ישראל (adat Israel).
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2709
It seems that זקנים is a generic term for any and all leaders of Israel, including the נשיאים – the nasi of each tribe.
So, your attempt to distinguish between Israel’s nationhood before and after Passover in support of your OL theory is disingenius, to say the least.
Benkeshet and Everyone,
Consider: Was the Abrahamic covenant a national covenant? Or did it foretell/promise a national covenant?
Consider: Israel was an “Am” (kinship group) in Egypt but the tribes did not operate as a collective (nation/goy) until the events of Passover and Sinai. Consider that a nation is what occurs when the constituent institutions (e.g. tribes) operate as a collective. So Israel did not function as an Edah (covenantal republic) until the events of Passover-Sinai (i.e. the national covenant of Israel).
What is the proof for my assertion that Passover-Sinai were a national covenant? First, the Torah of the national covenant transformed a people into a nation by establishing federal institutions (e.g. representatives from the tribes meeting at the federal level, governing institutions exercising federal authority, etc). Torat Moshe, like no other Torah previously, established the nation of Israel as a political body. Second, the covenantal formulary, the procedure of covenanting, involved not an individual (as in the case of Abraham) but it involved an entire nation, all the people consenting, all the representatives from the tribes consenting. The covenantal formulary shows that this was a covenant being made with an entire people, something that had never occurred previously in the covenantal tradition.
“So, your attempt to distinguish between Israel’s nationhood before and after Passover in support of your OL theory is disingenius, to say the least.”
He does not support the OL theory here. He supports the 2 house theory.
Not all Italians are Mafia….
Dan,
Not at all. I’m saying that the gentiles who join the New Covenant have joined a national covenant. That the New Covenant is a national covenant is evidenced by the fact that it includes Torat Moshe, the Torah of a Nation.
Dan, are there really major differences between One-Law and Two-House theologies?
One Law: Israel is Gentiles and Jews. Everyone is an Israelite in Messiah as Gentiles are spiritually adopted into Israel.
Two-House: Israel is Gentiles and Jews. Everyone is an Israelite in Messiah as Gentiles are either spiritually adopted into Israel (if not part of the lost tribes) or “reunited” (if part of the lost tribes).
One Law: No difference in Torah obligation between Jews and Gentiles.
Two-House: No difference in Torah obligation between Jews and Gentiles.
One Law: Messianic Jews are wrong in their non-acceptance of Gentiles as Israelites.
Two-House: Messianic Jews are wrong in their non-acceptance of Gentiles as Israelites.
Did I miss anything? As you can see, Dan, One-Law and Two-House differences are very slight. That’s why folks like Judah and Peter can easily negotiate both and find common ground with One-Law folks like yourself. No wonder that I often hear One-Law folks describe Two-House beliefs as a mere “distraction”.
However, I do have to give OL folks like you and Tim Hegg credit for speaking out against the TH stuff. You are very much in the minority, however, as I am sure you yourself know quite well.
Are you starting again Gene? LOL!
Here is what I have to say: at least we have some things in common with other groups. MJ on the other hand is completely isolated, ostracized by Judaism and laughed at by Christianity…
“at least we have some things in common with other groups. ”
Dan, I can think of MANY “interesting” groups with which OL/TH have much in common. Not sure it’s such a good thing, though!
“MJ on the other hand is completely isolated, ostracized by Judaism and laughed at by Christianity…”
Exaggerate much? While “mainstream” Jews do not yet accept Yeshua (something Messianic Jews share with the very first Jewish disciples – so we re in a good company), many Messianic Jews that I know personally are members of mainstream Jewish communities. If Jewish communities rejects some of our beliefs, that doesn’t give Messianic Jewish an excuse to reject Jewish communities or synagogues.
I remember that a week or so you, Dan, said on Peter’s blog that you used to attend Chabad or some other synagogue but left because “they deny our Messiah”. Thankfully, our Messiah doesn’t feel the same about his people.
Also, many Christians and churches which have rejected Supersessionism (something that many “messianic independents” should also seriously look into doing) not only do not “laugh” at Messianic Jewish groups, they support them, help them with facilities, visit MJ congregations and learn from them.
I don’t think Messianic Judaism is universally “laughed at” by Christians:
-from Boaz Michael’s comment on one of my blogs:
Hey guys, where are the violins? Oh, yah…Also hope you have enough bars for your theological gymnastics…Are you a part of Mainstream Judaism yet?
“Thankfully, our Messiah doesn’t feel the same about his people.”
“But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father, who is in heaven.” (Matt. 10:33).
I guess Yeshua said this to a bunch of Indonesians disciples, not Jewish disciples…..
““But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father, who is in heaven.”
Dan, so, you think that one can’t attend a synagogue without denying Yeshua? That’s a very interesting take on things.
Did the word “denying” at some point change its meaning and no one told me? You mean it doesn’t mean that when someone asks me do you believe in Yeshua and I answer them with “No, I do not!” or “No, he’s not the Messiah”?
Do you, Dan, by quoting Matt. 10:33, mean that not proselyting “Jews for Jesus style” when visiting a Jewish venue is tantamount to denying the Messiah?
Do you think that if you believe that one SHOULD be proselyting when in a synagogue but at the same time you AVOID synagogues because “they deny our Messiah” (so that you don’t actually have to proselytize, not being in attendance) means that you are not denying Messiah but other MJs do?
Gene, one more time….
Chabad Denies Yeshua, not you or me. Get it? Next thing you are going to tell me that the Rabbi of the congregation you attend is a Yeshua Chasid…And he let’s you preach Yeshua in the Synagogue…Give us a break…..
Peter:
“Shmuel, … If we correspond privately, I can be gentler”
Haha! The enormity of this ego is beyond me… (This is but one example)
It reminds me of being in the grocery store and encountering a shirtless guy with a huge belly hanging out of his partially hooked over-alls, greasy- stringy hair, toothless, and reaking of body odor, “hey- baby-ing” me and conveying that I’d be really lucky to “hook-up” with him.
Hahaha.
Shmuel has compelling things to say that are worth reading and he doesn’t convey he’s god’s gift to Jews, and Gentiles, Christian’s, Judaism, theology, the world, etc.
Lrw,
Women always say they hate a guy with a big ego. I’ve always found the opposite to be the case. If I didn’t have a healthy ego, I wouldn’t have played piano for audiences and if I never played piano for audiences then I never would’ve met my wife. However, if I had been playing shirtless then it might’ve been a different story… : )
Anyway, I like Shmuel. I think he means well.
Dear Peter,
G-ds will with Yisrael was to bring them to haEretz. To live in 12 districts according to the 12 tribes. But the realy end goal in statehood was that they would become a Goy kadosh (a distinguished nation), a Mamlechet Kohanim (a Kingdom of priests). This was a far better position. Both rabbi Ja’akkov ben Asher (Tur) an Ovadya Sforno tell us, they didn’t reach that status, but will in the messianic future. Both quote Yesyayahu 61:6. This is that Messianic Kindom of Heaven. That is were the Gentiles have been put in.
That is beyond Yisrael alone. This doesn’t disqualify Yisrael. It does not disqualify the Temple. But the Kingdom is everywere, since the once stone heart, became flesh and circumcised, open tot the Words of G-d. Open for the Ruach HaKoddesh. The Kingdom in the Heart and among us. This is what Yisrael needed and needs. That is that Nation wherein you can be near.
If you only understood what the Temple stands for! Why everything is precisely placed North, South, West, East.
Two Keruvim where woven on the parochet, which hangs on the entrance of the holiest place, at the east side of it. When did we see earlier two Keruvim east of a special place? east of the entrance of Gan Eden! Do you understand? Thats quite a level higher than the soil of haEretz and the pursuit of the citizenship thereof! Even Yisrael (see the Tur and Sforno) new that to some extend.
Come on, guys. Go for 300 posts. Go for 300!
I polished off a 377 page novel in MS Word. I think you guys wrote more!
Shmuel,
Far be it from me to disagree with Jacob ben Asher….but I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with him anyway. I believe that ancient Israel did become a kingdom of priests. What occurred was real and it was on earth. It wasn’t perfect but it was functional.
If it wasn’t functional then why did the Jerusalem Council instruct Paul to go to the Temple and offer or participate in the offering of a sacrifice? Don’t you see that they believed it was efficacious?
[Also, guys, let's not let the Drake down. If he asks for 300 then we should give him 300.]
Peter: “Women always say they hate a guy with a big ego. I’ve always found the opposite to be the case.”
Well, it’s true, when we’re young, dumb, and insecure, my gender can be fooled and respond to that overblown version of the male ego, but one of the main points I was making is that the one with the exageratd male ego is blinded to the fact that he’s the only one who thinks he’s all that… Everyone else is able to see there ain’t no bag of chips!
“if I never played piano for audiences then I never would’ve met my wife.”
I’m sure is a woman of profound grace to be sure.
Lrw,
Re: “I’m sure is a woman of profound grace to be sure.”
Naturally. : )
If you did read the quotation of the Tur and Sforno, Yesyayahu 61:6, you should know better: But you shall be called a Kohannei HASHEM (priests of the L-rd). So, they didn’t reach the status before. Only Ahharron and sons got this designation, but becausee of the golden calf Yisrael was stripped of their ornaments: they missed the atereth Kohanim, it was given to Ahharron and his seed. Yisrael was prepared for it. They were immersed in the red sea and in the cloud, but they did’t receive the position. This was what they had waitting for for centuries. Both Yochannan and Yeshua suddenly proclaimed the Kingdom of G-d / Heaven. This was the moment where was declared that one could enter, andone can only enter in front of The Pressence by becoming a Kohen, a Priest, a different man.
This realy goes beyond what you think on this subject.
בס”ד
@Peter
So Israel did not function as an Edah (covenantal republic) until the events of Passover-Sinai (i.e. the national covenant of Israel).
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2719
A while ago you wrote that Israel was “created” at Passover. Now you move the goal posts and say an existing Israel simply did not “function” as an “Edah,” a word you assert to mean “covenantal republic” but without a shred of proof. You ignore the fact that Israel had recognized zekenim that stood with Moses before Pharaoh to demand liberation, and who exerted as much civil governance as could be expected for an enslaved nation at the mercy of a regional power.
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2679
But this discussion of Adat Yisrael, interesting in its own right, is useless for OL. Already stated above, Ephesians 3:1-6 says Paul’s understanding of New Covenant citizenship was not revealed to previous generations, and that means your model of OL theory based on “Adat Yisrael” is misguided from the start.
Nor have we seen your explanation of Paul’s Philippians 3:20 terminology of “citizenship in the heavens” in relation to the citizenship of both Israel and the Nations in the Household of G-d in Ephesians 2:18, For through Messiah we both (ἀμφότεροι) have access in one Spirit to the Father. For Paul, unity is provided by one Spirit.
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2564
“A while ago you wrote that Israel was “created” at Passover. Now you move the goal posts and say an existing Israel simply did not “function” as an “Edah,” a word you assert to mean “covenantal republic” but without a shred of proof.”
benkeshet… Peter is quite flexible that way. He starts his tasty recipe with an established theology of Supersessionism (“The Church – composed of Jews and Gentiles – is the New Israel”), which leads him to a common One-Law conclusion: Gentiles are Israelites. Then add a bit of Torah (which doesn’t actually have to be practiced, even in a “biblical” manner, just argued over). Then, you add a bit of Two-House beliefs, for a good measure (what’s the harm?). Then you work your way backwards to prove it all from the Tanakh.
Taste the soup!:)
Benkeshet,
You’re quoting me out of context in order to create a straw man. In context, I’ve explained that Israel can refer to a man (Ya’akov), a people (Am Yisrael), the descendants of Ya’akov (Bnai Yisrael), a nation (goy gadol/goy kadosh), etc.
I’ve been careful to define these concepts because someone could easily take me out of context (as you have done). I’ve carefully explained that Israel existed as a people and did not become a nation until the Passover-Sinai events. And I’ve shown that Jewish scholars agree with me (e.g. Sulzberger, Cohen, Elazar, Buber, etc). I could go on and on. I’m not saying anything new. And I could also cite a myriad Christian scholars that share this view that the Passover-Sinai events involved a national covenant.
What is curious is that you hate the idea of the Old Covenant being a national covenant–even though it was clearly made with the entire nation of Israel. Why do you hate this idea? I would speculate it’s because if the Old Covenant is a national covenant then the New Covenant is also a national covenant and that would mean that the gentiles who join the New Covenant have joined Israel.
Here’s where your argument hits a dead end: Genesis 12 says “I WILL make you into a great nation…” This is future tense. It had not happened yet. So when did Abraham’s seed become a nation?
My answer to that question is in accord with the Tanak and with scholarship: Israel became a nation via the events of Passover and Sinai (i.e. the Old Covenant).
Your answer to that question is that Israel became a nation whilst in Egypt. And how much evidence do you have that the tribes functioned as a nation whilst in Egypt? Zero evidence.
All the evidence indicates that Am Yisrael didn’t function as a nation until Passover and Sinai. I’ve cited ample evidence in this regard. I’ve also explained how the nation of Israel was politically different from all other nations–it is a covenantal republic because all members of the Edah are “witnesses” to the covenant and they have representation through their tribal leadership at the federal level.
Gene,
Re: “He starts his tasty recipe with an established theology of Supersessionism (“The Church – composed of Jews and Gentiles – is the New Israel”), which leads him to a common One-Law conclusion: Gentiles are Israelites. Then add a bit of Torah (which doesn’t actually have to be practiced, even in a “biblical” manner, just argued over).”
That’s a lie. I don’t believe in the Church. I only believe in Israel. And I believe that Israel includes both the saved and unsaved. Messianic Jews and gentiles belong to the saved Israel. But they don’t supersede the unsaved Israelites. An Israelite is still and Israelite even if he doesn’t believe in Yeshua.
Everyone,
Notice that Israel isn’t called a nation until the Old Covenant. Exodus 19:5-6 says:
Exodus 19:5-6 “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a HOLY NATION…”
So keeping this covenant (i.e. Old Covenant) is what made the Am Yisrael into a Nation of Israel (i.e. goy kadosh).
Also, it’s interesting to note that in 1 Peter 2:9-10, the Apostle Peter includes gentiles in this goy kadosh.
“That’s a lie. I don’t believe in the Church. I only believe in Israel.”
Peter… Supersessionist wing of Christianity (and there are other kinds, today, thankfully) believes that IT is the continuation of the biblical Israel and that Jews and Gentiles make up the “New Israel” when they enter the Ekklesia (you believe in Ekklesia, right?) One-Law is just a variation of that. But, as I said, it’s the start of the OL recipe, not the whole enchilada.
” And I believe that Israel includes both the saved and unsaved”
That’s nice. Remember how you were trying to prove to me that Israelites are only those Jews who got circumcised, i.e. you were trying to put limits on which Jews can rightly be called “Israelites”? I am glad that you no longer do so and have become a bit more flexible in your thinking.
Gene,
Re: “Peter is quite flexible that way. He starts his tasty recipe with an established theology of Supersessionism…”
Re: “Supersessionist wing of Christianity (and there are other kinds, today, thankfully) believes that IT is the continuation of the biblical Israel and that Jews and Gentiles make up the “New Israel” when they enter the Ekklesia”
That’s what some Christians believe. It isn’t what I believe. So stop trying to pin Christian Supersessionism on me. I’m not a Christian and I don’t believe in the Church.
Peter said: ” I’m not a Christian and I don’t believe in the Church.”
Peter previously said: “At church, people will ask if I’m a Messianic Jew. I tell them that I practice Messianic Judaism. Now, the church where I go happens…”
I wasn’t going to comment again, but the glaring inconsistencies just demanded a response.
James,
Where’s the inconsistency? I’m not allowed to visit a church? Unlike you, James, I have no problem associating with Christians.
You don’t believe in church but you go to church. You are not a Christian (though I’m not sure what you are since, as Gene points out, your position is quite fluid) yet you associate with Christians. I may struggle with the idea of returning to a traditional church venue, but I don’t have trouble calling myself what I am: a Christian, that is, a disciple of the Jewish Messiah, also known as Christ.
James,
There’s a difference between Messianic Judaism (which I practice) and Christianity (which Christians practice). But I don’t let it prevent me from fellowshipping with them. My preference is Messianic shul. That’s my home turf so to speak. But I don’t mind visiting churches to fellowship with Believers. True, they don’t identify their religion as Judaism and they certainly don’t try to practice in a Jewish manner. But I don’t let this stop me from visiting them.
Your position has created such cognitive dissonance in your mind that even as a self-identifying Christian you’ve resisted going to church. Who’s position is more unhealthy? Yours or mine?
At least I visit them.
Strange as it might sound: I would wish that my fellow Jews, that believe in Yeshua as the mashiach, visit a church at least 6 times a year. many Jews are in diverse denominations of churches, completely ignorant of their Jewishness and their specific calling and semand to adhere to the Torat Mosheh also. Who is going to inform them in church on that. There is work to do. when they all come in their calling, nuch blessing will folliw.
@Peter:
I don’t think it’s even possible for a Christian to practice Judaism, but of course, you’re free to disagree. In any event, my situation has certain wrinkles that I wouldn’t expect you to comprehend, not being intermarried. Also, if I choose to be transparent with my personal struggles, it’s with the hope that others who are in similar circumstances will find a kindred spirit, of which I see some indication on my own blog, fortunately.
I know that metaphors aren’t your preferred mode of communication, but I see each individual, including you and me, as a “work in progress.” We are each of us on a journey of discovery, attempting to understand who we are and how we are to relate to God and other human beings. That’s what I write about; my journey, blind alleys, missteps and all. I’m not trying to convince anybody that I have all the answers. I just want to share my questions and see who is willing to share the journey with me.
As far as your last remark, this is my only response.
Like Shmuel, I see church as a less than ideal environment for anyone who wishes to follow Torah. Shmuel’s proposed rescue missions to get Jewish Believers out of church is limited strictly to Jews. I see the need for rescue missions but for everyone in churches. I think they all need to be rescued—rescued from anti-Judaic doctrines. Shmuel sees those anti-Judaic Christian doctrines as negatively affecting only Jewish Believers. But I see those anti-Judaic Christian doctrines as negatively affecting both Jews and gentiles. There is only one faith and it’s a Jewish faith—it’s the Judaism proposed by Yeshua and the authors of the New Testament.
Notice that this proposed Messianic Judaism featured congregations in which Jews and gentiles fellowshipped together. THAT’S the ideal. There was no such thing as bilateral ecclesiology in Paul’s day when it came to local congregations. Everyone in the first-century Messianic congregations followed Judaism—because there was no such thing as “Christianity” back then. Paul didn’t see himself as practicing another religion after he came to believe in Yeshua. Paul saw himself as practicing Judaism. He taught only Judaism.
So I say let’s rescue the Christians (Jews or gentiles) from Christianity. Let’s get everyone back to Judaism, the way it was taught by the Apostles in the first century.
” I think they all need to be rescued—rescued from anti-Judaic doctrines.”
Is this not strange….. I consider One-Law and Two-House to be very anti-Judaic, supersessionist, anti-rabbinic, and certainly anti-Jewish-messianic and devote a lot of my time to trying to rescue Christians from that stuff. What’s even stranger, my relationship with mainstream Christians is much better and much more accepting. No doubt, many OL/TH folks are very well meaning, try to please G-d in what they probably see as “the only right way”, while some are not so much, and harbor deep resentments toward Jews of all sorts AND/OR toward Christians.
Peter, you know I disagree with you.
James,
On your blog you talk about being like Gandhi. I really doubt Ghandi would be jumping on my case for going to church, accusing me of being “glaringly inconsistent.”
How many comments is it now? Has anyone called Guinness?
Let’s get everyone back to Judaism, the way it was taught by the Apostles in the first century.
I used to think that was possible, but we know so little about how the “church” evolved after a significant number of non-Jews were introduced. Certainly, a few non-Jews worshiping in a Jewish synagogue could be easily “absorbed,” but remember, there weren’t always fully “Messianic” synagogues in the very beginning. In fact, the early chapters of Acts record the disciples gathering at Solomon’s portico at the Temple for the prayers along with the other Jews in Jerusalem, so there wasn’t a distinct “Messianic” location for worship. Davening Jews were davening Jews, regardless of sect or affiliation.
Flash forward to Paul, the diaspora, and lots and lots of Gentiles later, and what do we have? Eventually, there were Gentile-only “ekklesia” groups established by Paul, but how were they organized and how much did they borrow from the synagogue of that day? We don’t know. Records are sketchy to non-existent.
For that matter, how much of a handle do we have on what a Jewish synagogue service looked like in the late Second Temple period? If the goal is to faithfully replicate a Jewish synagogue service from that time and call it a “Messianic ekklesia” open to Jewish and Gentile disciples of the Jewish Messiah, not only am I not sure it can be done, but I don’t know that it’s even desirable. Both Christianity (Christianities) and Judaism (Judaisms) have evolved over the past 20 centuries or so. I don’t think we can simply wipe away 2,000 years of developmental history, reset the clock, and say, “this is it.” As we’ve seen, most culturally and ethnically Jewish people resent having their halakhah eliminated, and most Christians would feel completely lost trying to worship in what would amount to an alien culture.
On the other hand, I now have a great idea for a new blog post: “Raiders of the Lost Church.” How do you look in a fedora and leather jacket, Peter?
On your blog you talk about being like Gandhi. I really doubt Ghandi would be jumping on my case for going to church, accusing me of being “glaringly inconsistent.”
I can only aspire to be like Gandhi. If I were like him, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Am I jumping on you? Difficult to tell my mood or emotional state in a text-only communication interface. In fact, I’m pointing out that on the one hand, you feel OK about “visiting” Christians, but on the other hand, you feel they need to be “rescued” from their own faith, or at least the cultural expression of their faith. Have you asked them what they want.
My approach is different. I may struggle with re-connecting with the church (although in speaking with you, it’s getting easier by the second), but I believe the “answer” is not in “rescuing” them but in “being the church,” if you’ll pardon the cliche. If I have problems with traditional Christian culture, then my response is to enter that culture rather than to disassemble it. Systems evolve and grow. As I write this, I’m reminded of some of the things Boaz Michael has written (soon to be published) about this topic.
301! Bingo!
301! Bingo!
Who made comment #300? Do they get a prize? :-D
James,
Re: “Eventually, there were Gentile-only “ekklesia” groups established by Paul”
Oh, really? Did they hang “Gentiles Only” signs out front? Where’s your evidence for this?
“Who made comment #300? Do they get a prize? :-D”
Peter … and he gets the coveted “Honorary Jew” award!
Guys, I don’t need a reward. Knowing that somewhere out there the Drake is happy….that’s MY reward.
Oh, really? Did they hang “Gentiles Only” signs out front? Where’s your evidence for this?
Culturally, it might have almost been like that, but I’ll flesh out my ideas more fully in tomorrow’s “morning meditation”. Peter, I realize that I’ve been very unfair to Christians and to the church and I need to make amends to them. Not by treating them as some “alien other” that I only visit, but by acknowledging my kinship and “being the change I want to see in the church.” Who knew that, in attempting to insult me, you would actually be a catalyst for my change.
Thanks.
בס”ד
@Peter
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2740
Your answer to that question is that Israel became a nation whilst in Egypt. And how much evidence do you have that the tribes functioned as a nation whilst in Egypt? Zero evidence.
This issue turns on how narrowly the word “nation” is defined. IMHO you should not be writing “nation” but “nationhood.”
My concern is that the people of Israel knew of the covenantal promises of Hashem to their fathers, Avraham, Yitzhak and Yisrael. They came to Egypt under the aegis of Joseph, then 39, who was recognized by his brothers, and even Yisrael on his deathbed, as the G-d appointed leader of the clan. Joseph was vice-Pharaoh of Egypt and recognized as ruler of the Israelite clan, and the Israelites lived in the best part of the country, and they multiplied very rapidly. Joseph lived 71 more years, and some of his brothers lived longer. All the while they were recognized, by themselves, and by Egypt, as a defined people-group that were not Egyptians, but were Israelites. The twelve brothers, and Yisrael, observed the circumcision covenant while they were in Canaan, and in Egypt. So, even if they did not have a constitution written by James Madison, they self-recognized themselves as a people by their fidelity to the covenantal promises of Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’akov which was based on circumcision. They were recognized as a people by the Egyptians who saw how strong they were and launched the Egyptian holocaust. Moses and Israelite elders demanded national liberation from Pharaoh.
All the evidence indicates that Am Yisrael didn’t function as a nation until Passover and Sinai. I’ve cited ample evidence in this regard.
Wouldn’t be the result of being enslaved, perhaps?
I’ve also explained how the nation of Israel was politically different from all other nations–it is a covenantal republic because all members of the Edah are “witnesses” to the covenant and they have representation through their tribal leadership at the federal level.
You said above that “Edah” means “covenantal republic.” Now you say Edah means they were “witnesses” to the covenant. You are the one who jumps from here to there, and you even said at your website that you needed a “do over” because you failed to articulate clearly what you thought you meant.
For the record, I attribute immense significance to the Passover in Egypt, Yetziat Mitzraim, and the covenant of Sinai for the full blossoming of Israel’s nationhood. From enslavement, to liberation, to Theocratic National Covenant-Constitution. That covenant of Sinai, and the accompaning Torah of Sinai, tells Israel that gerim who lived in their midst and who wished to completely assimilate into Israelite life could do so, including the covenant of circumcision, which even Yeshua says was given to the patriarchs before Moses, John 7:22.
On another note, someone over at your website pointed out that 1 Cor 5 is clearly a “drash” form of teaching, not “pashat.” So the contention that Messiah’s Sacrifice is a “replacement” of the Israelite Pesach at Yetziat Mitzraim rests on a faulty conclusion.
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-three-foundational-principles-of.html?showComment=1351187165537#c3385722494586467965
Since you then say in response that Messiah’s Sacrifice’s does not replace Israel’s yearly Passover (based on the Pesach of Yetziat Mitzraim) then we have two different valid sacrifices operating simultaneously, and providing their respective benefits. So for Israel, the Pesach of Yetziat Mitzraim is valid. For all disciples of Messiah with hearts circumcised by the circumcision of Messiah (Col 2:11), whether Jewish or Greek, (1 Cor 12:13) Messiah’s Universal Sacrifice remains valid.
Still no interest in Philipians 3:20 – Ephesians 2 citizenship?
http://dailyminyan.com/2012/10/10/one-law-gentile-has-a-change-of-heart/#comment-2738
Yes, Gene, I’ve tasted the soup! :-/
Culturally, it might have almost been like that, but I’ll flesh out my ideas more fully in tomorrow’s “morning meditation”. Peter, I realize that I’ve been very unfair to Christians and to the church and I need to make amends to them. Not by treating them as some “alien other” that I only visit, but by acknowledging my kinship and “being the change I want to see in the church.” Who knew that, in attempting to insult me, you would actually be a catalyst for my change.
Thanks.
Technically though, you do not represent normative Christianity, so I am not sure you can actually be called a Christian, no offense intended, just pointing out the obvious. If I remember correctly, you do not believe that Jesus is God, which would put you in the negative ‘cult’ circle that Christianity shuns. Thus you might fit better in a Jehovah Witness group.
“being the change I want to see in the church.”
Also, why are you wanting to change “the Church”?
Zion, I have certainly investigated the deity issue and I don’t have an absolute opinion on the matter. If that offends you, I’m sorry, because that’s not my intent, however, I can’t always morph my personal opinions and thoughts to please everyone around me, and certainly not everyone with Internet access.
Also, do I not have the right to define myself as I desire? I know in many of these discussions, we debate whether or not Jews today have the right to define who is a Jew and what is Judaism which, for me is a no-brainer. I don’t think I need anyone’s permission to define myself as a Christian, one who is a disciple of Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, heir to the throne of David, who died for the sins of many, rose on the third day, and who sits at the right hand of God the Father.
I mentioned in one of my blog posts that there are as many as 41,000 different (though overlapping) denominations of Christianity in the world today. So what is “normative Christianity” relative to that statistic?
If I, for example, would like to see the church, or a church in my little corner of the world, move away from supersessionism and move towards recognizing the Savior as the Jewish Messiah King and all that may mean, why can’t I add my voice to a church in support of the Jewish Jesus, the Jewish people, and Israel?
The vast, vast, majority of disciples of the Messiah are in the church. Why shouldn’t I have fellowship in one of them? Why shouldn’t I add my voice to theirs? Why can’t I support Israel within the church? If you can make decisions for yourself which includes where to worship and with whom to associate, do I not have the same rights for myself?
If you want more details, check out today’s morning meditation. If you choose to comment, at least try to keep it polite. Thanks.
Zion, I have certainly investigated the deity issue and I don’t have an absolute opinion on the matter. If that offends you, I’m sorry, because that’s not my intent, however, I can’t always morph my personal opinions and thoughts to please everyone around me, and certainly not everyone with Internet access.
I was just pointing out, most of Christianity would not recognize you as a Christian, but more as a Jehovah Witness… regardless, you can claim and define yourself as whatever you like. And I recommend you do go to church, I also recommend people go to synagogue. I find both important.
So do I.
If I, for example, would like to see the church, or a church in my little corner of the world, move away from supersessionism and move towards recognizing the Savior as the Jewish Messiah King and all that may mean, why can’t I add my voice to a church in support of the Jewish Jesus, the Jewish people, and Israel?
So you are going to rescue “the church”, for some reason I thought you were against this?
No. Maybe I’m not communicating myself very well (did you read today’s blog?). If I have any “issues” with the church, my best and most ethical response is not to simply walk away, but to be a part of the church, contribute my efforts to its well-being, and to be the sort of Christian I believe the Bible defines, which includes promoting brotherhood with Israel.
No. Maybe I’m not communicating myself very well (did you read today’s blog?). If I have any “issues” with the church, my best and most ethical response is not to simply walk away, but to be a part of the church, contribute my efforts to its well-being, and to be the sort of Christian I believe the Bible defines, which includes promoting brotherhood with Israel.
I did read your blog, but I read your response that said what you wanted to see happen in the church and you also said you want to be that change… are you not trying to change the perspective of the church?
“most of Christianity would not recognize you as a Christian”
Zion, many if not most parts of Christianity would not recognize as “true believers” One-Law Gentiles like yourself, i.e. those who hold that “Jewish” observance of Torah is mandatory for all Christians. This is because it is viewed as nullifying the work of Christ. To many Christians, you would probably fall somewhere between Armstrongism and some sort of neo-Galatianist Judaizers.
Therefore, I think that James, who merely says of Christ’s divinity “I am not sure how it works”, is in a far better place in the eyes of Christians.
Zion, many if not most parts of Christianity would not recognize as “true believers” One-Law Gentiles like yourself, i.e. those who hold that “Jewish” observance of Torah is mandatory for all Christians. This is because it is viewed as nullifying the work of Christ. To many Christians, you would probably fall somewhere between Armstrongism and some sort of neo-Galatianist Judaizers.
I agree… this was more of a tongue-in-cheek, for all those, you included, who have your own self definitions of Christianity or Messianic Judaism, what is normative Christianity, what is normative Judaism… just having fun with the hypocrisy. Thanks for proving my point! :D
Side note:
Concerning “Jewish” observance of Torah… I believe in covenant observance, if you are part of the covenant, I believe you are responsible to the covenant, if one is not part of the covenant, then they are no responsible. Thus I do not teach one to be Jewish, but to uphold the covenant they claim to be part of.
I don’t think it’s wrong to contribute something to the church, even if it’s just a perspective. I don’t expect people to automatically accept my perspective, but if certain matters come up in conversation, I can register my opinion. Who knows what it may yield? Perhaps nothing, but I’ll never know if I don’t become involved.
Zion, you seem to have a problem with what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. I don’t mind that you disagree with me but regardless of your opinion, I’m still going to make an attempt to rejoin Christian fellowship. I have every intention of being transparent with the Pastor when I meet with him in a few days. I even provided him with a link to my blog so if he’s read my material, he knows a great deal about me by now. I’m hardly going in “undercover” or with poor motivation.
I don’t think it’s wrong to contribute something to the church, even if it’s just a perspective. I don’t expect people to automatically accept my perspective, but if certain matters come up in conversation, I can register my opinion. Who knows what it may yield? Perhaps nothing, but I’ll never know if I don’t become involved.
Zion, you seem to have a problem with what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. I don’t mind that you disagree with me but regardless of your opinion, I’m still going to make an attempt to rejoin Christian fellowship. I have every intention of being transparent with the Pastor when I meet with him in a few days. I even provided him with a link to my blog so if he’s read my material, he knows a great deal about me by now. I’m hardly going in “undercover” or with poor motivation.
I am confused by what seem to be contradicting statements, you said:
If I, for example, would like to see the church, or a church in my little corner of the world, move away from supersessionism and move towards recognizing the Savior as the Jewish Messiah King and all that may mean, why can’t I add my voice to a church in support of the Jewish Jesus, the Jewish people, and Israel?
You want to change or rescue the church.
being the change I want to see in the church.
You want to see the church change.
Yet at the same time, you don’t want to change the church. Just need some clarification?
“I believe you are responsible to the covenant, if one is not part of the covenant, then they are no responsible. ”
Zion, since Gentile Christians or their ancestors have not obligated themselves to the Mosaic Covenant by swearing to uphold its terms, they are not responsible for breaking it nor do the curses specified for Israel violating Torah fall upon them when they fail to live up to the Law. I think that history of Christianity and Judaism over the last 2 millennia bears witness to that as well.
(Although I doubt that many OL proponents ever think of the consequences of obligating themselves to Torah but failing to uphold it. From my experience, most OLers do not even live a “biblically” observant life).
Zion, since Gentile Christians or their ancestors have not obligated themselves to the Mosaic Covenant by swearing to uphold its terms, they are not responsible for breaking it nor do the curses specified for Israel violating Torah fall upon them when they fail to live up to the Law. (Although I doubt that many OL proponents ever think of the consequences of obligating themselves to Torah but failing to uphold it).
Since most Gentile Christians believe they are party to the New Covenant through their faithfulness to Messiah, they have now also taken upon the Torah, which is also part of the New Covenant. If they are not party to the New Covenant, then they are not responsible to the Torah or to Israel.
Of course I want to see the church progress but I don’t demand that the church conform to my specific requirements. Does that help resolve the perceived contradiction, Zion?
Of course I want to see the church progress(change) but I don’t demand that the church conform to my specific requirements. Does that help resolve the perceived contradiction, Zion?
Emphasis added, yes, thank you for clarifying.
James,
I did read your blog post from today to see how you substantiate your assertion that Paul encouraged the gentiles to essentially put up signs saying “Gentiles Only”. You wrote:
“Chances are, the “Messianic” Jews lived in a Jewish section of Rome, apart from the Gentile disciples. Chances are, there were a thousand other cultural, ethnic, lifestyle and halalaic differences between the Jews and Gentiles that, while they were held together in their faith in the Messiah, they were also separated in these many other ways. Why do you think Paul had to write “neither Jew nor Greek” to other churches as we see in Galatians 3:28?”
So your evidence is “chances are.” And your “argument” is riddled with contradictions such as the following:
“…’Messianic’ Jews lived in a Jewish section of Rome apart from the Gentile disciples.”
AND
“…the friction between Jewish and non-Jewish disciples was evident [in combined synagogues]…”
So you’re saying that they were separate (“apart”) and yet combined (as in the case of the Roman congregation which you acknowledge). This is a blatant contradiction.
If Paul felt that mixed congregations were such a problem, why didn’t he articulate this problem and warn against it when he addressed mixed congregations?
You believe in a Paul who was either too afraid or too confused to issue a warning/instruction when a situation demanded that he take action.
I believe in a Paul who was bold and wise and who issued warnings when necessary and provided all necessary instruction for daily practice. Note that Paul told the gentiles to put into practice everything they observed in him. He didn’t issue any qualifications. He told it like it was. He tells gentiles to stop acting like gentiles, calls them “former” gentiles, explains that they are covenantal partners, members of the nation of Israel.
I also believe in an Apostle Peter who tells the gentiles that they need to remain strong in their faith as members of a holy nation (1 Peter 2) even when gentiles ask them why they no longer participate in pagan culture (1 Peter 4).
These men were bold and wise and they told the gentiles everything they needed to know about identity and practice.
How shall I put this?
Not allowing someone to comment on my blog is a little like getting a divorce. Once the relationship is severed, you don’t have to respond to the other person’s demands. Remember the story about the angry person in the marketplace and Gandhi?
I think I’ll just smile and go about my business, which right now is lunch.
Bye.
Well said Peter…
בס”ד
Comments were made above about what constitutes the “nation” of Israel (i.e. that Passover and “ma’amad” Sinai made Israel a “functioning” nation). There are important details preceding Yetziat Mitzraim that ought to be mentioned.
Joseph was 39 when he revealed himself to his brothers in Egypt. He lived another 71 years, and some of his brothers lived longer than that. His brothers, and even Ya’akov, recognized Joseph as leader of the family of Israel, even as he was also currently vice-regent of Egypt. Joseph made sure Israel stayed in the best areas in Egypt and they multiplied rapidly. This people self-identified as “Israel” and kept the basic “identifier” of that self-identification, the covenant of circumcision to participate in the promises of their fathers. Eventually Egypt recognized “Israel” as large enough to be a threat, and they enslaved them and unleashed the Egyptian holocaust. Hashem heard Israel’s groanings and sent Moses and the Elders to demand national liberation from Pharaoh. So Israel, even as an eslaved nation that did not yet have a James Madison type constitution, self-identified as a nation and had a national identifier in the covenant of circumcision of the fathers. Pesach, Yetziat Mitzraim and ma’amad Sinai of course brought a much, much greater expression of national solidity to Israel. But even participation in Pesach was constrained by the covenant of circumcision, the basic national identifier.
All this is a type for Messiah’s Body which is made of people who have circumcised hearts by the Circumcision of Messiah (Colossians 2:11). Only people with circumcised hearts participate in Messiah’s Covenant and Messiah’s universal Pesach. People with uncircumcised hearts may claim to be part of the Body, but ultimately Messiah does know his people.
Benkeshet,
When does Jeremiah 31 say the national covenant with Israel was made? Here’s what it says:
“It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
WHEN I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,”
What was that event when G-d took the People of Israel by the hand to lead them out of Egypt? Was it not Passover? Was that not the betrothal? Was Sinai not the marriage? Jeremiah says:
“I was a husband to them”
And notice that the effect of this covenant was a perpetual Nationhood:
““Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”
Only if the Chukim vanish will Israel cease to be a nation. Notice that the Chukim which defined the national institutions was given on Sinai (not before).
Shalom,
Peter
““Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.””
They call it reading one’s agenda into Scriptures…
It does not say Israel, it says “The offspring of Israel…” Big difference….
So much for your 2 house doctrine…..
Dan,
Two House? What are you talking about??? Jeremiah 31 is evidence that the New Covenant is a national covenant. This is precisely what you believe. You said so today.
No one said anything about Two House. I for one certainly wasn’t thinking Two House when I wrote the above comment.
What chukoth -ordinances- are spoken of in Yirmiyahu? Yimiyahu 31:35 speaks of the ordinances of: “the sun for a light by day, חֻקֹּת the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar”. So it is on the ordinances of some of the cosmic appearances that HASHEM arranged. Also in the next verse: “If those הַחֻקִּים ordinances depart from before me, saith HASHEM, the seed of Yisrael also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.”.
1. This should ward of any replacement theologist. I still can see these ordinances of the sun, moon, stars and the division of sea.
2. This is not about the chukim given in the Sinay but it is about those from the creation of the Heaven and the Earth, much earlier.
3. Indeed is spoken here of the זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ZERRA YISRAEL – the seed / offspring of Yisrael being a גֹּוי GOY – nation.
Said this on Yirmiyahu 31, going back to the גֹוי קָדֹושׁ GOY KADOSH – the distinguished Nation in Shemoth 19. Also this is not spoken of the land of Yisrael but of the בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל BENEI YISRAEL – the sons / children of Yisrael. And at the commencement of the adressing, as if it would be known that some would jugle with the definition of who Yisrael is, it is more precisely described to whom those words were adressed: “Thus shalt thou say לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב L-BEITH YA’AKKOV – to the house of Ya’akkov, and tell לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל LIVNEI YISRAEL – the children of Yisrael” (verse 3). So it is the house of Jacob, the [natural] seed / sons of Yisrael that is adressed as nation here, not the land, but the people!
And whence did this nation become a nation? With the first passover? Where is that written? No. Here is written when Yisrael became a nation: “And thou shalt speak and say before HASHEM thy G-d, A Syrian ready to perish [was] my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there לְגֹוי גָּדֹול עָצוּם וָרָֽב L-GOY GADOL ATZUM WA-RAV – a nation, great, mighty, and populous.” (Deut.26:5). So this is before any chukim from Sinay, before Pessach even.
Period.
בס”ד
A Syrian ready to perish [was] my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there לְגֹוי גָּדֹול עָצוּם וָרָֽב L-GOY GADOL ATZUM WA-RAV – a nation, great, mighty, and populous.” (Deut.26:5).
כל הכבוד שמואל – very nice observation Shmuel.
One must be careful with metaphorical language of the prophets.
Jeremiah says: “I was a husband to them”
אֲשֶׁר-הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם
The word translated as a noun “husband” is a verb – בָּעַלְתִּי – and the word בעל can mean several things, including lord – master or possessor or husband.
The three words: וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם (ve’anochi ba’alti bam) may mean acting in the role of husband, but it might also connote Hashem’s lordship that was despised, since the preceding phrase is that “they violated My covenant.”
Even if Jeremiah intends to convey the metaphor of marriage, it would not be wise to base a doctrine on a metaphor, to the exclusion of other passages, such as what Shmuel points out above.
שבת שלום
“And whence did this nation become a nation? With the first passover? Where is that written? No. Here is written when Yisrael became a nation: “And thou shalt speak and say before HASHEM thy G-d, A Syrian ready to perish [was] my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there לְגֹוי גָּדֹול עָצוּם וָרָֽב L-GOY GADOL ATZUM WA-RAV – a nation, great, mighty, and populous.” (Deut.26:5). So this is before any chukim from Sinay, before Pessach even.
Period.”
Shmuel, nice!!!
Shmuel,
The seed of Israel became a nation in Egypt–at Passover.
Ask yourself: was the Old Covenant a national covenant? And is the New Covenant not also a national covenant?
We know that the Old Covenant is a national covenant because it says:
“5 Now IF YOU OBEY ME FULLY AND KEEP MY COVENANT, THEN out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 YOU WILL BE for me a kingdom of priests and A HOLY NATION.’ ”
This demonstrates that nationhood was conditioned on observance of the Old Covenant. It also shows why Israel needed a New Covenant, one which could not be broken:
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I WILL PUT MY LAW IN THEIR MINDS
and WRITE IT ON THEIR HEARTS.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because THEY WILL ALL KNOW ME,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I WILL forgive their wickedness
and will REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”
and then it says that Israel will never cease to be a nation before me.
So the beauty of the New Covenant is that it is the means by which G-d enters into an unbreakable covenant with the nation of Israel so that through the New Covenant Israel will never cease being a nation. It is a reaffirmation of the Old Covenant through Yeshua as the Passover Lamb (remember that whenever Israel violated the covenant it became necessary to observe a Passover in order to reaffirm the covenant).
Benkeshet,
Deut. 26:5 confirms what I’ve been saying. Israel BECAME a nation. The seed of the man Israel grew and developed into tribes and the tribes developed into a federation when they covenanted to be a nation.
But this nationhood was conditioned on the Old Covenant (Exodus 19:5). This nationhood had to be preserved via the New Covenant, which was a reaffirmation of the Old Covenant via Yeshua and demonstrates G-d’s intent to preserve Israel as a nation forever.
The Old and New Covenants are both national covenants. This is inescapable.
Peter… Gentile do not partake of the blessings of Israel by becoming Israel.
“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together WITH Israel” (Ephesians 3:6)
Peter, say it with me: Gentiles are WITH Israel, not Gentiles “HAVE BECOME” Israel.
Gene,
(1) Do you think the New Covenant is a national covenant?
(2) Do you believe that the New Covenant was offered through Yeshua?
“And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22)
“In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:25)
(3) Do you believe that gentiles can join the New Covenant?
Peter, my answer to your questions is right above your last comment, so I won’t repeat it.
Gene,
So your answers to the above questions are as follows:
(1) Yes, the New Covenant is a national covenant;
(2) Yes, the New Covenant is offered through Yeshua;
(3) Yes, the gentiles may join the New Covenant.
Correct!
Peter, Yisrael was a nation before Pessach! And as a nation there was made a covenant with them. They were not saved because of the covenant, but because the covenant with Avraham, Yitschak an Ya’akkov, where HaKadosh, Baruch Hu thought of, when they were in anguish (Ex:24).
Nowhere the Pessach is called the covenant, or the start of it. It was pure grace; remember, the Yisraelites were circumcised, but this is from the covenant with Avraham. They were not yet brought to Sinay and they didn’t yet hear the words of that covenant. Yes, Pessach was a part of that covenant, but not yet delivered as such. They were not brought unto the words of the covenant and the ceromony declaring them part of it. They were brought under the covenant later as we can read in (Ex.24:8). Mashiach will sprinkle many nations (Is.52:15; see comment of the Tur on Lev.16:14). The covenant didn’t make them the nation Yisrael, they were already the nation Yisrael. But if they could listen they would become a separate nation: the Kingdom of priests, which they did not become. The priesthood was given to Ahharron and sons. The goal was missed. But would come in the Messianic time (Is.61:6). So that nationhood, the one of the Kingdom of priests was the goal for Yisrael. That is what is the New covenant is all about. Because priests are like new man, because they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, which was on earth resembled as the Holy Home (Tabernacle / Temple). There, a Yisraelite couldn’t come, unless he was a son of Ahharron.
If you do not understand this level, and keep with the laws of Yisrael and its identity solely, you miss the point.
Gene,
So help me understand how you resolve this apparent contradiction. You say the New Covenant is a national covenant–the covenant made with the nation of Israel (unless I’m misunderstanding you). And you say that through Yeshua the gentiles have joined this Israeli National Covenant. Yet you also say that the gentiles are not obligated to follow the terms of this national covenant (Torat Moshe).
Why wouldn’t they be bound by the terms of the covenant to which they belong?
“Why wouldn’t they be bound by the terms of the covenant to which they belong?”
They belong to what? The Mosaic Covenant G-d concluded with Israel at Sinai?
Peter… you seem to be confusing Mosaic and New Covenants, as if there’s no difference between them, especially when it comes to Gentiles. Gentiles were not invited to sign-up for the Mosaic Covenant nor have they ever agreed to uphold its terms. Therefore, G-d will not hold them accountable for, say, not circumcising their flesh or eating pork. The Bible makes it clear, the New Testament makes it clear, the rabbis made this clear. The twenty-or-so-year-old One-Law fantasy muddies it all up and sows confusion in the minds of American Christians.
With the New Covenant with Israel, however, G-d has made an invitation to the Gentiles so that they can partake in its blessings ALONG SIDE Israel. It’s all about what G-d has done through his Son, giving us the new heart, the new beginning, inviting us into the Kingdom of G-d.
The undercurrent of your particular belief system is your belief in Two-Houses, with Gentiles representing the House of Israel. You try not to bring it up (or Dan would be all over you as white on riCe), but lets face it – it colorS your theology through and through. Because of that, you are compelled to work backwards to prove that Gentiles become Israel somehow, some way, legally or spiritually or whatever (even though you believe that they already ARE – or a good chunk of them, you included – the “Ten Lost Tribes”).
Shmuel,
Re: “They were not saved because of the covenant, but because the covenant with Avraham, Yitschak an Ya’akkov, where HaKadosh, Baruch Hu thought of, when they were in anguish (Ex:24).”
If membership in the covenant of Abraham is sufficient for the salvation of one’s soul then Yeshua would be a liar. But I believe that blood of the New Covenant Passover Lamb was necessary for Israel’s redemption (just as the blood of the Passover was necessary for Israel’s redemption from Egypt) and so Yeshua is telling the truth that no one can come to the Father except through Yeshua.
Gene,
So you believe that the Old Covenant (Sinaitic Covenant) is completely unrelated to the New Covenant. They’ve got the same Torah, they’re made with the same nation (Israel), they’re both national covenants, yet they’re completely unrelated. How do you expect your readers to follow this logic?
“So you believe that the Old Covenant (Sinaitic Covenant) is completely unrelated to the New Covenant.”
I do not believe such a thing, even remotely (but nice job putting words into my mouth!). Of course they are related and connected!
To give an analogy, an Israelite is related to a priest and needs him for proper Temple worship, but only a priest is obligated by the Torah to serve in the Temple. Same for the Gentile Christians – they become related to the Jewish people (Israel) through Yeshua, they NEED Israel, the “priests of G-d”, but they do not become Israel themselves or come under same Torah obligation.
Gene,
Do you believe that gentiles who joined the Old Covenant (Sinaitic) were obligated to observe the same Torah as the native Israelite?
Yes, official converts to Judaism have to uphold the same (with a few particulars) Torah requirements as native born Jews. They willingly and voluntarily take upon themselves all of Torah, both the obligations and all the punishments for violations of said obligations.
Yes, official converts to Judaism have to uphold the same (with a few particulars)
What are the particulars, Gene?
Well, you guys keep going! My novel is 377 pages. If you can exceed that in posts, I will be impressed even more so.
Gene,
So let me see if I understand your points. You seem to be saying the following:
(1) gentiles who joined the Old Covenant of the nation of Israel (i.e. Sinaitic) were citizens in Israel who had the same rights/duties as a common Israelite;
(2) gentiles who join the New Covenant of the nation of Israel are not citizens in Israel who have the same rights/duties as a common Israelite.
Do I understand you correctly?
Peter
“(1) gentiles who joined the Old Covenant of the nation of Israel (i.e. Sinaitic) were citizens in Israel who had the same rights/duties as a common Israelite;”
That’s correct. These relatively small numbers of Gentile residents who chose to convert to Judaism (and they usually married into Israel) took on the whole Torah, became Jews and were wholly absorbed into Israel. In essence, they (or at least their progeny) ceased to be Gentiles.
“(2) gentiles who join the New Covenant of the nation of Israel are not citizens in Israel who have the same rights/duties as a common Israelite.”
Partly correct. New Covenant Gentiles are citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel – that is the Kingdom of G-d composed of all nations of the earth, with Israel as the head of the nations (Jeremiah 31:7), with Messiah ruling Israel and all nations (which will reside in their own lands, with exception of some Gentile residents of Israel – and some Gentiles always resided in Israel, even today).
Gene,
So you’re saying: when a gentile joined the Old Covenant he forfeited his native citizenship and acquired a new citizenship in the nation of Israel but when a gentile joins the New Covenant he retains his native citizenship and does not acquire citizenship in the nation of Israel (citizenship in the nation of Israel meaning that one has all the rights/duties of a common Israelite citizen). Do I understand you correctly?
Shabbat Shalom,
Peter
Peter, that’s correct. Except it’s extremely positive for Gentiles to not have to have “all the rights/duties of a common Israelite citizen”. Gentiles should, did and do rejoice that G-d has accepted them without having to observe the WHOLE Torah in the manner of Jews.
The Gospel to the nations would not have succeeded if all Gentiles were required to take on Mosaic Torah and live as Jews. It’s very hard to be an observant Jew and Jews as a nation failed to live up to Torah standards (yes, even way before those “bad rabbis corrupted Judaism”) and had to suffer unspeakably for that. This is why only one nation, Israel, has that tough duty. And G-d does not take it lightly.
Are you not glad that your Gentile ancestors were not expelled from their land en mass, chased from country to country as a people, wholesale murdered by the millions or abused in every place they went for the sake of being Israelites and Torah?
Peter I said grace was the motive and reason to save them, to bring them out of Egypt, in connection with the remeberance of the covenant with Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya’akkov, as said in Ex.2:24,25!
Awww…you guys fell short of the glory…
בס”ד
“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου).”
Yeshua’s sacrifice is the basis for “cosmic” redemption, i.e. beyond the borders of Israel. He established the New Covenant promised to Israel in Jeremiah, and at the same time established a basis for all nations to share directly in his redemption by faith, as part of a joint Body, a fact which was not revealed prior to the Covenant. Ephesians 1 lays a foundation.
Eph 1:11-14.
Eph 3:4-5.
The cosmic redemption was mediated to the world through shlihim (apostles) and neviim (prophets) in the first century, who were all Jewish. Messiah’s redemption should have played out as harmony with Israel and the nations, and alliance between them, as in “Rejoice, O Nations, with his people” (Romans 15:10), not any form of supersessionism.
Still, in the future, when HASHEM will rule manifest over all the world, it is said: “עוּרִי עוּרִי לִבְשִׁי עֻזֵּךְ צִיּוֹן לִבְשִׁי בִּגְדֵי תִפְאַרְתֵּךְ יְרוּשָׁלַם עִיר הַקֹּדֶשׁ כִּי לֹא יוֹסִיף יָבֹא־בָךְ עוֹד עָרֵל וְטָמֵא Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Tzion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Yerushalayyim, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.” (Yeshayahu 52:1). כִּי לֹא יוֹסִיף יָבֹא־בָךְ KI LO YOSIF YAVO VACH – for henceforth there shall no more come into thee עוֹד עָרֵל וְטָמֵא OD AREIL weTAMEI – the uncircumcised and the unclean. This means that time no one that is ritual unclean and uncircumcised will ever enter Yerushalayim. At the same time the gentiles in that time are obliged to come at Sukkoth: “וְהָיָה כָּל־הַנּוֹתָר מִכָּל־הַגּוֹיִם הַבָּאִים עַל־יְרוּשָׁלָם וְעָלוּ מִדֵּי שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְמֶלֶךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת וְלָחֹג אֶת־חַג הַסֻּכּוֹת: וְהָיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַעֲלֶה מֵאֵת מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאָרֶץ אֶל־יְרוּשָׁלַם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְמֶלֶךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת וְלֹא עֲלֵיהֶם יִהְיֶה הַגָּשֶׁם And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Yerushalayyim shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, HASHEM of hosts, and to keep the feast of boots. And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Yerushalayyim to worship the King, HASHEM of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.” (Zecharyah 14:16,17).
So since everyone from the nations is obliged to come and worship on the festifal of Sukkoth, they have to enter Yerushalayyim that according to the writing of the prophet Yeshayah cannot anymore be entered by those being uncircumcised and ritual unclean. So those gentiles thaen are obliged to a lot more of the Torat Mosheh. They are even obliged to keep shabbath and the new moon: “וְהָיָה מִדֵּי־חֹדֶשׁ בְּחָדְשׁוֹ וּמִדֵּי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ יָבוֹא כָל־בָּשָׂר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְפָנַי אָמַר ה׳ And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith HASHEM.” (Yeshayahu 66:23).
It means than there is a obligation for the gentiles to be circumcised, being ritual clean, to engage in chag haSukkoth, new moon and shabbath, to worship HaKadosh, Baruch Hu.
So now there is not!
I have to note, that there might be seen a contradiction between what Yeshayahu 66 and Zecharyah 14 note on that time in the future.
We read in Yeshayah: “וְהָיָה מִדֵּי־חֹדֶשׁ בְּחָדְשׁוֹ וּמִדֵּי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ יָבוֹא כָל־בָּשָׂר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְפָנַי אָמַר ה׳ And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith HASHEM.”
And in Zecharyah: “וְהָיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַעֲלֶה מֵאֵת מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאָרֶץ אֶל־יְרוּשָׁלַם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְמֶלֶךְ יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת וְלֹא עֲלֵיהֶם יִהְיֶה הַגָּשֶׁם And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Yerushalayyim to worship the King, HASHEM of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.” (Zecharyah 14:16,17).
It seems if Yeshayah that everyone comes [כָל־בָּשָׂר CHOL-BASAR - all flesh], but in Zecharyah those who don’t come to worship will miss the blessing of rain and thus a falure in harvests. How can one prophet say “כָל־בָּשָׂר CHOL-BASAR – all flesh” and the other say something about does, that will not. Are not all flesh and just coming? RaSHi said something very interesting about “all flesh” in his comment to Joel 3:1 [וְהָיָה אַחֲרֵי־כֵן אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי עַל־כָּל־בָּשָׂר And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh (KOL BASAR)]: “על כל בשר. על מי שנעשה לבו רך כבשר דוגמת ונתתי לכם לב בשר ON ALL FLESH – on whose hearts has been made as soft as flesh, just as: and I will give you a heart of flesh (Yechezekel 36:26). (!)
Gene, Shmuel, Benkeshet,
I was spending Shabbos with a Hasidic Rabbi at his house and I asked him “When did Israel transform from Am Yisrael into a nation?”
Do you know his response?
He said that there is no dispute that Israel became a nation at PASSOVER. First, he discussed that it was the Spring, the time of birth, and that the month for Passover was the first of the months, a time of beginning. Next, he discussed the kabbalistic background for the view that Passover was the “birthing” of national Israel. He mentioned the blood on the doorposts as representative of a birth, etc.
Shalom,
Peter
Gene,
Re: “Peter, that’s correct.”
So then don’t say gentiles are members of a commonwealth of Israel. Because when you use the term “commonwealth of Israel” you use it to mean that the gentiles are excluded from the nation of Israel. Just be clear with your view and say “I believe that gentiles are excluded from the nation of Israel.” Don’t say “gentiles are included in the commonwealth of Israel” because that will just confuse people. No one understands that your idea of a commonwealth of Israel defines Israel as a distinct nation which excludes gentiles. They hear the word “included” and they get the wrong idea.
“He said that there is no dispute that Israel became a nation at PASSOVER. ”
Peter – so what if he said that or if you said that or if anyone else said that? What difference does this make for your claim that Gentiles somehow become “Israelites” obligated to live as Jews?
Gene,
The “so what?” is that the gentiles are able to join the national covenant of Israel through the Passover Lamb and the Ruach.
“So then don’t say gentiles are members of a commonwealth of Israel. Because when you use the term “commonwealth of Israel” you use it to mean that the gentiles are excluded from the nation of Israel.”
Peter, I said what I believe to be true and what the scripture say. You say that Gentiles become “Israel”, and I say that Gentiles come alongside Israel:
“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together WITH Israel” (Ephesians 3:6)
“They hear the word “included” and they get the wrong idea.”
No, YOU get the wrong idea because you have a specific agenda. Gentiles are included in the Kingdom of Heaven, but they do not become “Israel”.
“The “so what?” is that the gentiles are able to join the national covenant of Israel through the Passover Lamb and the Ruach.”
Peter, yes, they certainly do. That’s how they get to partake in the spiritual blessings of Israel.
Gene,
Your readers can decide. They have all the evidence now.
“Your readers can decide. They have all the evidence now.”
That’s what my blog is for, among other things. Stay tuned for stories of former One-Law believers who saw the light after seeing the evidence.
Peter, I think that Benkeshet has clearly given what kind of Pessach lamb the Mashiach Yeshua is. Yeshua was clearly is not the Lamb according to the standards of precept: one year old, a sheeps ram or he goat, so you can’t just say it will be the same.
I’m not impressed that you asked a chassid, do you think all of us don’t have any background? And did you ask him if he agreed if he agreed on Yeshua being Mashiach? Did you ask him if he thinks you are a proper geir? So what does it say, that he follows the tradition of Kaballah, that beliefs in reincarnation, amulets, etc. Beautifull things have been written in sefer haBahir, sefer Yetzirah, sefer haZohar and Pardes Rimonim. But it is also very dangerous sometimes. Good and evil mixed. I clearly showed from Devarim that Yisrael became in Mitzraim (Egypt) a nation (Deut.26:5), so even before pessach.
Shmuel,
Re: “I clearly showed from Devarim that Yisrael became in Mitzraim (Egypt) a nation (Deut.26:5),”
You did a wonderful job of corroborating my assertion that Israel became a nation in Egypt. Thanks!
Re: “And did you ask him if he agreed if he agreed on Yeshua being Mashiach?”
Ha! Good one, Shmuel. No, I didn’t ask him that. I just assumed he was a Baptist. : )
Re: “Yeshua was clearly is not the Lamb according to the standards of precept: one year old, a sheeps ram or he goat, so you can’t just say it will be the same.”
So Paul was mistaken then when he said “Christ, our Passover Lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7)? Do you think Paul was just not familiar enough with Jewish tradition? Perhaps you could’ve taught him a thing or two. : )
Shalom,
Peter
“That’s what my blog is for, among other things. Stay tuned for stories of former One-Law believers who saw the light after seeing the evidence.”
What evidence? I am debating you guys for years and you have yet to show any……
“What evidence? I am debating you guys for years and you have yet to show any……”
Dan, that’s because for some folks “evidence” is only when it happens to support their own foregone conclusions.
Peter
Re: “So Paul was mistaken then when he said “Christ, our Passover Lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7)? Do you think Paul was just not familiar enough with Jewish tradition?”
Well, he never said that ;-), he said the Anointed, our Pessach lam. According to the precepts of Torah He is not fitting in, but He is of an other order. Like the Temple in Heaven is of another order than that on earth, though they resemble; that one in heaven is perfect.
As Benkeshet already said, He is one Lamb for the whole earth, wereas the passover lambs are one for a fmilily, as much as they can eat.
What I mean to say is that you cannot one on one transpose the happening of the liberation from Egypt to the redemption through Mashiach. Though connected, they are certainly not the same!
Gene, Benkeshet, others and me said that again and again.
It’s not about the flight from Mitzraim to Kena’an this time, but the redemption of the soul, the becoming alive of the heart and the spirit and the taking residence in us by the Ruach haKoddesh.
Thats besides our circumcised in the fles also that of the heart and that among other things makes us priests on top of being Yisraelites.
בס”ד
I was spending Shabbos with a Hasidic Rabbi at his house and I asked him “When did Israel transform from Am Yisrael into a nation?”
In a court of law opposing counsel would shout “Objection! – Leading question!” Peter.esq, and it would be sustained.
You read your assumption into the question so his response could not fail to give you your desired answer. I would also guess you spoke in English. So in reality you have not proved anything from the Torah.
The question you have attempted to prove turns on how narrowly you define the English word “nation.” You should have given us a critical definition of “nation” long ago before you attempted to use it in your proofs. Then again, lack of a critical definition does make it easy to slip around from here to there when tough counter-arguments arise.
As Gene and Shmuel and I point out there’s still no hope for your theory, since the Besorah Paul announced to the Nations, a la Ephesians 3, was not known to previous generations.
בס”ד
…he discussed the kabbalistic background for the view that Passover was the “birthing” of national Israel. He mentioned the blood on the doorposts as representative of a birth, etc.
Anybody who understands the application of the Jewish פרד”ס (pardes) mode of interpretation would have no problem of receiving the habadnik rov’s DRASH teaching. But that does not make it applicable as PASHAT.
The pashat is that the blood on the doorposts warded off the Death of the Firstborn, and is precisely why the name פסח Pesach was given to the event, because Hashem פסח PASACH, skipped over the houses of his nation Israel.
It is the same with what has been mentioned above about 1 Cor. 5. Paul was teaching in a DRASH mode, not a PASHAT. He told the Corinthians to quit living out of their old life, their old man of wickedness of the flesh, which Paul likened to שְׂאֹר “se’or” or hametz, and live out of the truth of the new man in Messiah. So Messiah’s Sacrifice is not a PASHAT replacement of the Pesach for Israel, but is a superior Pesach for all humanity.
לכן מי שהוא במשיח בריה חדשה הוא הראשנות עברו הנה הכל נעשו חדשות
Therefore anyone who is in Messiah is a new creature, the old things have passed away and all things have been made new.
Peter,
My apologies, I didn’t subscribe so I didn’t see this until now. You addressed the following argument to me:
“Nationality is a political concept referring to citizenry. You would say a man carrying Irish citizenship is of the Irish nation, yes? Likewise, you’d agree that a man carrying American citizenship is of the American nation, yes? So if you agree that citizenship determines nationality then you’d have to agree that there’s no such thing as plural “nations” in the eschatological sense. There is but one citizenship (Eph 2)—and only one level of citizenship–and therefore only one nation.”
My response: No, I was using nationality as it originally refers to a people group, not the modern sense of a political state. So, the Jewish nation, or nation of Israel, is the Jewish people. Whereas, someone of a particular citizenship need not be of the same nationality as another person with the same citizenship. A man carrying Irish citizenship is NOT necessarily of the Irish nation. Paul for example had Roman citizenship but this should not confuse anyone into thinking he was part of a “Roman nation.” He was of the Jewish nation.
Shmuel,
Re: “Well, he never said that ;-), he said the Anointed, our Pessach lamb”
Your argument is that Paul says “Moshiach” and so we can’t be certain if he’s referring to Yeshua? Oy vey. You, my brother, have your head buried deep in the sand.
Benkeshet,
Re: “You read your assumption into the question so his response could not fail to give you your desired answer. I would also guess you spoke in English. So in reality you have not proved anything from the Torah.”
What is your basis for thinking that this rabbi was a complete moron? Honestly, Benkeshet, what a bizarre thing to suggest–that this rabbi is so stupid that he can only answer according to the way I want him to.
He simply corroborated the argument put forth 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
בס”ד
I don’t think I would depend on Buber’s understanding of Israelite history, at least as it is related in the Torah:
“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.”
Where in the Torah do we read of “clan feasts” where they ate matzah, “bread of the nomads” ? On top of that, Buber himself says he is assuming this is what occurred, rather than taking a plain reading of the Torah for the explanation of matzot.
Framing questions to reinforce preconceived ideas might, at the very least, be considered unwise. So, for the record, I do not think the habadnik rabbi answered a question that you can use to bolster your theory. You put words in my mouth that he was a (חו”ש) moron so you can bear the burden of your erroneous charge.
Exodus 10:22-23 there was pitch darkness in all the land of Egypt three days. They did not see one another, nor did anyone rise from his place for three days, but all the people of Israel had light where they lived.
Exodus 11:7 But not a dog shall growl against any of the people of Israel, either man or beast, that you may know that Hashem makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.
There was already a distinction in Hashem’s eyes between Israel and Egypt before Passover. Egypt refused to recognize this distinction.
Re: “Your argument is that Paul says “Moshiach” and so we can’t be certain if he’s referring to Yeshua? Oy vey. You, my brother, have your head buried deep in the sand.”
I never said that. I criticized your using “Christ” as a translation in your: “So Paul was mistaken then when he said “Christ, our Passover Lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7)?”, which is no translation. Anointed is. And from my background I like to use the hebrew term Mashiach also.
You tell me my head is buried in sand? You!? I did give in when you had a point on that Shemoth 12 could be about geirim in the way it is understood nowadays and I am not afraid to admit a possible mistake. But you burry yourself deep in an assumption here and there that is not so crystal clear as that you would want.
One question: how many times a year should we hold “the lords supper”?
Shmuel and Benkeshet,
You guys are obviously biased against the traditional Jewish view of Passover, the view that Passover resulted in the creation of the national form of Israel. So I’m curious:
Are you guys associated with First Fruits of Zion?
I just get this feeling that you don’t want to hear the truth, that no amount of evidence will convince you, that you’re both supporting some sort of organizational agenda…so what is it? Are you UMJC? Are you FFOZ? What is your background?
For my part, I am of the One Law branch of Messianic Judaism (if you didn’t realize this already). I’m not affiliated with any particular organization. So that’s my full disclosure. What is yours?
Let everyone here know where you are coming from. : )
“I just get this feeling that you don’t want to hear the truth, that no amount of evidence will convince you, that you’re both supporting some sort of organizational agenda”
Peter, you are a trip! Of all the people on “messianic” blogs, you are the absolute last to acknowledge being wrong on anything, even when you clearly are wrong or to change your mind if facts interfere with your preconceived agenda. Even people in your own “party” (Dan) have been witnesses to that. When a relentless ideologue of ideologues criticizes others, it arouses feelings of incredulity.
” I’m not affiliated with any particular organization.”
Peter, you are affiliated with One-Law and Two-House organizations (whatever they are and granted there’s not a whole lot of “organization” there among those groups), if not in some official capacity. That is you are of the like-mind. That’s enough of affiliation.
I wish I was affiliated with a One Law organization! It would be an answer to prayer. Haven’t found one in our town as of yet.
“I am of the One Law branch of Messianic Judaism”
There’s no such thing, Peter.
As for me, Peter, I do not belong to any organisation, nor do I follow any opinions of others, unless I agree, but I find in Gene, Benkeshet, Boaz Michael, James, Lrw and Matt people that are more or less from the same opinion.
Furthermore, you ask from me things, which I answer. But when I ask a simple question, I don’t get an answer. I’m willing to change my opinion, but than I need real proof.
I already provoked you, to show you that however respectable our fellow Jews are, it does not mean that tradition always points out the right picture on facts. Thats why I asked you about if you asked him if you also asked him if he beliefs Yeshua is the Mashiach.
Tradition is no absolute proof in all aspects; not in Judaism, nor in Christianity.
But let us now come to business. Lets turn to the Jewish tradition. To Pessach. To the seider. To the very Haggadah shel Pessach, which is exact according the Mishneh Torah of RaMBaM (Maimonides) were we read: ” אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי, וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה, וַיָּגָר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט; וַיְהִי-שָׁם, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב יָּרֵעוּ אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים, וַיְעַנּוּנוּ; וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ, עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous(eut.26:5). And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage. Etc.”. This is the official tradition in orthodox, conservative and reform Judaism. Yisrael being a nation before Pessach, remembered and read every year from the Haggadah.
Shmuel, that’s a great example from a tradition known and recited every year by almost all Jews for many generations. Not some obscure opinion.
Shmuel,
Sure, let’s look at Deuteronomy 26:5. Notice in the first sentence that it says Abraham became a nation. “He became there a nation.” Notice in the second sentence that it refers to “us”. It says “The Egyptians dealt ill with US.”
So we have two things: (1) Abraham became a nation; (2) there was an “us” that was mistreated by the Egyptians.
Your assertion is that the “us” is not Am Yisrael or Bnai Yisrael but rather the nation of Israel. Your evidence is that it refers to Abraham becoming a nation.
Here’s the flaw in your argument: It says that Abraham BECAME a nation but it doesn’t specify when this event occurred. It only says that it occurred IN Egypt (which is what I’ve been saying all along).
Here’s my counterargument to your argument:
(1) first, it doesn’t say when Israel became a nation in Deuteronomy 26:5;
(2), second, the verses that describes the plight of Israel under Egyptian bondage refers to the PEOPLE of Israel (Am Yisrael). See Exodus 5 for this. Each verse in Exodus 5 refers to the Am Yisrael being afflicted by the Egyptians.
(3), third, it doesn’t refer to Israel as being a nation (only that Abraham became one) UNTIL Exodus 12 and 19:5-6, which both involve the Old Covenant.
I’ve also been pointing out that Torah refers to the Am Yisrael and Bnai Yisrael LONG BEFORE it ever mentions nationhood in relation to the covenant. I’ve point out that the Edah (Adat Yisrael), for example, isn’t mentioned until Exodus 12. I’ve pointed out that nationhood was contingent on the Old Covenant:
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:5-6)
Shmuel,
I hope you read my last comment very carefully to understand this so you’re not taking Torah out of context. The Egyptian-afflicted “us” referred to in Deuteronomy 26:5 MUST be “Am Yisrael” since Exodus 5 shows that the Egyptians afflicted the “Am Yisrael.”
You must allow Torah to explain Torah. Don’t insert your biases into Deuteronomy 26:5.
Peter, what you now try to curve on Deut.26:5 is straightway nonsense. In what first sentence is the name of Avraham?
Your quote of Ex.19:5-6 is wrong. They where a nation and could conditionally become one on a higher plan.
Let’s hear from the New Testament: From Acts 13:17:
“The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made THE PEOPLE prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country…”
So, NT considers Israelites who resided in Egypt as “Am Yisrael” before Passover and before leading them out of the country.
Shmuel,
Deuteronomy 26:5 says that Abraham became a nation. Then it talks about the Am Yisrael (see Exodus 5) being afflicted by the Egyptians. That’s the “us” to which Moshe refers. And Moshe, who wrote Exodus 5, did not say that the nation of Israel was being afflicted by Egyptians but rather specifically stated that the PEOPLE (Am Yisrael) were afflicted by the Egyptians.
Gene,
Re: “So, NT considers Israelites who resided in Egypt as “Am Yisrael” before Passover and before leading them out of the country.”
Thank you for finding additional support for my assertion that Am Yisrael predated Passover. Thank you.
You are quite welcome, Peter. People of Israel/Children of Israel/Nation of Israel – used interchangeably in the Bible and are pure semantics at least as far as your agenda is concerned. It does nothing to prove the point that you’re trying to make – that Gentiles are Israelites.
Everyone,
Visit any Orthodox synagogue in the country and ask the rabbi “When did Am Yisrael become a nation?”
He’ll most likely be proficient in the nuanced political lexicon in the Torah, being able to distinguish between “Am”, “Bnai”, “Edah”, “Goy”, etc, and he’ll explain to you that the Passover marked the initial change from a people to a nation. He’ll most likely further elaborate that it wasn’t until the giving of Torat Moshe at Sinai that HaShem revealed the political institutions necessary for a federal government (nation).
Only on Gene’s blog do you have people who try to contradict that which is well-known and undisputed in Jewish tradition.
Well most Jewish commentators say that “Arami oveid avi” in Deut.26:5 is about Ya’akkov avinu. So stop the bluff.
Shmuel,
“It should be noted that while the great French commentator Rashi (1040-1105) accepts this reading, the Spanish commentator Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) strongly rejects it, noting the problem with the grammar and the non sequitur with “and he went down to Egypt.” According to Ibn Ezra, the verse refers to Jacob, who, when he was in Aram, was lost. Rashbam (c. 1085-1174) also rejects (his grandfather) Rashi’s interpretation, but argues that the verse more appropriately applies to Abraham, who can correctly be identified as an Aramean.”
Source:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Passover/The_Seder/Haggadah/An_Aramean_Destroyed_My_Father.shtml
Shmuel,
You used Deuteronomy 26:5 to make the point that Israel became a nation prior to Passover. But it doesn’t say that in that verse. So whether the verse says Abraham became a nation or whether it says Ya’akov became a nation–it doesn’t help you at all. The “us” refers to Am Yisrael as I’ve demonstrated with Moshe’s own words in Exodus 5.
בס”ד
…The Haggadah understands the word oved (wandering) as ibed (destroyed), changing the vocalization of the word. Read this way, Laban the Aramean destroyed my father, that is, Jacob. Of course, Laban did not destroy Jacob; they made a covenant not to kill each other. Consequently, Laban is usually seen as one who would have destroyed Jacob.
It should be noted that while the great French commentator Rashi (1040-1105) accepts this reading, the Spanish commentator Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) strongly rejects it, noting the problem with the grammar and the non sequitur with “and he went down to Egypt.”…
Just to keep the context clear – that dispute is about if “Laban the Aramean destroyed Ya’akov.”
But that dispute does not affect the overall meaning of Deuteronomy 26.
Ya’akov lived in Aram for 20 years, and Aram is where he became the father of the sons of Israel, except for Benjamin. Deuteronomy 26:5 thus could easily apply to Ya’akov-Yisrael. This passage is a continuing confession of collective consciousness that is meant to bind Israel in its collective memory. This particular mitzvah was given after Israel had already been out of Egypt for forty years and the adult generation of Yetziat Mitraim had perished in the wilderness. Doubtful that many of the later generation had actually known much about the “hard labor.” But as a confession of national consciousness the offspring were to consider themselves as if they too had been in slavery in Egypt and had been delievered as well. The attempt to make some fine distinguishment between “us” from the “nation” (גוי) is not convincing.
בס”ד
Visit any Orthodox synagogue in the country and ask the rabbi “When did Am Yisrael become a nation?”
But if you came over here to Israel and asked:
? כבוד הרב, מתי בגלות מצריים הפך עם ישראל לגוי
he would probably quote Deut. 26:5 and agree that it was before Yetziat Mitzraim.
But if you asked:
? כבוד הרב, מתי בגלות מצריים הפך עם ישראל ללאום
Then he would probably say at Pesach and after.
The problem is that the word לאום (le’um) – nation-state – is modern usage of Hebrew, not from the Torah. The word גוי is far too undefined to make the case you are trying to make.
For example Ishmael was also promised to become a “גוי גדול” (goy gadol) (Gen. 21:18).
Did עם ישמעאל (the people of Ishmael) turn into a nation – גוי – with a similar Passover and divine national constitution?… No sign of that in the Tanakh. Obviously then, there’s likewise no sign whatsoever in the Torah that such events were required to fulfill the meaning of the word “גוי” (goy).
…the nuanced political lexicon in the Torah…
It’s unwise to dig a hole deeper than your standing height…you might get buried.
Benkeshet,
Your argument is as follows:
(1) Other nations became nations without covenanting;
(2) Therefore, Israel became a nation without covenanting.
This is a non-sequitur. Israel is not like other nations. : )
As far as Deut. 26:5, it supports my assertion that Israel began as an “Am” (People) and became a nation. The “us” refers to the “People” of Israel (see Exodus 5). So that passage merely corroborates what I’ve been saying all along–the People of Israel became a nation whilst in Egypt.
Re: “It’s unwise to dig a hole deeper than your standing height…you might get buried.”
Benkeshet, your arrogance knows no bounds. You’re belittling the life’s work of two of Israel’s foremost political scholars. Shame on you.
בס”ד
Benkeshet, your arrogance knows no bounds. You’re belittling the life’s work of two of Israel’s foremost political scholars. Shame on you.
The context of my advice was your suggestion that any American rabbi would be “proficient in the nuanced political lexicon in the Torah” which is precisely why I quoted your phrase. My quote of you and my advice to you did not belittle Israel’s political scholars – a comment which seems to indicate your rhetorical self-defense mechanism is kicking in…
Your argument is as follows: (and here you show that you have not followed what I’ve been saying.)
(1) Other nations became nations without covenanting;
…”nations became nations” … a clumsy tautology … which is precisely why I say your proofs ought to be made in Hebrew, not English.
On the assumption you mean people-groups that maintain coherent self-identity, I didn’t say they did it without covenanting. I don’t claim to know how עם ישמעאל (the people of Ishmael) maintained self-identity. They may indeed have had something akin to an actual covenant. — What I did say was that the word גוי (goy) as used in the Torah does not demand a Passover or a divinely revealed constitution. Therefore one cannot make that word גוי (goy) demand Passover or ma’amad Sinai when Israel is described by it.
(2) Therefore, Israel became a nation without covenanting.
דווקא – I’ve said above that the basic identifier of Israel from the days of father Yisrael himself, and through Joseph as leader of the nation for 71 years was the covenant of circumcision. Israel self-identified as a nation precisely because of its promised circumcision covenant from the fathers (John 7:22) and Passover was limited exclusively to those that upheld that long-standing national covenant. So you’ve misrepresented my point, though not because of any lack of documentation on my part.
Paul’s questions to the Galatians are relevant in a discussion about the Nations and the application of the Torah.
Many people from Christian backgrounds cannot testify to first-hand knowledge of life led by the Ruach Hakodesh. But Paul makes such an experience the foundational pillar of his argument, especially as related to the Nations and the application of the Torah. His experience in the faith was different from what much of the modern Christian world has experienced.
IMHO Peter your experience growing up, as you relate it at your website, produced a severe trauma that you’ve been fighting ever since. (For the record, I also have known about depression from first-hand experience.) You want to hold on to faith in Messiah (and I salute you for that) and don’t want the trauma, so you’ve searched alternative theology in the form of OL theory. My suggestion is to investigate the questions that Paul asked the Galatians. In the first century people knew from personal experience whether or not they’d received the promised Ruach Hakodesh. The Samaritans of Acts 8:4-25 were repenting, turning to faith in Messiah, seeing great miracles, and experiencing much joy – which is certainly as good as any modern Baptist church (and the Samaritans were seeing many mighty miracles too). But the Samaritans had not yet received the Ruach Hakodesh, verse 16. They knew it and the shlihim knew it. IMHO a lot of the Christian world today is in a similar stage of faith and simply needs to go on. They are certainly welcomed to do so by the Scripture.
שבת שלום
בס”ד
This does not seem to strongly support the idea of Moses’ authorship for the bulk of the Torah.
In any case, the favorable review article in Hebrew here — Musaf Shabbat — makes the same point I made above. According to the article Prof. Elazar wrote all his works in English, which has led to some difficulties when translating to Hebrew. Moreover, this article says that Elazar was the pathfinder in a field that he essentially invented. In such a case how much criticism was he working against? None.
So when Prof. Elazar says Ex. 12 desribes the “founding of the Israelite polity” we have no choice but to question what he meant by “polity.” He certainly did not mean “גוי” (goy) since the Israelite nation already existed. And according the Ex. 12, the term used was Adat Israel, not the “new polity Adat Bnai Yisrael (12:3), which, I should add, it doesn’t bother me that he inserted Bnai. But it would seem to impact a “nuanced” political understanding of a difference between adat Israel and bnai Israel….
IMHO one paragraph from professor Elazar’s sprawling works in English is not enough to base a doctrine on that is so dependent on Hebrew.
שבוע טוב
405 comments. My thumb starts hurting when I try to scroll to the bottom of the comments on my smart phone!
Benkeshet,
Re: “So when Prof. Elazar says Ex. 12 desribes the “founding of the Israelite polity” we have no choice but to question what he meant by “polity.””
He explains it in the book.
בס”ד
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/books/kincon-ch1.htm
Daniel J. Elazar
Covenant and Partnership in Jewish Historical Experience
The first biblical covenant explicitly involving Jews is the set of covenants between God and Abraham described in Genesis 15 and 17. They are preconstitutional but provide the preconditions for later developments. While they involve God’s promise to one individual only, since that promise explicitly forms the basis for the emergence of a new nation in a land of its own, it sets the stage for the more formally political covenanting at Sinai and subsequently. God’s reaffirmation of that covenant in Exodus 6 links those pre-constitutional covenants with that of Sinai.
::
The special role of Israel among the nations was established by the covenants with Abraham and at Sinai. Through the latter, God assumes direct responsibility for governing His people, a major aspect of their special position as a people set apart (made holy) for exemplary purposes.
Exodus 6
Prof. Elazar makes a direct link between Abraham’s covenant and that of Sinai, which is what I would have expected him to do. So, in Elazar’s words, Sinai is a “more formally political covenanting” but it is not coming out of thin air, as your one paragraph citation of him might seem to imply. IMHO you have not proved your point, and indeed you cannot because there simply is nothing solid for you to stand on, not even Prof. Elazar.
Regarding this particular thread, as is said in Israel — שהאחרון יכבה את האור — “the last one can turn out the lights.”
Wow! What a novel on this post! You passed 377 pages a while back!
After 1960 years of clouds around this subject, this amount of comments is peanuts and so necessary!
Shmuel,
Agreed!
Gene,
This whole thread was so informative to me that I used it very much in formulating my introduction to my blog. It was useful in differentiating Orthodox Messianic Judaism from the Reform types of Messianic Judaism offered by FFOZ and UMJC, etc.
http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/p/introduction.html
Peter, I am glad you found this helpful. That said, I would take Reform Judaism (Messianic or not) over pseudo-Jewish, pseudo-Orthodox, pseudo-Messianic non-Judaism that you fancy yourself as part of. When a non-Jewish person like yourself calls their One-Law/Two-House Movement “Orthodox Messianic Judaism”, it betrays disrespect and deeply ingrained arrogance toward what it means to be Orthodox and what it means to practice Judaism. I am not even referring to the contempt you express toward Messianic Jews and the Messianic Jewish Movement when you routinely label them as “racist” and “exclusivist”.