Identity Chrisis: Slander

[yedida]

.....Problem for believers. Rabbinic Judaism is a recent religion, and not the faith of the scripture. One cannot convert to Judaism today without denying Yeshua. Also, why should those scattered Jews who have their own traditions be made to convert to rabbinic tradition?...

I think right there is where we have the 2-House problem. It's a problem for the gentile believer who wants to be Jewish but can't without renouncing Yeshua! So someone devises a way to make gentiles Jewish amniasiacs! But we gentiles don't have to be Jewish to be just as special. Ghee whiz.....

 

[Qnts2]

I think right there is where we have the 2-House problem. It's a problem for the gentile believer who wants to be Jewish but can't without renouncing Yeshua! So someone devises a way to make gentiles Jewish amniasiacs! But we gentiles don't have to be Jewish to be just as special. Ghee whiz.....

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[macher]

I think right there is where we have the 2-House problem. It's a problem for the gentile believer who wants to be Jewish but can't without renouncing Yeshua! So someone devises a way to make gentiles Jewish amniasiacs! But we gentiles don't have to be Jewish to be just as special. Ghee whiz.....

Darn that was good.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And as far as those returning, that really is a different topic.
.

Seeing that other Jewish rabbis - as already noted earlier and repeatedly - have seen the issue of others returning as the same issue of importance, would respecfully disagree.

Michael Browns article is not really to deal with Two House, but instead, is in response, Jew to other Jews, concerning whether a Messianic Jew is Jewish.

Dr.Brown doesn't have to mention anything on Two House specifically to address the issue of how many of the debates on who is or isn't a Jew are often based on inconsistent standards of application - especially as it concerns acceptance from Judaism. As he has said before, Dr.Michael Brown also had some good thoughts to share on the issue...

• 
  What are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel - Ask Dr. Brown

As Dr.Brown wisely noted:

despite many myths and wild theories (including the “Two House Theory”), it appears that many Israelites who were scattered among the nations were, in fact, completely lost to history. It was part of God’s judgment on the nation, and from everything we can tell, for these Israelites, it was final. There is simply no truth to the claims of groups such as the “British Israelites,” who believe that “the Lost Ten Tribes of the Northern House of Israel’s descendants are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred peoples of today,” nor is there any support for the Mormon claim that the Native Americans are descended from the ancient Israelites—despite the fact that no less a Semitic scholar than C. H. Gordon (1908-2001) pointed to possible links between the Israelites (or, more precisely, Judeans) and Native Americans, claiming that there was evidence for ancient Hebrew inscriptions in America. DNA evidence (among other things) is against such an identification, and, not surprisingly, the recent book by former Mormon bishop Simon G. Southerton, a molecular geneticist from Australia, entitled Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, has generated a fierce backlash from Mormon apologists, so damning are its conclusions to Mormonism.
​

But that's another issue.

Historical Background to the Term “Jew”
The term Jew is derived from the Hebrew yehûdî, and while it is common to speak of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses as Jews, this is historically anachronistic, since the first recorded occurrence of the word yehûdî is found in biblical books dating to the 8th-7th centuries BCE, roughly 500 years after the time of Moses and more than 1000 years after the time of Abraham.
The historical origin of the term yehûdî is as follows: The patriarch Jacob, whose name was later changed to Israel, had twelve sons, one of whom was named Judah (Hebrew yehûdâ). These sons then became the eponymous ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel, and it was the tribe of Judah from which King David hailed. Thus, in its earliest form, a yehûdî (=Judahite; Judean) would have been a member of the tribe of yehûdâ (Judah), although to date, this usage is not attested. David, like Saul before him and Solomon after him, reigned over a united kingdom consisting of the twelve tribes of Israel. However, in the days of David’s grandson Rehoboam (approximately 931-914), the kingdom divided in two, with the northern kingdom, consisting of ten tribes, being called Israel, while the southern kingdom, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was called Judah.19 The inhabitants of this southern kingdom became known as yehûdîm, Judeans, and this usage is attested in the Hebrew Scriptures (see, e.g., 2 Kings 16:6).
In the year 721 BCE, the northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, with the ten tribes greatly decimated, sent into exile, and, to a large extent, lost to history (hence the concept of the “Ten Lost Tribes”). Some of the Israelites, however, fled to the south, becoming part of the kingdom of Judah. In the year 586 BCE, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and many of the yehûdîm were exiled to Babylon. When the exiles returned to their homeland approximately 50 years later, it was now under Persian control and called the province of Judah and its inhabitants were identified as “Judeans,” although their heritage as “Israelites” was certainly not forgotten. It is this term, yehûdîm, Judeans, which ultimately became rendered “Jews” in common English usage.
At this point, two observations should be made: First, the term “Jew” comprehended the totality of the people, regardless of tribal origin. (In other words, an Israelite from one of the northern tribes who had become part of the kingdom or province of Judah was considered a Jew.) Second, “Jew” was primarily the ethnic designation of the chosen people, since it continued to describe this covenant people after many of them had forsaken the Sinai covenant, fallen into idolatry, and departed from the faith. Yet the people were still called Jews – unbelieving Jews, apostate Jews, faithless Jews, but still Jews.20

Dr. Brown is saying the same thing I have said repeatedly. Jewish means all 12 tribes. The origin comes from those living in Judea, no matter which tribe, so all 12 tribes are called Jewish. Jew is a synonym of children of Israel.

Another segment of the paper from Dr. Brown

Pragmatic Thoughts on Jewish Identity
It should be readily apparent from this paper that the question of Jewish identity, defined on ethnic grounds alone, is not particularly complex or difficult. Thus, someone born of a Jewish mother (for the question of a Jewish father, see immediately below) could not cease to be a Jew – regardless of belief or practice – anymore than a human could cease to be a human.43 On the other hand, this does not guarantee endless generations of Jews who are Jews by bloodline only. To the contrary, once a Jew breaks ties with his people through assimilation and intermarriage, Jewish identity tends to be completely lost over the course of three or four generations. Thus, some degree of attachment to one’s Jewish identity is a sine qua non for the continuity of the Jewish people. It can therefore be argued on practical and historical grounds that any child born of a Jewish mother (or father, a position supported by scriptural precedent) who recognizes himself or herself to be Jewish and who affirms his or her connection to the Jewish people must be recognized as a Jew, while those Jews who reject such identification will soon sever themselves from their people over a process of time.



And this again is what I have been saying. A person who is Jewish (all 12 tribes), the future generations can cease to be Jewish. And this is the example I put forth, based on the Ephraimite Two House argument. That a Jewish person who assimilates, and intermarries, denying being Jewish (Two House says they thought they were Gentile), after 4 generations, ceases to be Jewish.

If one's going to quote the article, there are other things that need to be considered as well - for as he also made clear when it comes to the claims made on others ceasing to be "Jewish" simply because of generations passed where they forget ancestry.

As Brown noted:

At this point, two observations should be made: First, the term “Jew” comprehended the totality of the people, regardless of tribal origin. (In other words, an Israelite from one of the northern tribes who had become part of the kingdom or province of Judah was considered a Jew.) Second, “Jew” was primarily the ethnic designation of the chosen people, since it continued to describe this covenant people after many of them had forsaken the Sinai covenant, fallen into idolatry, and departed from the faith. Yet the people were still called Jews – unbelieving Jews, apostate Jews, faithless Jews, but still Jews.20

“Even if Israel sins, he is still Israel”

An important text in this regard for traditional Jewish thought is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 44a: “Even if [Israel] sins, he is still Israel.” This statement is based on a biblical passage found in Joshua 7:1 which reads, “But the children of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things . . . . So the LORD’s anger burned against Israel.” Thus, in a scriptural text speaking of the nation’s sin, the nation is still called Israel. In the Talmudic passage just cited, the rabbinic sage Rabbi Abba explained the concept with reference to a proverb, “Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.” Explaining this in practical terms, the respected Talmudic commentator Marharsha (an acronym for Rabbi Shmuel Edels) stated that this saying applies even when a Jew sins and transgresses against the entire Torah! This would mean that an atheistic Jew who ate pork all his life and never once kept the Sabbath would still be deemed a Jew, while a secular Israeli who was involved in alien healing clinics and attended rock concerts glorifying Hindu gods would still be classified as an Israeli Jew.21 Similar thinking applies to a Jew who “changes religions,” reflected in the popular joke that asks, “What do you call a Jew who gets baptized and joins the Church? A baptized Jew!”22

Jacob Katz provides striking historical evidence for this understanding dating to the tenth to fourteenth centuries, explaining:

The principle that the apostate [meaning a Jew who converted to Christianity] remained a Jew was upheld even in the case of one who persisted in his apostasy, although this led to grave consequences so far as his Jewish relatives were concerned. If the apostate was regarded as a Jew, his wife was still a married woman and could not remarry unless he consented to divorce her according to Jewish law. In such cases all possible means were used to bring pressure upon the apostate to divorce his wife. Very often this seems to have been achieved, though certainly not always. In the latter cases the apostate’s wife was doomed to a perpetual state of unmarried life. In spite of this it was, apparently, never suggested that the apostate, by severing himself from the Jewish community and its religion, had become a Gentile and that his wife should therefore be able to remarry without divorce.23

When related legal questions were brought to Rashi, the foremost biblical and Talmudic commentator of that era (or any subsequent era), he ruled that the apostate Jew remained a Jew......
While still not answering with precision the question of who is a Jew, an important precedent was established in the Second Amendment to the Law of Return, adopted in 1970. It was stated there that “a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion” forfeits his rights as a Jew is therefore no longer entitled to receive citizenship in Israel as a Jew.27 Thus, since the Right of Return is granted to all Jews, and since a Jew who “voluntarily changed his religion” is denied that right, that person, de facto, is no longer considered a Jew. (Notice also the expression, “a person who has been a Jew,” indicating a change of status.)
David Clayman, speaking of the landmark court decisions lying behind this amendment, noted correctly that, “By this ruling the law of the land contradicted Jewish law, since according to rabbinic halakhah, a Jew remains a Jew even if he is converted to another faith.”28 The Second Amendment to the Law of Return, therefore, represented a significant shift in defining Jewish identity. Hence, in 1989, when Gary and Shirley Beresford, Messianic Jews from South Africa, were denied citizenship based on an alleged change of religion, other Messianic Jews wrote an open appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court. With evident passion, they asked:
Can the Supreme Court justly turn its back on such a large number of Jewish people, as so many nations in World War II did to our people fleeing Nazi concentration camps? The answer must be a resounding No. Israel is also our refuge and homeland. In the wake of the Holocaust, to refuse Messianic Jews, or ANY group of Jewish people, the right to immigrate as Jews under the Law of Return is unconscionable. once specific questions of Jewish observance and beliefs, along with the question of “changing religion,” are brought to bear on the question of “Who is a Jew?” – ranging from ultra-Orthodox to Reconstructionist to Hasidic to Messianic perspectives – then a Pandora’s box is opened that cannot easily be closed. Thus, a Messianic Jew could theoretically question the Jewishness of an Orthodox rabbi – since the Messianic Jew would argue that true Jewishness requires faith in Yeshua as Messiah – while an Orthodox rabbi could question the Jewishness of some of the founders of the modern Jewish state, since many of these pioneers were non-religious at best and atheistic at worst. (In the words of the late Grand Rabbi of the Satmar Hasidim, Yoel Teitelbaum, Israeli Independence Day commemorates, “The day that the members of the conspiracy against G-d and His Messiah, established their Kingdom of Atheism over the Jewish People, by uprooting the Holy Torah and the Faith.”44 )
In conclusion, then, we can safely say that if the Supreme Court of Israel – itself a rabbinical court – can hardly bear the burden of determining Jewish identity on religious grounds without sparking controversy among Jews worldwide, much less can the secular courts of the world attempt to tackle this subject on those very same religious grounds.

​

Again, it has never been the case that Jew universally have had the mindset that a Jewish person who assimilates/intermarries ceases to be Jewish - for they may forget where they come from and not practice their culture...but it'll always be a part of who they are. And as had been said, just because Judaism does not agree (as has occurred before many times before) with other groups who are seeking to walk according to Torah and claiming "They're not Jewish" doesn't mean they have it appropriate since the reality is that there's still debate on who has the final say in Judaism. This is what is mentioned often by others - whether in Two-House cirlces or not - when it comes to the battles over issue.

 

[pat34lee]

I think right there is where we have the 2-House problem. It's a problem for the gentile believer who wants to be Jewish but can't without renouncing Yeshua! So someone devises a way to make gentiles Jewish amniasiacs! But we gentiles don't have to be Jewish to be just as special. Ghee whiz.....

No, we can be like MJ's and try to be mirror images of rabbinic Jews. Talk about envy.

Otherwise, why try so hard to look, walk and act Jewish if you aren't? Even down to following their traditions, copying their prayer books, studying their rabbis and wearing their traditional religious attire, none of which is biblical.

 

[Qnts2]

Seeing that other Jewish rabbis - as already noted earlier and repeatedly - have seen the issue of others returning as the same issue of importance, would respecfully disagree.
Dr.Brown doesn't have to mention anything on Two House specifically to address the issue of how many of the debates on who is or isn't a Jew are often based on inconsistent standards of application - especially as it concerns acceptance from Judaism.

But that's another issue.
If one's going to quote the article, there are other things that need to be considered as well - for as he also made clear when it comes to the claims made on others ceasing to be "Jewish" simply because of generations passed where they forget ancestry.

As Brown noted:

At this point, two observations should be made: First, the term “Jew” comprehended the totality of the people, regardless of tribal origin. (In other words, an Israelite from one of the northern tribes who had become part of the kingdom or province of Judah was considered a Jew.) Second, “Jew” was primarily the ethnic designation of the chosen people, since it continued to describe this covenant people after many of them had forsaken the Sinai covenant, fallen into idolatry, and departed from the faith. Yet the people were still called Jews – unbelieving Jews, apostate Jews, faithless Jews, but still Jews.20

“Even if Israel sins, he is still Israel”

An important text in this regard for traditional Jewish thought is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 44a: “Even if [Israel] sins, he is still Israel.” This statement is based on a biblical passage found in Joshua 7:1 which reads, “But the children of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things . . . . So the LORD’s anger burned against Israel.” Thus, in a scriptural text speaking of the nation’s sin, the nation is still called Israel. In the Talmudic passage just cited, the rabbinic sage Rabbi Abba explained the concept with reference to a proverb, “Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.” Explaining this in practical terms, the respected Talmudic commentator Marharsha (an acronym for Rabbi Shmuel Edels) stated that this saying applies even when a Jew sins and transgresses against the entire Torah! This would mean that an atheistic Jew who ate pork all his life and never once kept the Sabbath would still be deemed a Jew, while a secular Israeli who was involved in alien healing clinics and attended rock concerts glorifying Hindu gods would still be classified as an Israeli Jew.21 Similar thinking applies to a Jew who “changes religions,” reflected in the popular joke that asks, “What do you call a Jew who gets baptized and joins the Church? A baptized Jew!”22

Jacob Katz provides striking historical evidence for this understanding dating to the tenth to fourteenth centuries, explaining:

The principle that the apostate [meaning a Jew who converted to Christianity] remained a Jew was upheld even in the case of one who persisted in his apostasy, although this led to grave consequences so far as his Jewish relatives were concerned. If the apostate was regarded as a Jew, his wife was still a married woman and could not remarry unless he consented to divorce her according to Jewish law. In such cases all possible means were used to bring pressure upon the apostate to divorce his wife. Very often this seems to have been achieved, though certainly not always. In the latter cases the apostate’s wife was doomed to a perpetual state of unmarried life. In spite of this it was, apparently, never suggested that the apostate, by severing himself from the Jewish community and its religion, had become a Gentile and that his wife should therefore be able to remarry without divorce.23

When related legal questions were brought to Rashi, the foremost biblical and Talmudic commentator of that era (or any subsequent era), he ruled that the apostate Jew remained a Jew......
While still not answering with precision the question of who is a Jew, an important precedent was established in the Second Amendment to the Law of Return, adopted in 1970. It was stated there that “a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion” forfeits his rights as a Jew is therefore no longer entitled to receive citizenship in Israel as a Jew.27 Thus, since the Right of Return is granted to all Jews, and since a Jew who “voluntarily changed his religion” is denied that right, that person, de facto, is no longer considered a Jew. (Notice also the expression, “a person who has been a Jew,” indicating a change of status.)
David Clayman, speaking of the landmark court decisions lying behind this amendment, noted correctly that, “By this ruling the law of the land contradicted Jewish law, since according to rabbinic halakhah, a Jew remains a Jew even if he is converted to another faith.”28 The Second Amendment to the Law of Return, therefore, represented a significant shift in defining Jewish identity. Hence, in 1989, when Gary and Shirley Beresford, Messianic Jews from South Africa, were denied citizenship based on an alleged change of religion, other Messianic Jews wrote an open appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court. With evident passion, they asked:
Can the Supreme Court justly turn its back on such a large number of Jewish people, as so many nations in World War II did to our people fleeing Nazi concentration camps? The answer must be a resounding No. Israel is also our refuge and homeland. In the wake of the Holocaust, to refuse Messianic Jews, or ANY group of Jewish people, the right to immigrate as Jews under the Law of Return is unconscionable. once specific questions of Jewish observance and beliefs, along with the question of “changing religion,” are brought to bear on the question of “Who is a Jew?” – ranging from ultra-Orthodox to Reconstructionist to Hasidic to Messianic perspectives – then a Pandora’s box is opened that cannot easily be closed. Thus, a Messianic Jew could theoretically question the Jewishness of an Orthodox rabbi – since the Messianic Jew would argue that true Jewishness requires faith in Yeshua as Messiah – while an Orthodox rabbi could question the Jewishness of some of the founders of the modern Jewish state, since many of these pioneers were non-religious at best and atheistic at worst. (In the words of the late Grand Rabbi of the Satmar Hasidim, Yoel Teitelbaum, Israeli Independence Day commemorates, “The day that the members of the conspiracy against G-d and His Messiah, established their Kingdom of Atheism over the Jewish People, by uprooting the Holy Torah and the Faith.”44 )
In conclusion, then, we can safely say that if the Supreme Court of Israel – itself a rabbinical court – can hardly bear the burden of determining Jewish identity on religious grounds without sparking controversy among Jews worldwide, much less can the secular courts of the world attempt to tackle this subject on those very same religious grounds.45 However, once a primarily ethnic identification is accepted – in keeping with pre-1960 historic precedents – the controversy surrounding the question of Jewish identity, will, for all practical purposes, greatly diminish, both in scope and intensity.

​

Again, it has never been the case that Jew universally have had the mindset that a Jewish person who assimilates/intermarries ceases to be Jewish - for they may forget where they come from and not practice their culture...but it'll always be a part of who they are. And as had been said, just because Judaism does not agree (as has occurred before many times before) with other groups who are seeking to walk according to Torah and claiming "They're not Jewish" doesn't mean they have it appropriate since the reality is that there's still debate on who has the final say in Judaism. This is what is mentioned often by others - whether in Two-House cirlces or not - when it comes to the battles over issue.

Once again, the paper by Dr. Brown is not about Two House, but is actually about the rejection of Messianic Jews by some in Judaism. He is countering the argument that a Jewish person who believes in the Messiah, ceases to be Jewish. The Jewish person already has been established as Jewish, has grown up Jewish, if male was ritually circumcised, and then, later in life, accepted Yeshua. The argument of some is that the Jewish believer in Yeshua has engaged in avodah zarah (foreign worship or idolatry). According to the law, a person who engages in idolatry is cut off from the Jewish people so on the face of it, if worshipping Yeshua was indeed idolatry, there would be an argument. But, in scripture, Israel did engage in idolatry, and was still considered Israel. In otherwords, they did not lose their identity.

That really is an entirely different argument. These are people who are Jewish, and have come to belief in Yeshua. Two House is asking Israel to accept as Jewish, Gentiles, and have no specific Jewish relative that they are aware of, never been raised Jewish or accepted as Jewish by any authority, and have absolutely no proof they are Jewish other then a highly questionable theology which is absolutely no proof.

 

[Shimshon]

Seeing that other Jewish rabbis - as already noted earlier and repeatedly - have seen the issue of others returning as the same issue of importance, would respecfully disagree.
Dr.Brown doesn't have to mention anything on Two House specifically to address the issue of how many of the debates on who is or isn't a Jew are often based on inconsistent standards of application - especially as it concerns acceptance from Judaism.

But that's another issue.

Actually, I think it hit's the issue right on the head. 'Rabbinical' Judiasm is "Two House" when you apply the 'house' analogy to it, as it keeps huge unhealty (IMO) divisions between Jews and Gentiles. While Messianic Judaism is One House (not to be confussed or misconstrued with One Law), as it states both Jew and Gentile are ONE in the house of God.

I like the way the Wooten's defended their position here:

To me, the "Two House" title is incredibly ironic because those who are against what they call the "Two House" teaching, are themselves "Two House" teachers!

They are the ones who do not embrace the idea of the "One House" theology that we teach! They instead want to continue with a middle wall of partition that Messiah Yeshua tore down long ago.

They do not accept the fact that, in Messiah, "former" non-Jewish Believers are "brought nigh" to His commonwealth of Israel, and "now share citizenship with the saints" (Ephesians 2:11-22). They do not embrace the truth that the Messiah of Israel said, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (John 10:16). These "two house teachers" reject the fact that the God of Israel has sworn that He will make the two sticks of Ephraim and Judah - and their companions - one stick in His hand (Ezekiel 37:19).

Messianic Judaism that places it's focus of origin/authority in 'Rabbinic' Judaism continue to perpetrate this division, all the while defaming the Two House position. It's quite ironic, for a Jew. Especially when it's done by gentiles.

If one's going to quote the article, there are other things that need to be considered as well - for as he also made clear when it comes to the claims made on others ceasing to be "Jewish" simply because of generations passed where they forget ancestry.

As Brown noted:

At this point, two observations should be made: First, the term “Jew” comprehended the totality of the people, regardless of tribal origin. (In other words, an Israelite from one of the northern tribes who had become part of the kingdom or province of Judah was considered a Jew.) Second, “Jew” was primarily the ethnic designation of the chosen people, since it continued to describe this covenant people after many of them had forsaken the Sinai covenant, fallen into idolatry, and departed from the faith. Yet the people were still called Jews – unbelieving Jews, apostate Jews, faithless Jews, but still Jews.20

“Even if Israel sins, he is still Israel”

An important text in this regard for traditional Jewish thought is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 44a: “Even if [Israel] sins, he is still Israel.” This statement is based on a biblical passage found in Joshua 7:1 which reads, “But the children of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things . . . . So the LORD’s anger burned against Israel.” Thus, in a scriptural text speaking of the nation’s sin, the nation is still called Israel. In the Talmudic passage just cited, the rabbinic sage Rabbi Abba explained the concept with reference to a proverb, “Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.” Explaining this in practical terms, the respected Talmudic commentator Marharsha (an acronym for Rabbi Shmuel Edels) stated that this saying applies even when a Jew sins and transgresses against the entire Torah! This would mean that an atheistic Jew who ate pork all his life and never once kept the Sabbath would still be deemed a Jew, while a secular Israeli who was involved in alien healing clinics and attended rock concerts glorifying Hindu gods would still be classified as an Israeli Jew.21 Similar thinking applies to a Jew who “changes religions,” reflected in the popular joke that asks, “What do you call a Jew who gets baptized and joins the Church? A baptized Jew!”22

Jacob Katz provides striking historical evidence for this understanding dating to the tenth to fourteenth centuries, explaining:

The principle that the apostate [meaning a Jew who converted to Christianity] remained a Jew was upheld even in the case of one who persisted in his apostasy, although this led to grave consequences so far as his Jewish relatives were concerned. If the apostate was regarded as a Jew, his wife was still a married woman and could not remarry unless he consented to divorce her according to Jewish law. In such cases all possible means were used to bring pressure upon the apostate to divorce his wife. Very often this seems to have been achieved, though certainly not always. In the latter cases the apostate’s wife was doomed to a perpetual state of unmarried life. In spite of this it was, apparently, never suggested that the apostate, by severing himself from the Jewish community and its religion, had become a Gentile and that his wife should therefore be able to remarry without divorce.23

When related legal questions were brought to Rashi, the foremost biblical and Talmudic commentator of that era (or any subsequent era), he ruled that the apostate Jew remained a Jew......
While still not answering with precision the question of who is a Jew, an important precedent was established in the Second Amendment to the Law of Return, adopted in 1970. It was stated there that “a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion” forfeits his rights as a Jew is therefore no longer entitled to receive citizenship in Israel as a Jew.27 Thus, since the Right of Return is granted to all Jews, and since a Jew who “voluntarily changed his religion” is denied that right, that person, de facto, is no longer considered a Jew. (Notice also the expression, “a person who has been a Jew,” indicating a change of status.)
David Clayman, speaking of the landmark court decisions lying behind this amendment, noted correctly that, “By this ruling the law of the land contradicted Jewish law, since according to rabbinic halakhah, a Jew remains a Jew even if he is converted to another faith.”28 The Second Amendment to the Law of Return, therefore, represented a significant shift in defining Jewish identity. Hence, in 1989, when Gary and Shirley Beresford, Messianic Jews from South Africa, were denied citizenship based on an alleged change of religion, other Messianic Jews wrote an open appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court. With evident passion, they asked:
Can the Supreme Court justly turn its back on such a large number of Jewish people, as so many nations in World War II did to our people fleeing Nazi concentration camps? The answer must be a resounding No. Israel is also our refuge and homeland. In the wake of the Holocaust, to refuse Messianic Jews, or ANY group of Jewish people, the right to immigrate as Jews under the Law of Return is unconscionable.
​

Again, it has never been the case that Jew universally have had the mindset that a Jewish person who assimilates/intermarries ceases to be Jewish - for they may forget where they come from and not practice their culture...but it'll always be a part of who they are.

Joseph's children come to mind. Born in Egypt to an Egyptian woman, yet blessed by Jacob as one if his own.

To me, if you notice, the issue stems from Modern Rabbinical Judaism's "two house" position. What the small group of Torah observant Christians here do is just what Modern Judaism does. Defines who's a Jew and then demands all the little ducks get in a row. Then again, I don't find any authority in Rabbinical Judism, so that will slant my persepective, I can agree.

But I see a huge corelation to the amount of 'Judaism' a person applies as authoritive, to the amount of 'two house' division they hold to. Be it one law gentilism, or Orthodox Judaism.

In fact, it reminds me of a Messianic Rabbi I ran into in New Mexico. In one breath he would state Yeshua is not God!! and make no apologies for it. Then when I asked him if he believed Yeshua is LORD, the fullness of God in bodily form, and he says...OH yes!!! What he was doing was trying to be accepted by the local Jewish community. He had a huge desire and attention to be seen and accepted as 'Jewish'. Poor man, lost all sight of his Messiah.... Had to find an identity somewhere though.... He was set on his ways, so we didn't find much fellowship with him and his group.

God reformed Yisrael in our day, He will make it right. No matter what those who claim to sit in the seat of Moses state. I look to Yeshua to define who I am, not a people, not a book, not a religion. And I don't have to fight to claim my position. He will place me right where He wants me. And I know who I am in Him. Because we are united as One.

I think much of the arguments are from people who are not really sure. Usually it's the one who is fighting the hardest that has the most insecurites about his position.

 

[Shimshon]

And I would like to say that I'm offended for my brethren in the flesh by your remark/s. Yes I'm a minority among them however God has worked through them and has preserved them.

Sorry your offended Marc. That was never my intention. 'OUR' bretheren have been preserved so as to be 'saved'. Meaning they are not finding favor in God's sight 'now'. Yet, are preserved for that purpose. May that happen in our day. May all Yisrael see salvation in our day. I wonder though, how offended are you by the words of Yeshua against our unbelieving family?

Marc, my heart cries for them too. They are MY people too. I have Jewish blood running through my veins too Marc. My fathers came from Poland in the beginning of the 20th century. They were persecuted out of the country for being Jewish. In fact, I may be going back this year to serve in a ministry for my/our ancestors. So again, it was never my intention to offend you.

This is exactly what I meant about the division 'tradition' has caused within the house of God's people.

We will NOT develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy it's results UNTIL we do the hard work of getting along with each other, treating each other with dignity and honor.

Marc, my remarks are one Jews life experience (mine), why is it offensive to you? I will make no apologies for not agreeing with Rabbinical Judaism. I do NOT find it as a valid representation of God's command and purpose. And I've always been at a loss with those who do. Going to have to agree to disagree maybe. But, i'm not into the 'i'm a Jew your not' any more. I know who I am, and where i'm going. Hope all here do, but I think some do not.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

No, we can be like MJ's and try to be mirror images of rabbinic Jews. Talk about envy.

Otherwise, why try so hard to look, walk and act Jewish if you aren't? Even down to following their traditions, copying their prayer books, studying their rabbis and wearing their traditional religious attire, none of which is biblical.

What you bring up is something that often seems to be either avoided - or not noticed by many. For it's very interesting when people talk on identity issues with Two-House by claiming all people within it are not content being Gentiles (as if they are trying to make-believe/fit in for acceptance ) and letting the Jewish people be unique....and yet those people are the same ones who repeatedly note/claim that it's unacceptable for annyone - Jew or Gentile - to claim that Gentiles are accepted as they are before the Lord and that differing standards were given in the Torah itself (the Mosaic part ) when it came to Gentiles in the Land/Outside of it and the Hebrews.

It's not that hard to find repeated accounts of others claiming that people either aren't "Torah Observant" (in their view) or "Lovers of Israel" whenever it's said that Gentiles never had to live fully like the Hebrew/Jewish people to be a part of Israel - the COmmonWealth of Israel and the One New Man. It has been argued that having a Messianic Israel-focused view means Gentiles must be held to account/called to walk fully in all parts of Mosaic law and as much as possible.....and if not, they're somehow presenting a "Step -Family" mindset of disunity.

It has been said that Acts 15 is not a standard on what the Gentiles were called to walk in for acceptance before the Lord in CHRIST - but instead it was meant to be only a starting point for the Gentiles to gradually grow in adherance to Mosaic Law and eventually be just as Observant as the Jews. And in the event that it's brought up that Law doesn't justify or save others, it is claimed that we're saved by Yeshua - and yet we have to "prove our thankfulness" to him by observing all that the Jewish people do. That's a covert/indirect way of saying the same thing that others are condemned for when claiming Gentiles must live exactly as Israel did in order to be accepted before the Lord and apart of his people

Anyone doing that while trying to denouce Two House for identity is essentially speaking out of BOTH sides of the mouth. And as said before, any of the extremes in Two-House where Gentiles are automatically deemed to be Ephraimites/Israel are simply a mirror image of the people who claim that Gentiles must act as Israel did in the OT if they're to be a part of Israel (i.e. CLAIMING Gentiles need to celebrate the Festivals/Holy Days, Claiming Gentiles Need to eat Kosher Food to honor what God commands of all, claiming Gentiles need to not say that the Church is something the Lord chose to work through, etc.).

As said earlier, for reference, here are all of the respective threads where the issue has been discussed explicitly and others have noted (in their view of One Law/claims of Gentiles having to be connected to Israel to be blessed - with many of the same people denouncing Two-House here saying otherwise elsewhere that Gentiles are to be seen as a part of Israel):

• Is the Torah only for Jews?
• Missionary Work in NY
• Messianic Heliocentrism (more shared here)
• The MJAA as a standard of Messianic Judaism (more here in #162 )

Also, some places you can go in the immediate are threads like Some links to Messianic Judaism organizations..or here /here ( #47 ). Others that may help:

• What it's all about....we hope.
• Does God yet have a plan through the Law?
• Are you part of Mainstream Messianic Judaism?
• Who believes this to be true: The Torah is not for Gentiles
• For all the curious.. who wish to ask Messianic Judaism believers a question..
• Who believes this to be true? -We are saved by Torah, not by faith/grace in Yeshua

One law theology teaches that Gentiles who believe on Jesus are obligated to the same Mosaic laws as the children of Israel. The basis of this belief is taking verses out of context. The belief is that the Tenakh says there is one law for Israel, and the stranger/alien. Therefore what applies to Israel applies to Gentiles who are sojourning with Israel. That's no different than what is taught in the extremes of Two House cirlces in many places where Gentiles seek to live as Israel/identify as Israel because of the understanding that 1.) God made a Covenant with Israel/had all blessings come through that and 2.) Only in Israel is one blessed.

One Law theology acknowledges the distinction between Ekklesia and Israel in principle, but Gentile believers are considered to come under the Mosaic covenant, making observance obligatory.

In the negative aspects, Two House ends where One Law begins, for the main reasons other Gentiles have been so focused on having identity with Israel and seeing connection with it is due to the influence of others saying that God only blessed Israel, had his blessings come through Israel, wants all to be FOCUSED on Israel, and expects Gentiles to live as Jews if they're to be a part of the COmmonWealth of Israel.

People can cry "Replacement Theology" all day long with all things Two - House - but the bottom line is that much of One Law is the same thing and those allowing it are trying to make it what it is to get away with it while distancing themselves from it as well. There're some good articles on the issue by John McKee that addresses what you noted earlier (concerning the claim that only physical sons of Jacob were considered "Israelites")....entitled "“One Law” as Replacement Theology - TNN Online and FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS C Commonwealth of Israel -TNN Online.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

How much blood does it take to be physically Israel? One problem I see is that we have no idea how YHWH defines this. For all we know, it takes 1 drop and repentance. That is one thing I'm glad to let him decide.

That is a crucial issue to address - and on the subject, counter to what is often claimed, it is not Gentiles being the dominant ones telling others on how others in Gentile culture have Hebrew backgrounds. Rather, it has also been JEWISH people as well leading the way....paticularly those who've taken flack for it repeatedly from other Jewish communities telling them they're not "Jewish enough" based on certain forms of rabbinical Judaism.

One of the house-sitters my family had who used to take care of my very little sister (when she around 3-4yrs) was Mexican. Specifically, she was a Mexican who was once married to a Jewish man - and they had children together. Sadly, she divorced him due to issues on his side - but it was always humorous whenever we'd talk and she note how quick others were (even in the Jewish community ) to talk on having the right to determine who was or wasn't Jewish...and yet they'd dismiss her children as not being Jewish even though they were Mexican Jews.

Of course, from what other Jewish people have often noted, identifying with other people as apart of their ancestry isn't required in order to identify with Jewishness. Someone who's born with a Sephardic Jewish mother and a Mexican father doesn't say that they have to deny being Mexican in order to accept being Jewish.....although where their Mexican heritage calls them to do things that the Jewish religion would not allow, in order to live out the Jewish heritage, the Mexican side would have to lose.



A child of a Jewish mother and a Mexican Father is Jewish and Mexican. ..and that's coming from the mouths of many who are Mexican Jews (just as there are others who are Nigerian Jews, Jamaican Jews, Indian Jews and others). Many have noted the ways it is racially offensive whenever others claim they're not able to identify with their ethnic backgrounds apart from the Jewish side and many in Judaism have long noted where such denial of ethnic heritage was never to occur in the first place.

One of the Messianic Jewish groups I love listening to----called Hazakim--spoke in-depth on the issue regarding how they were mixed and felt that many of the terms for "black" and "white" were often pitted against one another in ways that seem arbitrary at times...and discussing the discussions within Judaism as it concerns ethnic identity and acknowledging things in one's genes regardless of where they come from. For more, one can go online to their blog and investigate the article entitled A Multi-Cultural Perspective About "Race" in America And The Presidential Race in America. for more about them, one can go online/hear their story at their Record Label of "Lamp Mode", as seen in Lamp Mode Recordings » Hazakim Interview. As they themselves come from a mixed background, I was glad Hazakim mentioned what they did when it came to debate about whether the President was "Black" or "White" and how that reflects battles others go through daily...including Jewish people. A lot of people treat things like it was during the Jim Crow era with what was known as the "One Drop" rule where someone was considered to be "100 Black%" if they even had one percentage of black genes in their blood....for in their minds, one could no more be "part black" than they could be "partly pregnant". Of course, that's changed...but the same principle has evolved over the years in many respects when it comes to people doing similar today. For more on that issue, one can go here ..or they can go here to the following:

• "One-Drop Rule" - BlackHistory.com

• Mixed Race America - Who Is Black? One Nation's Definition - PBS

• Mixed Race America - Who Is Black? One Nation's Definition - PBS

Some of these dynamics are similar to what I've witnessed when it comes to those within Jewish culture who come from a mixed heritage and yet feel that even they are forced to choose sides...especially as it concerns their having to be told what it means to be "Jewish" and yet still feeling as if their experience isn't really reflected in a place where they're not the majority....or the terms used to describe something have often changed to mean differently over time. Brother SHimshon shared more on that when it came to His Puerto Rican heritage and his being Jewish simultaneously...and people questioing him about his being Taino, Puerto Rican and Jewish..( #2#4 #35 #164 ). But as he well noted as it concerns the issue of how those not ethnically Hebrew were still seen as Israel:

Originally Posted by Shimshon

This mixed multitued of egyptians and hebrews were all Yisrael because they all followed by faith the Elohim of Yisrael. Or they would not be there. .
​

It's the lifestyle rather than the genetics alone that count...

The logic of operating in fear is something many Jewish people have pointed out as hindering the Jewish community...paticularly when it comes to claiming others apart of the Jewish community can NEVER identify with things outside the Jewish community for fear that they'll reject it. That's not logical and there's a reason many Jews have noted how often Jews remained faithful to defending their Jewish brother/sisters and heritage while also working with Gentiles who helped them out---or acknowledging ethnic heritage apart from the Jewish people as a matter of truth.

While in Ashkenazi congregations, most will be European looking, white, so a darker skinned Jewish person might stand out, at the same time, an Askenazi Jew would stand out in other parts of the world of Jewry...and amazingly enough, debates have erupted over those people who stand out not being deemed "Jewish enough." Had this come up once when talking to someone I took a class with. She was from an Sephardic Jewish community and went to schools that were made up solely of that ethnic group--and she noted how often she was tired of others making it out as if they had to be fearful of other Jewish groups not like them. When I mentioned the issue of Indian Jews and how they've often been mistreated in Israel/other places by differing Jewish communities for "not looking Jewish", she was shocked...for although she knew of the ways that Jewish people in certain camps often seemed to be ethnocentric for their group, she had no idea that there was such a thing as Indian Jews. The same thing happened for other friends/family of mine who were Jewish and yet were mistreated on the basis of having ethnic ties to groups outside of what others were used to.....one of my friends being from Puerto Rico and finding out that her grandmother was Jewish and her father kept it a secret because he was so ashamed that the Jewish side was mixed with the Hispanic.

And on that note, it should be noted that there've actually been a lot of cases where Jewish people married others who were not Jewish--although in many cases over the centuries, the marriages were kept secret. The book "Color of Water" is an excellent read on the subject (more shared here in #25 when talking on Black Jews). The book discusses the story of Ruth McBride Jordan, the two good men she married, and the 12 good children she raised. Jordan, born Rachel Shilsky, a Polish Jew (and daughter of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi), immigrated to America soon after birth; as an adult she moved to New York City, leaving her family and faith behind in Virginia. Jordan met and married a black man, making her experience an isolation that was very profound. And it was interesting seeing her battles since many didn't consider her "Jewish" just as others didn't consider her "



The aspect of being united in Jewish heritage, regardless of whatever other cultural backgrounds or ethnic inheritances one has, is always the beautiful aspect of how Jews are united around the world...and yet, if honest, it is not always the case that even the Jewish people agree with one another on which one of them is Jewish. With others such as Cochin Jews/Bene Israel, others have often had some negative experiences in Israel (especially as it concerns many Jewish groups upset over how many accept polygamy still as did others in the OT..more here in #2, #4/ #12 /#13 , here , here /here and and work by one Jewish organization entitled Tracking the Migration of Indian Jews to Israel )---and not all Indian Jewish communities are on the same page in India.

If interested, an excellent book on the issue that I think you'd like entitled "Burnt Bread and Chutney".... Got to go through it about 3 yrs ago after getting ahold of it at the local library - and really enjoyed it. As the author explains in the preface, the Bene Israel “evolved quite uniquely, without many of the holidays, rituals, and rabbinic rulings introduced meanwhile in the general Jewish Diaspora. …They adopted the local language, Marathi, and manners of dress like the sari, along with some of the other Indian customs; they… mostly kept to themselves. They maintained the few ancient Jewish rituals which could be passed on.” At the same time, they absorbed Indian influences in prayer melodies and rituals, fasting, pilgrimages, and caste-like ways....who in some parts are known for still practicing polygamy still as did many of the patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, etc) and David did---thus angering others there. One can go here for more (as well as here). Additionally, one can go here for more on the subject...as well as here at Israel - The Indian Diaspora or here at Being Indian, Being Israeli | Asia Society.

• Essay: Finding my India
• Carmit Delman - @The Source Israel Online Magazine
• Kulanu: Book Comment “BURNT BREAD AND CHUTNEY”: Jewish Roots in India

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We were supposed to be a group of Jews who found Messiah. And that didn't mean we abandoned where God made us and joined a Church. It meant we believed in who Yeshua was, what he did, and will do, in us and in the world. It made us like those Christians who were indwelt with the Spirit of God to live in union with him. As we were NOT living in union with Him before Messiah came. Else, WHY would we need a messiah at all!

It's unnerving just how much people want to live in the pattern of unbelieving Jews. As if that is what God called all through Yeshua to live like. .

What you noted is something that was discussed in another conversation when it came to the issue of the CommonWealth of Israel - and the ways that Yeshua really did open up the doors to things that many seem to have issue with. As said before elsewhere, what Christ often noted involved making plain that being an Israelite was more than a matter of physical descent. Obvious is the case that one will never cease being an 'Israelite" based on their physical identity---but that doesn't equate to one living as an Israelite....just as it is the case that one who is a prince or princess of a royal family does not act like a royal family member. Prince Harry being an example of that amongst many others Jeremiah 35 with the Rechabites and many others where the Lord DENOUCNED Israel/said where others walked out His covenant more than they did cannot be avoided.

One of the reasons why Christ/others noted plainly to the people who tried to use ancestry to show their legitimacy that it wasn't enough for one to belong physically.

Luke 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Luke 3:7-9

John 8:39
“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did.
John 8:38-40


Romans 9:8
In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
Romans 9:7-9

​

Romans 9:6–12

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
​

In verse 6 of Romans 9, he says, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." In other words, Paul’s argument is that the promises of God always hold true for the true Israel, the spiritual Israel, but not all ethnic Israel is true Israel simply because they're ethnically related to Israel (Jacob)---just as not all ethnically related to Abraham are deemed to be "Abraham's Children" like Christ noted. That’s his first statement of the argument: "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." The assumption is: there is a true Israel; God’s saving promises are made to them; and these promises have never failed.

In verse 8 Paul states the argument a third time in more general terms without naming Israel or Abraham so that we see the principle involved. "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." This, he says again, is why the word of God has not failed –why the promises of God have not failed – even though many of Israelites according to the flesh are accursed and cut off from Christ. It’s because the promises are for the children of promise – the children of God – and not every child of Israelite flesh is a child of promise. When Paul distinguishes "children of the flesh" and "children of God" he means that not all physical Israelites are "children of God." And that means that the term "children of God" is not a mere ethnic or physical or historical term. It has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16, 21, and Philippians 2:15 (cf. Hosea 1:10). And when he then says that these "children of God" are "children of promise," he means that they have their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God’s effective promise. The promise produced the position. ...AND those who believe in the Promise (fulfilled in Messiah) are those who truly occupy the position.

As said before, One Messianic, Brother mpossoff, began an excellent dialouge on the subject not too long ago (here, here, here, here , here, here , here and here/here)...concerning what it means to be nourished by the Root.

Also - in light of how often "Replacement Theology!!!" is claimed over the issue when it comes to noting Israel/its dual realities - Ariel Ministries discussed it best, IMHO, as seen in their article entitledTHE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL IN BIBLE PROPHECY.....concerning the passages of scripture that deal with the issue.
__________________

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Actually, I think it hit's the issue right on the head. 'Rabbinical' Judiasm is "Two House" when you apply the 'house' analogy to it, as it keeps huge unhealty (IMO) divisions between Jews and Gentiles. While Messianic Judaism is One House (not to be confussed or misconstrued with One Law), as it states both Jew and Gentile are ONE in the house of God.
.

Spot on, Bruh.

Messianic Judaism that places it's focus of origin/authority in 'Rabbinic' Judaism continue to perpetrate this division, all the while defaming the Two House position. It's quite ironic, for a Jew. Especially when it's done by gentiles.

It is indeed ironic, as several have noted. Prayerfully, it can be seen for how it is in time..

To me, if you notice, the issue stems from Modern Rabbinical Judaism's "two house" position. What the small group of Torah observant Christians here do is just what Modern Judaism does. Defines who's a Jew and then demands all the little ducks get in a row. Then again, I don't find any authority in Rabbinical Judism, so that will slant my persepective, I can agree. But I see a huge corelation to the amount of 'Judaism' a person applies as authoritive, to the amount of 'two house' division they hold to. Be it one law gentilism, or Orthodox Judaism.

In fact, it reminds me of a Messianic Rabbi I ran into in New Mexico. In one breath he would state Yeshua is not God!! and make no apologies for it. Then when I asked him if he believed Yeshua is LORD, the fullness of God in bodily form, and he says...OH yes!!! What he was doing was trying to be accepted by the local Jewish community. He had a huge desire and attention to be seen and accepted as 'Jewish'. Poor man, lost all sight of his Messiah.... Had to find an identity somewhere though.... He was set on his ways, so we didn't find much fellowship with him and his group.


God reformed Yisrael in our day, He will make it right. No matter what those who claim to sit in the seat of Moses state. I look to Yeshua to define who I am, not a people, not a book, not a religion. And I don't have to fight to claim my position. He will place me right where He wants me. And I know who I am in Him. Because we are united as One.

I think much of the arguments are from people who are not really sure. Usually it's the one who is fighting the hardest that has the most insecurites about his position

[/QUOTE]Very on point, Bruh - and on the issue, it is because of this that many Messianic Jews have often noted how odd it is people talk about needing to have the acceptance of Rabbinical Judaism today - be it with all of the DNA Testings/approval tests of who is or isn't "Jewish" and an official convert to Judaism as some groups see it - and yet still talk on serving the Messiah. You already broke away from Judaism significantly when it came to claiming Christ and knowing that some of the mindsets that used to be accepted by certain Jewish circles were never what all Jewish believers held to ....nor preached when it came to the identity of Israel/The One New Man.

Some of this was discussed more in-depth in another thread - as said here:

the Lord at one point divorced Israel/stated that in no uncertain terms ( Jeremiah 3:8-25 ), also echoed in Hosea 1:2-9...although scripture shows how the Prophets of the Old Testament prophesied that there would be a rupture of the bond and a suspension of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel which would be restored in the “latter days" and a new agreement made once improvement occurred. A careful and serious reading of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea (taking special note of Hosea 3:4-5, Isaiah 62:1-7, 65:16-25, 66:7-24 and Jermiah 3:8-25, 30:8-24) shows this to be true.

This goes into discussion of what Paul meant in light of the OT and what the concept "All Israel will be saved" really means. There was something from the ministry of "TNN Online"/John McKee tha seemed to be very relevant on the subject. For they're of the mindset that many Gentiles actually have Israelite blood in them and are apart of what Paul noted in Romans 11. As they stated---in their article entitled "The Two Houses of Israel: Biblical Passages That Deserve Our Attention" /seen here for a brief excerpt:

Some think that if you do not interpret “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) as meaning that every single Jew who has ever lived will come to Yeshua, that you are anti-Semitic. Too frequently, Messianic Jews I have interacted with do not consider me their equal on a basic human level—and could by no means imagine that the restoration of Israel only begins with the salvation of Jewish people, not ending there. This is by no means all Messianic Jews, but Messianic Judaism does have some issues it is presently wrestling with. .....Simply ask yourself the last time you really heard a fair-minded Messianic Jewish teaching on Romans chs. 1-3, where the Apostle Paul identifies sin as a common human problem, and he specifically refutes the idea that Jewish possession of the Torah in the First Century would curry any special favors on Judgment Day.....
​

The fullness of what Israel was to be is a theme picked up by Paul in his letter to the Romans, as he recognizes that the nations have been more receptive to the gospel than his own Jewish brethren. He says, “salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous” (Romans 11:11), and urges such non-Jewish Believers to not be arrogant against the natural branches that make up Israel’s olive tree (Romans 11:17-18), further stating that his own Jewish people have an irrevocable calling (Romans 11:29). Non-Jewish people who partake of a salvation originating in Israel have a great deal of respect to show the Jewish people. In God’s plan of salvation history, the Apostle Paul asserts that a mystery regarding Israel is at work:

“For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25).
​

​

The fact that Paul refers to this happening as a “mystery,” is an important clue that a simplistic explanation will not work. The entering in of “the fullness of the Gentiles” must occur within the overall framework of Israel’s salvation. Most of today’s interpreters of Romans 11:25 assume that Paul refers only to “the full number of the Gentiles” (RSV/NIV), based in a Calvinistic view of this being a set number of individual non-Jews predetermined by God for salvation. The fault of this view is that within Romans (11:12; 13:10; 15:29) and elsewhere in Paul’s letters (Ephesians 3:19; 4:13), plērōma (plhrwma) largely relates to “moral or spiritual consummation”—as opposed to it being the “full number” of anything

Non-Jewish Believers are required by Paul to be conduits of God’s mercy to Jews who have rejected the gospel (Romans 11:31), so “the fullness of the Gentiles” must involve some aspect of their spiritual character. Paul applies Tanach expectations regarding the salvation and forgiveness of Israel (Isaiah 59:20-21; Jeremiah 31:33) to the experience of these non-Jewish Believers in Romans 11:26-27, which would be odd if they were just non-Jewish Believers saved for no definite purpose. Could it be that once they have become the fullness of what Israel was called to be—namely a nation of priests that can be a light to the world (i.e., Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 42:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:9)—then the salvation of all Israel could finally be manifest? In order for this to happen, it would mean that non-Jewish Believers have to reach toward a trajectory of being “the fullness,” thus making the Jewish people jealous for salvation in Yeshua! This is something yet to fully happen.

How this involves the Two Houses of Israel is rather unique, as the description to plērōma tōn ethnōn (to plhrwma twn eqnwn) only appears in Romans 11:25. The closest Tanach equivalent appears in the Patriarch Jacob’s prophecy to his son Ephraim, where he says “his descendants shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19). Ephraim, this melo ha’goyim (~yAGh-alm), would become a designation for the Northern Kingdom of Israel, being scattered into the nations via the punishment of Assyria. Because most of today’s Romans’ interpreters are so dominated by the common Reformed perspective of “the fullness of the Gentiles” involving some kind of predestination, it is almost impossible to find anyone who has explored this point of view. However, the great Methodist commentator Adam Clarke did once note,

“The words plhrwma twn eqnwn may be borrowed from the ~ywgh alm melo haggoyim, a multitude of nations, which the Septuagint translate by plhqoß eqnwn. By the plhrwma, or fullness, a great multitude may be intended, which should be so dilated on every hand as to fill various regions.”

The LXX did render melo ha’goyim with the slightly different plēthos ethnōn (plhqoß eqnwn) in Genesis 48:19, simply meaning a “multitude of nations” (LXE). The adaptation of Tanach quotations to make a theological point is not odd at all within the Pauline letters. His indication in Romans 11:25 that this is all a “mystery,” is a good clue as to why ton plērōma tōn ethnōn appears

It is not enough that a large scattered group of Israel out in the nations come back into the fold; they have a specific job to do that involves their maturation and being conduits of God’s mercy to the Jewish people. While “the fullness of the Gentiles” may first be a reference to the spiritual character of such people who will enter into the fold, a secondary reference to scattered Israel being involved in this can definitely be seen.

Paul also writes about God calling out a people “not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles” (Romans 9:24), the two groups of people that make up the “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB). His substantiation for God’s calling of this unique people (Romans 9:25-26) is based in the prophecies of Hosea 2:23 and 1:10. God will say to them “You are My people!” (Hosea 2:23), in spite of them—“the sons of Israel”—being “like the sand of the sea” (Hosea 1:10) because of sin scattering them. This all concerns how “the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together” (Hosea 1:11) and restored by God. Paul goes on to say that “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved’” (Romans 9:27; cf. Isaiah 10:22).


​

............IMHO, It is difficult to say which mystery Paul is talking about when he says “this” mystery in Romans 11. He could be talking about the olive tree and God’s “kind and stern” actions toward his people. Or “this” could refer to what he is about to say regarding Israel’s hardening but eventually acceptance. In some ways, I think it mostly points forward to what Paul is explains later– and that's God’s plan to save Israel. That is, after all, what Paul is trying to explain all through chapters 9-11. The apostle Paul says God has planned the salvation of Israel in three steps – 1) hardening of some of the Jews, 2) acceptance of some Gentiles, 3) all Israel will be saved. At this point we have some issues that need to be wrestled with. When Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved” we either have to define Israel by a certain set of people in order to make that consistent with all Paul has said about the necessity of righteousness to come by faith in Christ.... or we have to assume all Jews will eventually put their faith in Christ, or that God is going to save them no matter what (which is not consistent with what Paul has written to this point in Romans).

Some people have wanted to say Paul is talking about “Spiritual Israel” here but that just doesn’t bear out through the context at all points...for it seems clear that Paul is talking about ethnic Jews here. Thus, either they all will eventually put their faith in Christ or Paul is defining Israel in a slightly different way than meaning every single person who is a direct descendent of Abraham.

It is beyond dispute that Paul and Jesus agree that not all ethnic Jews are actually children of Abraham (see John 8:39-41 & Romans 4:12).

Moreover, it has always been the case that God has called his people “Israel” when some Jews were not included in that number. Two places we see this in the OT are the concept of the remnant and also through blessings and curses in Deuteronomy..and for more on that, one can see the first paragraph in this post on Galatians 3:10-14. In Deuteronomy blessings and curses are repeatedly laid out before God’s people. The gist of it is, if you follow God and keep his commandments you will do well in the land. But if you double cross God and go your own way, you will be under a curse. This curse was basically considered a removal of the blessings of God and of covenant status with God.

Essentially, that basically would put an ethnic Jew out of “Israel” and into the same status as the Gentiles (who were also thought to be cursed and devoid of God’s blessings). Others may disagree, but my contention here when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” is that he is talking about “true Israelites” (as Jesus refered to Nathaniel as in John 1:47)…those who obeyed the law and were led by that law, as it was intended to do, to Jesus Christ.
."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Joseph's children come to mind. Born in Egypt to an Egyptian woman, yet blessed by Jacob as one if his own.
.

There was actually another discussion elsewhere that occurred on the matter of Joseph and what happened with his descendants - as well as others like Caleb and Rahab/Ruth, Jethro the Midianite and many others (as seen in #259, #70 #57 #58 #59 #63 and #69 ).

In the world of Judaism, this is also something that's proving to be a big concern for many Jewish families. The issue of Jewishness always seems to be complicated by many factors at times...paticularly whenever adoption comes into the picture. The issue of adoption within the Jewish culture seems to be a very hot-button issue nowadays. Be'chol Lashon did a good review on the issue which really brings many issues to the forefront, paticularly when ethnic issues are brought up. In their words, from the article they made entitled ""Be’chol Lashon: Media Center: In the News: June 28, 2000: Shades Of Gray: Multiracial families are growing rapidly and changing " ():

American Jewish families in which an adopted child or a converted parent is black, Asian, Hispanic or biracial constitute a rapidly growing population, say sociologists. "This is the changing face of American Jewry," said Rabbi Susan Silverman, who with her husband has two biological daughters and recently adopted a son who is black from an orphanage in Ethiopia.

The 1990 National Jewish Population Study - the last completed "census" of American Jewry - found that 6.5 percent of all respondents were nonwhite, said Gary Tobin, president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco, and himself the adoptive father of a black child, Jonah.

Four percent of the study's core population - meaning Jews by birth or conversion - were black or Hispanic, he said, which equaled about 220,000 people.

A decade after the study, it's now possible that through adoption, adult conversion and intermarriage, the percentage of nonwhite Jews in America is as high as 10 percent, Tobin says.

Adoption is responsible for a large part of the surge. In years past most foreign babies adopted by Americans were born in Korea, Vietnam and Latin America. Americans - of all religions and ethnicities - continue to adopt children from those countries, but today, experts say, the former Soviet Union and China are the leading birth countries in international adoptions and are the source of 4,500 and 4,000 children, respectively.

And while domestic adoptions of children from black and Hispanic backgrounds were first seen in significant numbers in the early 1970s, they seem to be increasingly popular among Jewish parents today.

One adoption professional estimated that between 15 percent and 20 percent of the children currently being adopted into Jewish families are Hispanic or nonwhite.

The other doorway into the Jewish community is, of course, adult conversion, and their children, but it's not known how many people within that category are nonwhite, Tobin said, because that has never been measured.
​

__________________

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We were supposed to be a group of Jews who found Messiah. And that didn't mean we abandoned where God made us and joined a Church. It meant we believed in who Yeshua was, what he did, and will do, in us and in the world. It made us like those Christians who were indwelt with the Spirit of God to live in union with him. As we were NOT living in union with Him before Messiah came. Else, WHY would we need a messiah at all!

It's unnerving just how much people want to live in the pattern of unbelieving Jews. As if that is what God called all through Yeshua to live like. Observe the Torah of Moses as Jews before Yeshua's coming, and live as Rabbinical Jews. Why gentiles have entered into this, as 'commanded by God' ...is quite the shame, of God. It's not the gospel message, nor the message of the cross.

As said before, Dr. Fruchtenbaum has given some good review on the issue that can be very helpful in understanding what it means for others - Jew and Gentile - to be considered a part of Israel. For more, one can consider where he has taught his Israelology course for Chafer Theological Seminary...recorded at West Houston Bible Church in Texas.

• Israelology – Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum – Recorded at Chafer Theological Seminary

The entire course is available free online at the Dean Bible Ministries website. Audio files can be downloaded or heard online here ): And the Powerpoint slides he did are found here/here.

 

[yedida]

Right, I said; "of which I believe you agree".

I agree, one can observe traditions outside of our faith. As long as said traditions do not nullify the words of God. I believe you agree with this too.

Do you really think the rest of us are so foolish that we put tradition over the Word of God or His finished work? If that's the case, you're very much misinformed and totally mistaken. I'm sure, there are a few in Messianic Judaism that may, just as in mainstream traditional Christianity. But as a whole, we do not.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One mans tradition is another mans chicken!! And another mans chicken is someones tradition......

.

 

[xDenax]

​

I'm going to put this on my reading list.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm going to put this on my reading list.

Very powerful read and one I think you'd enjoy a lot as it concerns cross-cultural interactions and others often feeling like they're caught between worlds. Hoping it'd bless you..

 

[Angeldove97]

​

Please be aware that this thread has gone through a clean up- around the pages of 5-9 ish. If you find that a post of yours is missing it can be due to either a rule violation (which Staff would have contacted you about) or it was removed since it responded to another deleted post.

The clean up was in regards to an external link used as a resource that came from an anti-Semetic author. Please be careful of what resources you use while providing evidence of your reasoning.

If you have any questions about this thread clean up, please contact me or another Staff member. Thank you!

 

[Qnts2]

Please be aware that this thread has gone through a clean up- around the pages of 5-9 ish. If you find that a post of yours is missing it can be due to either a rule violation (which Staff would have contacted you about) or it was removed since it responded to another deleted post.

The clean up was in regards to an external link used as a resource that came from an anti-Semetic author. Please be careful of what resources you use while providing evidence of your reasoning.

If you have any questions about this thread clean up, please contact me or another Staff member. Thank you!

Thanks.