Missionary Work in NY

[visionary]

If I'm not mistaken, the entire "elder brother" dynamic wasn't even about Jews/Gentiles primarily as much as it was about OUTCAST Jews being looked down upon by other religious Jews.

For the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-31, alongside all the other ones spoken, were shared in light of the Pharisees looking down upon the tax-collectors (deemed traitors/crooks by the Jewish people ) and the prostitutes (unclean, immoral, etc).


The three parables on the subject of being lost and found were never primarily about Gentiles being brought back into the Jewish community (in regards to anyone saying "older brothers" are those Jews who don't believe Gentiles are meant to be the same in stance as the Jews). The portrayal of the elder son and his resentment was in many ways a subtle criticism of the grumbling Pharisees and scribes toward those within the Jewish community who they deemed to be lower-class Jews...ones who weren't as "Worthy" of salvation as they were. It is no small issue when Yeshua noted that the tax collectors/prostitutes were entering in before the religious leaders of Christ's day..as they understood their need of salvation (Matthew 21:30-32 )

primarily yes... broadly it can be seen in this example too

 

[Qnts2]

Your world is pretty small then. Just came from a MJ conference and Jesus wasn't spoken much but Yeshua was. Interesting that. Oh I forgot - it wasn't J4J.

You still don't get it.

You were at a Messianic Judaism conference. For communication purposes, Yeshua is the accepted terminology. But outside of the conference, when others are around, we still go for clear communication which means using the term Jesus.

Jewish people in the diaspora do separate which name is used in various circumstances. Sometimes it is appropriate to use the Hebrew name and sometimes the English name.

Just for amusement. When I was baptised, they wrote a certificate. They asked me for my name. It being a formal religious ceremony, I gave them my Hebrew name. Since that was a Christian church, it really confused them, and me. But, outside of the church, I went by my English name.

In my work place, I use my English name, and none of them know my Hebrew name. It is an English speaking work place.

When talking about Jesus to Jewish people, I use both. In the U.S., all Jewish people have heard the name Jesus, but few have heard the name Yeshua. For clarity, so everyone understands, it is best to use Jesus.

A large number of years ago, there was a Jewish women who met some Messianic Jewish people. She was invited to their synagogue. This synagogue had made a rule never to use the term Jesus. Only Yeshua. Well, she enjoyed the music and the outgoing friendly atmosphere, and she joined in praising Yeshua. She was there for 6 months and really enjoyed the praise and worship. She would sing of the wonder of Yeshua. Then one day, a guest Messianic Jewish Rabbi came in. The guest Rabbi did not know of the rule in that particular congregation. He was quite impressed by the exhuberant worship of this woman. After the service, he went up to this Jewish women and said something like 'I am so blessed to see you heart felt worship of Jesus'. Her response was "Jesus? I don't worship Jesus, I worship Yeshua'. He told her Yeshua is Jesus Hebrew name. She was furious. She said if she had know that, she would never have step foot in that place. And marched out very very angry and spewing a few x-rated words.

Jesus is Yeshua and Yeshua is Jesus. Messianic Jews go for clear communication. Clear communication is most important.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

primarily yes... broadly it can be seen in this example too

Broadly, it deals with the Lord bringing salvation to others who people feel don't deserve it---and focusing upon the Love of the Lord. However, scripture must renconcile with scripture and there are already examples given in scripture already showed where the Gentiles were justified by the Lord via faith in Abraham's promise. Never was it about Gentiles demanding to be treated as if they're justified through the same covenant as Mosaic with Jews, as that was never made with them--and in that sense, trying to use the "younger brother" example goes against the context if arguing Gentiles are "younger brothers" not accepting by other MJish believers because they're told that they're not to be seen in the same kind of category as Jews.

Of course, it doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong for a Gentile to do things like wanting to keep Kosher, appreciating/owning a tzitzit, celebrating Biblical holidays or many other things. For many within the MJish camp have noted that there beauty in seeking to identify. ..especially when it comes to being God-Fearers. However, it's a different thing entirely when there is a claim that it is MANDATORY for Gentiles within the MJish camp to do so....and having an ideology that the Lord doesn't love Gentiles/Gentile cultural norms as they are if they're not "Jewish" in expression. It's Jew/Gentile together for Messiah rather than Jew and Gentile looking identical at all points like it's cookie-cutter.





As another said best in a paper presented to the International Messianic Jewish Alliance meeting in Puerto Vallarta Mexico in 1997 :

Identifying With Israel​

The primary role of Gentiles in the Body of the Messiah is to identify with Israel. To identify with Israel is different from identifying as Israel. As Gentiles, our struggle must be to show that we have been brought into a relationship with the God of Abraham without being a replacement of Israel. But there is a danger here. If Gentiles lose their own identity and become copy-cat Jews, or if the differences become hidden, the purpose for the body to be both Jew and Gentile in one new man will be lost.

​

We are to appreciate both Jewish and Gentile culture...and for those Gentiles within the movement who feel that all Gentiles MUST live as Jewish people in order to appreciate them, it's a big problem.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It sounds to me like Qnts it just stating a fact that Messianic Judaism was started as an outreach to Jews. That's it. Nothing more.

Was thinking the same....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

See, that is where I think it is confusing. The Gentiles greatly outnumber the Jewish people and have know about Jesus while the Jewish people are few in number. When I began to believe in Yeshua, it was a predominantly Gentile community that I entered.

Some were happy to see me, and some were outraged. As strange as it sounds, some challenged my belief saying that the Jews rejected Jesus so I had no right to be there.

Are the Jewish people happy to be in a community with Gentiles? Of course we are. But, when the Gentiles come to us and try to alter or change what we believe or what we see as our calling, then the Gentiles really aren't a part of us. .

There's something to be said, IMHO, on the MJish communities that've done outreach to Jews and have noted that what got the attention of many Jewish families/believers was seeing Jews and Gentiles working together. For many came out of backgrounds in certain camps of Judaism where hate for Gentiles was well taught--and they really weren't looking for a fellowship where only Jewish leaders did things while Gentiles basically had a "back-seat" role of just watching...similar to how many Churches had Gentiles in dominance/forced Jews to either be silent or not be a strong prescence.

What comes to my mind is Acts 11:25-27, as it was truly the first multi-cultural church with both Jewish and Gentile leadership in the same area...doing much to impact the kingdom. And there are many MJish fellowships set up as such and seeing alot of fruit when it comes to outreach to the Jewish community.


Losing sight of the multi-cultural dynamic is something that's often forgotten...and the scriptures seem to speak very forcefully ont hat reality.

In example, one intriguing passage to read is Acts 6:1-8..as it shows how the Jerusalem church had a great feeding program going at one point, while the Corinthians and the Thessalonians really looked out for their Jerusalem counterparts when famine hit that region. And this is significant since it seems that the church in Antioch is the first multiethnic church with intentional missions and church planting as its model. We do not know exactly who started this …although we do have a list of its leaders in Acts 13:1-3 (Acts 11:21-26, Acts 15:30). Some of the names are Greek and others are Jewish–those showing that it was not simply an “ethnic” church with programs only for one group at the exclusion of others. There was multi cultural mixture happening…


The Church in Antioch was radically different from others seeing how they sent their very best (Paul and Barnabas) out into uncharted territory rather than keep things within the camp—and whereas the Jerusalem Church looked out for its own, it didn’t do so for others abroad….and had to LITERALLY be forced through persecution to spread out. To see how the Gentile Churches had to literally keep sending support to the Jerusalem Church (Romans 15:25-28, I Corinthians 16:1-23) is amazing, especially seeing how the Mother Church of Jerusalem was responsible for so much—-and yet, the Jews there mainly kept to their own…even avoiding those who were Samaritans (Half Breed Jews) until forced out in Acts 8:. That’s odd to see the church do that since Jesus Himself had a heart for Samaria ( John 4:4-6, Luke 9:50-56, Luke 17:10-19, )—-and he told them SPECIFICALLY that the power of the Spirit was to go to Samaria and all the ends of the earth (Acts 1:7-9 ).


Though the early church prospered where they were, it seems things got inward and no action was going OUTWARD—and thus, the persecution sent them/the apostles toward
Samaria anyhow ( Acts 8:1-3, Acts 8:4-6 ,9:30-32 ).


When Noah stepped off the ark God gave him the original command to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1, 7). Like people so often do, they tried to settle in one place and started a building project in direct disobedience to God’s design and God had to force decentralization with the confusion of languages (Gen. 11:7-8). The issue was not whether or not the building was evil. The reason God had to intervene was to force obedience to His command to decentralize and fill the earth.


The church has been given a command to spread out and fill the earth as well (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8).But like all people, the apostles struggled with the temptation to settle in one place and build—-and some of this may’ve been due to their desire to not go through so much transition since they already had to deal with being a new movement and seeing their Lord ascend into Heaven.


When looking at how the churches developed in Antioch, Ephesus, or Thessalonica, it seems that they inherently had a healthier outlook and a better model of church than did the church in Jerusalem when it became isolated with its own affairs. Jesus commanded the first disciples in Acts 1:8 to spread out from Jerusalem until the ends of the earth are filled with the power of God. However, they all stayed in Jerusalem. Just as God forced decentralization in Genesis 11 with languages, he forced decentralization in Acts by allowing persecution (Acts 8:1).


Though they were blessed with comfort as seen in Acts 2:41-46 as they dilligently maintained a credible witness amongst their own people—-as was the case with much of the Black Church when dealing with outisde oppressive/internal struggles—-the comfort came at the price of them being disconnected with the global arena.


Ironically, after the perseuction by Saul, what’s interesting is that literally everyone went from the Jerusalem church went out except the “sent ones” (Apostles) who were given the command in the first place. They only went after others before them made contact ( Acts 8:24-26 Acts )—and even then, it still seems apparent that Peter Struggled with Racism/exclusion of others (Acts 11:1-19, Acts 10:9-48, Galatians 2:8-18, etc)

This brings us back to the church in Antioch, where God had to use others to do the job that the sent ones were called to do(Acts 13:1-3). Peter and those others in Acts 15:1-22 gave their gave their blessing to the new apostles in their multicultural vision for the Kingdom….and it seems that the only way for their to be peace was for Paul to be for the Gentiles whereas Peter and the others would be solely for the Jews ( Galatians 2:8-10 )


Perhaps they felt that those with more experience in Multicultural Backgrounds would be better suited for working with those in multicultural issues while they being more comfortable/suited for their own people would stay home………………



By Acts 21:17-37, Paul returns to the Jerusalem church and finally the “sent ones” are gone. Only James, who supported Multicultural perspectives (Acts 15:12-14 ), Paul is taken aside and told in private that he shouldn’t be there… that the church was overrun with legalists who would attack Paul if they see him (Acts 21:20-26). And sure enough, he is attacked, arrested and many in the Jerusalem Church tried to have him killed…

By A.D 70, the Jerusalem Church was nearly gone—and the second tier generation of leaders had risen up, taking the church in differing directions. For those directions it went into, it avoided the dangers of being centralized in one location amongst one group —as Jerusalem was destroyed….while those with a multi-cultural perspective were able to go on.[/

 

[yedida]

OKay, maybe we're breaking through. I know that MJ was and is a calling to spread the gospel to the Jewish community. But I have never made, and will continue to not make, a distinction between what you seem to be referring to just plain Messianism and Messianic Judaism as a faith and lifewalk. Are you with me here? Messianic faith, I'm not sure really what you think that this is, I have no definition for it as it is not anything in my understanding except what we gentiles call ourselves to keep others from thinking we are Jewish.
In other words, the term Messianic, is just that a "term," not a fath or denom or a lifestyle even. It's just a term to describe what I am without giving the false impression that I am a Jew.
Faithwise, lifestyle wise I follow what we all (include your Jewish sisters Anisavta, Lulav, brothers aniello, dodari (there are others but I suffer memory lapses when most inconvenient) and there are many others I cannot think of immediately) call Messianic Judaism because it is what we see as the closest we can come to what Yeshua and his followerss did in the earliest of days back then. We call it that because that is what we see that it is in all reality. There isn't a better or more descriptive term. Yeshua walked and taught nothing if not Torah and the way it should be lived out. His followers after his ascension continued living just exactly that. Judaism with Yeshua in the mix = Messianic Judaism. I'm sorry you think that this term was hijacked but I don't think that it was. It just expanded to include gentiles who are also following Torah to the best of their knowledge and ability. And it is a "doing" thing as well as a "being" thing. It is the gospel of what Yeshua has done for us and it is a lifestyle in response to that "what."
I think both you and I (between the two of us, and accept my sincerest apologies, I'm frustrated in all of this, so I imagine you are as well) are talking about different aspects of the same thing.

As for some ot the things you mentioned about the Torah scroll proper let me address from my personal experience: touching the scroll - when it is processed past me it has not been unwrapped, I place two fingers of my right hand to it and bring them to my lips for the Lord said to taste and see that the Word of the Lord is good/sweet. Women touching the Torah - I'm assuming that you mean when it has been unwrapped, I didn't think anyone was to touch it proper, I've only ever seen it undressed, unrolled or rerolled and redressed by men in my shul, and they never touch the face of the scroll except with a yad (I'm ignorant of what that part is properly referred as, sorry). (As far as a female processing the Torah, my shul has never done this but I have seen a synagogue, out of NY I think, that has a full Sukkot service on you tube and a woman is seen processing a wrapped scroll!! and these are Orthodox Jews, not Yeshua believing Jews!!) Our procession is done a bit differently from what I've experienced in the Chabads and a few reform services that I've attended but ours is done in a most respectful way (one of the elders and all the children under bat/bar mitzvah age folowing - suffer the little children and forbid them not to come to me) and I'm sure it was prayed over long before instituted.

Anyway, I really think we're talking about two different aspects of the same thing - the organization of getting the word out to the Jews and the lifestyle that that faith entails. It indeed does contain the Mosaic law for that is God's standard of right living and his way of separating who is His and who is not His. If I am one of His, I should be obeying as well as resting in His grace. Yeshua opened up that grace to the gentiles, the grace that was God's when He gave His instructions to the only people that were His at the time. His family grew, as He had always planned.
Yes, we've known about the jesus christ that the churches teach about but because they separate that jesus from what he actually taught he's not the Yeshua that we in this forum have grown to know and love and want to emulate. So in that sense we look to you, the natural born and raised Jew to show us the way. You don't want us to show you the jesus we used to know - he's not Yeshua. So, we're are indeed the younger.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The Torah is Yeshua in words, Yeshua is the Torah in flesh - so, yes, without realizing it for a long long time you native born have known Him a lot longer than us gentile Messianics. We've got a lot of UNlearning to do. And that's a hard thing to do, much harder than to learn something new.

 

[etZion]

Doctrinal stances, nonetheless, cannot be disconnected from the cultural aspect since it is the culture which the doctrine was shaped around/designed to impact. It has never been about trying to connect cultures with doctries as much as it has been about seeing where the doctrine already has spoken/given instruction on culture since they cannot be seperated.

I am confused by what you said above, do you believe that the scriptures are ethnic/cultural in origin.

No one here in response is NOT talking about the big picture...nor are the exceptions really "exceptions" (As goes the assumption) since they're very much normative across the wall when one really looks.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

Doesn't change the reality of how Christianity is not SEPERATE from MJ (nor was it deemed such when the MJish movement of the 1960-70s began). For those that do, that is within the category of differing variations of MJish believers/camps rather than trying to assert that MJ is not "Christianity"..just as not all versions of what's claimed to be MJ for Gentiles really reflects what other MJewish believers hold in the camp.

There are separations in many ways, as I already stated and shown, doctrinal differences. But many already know this, as regard to what was already stated about Torah observance.

 

[yedida]

Originally Posted by Easy G (G²)
If I'm not mistaken, the entire "elder brother" dynamic wasn't even about Jews/Gentiles primarily as much as it was about OUTCAST Jews being looked down upon by other religious Jews.

For the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-31, alongside all the other ones spoken, were shared in light of the Pharisees looking down upon the tax-collectors (deemed traitors/crooks by the Jewish people ) and the prostitutes (unclean, immoral, etc).


The three parables on the subject of being lost and found were never primarily about Gentiles being brought back into the Jewish community (in regards to anyone saying "older brothers" are those Jews who don't believe Gentiles are meant to be the same in stance as the Jews). The portrayal of the elder son and his resentment was in many ways a subtle criticism of the grumbling Pharisees and scribes toward those within the Jewish community who they deemed to be lower-class Jews...ones who weren't as "Worthy" of salvation as they were. It is no small issue when Yeshua noted that the tax collectors/prostitutes were entering in before the religious leaders of Christ's day..as they understood their need of salvation (Matthew 21:30-32 )

I made a post earlier concerning this. Everything in the gospels was to the Jews. Are we gentiles supposed to ignore all that and just go by the few letters that were primarily to the gentiles? All this divvying up is getting dizzying!!
All we've ever known is that God has said that we are his too so what is his is ours by virtue of adoption. Or is it not?

 

[Qnts2]

There's something to be said, IMHO, on the MJish communities that've done outreach to Jews and have noted that what got the attention of many Jewish families/believers was seeing Jews and Gentiles working together. For many came out of backgrounds in certain camps of Judaism where hate for Gentiles was well taught--and they really weren't looking for a fellowship where only Jewish leaders did things while Gentiles basically had a "back-seat" role of just watching...similar to how many Churches had Gentiles in dominance/forced Jews to either be silent or not be a strong prescence.

What comes to my mind is Acts 11:25-27, as it was truly the first multi-cultural church with both Jewish and Gentile leadership in the same area...doing much to impact the kingdom. And there are many MJish fellowships set up as such and seeing alot of fruit when it comes to outreach to the Jewish community.

I personally see Gentiles coming to the Jewish Messiah as fulfillment of Messianic prophesy so I agree that when we work together it is also a fulfillment of prophesy. Since Gentiles coming to Yeshua is a fulfillment of prophesy, I also see it as important for Gentiles to be aware that being Gentiles is an important sign.

Growing up in a Jewish family very aware of the various persecutions of the so called Christian/Gentile church in very recent memory, the feeling was that Gentiles tolerated but didn't really like Jewish people, and it wouldn't take much for Gentiles to be swayed to take action against Jewish people.

Gentiles showing a genuine love for the Jewish people and working together side by side is also a sign of the changed nature.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am confused by what you said above, do you believe that the scriptures are ethnic/cultural in origin.
.

In the sense that the scriptures were simply made up by one culture and not inspired, of course I don't think so. However, as it concerns the scriptures giving commands impacting culture when it comes to certain concepts and teachings that were universal in scope while specific in their application and the ways it would be expressed within differing settings, there is the ethnic/cultural reality. Additionally, there is the dynamic that many things commanded within scripture at certain points were rooted in cultural understanding relevant to that group..




I

don't know what you are talking about here.

Specifically, everyone here is focusing on the big picture--and in regards to things deemed to be the "exceptions" (such as the claims of how not all within Christianity are for replacement theology or neglecting Jewish expression), what was said was that it is misleading when ignoring how even the things deemed to be "exceptions" were not simply abberational developments seperate from the origin of something whenever claims come up like "Christianity has never been about reflecting Jewish culture/Torah." The root of development in Christianity had differing trajectory points--and saying that the MJish movement is not Christianity doesn't really hold weight in history when it comes to seeing how much of it is a repacking of older doctrines that made up the early Jewish church. Some more controversial than others (i.e Ebionites being an example) while others simply about reflecting love for Christ as a Jewish believer who loves the Law. There's really no weight saying as others often do regarding claims like "Christianity has always been about rejection of Torah...MJism is about love for it!!!" since early Jewish Christianity was about the same things as MJism---and the terms were used.

There are separations in many ways, as I already stated and shown, doctrinal differences.

Doctrinal differences in the same way as MJism has them. Things always overlap, with the camps within MJism who disagree with what they deem to be "Christianity" at certain points really disagreeing with more prominent exrpressions of it and lining up exactly with a camp WITHIN Christianity that is a minority camp---or that was a minority camp at one point historically within Christendom. The same goes for camps within MJism when it comes to major stances and those stances being directly in line with Christianity in its more accepted forms.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I made a post earlier concerning this. Everything in the gospels was to the Jews.

Are we gentiles supposed to ignore all that and just go by the few letters that were primarily to the gentiles?

First, it was actually the caswe that the Gospels were to both Jews and Gentiles...with each of the Gospels having a different theme/audience. Some of them geared more so with expalining things to the Gentile world while others being more focused upon a Jewish audience. In example, Luke was a a Greek and the only Gentile Christian writer of the New Testament..and as was noted often throughout history, he wrote to give perspective of the Lord to a Gentile audience. Apart from that, many things stated in the Gospels were rather plain in regards to showing what was meant for the Jews in application...and what was specifially meant for the Gentiles.


Thus, trying to make a case that all things Jesus said to Jews was meant for Gentiles to obey isn't dealing with the entirety of the text--and to equate it to dismissing the Lord is a false scenario.

Secondly, as it concerns the reference to a "few letters", it was never the case that one has to automatically be for ALL of the epistles (a good bit) being the only instructions for Gentiles rather than the Gospels and the rest of the Torah...much of it echoing the EXACT same thing that the writers of the NT books noted when it came to Gentiles having a relationship with the Lord that differs from Jews even though both are equal partners in the Gospel.

All this divvying up is getting dizzying!!

G
All we've ever known is that God has said that we are his too so what is his is ours by virtue of adoption. Or is it not?

Adoption isn't the same as being given the SAME commands as other children within a body..and that is the nature of having differing roles as both Jews and Gentiles. One of my dear sisters in the Lord, known as CIAN (a Jewish believer in Messiah and with the MJish camp) has often spoken on the subject..and she did a rather in-depth/informative thread on the matter elsewhere, as seen in her thread entitled Romans Chapter Eleven shows that Yeshua/YHWH is The HOLY Root <

When considering what is shown in Romans 11 (as well as other chapters ), it does seem that the text speaks rather forcefully on the issue of Jew and Gentile being DISTINCT and Different yet unified...

Some of the dynamics with distinction are easily understood when seeing the ways that the Lord showed in His Word how there are differing levels of relationship. In example, scripture notes is that it doesn't seem to just be those who are believers that were ever deemed to be "children of the Lord" since being a Son of God has multiple senses---one in the sense of belief in who He is/living like Him and the other in the sense of being made by Him ( Philippians 2:14-16/ Philippians 2 )...and another which goes even further with saying one trusts in Yeshua, enabling them to become true sons of the Lord ( Romans 8 , Galatians 4:5-7 , Hebrews 2:9-11 / Hebrews 2 , Galatians 3:25-27 / Galatians 3 , 1 John 3:1-3 / 1 John 3).

As said best by the ministry of Gregory McDonald:

When speaking of God as the Father of men, Christ addressed both his disciples and the crowds, indiscriminately (Matt. 5:1-2; 23:1, 9). From this it may be inferred that Christ understood God to be the Father of all to whom he spoke, and, therefore, the Father of all people in some sense. Christ also taught that God is the Father of those who may or may not be called his "sons" (Matt 5:43-45); that he is the Father of those who may be guilty of acting hypocritically (Matt 6:1); that he is the Father of those from whom divine forgiveness may be withheld (Matt 6:14-15; Mark 11:25); and that he is the Father of those who are said to be "evil" (Matt 7:11). Such language used by Christ seems inconsistent with the view that God's fatherhood is limited to only a part of mankind. The well-known parable of the "prodigal son" (Luke 15:11-32) beautifully illustrates Christ's views concerning the fatherhood of God. In this parable, both brothers are sons of their father by nature and birth, and the kindred bond of the father to his sons could not be annulled by their disobedience. Even in his state of relational estrangement and immorality, the younger son remained the object of his father's love, and when the son "came to himself" and returned to his father, he was welcomed back by his father with open arms and tears. Similarly, even after the older son is revealed to have been just as estranged from the Father and "lost" as the younger son was (as his heart was full of jealously, hatred and self-righteousness), Jesus has the father re-affirming the filial bond that remained unbroken between them (vv. 31-32).

Further evidence that Christ understood the fatherhood of God in a universal sense may be found in the teaching of the apostle Paul, who (it may be reasonably expected) would not have taught anything that contradicted the teaching of his Lord. After quoting the Stoic philosopher Aratus, Paul refers to himself and the Athenian pagans to whom he spoke as God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28-29). To the Ephesians Paul spoke of God as being the "God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Eph 4:6). It may be objected that Paul could only have had believers in view here, since he refers to the Father as being "through all and in all." But in the verses from Acts previously referred to it would appear that Paul agreed with the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, who wrote, "For in him we live and move and have our being." There is nowhere we can go where God is not (Psalm 139:7-10; Jer 23:23-24). He is everywhere present by his Spirit (i.e., his operative power and presence), permeating even our very being.

There is, however, a sense in which God is not the Father of all people, and all people are not his children. We have already noted how Christ exhorted his disciples to become sons of one who already was their Father (Matt 5:43-45). But in what sense can it be said that God is not one's Father, and a person not his son? Answer: this can only be the case when we are not like him in character, as manifested in our thoughts and actions. Jesus taught that God loves both the good and the evil, the just and the unjust (Matt 5:43-47). It is in view of this divine perfection that we are exhorted to do the same so that we may be like him (v. 48). It is only in doing so that we may thereby enjoy the privilege of being called his children in the sense of which Christ is speaking here. Similarly, John taught that it is those who receive Christ and believe on his name (which implies believing that he will accomplish the redemptive purpose for which he was sent by God, as well as embracing and practically applying his teachings) whom God gives "the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). To become a child of God in this sense is to be regenerated, or "born again." But it must be emphasized that even before a person becomes a child of God in this sense (i.e., by faith in Christ), God was already their heavenly Father. What Christ and John meant by our being "born again" is illustrated by Paul's "adoption" imagery. For Paul, adoption into God's family is simply the raising of those who already are God's children (i.e., by virtue of having been made in his image) to the true position of a son or daughter, with all of its blessings and privileges (Gal 4:1-7).

In John 8:37-45, Jesus declares that, in some sense, God was not the father of the unbelieving Jews. What does Christ mean here? We know that Christ cannot mean that God was not their father in any sense whatsoever, for he would then be contradicting not only his own teaching, but also the prophet Malachi, who rhetorically asked his Jewish brethren, "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?" (Mal 2:10) Malachi's words were addressed to those in Israel who were, in spirit, no different from the unbelieving Jews of Christ's day. They certainly had no less of a need to turn to God in repentance. But in spite of their waywardness and guilt before God, there was still a sense in which God remained their "Father." And what sense was this? Answer: God had established Israel as a nation and bestowed upon the Jewish people their identity as a set-apart people, and was, in this sense, the common "Father" of the Israelites in a peculiar sense in which he was not the "Father" of the heathen (cf. Deut 32:6; Isa 63:7-19; 64:8; Hos 11:1). Is Christ then denying this fact on which the prophet Malachi was placing a special emphasis? No; the sense in which Christ implied that God was not the father of the unbelieving Jews must therefore be different than the sense of which Malachi speaks. It must also be different than the sense in which Christ spoke during his Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. What then does Christ mean?

It is evident from the context that our Lord is speaking of fatherhood and sonship in the sense of likeness in character and purpose, as manifested in one's intentions and actions. Jesus was simply stating that the unbelieving Jews could not claim God as their father in the sense of resembling him in character or purpose. They were instead "children of the devil (or slanderer)" in the sense that they shared the deceptive and murderous character of the "serpent" that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. In no other sense could the unbelieving Jews be said to be children of the devil, and in no other sense could it be said that God was not their father, and they not his children. Just as the devil was said by Christ to have been "a murderer from the beginning," so the unbelieving Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 37, 40). And just as the devil was said by Christ to be "a liar, and the father of lies" so the unbelieving Jews spoke lies about Christ and rejected the truth he spoke (vv. 45-46). Thus, as they were in their ethical resemblance the children of the devil, so they could not, in this respect, claim God as their Father, for there was no likeness in character between them. Verse 39 explains the meaning: "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did." This corresponds to v. 42: "If God were your Father, you would love me." Of course they were Abraham's children by nature or descent, as Christ himself acknowledged later (v. 56). But they were not, however, Abraham's children in an ethical sense; they did not in any way resemble Abraham in their character and moral actions. While Abraham was distinguished for his faith and righteousness, the Jews to whom Christ spoke in John 8 were distinguished for their unbelief and unrighteousness.

Thus, just as Abraham was their father in a natural sense but not in a moral or spiritual sense, so were they God's children by nature or by virtue of having been created in his image, but not by faith and obedience. In this chapter, Christ just as much denies the fatherhood of Abraham as he does the fatherhood of God. The fact is that the primal parental relation that exists by nature - both of God and of Abraham - exists independently of the moral or spiritual relation. The one is a resemblance in character, while the other is the necessity of creation and birth/ancestry, and, as such, can be neither changed nor abolished. A child may be very disobedient and rebellious, but that does not annul his natural, kindred relationship to his parent. The fact that he is a child is in the very nature of things.

This may be illustrated by the parable of the prodigal son. In view of the selfishness, wanton behavior and indifference toward his father displayed at the beginning of the parable, the younger son could be said to have been (in some sense at least) "a child of the devil" or "a child of wrath." As long as he continued in disobedience there was a sense in which he could not be called his father's child, for he did not resemble his father in character. But there still remained a kindred bond between them that could not be broken by his selfish actions. The father still loved him, and longed for his estranged son to return and be reinstated as his son. When he returned to his father, it was as if the younger son - who was formerly "dead" and "lost" - had been "born again." When the father called for his servants to put the "best robe" on his son, to put a ring on his hand, and to prepare a feast for him, the father was essentially "adopting" his son back into the family.

​

 

[xDenax]

A large number of years ago, there was a Jewish women who met some Messianic Jewish people. She was invited to their synagogue. This synagogue had made a rule never to use the term Jesus. Only Yeshua. Well, she enjoyed the music and the outgoing friendly atmosphere, and she joined in praising Yeshua. She was there for 6 months and really enjoyed the praise and worship. She would sing of the wonder of Yeshua. Then one day, a guest Messianic Jewish Rabbi came in. The guest Rabbi did not know of the rule in that particular congregation. He was quite impressed by the exhuberant worship of this woman. After the service, he went up to this Jewish women and said something like 'I am so blessed to see you heart felt worship of Jesus'. Her response was "Jesus? I don't worship Jesus, I worship Yeshua'. He told her Yeshua is Jesus Hebrew name. She was furious. She said if she had know that, she would never have step foot in that place. And marched out very very angry and spewing a few x-rated words.

Six months in a congregation and she couldn't figure out they worshipped Jesus? I'm sorry but I'm not buying this story. I agree with you that for the sake of clarity Jesus should be called Jesus but this story is way too far fetched for me to believe.

 

[etZion]

In the sense that the scriptures were simply made up by one culture and not inspired, of course I don't think so. However, as it concerns the scriptures giving commands impacting culture when it comes to certain concepts and teachings that were universal in scope while specific in their application and the ways it would be expressed within differing settings, there is the ethnic/cultural reality. Additionally, there is the dynamic that many things commanded within scripture at certain points were rooted in cultural understanding relevant to that group..

Thanks for clarifying, I agree, but again, my argument is more geared towards simply the scriptures, without the cultural emphasis... as even cultural emphasis can skew the scriptures.

I Specifically, everyone here is focusing on the big picture--and in regards to things deemed to be the "exceptions" (such as the claims of how not all within Christianity are for replacement theology or neglecting Jewish expression), what was said was that it is misleading when ignoring how even the things deemed to be "exceptions" were not simply abberational developments seperate from the origin of something whenever claims come up like "Christianity has never been about reflecting Jewish culture/Torah." The root of development in Christianity had differing trajectory points--and saying that the MJish movement is not Christianity doesn't really hold weight in history when it comes to seeing how much of it is a repacking of older doctrines that made up the early Jewish church. Some more controversial than others (i.e Ebionites being an example) while others simply about reflecting love for Christ as a Jewish believer who loves the Law. There's really no weight saying as others often do regarding claims like "Christianity has always been about rejection of Torah...MJism is about love for it!!!" since early Jewish Christianity was about the same things as MJism---and the terms were used.

This still has me confused a bit, do you think that Christianity believes in maintaining a Torah observant lifestyle?

Doctrinal differences in the same way as MJism has them. Things always overlap, with the camps within MJism who disagree with what they deem to be "Christianity" at certain points really disagreeing with more prominent exrpressions of it and lining up exactly with a camp WITHIN Christianity that is a minority camp---or that was a minority camp at one point historically within Christendom. The same goes for camps within MJism when it comes to major stances and those stances being directly in line with Christianity in its more accepted forms.

I agree, there are shared similarities, I am not trying to claim MJ has divorced itself from Christianity, I am merely pointing out the doctrinal issues that create or created a separation. Christians and Christianity in Faith are still brothers and sisters and always will be.

 

[etZion]

Six months in a congregation and she couldn't figure out they worshipped Jesus? I'm sorry but I'm not buying this story. I agree with you that for the sake of clarity Jesus should be called Jesus but this story is way too far fetched for me to believe.

Lol, I find that a stretch as well, either way that is hilarious.

 

[mishkan]

You still don't get it.

I think AniSavta "got it" pretty well. I'm getting mixed signals from you, though.

You were at a Messianic Judaism conference. For communication purposes, Yeshua is the accepted terminology. But outside of the conference, when others are around, we still go for clear communication which means using the term Jesus.

This isn't confusion. As you say, it is about clear communication. That is the driving force behind all early Messianics adopting Hebrew terminology. You, of all people, should see that, with your strident claims that MJ is nothing more than a missionary group.

Within our MJ fellowships, we use the name that was used to call Yeshua to dinner. His Mom did not name him "Jesus"--a word with no semantic content, whatsoever. He was named "Yeshua", "for he shall save his people from their sins".

Jewish people in the diaspora do separate which name is used in various circumstances. Sometimes it is appropriate to use the Hebrew name and sometimes the English name.

I sometimes feel cheated that I had no opportunity to select a distinctive Hebrew name for use in religious contexts. "David" is the same in English and in Hebrew.

When talking about Jesus to Jewish people, I use both. In the U.S., all Jewish people have heard the name Jesus, but few have heard the name Yeshua. For clarity, so everyone understands, it is best to use Jesus.

A large number of years ago, there was a Jewish women who met some Messianic Jewish people. She was invited to their synagogue. This synagogue had made a rule never to use the term Jesus. Only Yeshua. Well, she enjoyed the music and the outgoing friendly atmosphere, and she joined in praising Yeshua. She was there for 6 months and really enjoyed the praise and worship. She would sing of the wonder of Yeshua. Then one day, a guest Messianic Jewish Rabbi came in. The guest Rabbi did not know of the rule in that particular congregation. He was quite impressed by the exhuberant worship of this woman. After the service, he went up to this Jewish women and said something like 'I am so blessed to see you heart felt worship of Jesus'. Her response was "Jesus? I don't worship Jesus, I worship Yeshua'. He told her Yeshua is Jesus Hebrew name. She was furious. She said if she had know that, she would never have step foot in that place. And marched out very very angry and spewing a few x-rated words.

You draw from this story the lesson that we must be confrontational, and accept the baggage of Medieval Christianity and the Inquisitions, with which Jews identify the name "Jesus".

I take from this story exactly the opposite lesson. When this woman was told of the Jewish Messiah, living as a Jew, and doing his thing according to the Torah, she was happy to follow him with all her heart. But uopn hearing the label, "Jesus", she grew angry and conflicted. That should tell us that we need not bear the burden of the linguistic baggage that comes with "Jesus"--just identify with Yeshua, and stop playing games.

If there was any failing in that congregation, it derived from the fact that there was no proper training in apologetics and personal education. New believers need to be taught that they will be rebuffed, and what arguments will be used to confront them. The woman in this story was never given appropriate foundational training.

Of course, we also must remember that this is an anecdote, and anecdotes can never be used to substantiate an argument. We have no idea of the final outcome of that story--the woman may have gone home, had a nice long talk with the Father, and returned to shul the next week, ready to learn what she had gotten herself into.

Jesus is Yeshua and Yeshua is Jesus. Messianic Jews go for clear communication. Clear communication is most important.

If you really want clear communcation, stop buying into this "Jesus is Yeshua" rhetoric. The two are not identical. At least, not to the Jewish mind... as evidenced so well by the anecdote you shared.

"Jesus" is the Gentile God, who inspired his followers to persecute Jews to the death throughout most of the past 2,000 years. "Yeshua" is a nice Jewish boy who loved his mother and gave his life to restore Israel.

Clear communication necessitates using terminology that will accurately portray your message. If you want to get shut down for no good reason other than you want to use the Christian label of "Jesus", then be my guest. I'd rather use neutral language that allows real communication without prejudicial barriers.

 

[Qnts2]

I made a post earlier concerning this. Everything in the gospels was to the Jews. Are we gentiles supposed to ignore all that and just go by the few letters that were primarily to the gentiles? All this divvying up is getting dizzying!!
All we've ever known is that God has said that we are his too so what is his is ours by virtue of adoption. Or is it not?

I would drop the 'Too'. You are His. And you are sons of by adoption. As are we. We are a new entity. One body.

Now comes the part you will probably disagree about. The Mosaic covenant was given to the nation of Israel, but we, as a unity, are not the nation of Israel. We are a different assembly who are of like Spirit.

Israel is made up of the children of Israel. Most are not saved and are not of like Spirit with us. You are not a member of Israel but are a member of this new united entity of only those who are born from above, with the Spirit of adoption. A new chosen nation, which does not replace Israel but has received the promise of the Messiah, Jew and Gentile, as prophesied.

The children of Israel are to be jealous of what we have received. Especially you more then me as you were excluded from the chosen nation but have received something much better. The Mosaic covenant did not include eternal salvation.

 

[visionary]

Lol, I find that a stretch as well, either way that is hilarious.

sad .. if true... May the joy she found in Yeshua reign once again in her heart

 

[Qnts2]

sad .. if true... May the joy she found in Yeshua reign once again in her heart

Sadly, it is true.

The problem is, she liked the excitement, but never accepted Jesus. She rejected Jesus. She did not know or think Yeshua and Jesus are the same person but when she found out, she felt deceived and lied to.

 

[visionary]

I would drop the 'Too'. You are His. And you are sons of by adoption. As are we. We are a new entity. One body.

Now comes the part you will probably disagree about. The Mosaic covenant was given to the nation of Israel, but we, as a unity, are not the nation of Israel. We are a different assembly who are of like Spirit.

Israel is made up of the children of Israel. Most are not saved and are not of like Spirit with us. You are not a member of Israel but are a member of this new united entity of only those who are born from above, with the Spirit of adoption. A new chosen nation, which does not replace Israel but has received the promise of the Messiah, Jew and Gentile, as prophesied.

The children of Israel are to be jealous of what we have received. Especially you more then me as you were excluded from the chosen nation but have received something much better. The Mosaic covenant did not include eternal salvation.

Do you see the mosaic covenant one that works only on the eternal salvation or the internal?? back then as now or only then?

 

[visionary]

Sadly, it is true.

The problem is, she liked the excitement, but never accepted Jesus. She rejected Jesus. She did not know or think Yeshua and Jesus are the same person but when she found out, she felt deceived and lied to.

In one sense she was but it wasn't about Yeshua?