Who is a Jew? From our older son....

[xDenax]

Do you encourage him to marry a Jewish woman? I'm just curious. That would have been my answer. Marry a Jewish woman and you won't have to worry about it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jewishness is based on being a descendant of Abraham>Isaac>Jacob>12 Tribes. Ishmael wasn't a descendant of Abraham>Isaac>Jacob. So Ishmael doesn't fit the criteria for being Jewish.

Ishmael not being Jewish doesn't equate to him not being a descendant of Abraham - as that's not logical, dude. He was a descendant of Abraham due to him being his father and all Arabs are connected to Abraham - but the blessing of the Covenant through whom the Messiah would come was given to those of Isaac and Jacob. Arabs were blessed through what would happen in that and it's why they're often right alongside the Hebrew/Jewish people and why many Jews (be it believer or non-believer) have noted that being a descendant of Ishmael makes them blood brothers to those descendants of Isaac.

 

[Qnts2]

I've been investigating this. The kicker is tribal indentity.

My point my son made was if I'm a Benjamite and I marry a non Jewish woman is our child a non Jewish Benjamite?

Now the Timothy incident has gotten me here. I'm now thinking since Timothy's father was a Gentile that's why he wasn't circumcised. His father didn't have any tribal affiliation. So I'm also considering other reasons.

I think you have some points, but disagree with your conclusion.

It was to the children of Israel/Jewish people that the land as a whole was promised. So if a person is not Jewish, they do not inherit the land. The tribe defines which section of the land of Israel a Jewish person inherits from.

Converts, who are now Jewish, apparently affiliate with a tribe and receive their inheritance thru that tribe (Caleb).

When the children of Israel returned from Babylon, there was a man who only had daughters, so as an exception, the daughter inherits based on the fathers tribe, unless they marry outside of the tribe.

And finally, in the time of Ezra, Jewish men had married non-Jewish women (the women did not convert). Since the law says a man (or woman) is not to marry a non-Jew, as they will have a corrupting factor, the Jewish men of Ezra's time, sent away the wives who were not Jewish, along with the children who were also considered non-Jewish (proved as they were sent away with no inheritance rights). This is the basis of the women being the basis for being Jewish.

Rabbinics tries to side on the side of mercy, based on the house of Hillel, so if a child is born of a Jewish women, the assumption is that the child is legitimate, or the child of the husband. (Just as a side note, with genetic testing of the Cohanim, all male children should have the Cohanim haplotype. If the male child does not have the haplotype, the child would not have a father who is a Cohen. If I remember correctly, the failure rate was as low as 2%. Which means that 2% of the wives were unfaithful over the last 3000 years. That is a very high rate of fidelity).

Now, this is purely my opinion, as I do not believe that this is mentioned anywhere that I know of in Messianic Judaism. Messianic Judaism accepts as Jewish, children who have either a Jewish mother or father. Given the law of no inter-marriage in the Mosaic law, and the reason given. And given that the NT says only marry those of like Spirit, it can be assumed that a born again person is a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and will not lead the spouse to worship any other God. From a NT perspective, the marriage between two believers is valid, and in my opinion, based on the Mosaic law, the reason for not marrying is not a concern. Others might see it differently.

So, my personal opinion, a child of the union of a Messianic Jew and Messianic Gentile is Jewish. However, if that child marries a believing Gentile and their children marry believing Gentiles, it is noted that by the 4th generation, the children no longer identify as Jewish.

 

[Qnts2]

Ok the question isn't about upbringing per se because does upbringing determine if your Jewishness or is what your parents are and the sign of the covenant being circumcision in this case, nothing more/nothing less. Even when Israel as a nation committed idolatry God still considered them children of Israel/Jewish. Get what I'm saying?



I'm more inclined to think there was a Judaism in the diaspora when the Temple was still present, halachally speaking. So you maybe referring to a no Temple Judaism.

But Judaism isn't the question or it might be in regards to 'who is a Jew' being from the father or mother.

Our son bought up a point. Tribal indentity is through the father. If I'm a Benjamite and marry a non Jewish woman is our child a non Jewish Benjamite?

So what I'm saying to stay on topic is Jewishness might have nothing to do with upbringing in a biblical sense because you're Jewish no matter what per se.

Being a Jew is by linage, but I do believe biblically, there is a second factor. That is the identification with the Jewish people.

In scripture, during the Exodus, a group returned to Egypt. Judaism teaches that those who returned were only the mixed multitude, but scripture doesn't say that, one way or the other. I am of the belief that there were some Jewish people who did return to Egypt, and are lost as children of Israel. They are no longer Jewish.

Reform Judaism, in a mixed marriage situation, recognizes the child as Jewish, whether it is the mother or father who is Jewish, provided the child was raised Jewish.

The question then is it just linage or must there be an identity of Jewish? From the Exodus, I believe we get our hint.

In the Passover seder, the wicked son asks, what does this mean to you? The following explanation states that the son fails to include himself in the Exodus, but Jewish people are to include themselves in the redeeming of the people. Had the wicked son been there at that time, he would not have been brought out, as he did not include himself as a member of the people who were brought out.

Passover is even central to believers in Yeshua, as to be a part of that redemption, it can not just be said that Yeshua died for sin, but that Yeshua died for my sins. Without the recognition of Yeshua acting on our behalf, there is no salvation. Just as Israel become a nation of people during the Exodus, and one is not a part of Israel unless they see themselves as being led out/redeemed with the children of Israel.

 

[macher]

When the children of Israel returned from Babylon, there was a man who only had daughters, so as an exception, the daughter inherits based on the fathers tribe, unless they marry outside of the tribe.

And finally, in the time of Ezra, Jewish men had married non-Jewish women (the women did not convert). Since the law says a man (or woman) is not to marry a non-Jew, as they will have a corrupting factor, the Jewish men of Ezra's time, sent away the wives who were not Jewish, along with the children who were also considered non-Jewish (proved as they were sent away with no inheritance rights). This is the basis of the women being the basis for being Jewish.

Where the wives that were sent away believers like Ruth and Rahab or did the wives idolatrous and corrupted the husband in that regard.

So, my personal opinion, a child of the union of a Messianic Jew and Messianic Gentile is Jewish. However, if that child marries a believing Gentile and their children marry believing Gentiles, it is noted that by the 4th generation, the children no longer identify as Jewish.

Right I can see the 4th generation thing however in the time of Ezra where the wives that were sent away were they idolatrous and therefore corrupted their husbands or had the potential to corrupt?

Why can't the same be applied to the time of Ezra? A Jewish man who is a believer in the One True God marries a gentile woman who believes in the God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob?

It depends on how the gentile wives are viewed. The question of these gentile wives aren't answered per se.

 

[Qnts2]

Where the wives that were sent away believers like Ruth and Rahab or did the wives idolatrous and corrupted the husband in that regard.

The wives were idolatrous. The point I was trying to make is that the husband was Jewish, and had the children been considered Jewish, they should have remained and been raised as Jews. However, the children were sent away with the wives.

Ruth was a convert to Judaism. These wives were not and therefore not Jewish, and continued to practice their idolatrous religions.

 

[macher]

The wives were idolatrous. The point I was trying to make is that the husband was Jewish, and had the children been considered Jewish, they should have remained and been raised as Jews. However, the children were sent away with the wives.

Right I can understand that. But I'm asking if the wives and children weren't idolatrous.

Ruth was a convert to Judaism. These wives were not and therefore not Jewish, and continued to practice their idolatrous religions.

Right although Ruth was a Gentile she wasn't idolatrous. You can have idolatrous Gentiles and Gentiles who believe in the God of Abraham....which is my point.

So my son raised a point that makes sense. He put it this way. If I'm a Benjamite and marry a non Jewish woman who a believer in the God of Abraham, God of..... Then our child a non Jewish Benjamite? Are you implying a formal conversion because the wife has to be Jewish? But but but... I'm starting to see something else too. Jewishness is lineage/descendancy. So does a formal conversion make one a descendant 'magically'? Let's stick with scripture. Believe me this is something that isn't comfortable to discuss as one part says 'you have to listen to Judaism' But something doesn't doesn't add up.

What you're referring to are Gentiles that practice idolatry. Which I see your point in that regard.

Let's stick with non Jewish woman who are believers. Prior to Yeshua believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Torah does forbid not to mingle or marry non Jews. However it doesn't forbid to mingle or marry non Jews who are believers and worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[anisavta]

Ruth was a convert to Judaism

And how did she go about that? Several years of study, beit din and mikvah, by the fact that she married Boaz or just by reason of her stating that she was taking upon herself HaShem and His ways?

 

[macher]

And how did she go about that? Several years of study, beit din and mikvah, by the fact that she married Boaz or just by reason of her stating that she was taking upon herself HaShem and His ways?

Good question, scripture is silent. If it was her confessing not only upon herself but all then what? The question also remains let's say Ruth went through a formal conversion like today. In reality how does that make her Jewish since Jewishness is based on lineage/descendancy?

 

[anisavta]

And what is conversion? Was modern conversion just a tool to separate Christianity further from Judaism? Besides taking on halacha one must deny previous commitments - namely, the Church and/or Jesus.

 

[Qnts2]

And how did she go about that? Several years of study, beit din and mikvah, by the fact that she married Boaz or just by reason of her stating that she was taking upon herself HaShem and His ways?

Well, when Boaz served as the kinsmen redeemer, that role is towards those who are Jewish, so Boaz already recognized Ruth as Jewish.

Ruth had lived as a wife in a Jewish family, so would have learned Judaism there. But when Ruth told Naomi that rather then returning to her own people, she considered the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob her God, and considered the people of Israel her people, that is essentially a conversion as she had already been living like a Jew.

In todays Judaism, Ruth is the basis of conversion. One has to see the Jewish God as their God, the Jewish people as their people, and agree to take on the Mosaic covenant. Since most do not have the years of living as a Jew before conversion, they go to classes. The delay is to learn and ensure that this is a real commitment and not a whim or fad.

Ruth's commitment was obvious as she left where she was and her own people behind, and traveled with Naomi to live in Israel as a Jew, and with the Jewish people being her people. Unlike today, when many converts live where they are, the commitment does not involve leaving friends and family behind, so the commitment is not so demonstratably obvious.

So, the commitment is to be a member of the people to whom God gave the Mosaic covenant. It is not easy and includes being hated, for me, just because of my birth, and for converts, because of who they choose to be. It means taking on the responsibility of the people, among the people and in the way you act outside of the people to others.

The book of Ruth shows every bit what it is to be a convert.

 

[macher]

And what is conversion? Was modern conversion just a tool to separate Christianity further from Judaism? Besides taking on halacha one must deny previous commitments - namely, the Church and/or Jesus.

Let's stay in the context, you're getting away from the context of the discussion.

 

[visionary]

And what is conversion? Was modern conversion just a tool to separate Christianity further from Judaism? Besides taking on halacha one must deny previous commitments - namely, the Church and/or Jesus.

Yes.. modern conversion does not bring all His children to His feet, recognizing that He is the King of the Jews, the best Rabbi that ever walked the earth teaching Torah, let alone see Him as Jewish in the purest sense of the faith.

 

[macher]

Well, when Boaz served as the kinsmen redeemer, that role is towards those who are Jewish, so Boaz already recognized Ruth as Jewish.

Ruth had lived as a wife in a Jewish family, so would have learned Judaism there. But when Ruth told Naomi that rather then returning to her own people, she considered the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob her God, and considered the people of Israel her people, that is essentially a conversion as she had already been living like a Jew.

In todays Judaism, Ruth is the basis of conversion. One has to see the Jewish God as their God, the Jewish people as their people, and agree to take on the Mosaic covenant. Since most do not have the years of living as a Jew before conversion, they go to classes. The delay is to learn and ensure that this is a real commitment and not a whim or fad.

Ruth's commitment was obvious as she left where she was and her own people behind, and traveled with Naomi to live in Israel as a Jew, and with the Jewish people being her people. Unlike today, when many converts live where they are, the commitment does not involve leaving friends and family behind, so the commitment is not so demonstratably obvious.

So, the commitment is to be a member of the people to whom God gave the Mosaic covenant. It is not easy and includes being hated, for me, just because of my birth, and for converts, because of who they choose to be. It means taking on the responsibility of the people, among the people and in the way you act outside of the people to others.

The book of Ruth shows every bit what it is to be a convert.

Did Boaz recognize Ruth as being Jewish? She was still considered a Moabite even though she believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Or did Boaz recognize Ruth as being a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob even though she was a Moabite?

Not so cut and dry.

And you and I agree that Jewishness is based on lineage, so how does Ruth come to play in 'who is a Jew?' Boaz>Yeshua being from Judah. In this case tribal indentity comes from the father. However in this case with Ruth it's not so cut and dry is it? I think there's more validity with patrilineal descendant than matrilineal. And I'm wondering why now? Our son is makin me think.

 

[anisavta]

That's my point. It isn't cut and dry. And no matter how much validity there is in patrilineal decent, it becomes a moot point in most Jewish circles, or at least the ones that matter.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Did Boaz recognize Ruth as being Jewish? She was still considered a Moabite even though she believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Or did Boaz recognize Ruth as being a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob even though she was a Moabite?

Not so cut and dry.

And you and I agree that Jewishness is based on lineage, so how does Ruth come to play in 'who is a Jew?' Boaz>Yeshua being from Judah. In this case tribal indentity comes from the father. However in this case with Ruth it's not so cut and dry is it? I think there's more validity with patrilineal descendant than matrilineal. And I'm wondering why now? Our son is makin me think.

Good points - for is it the symbolism of fathers giving identity rather than mothers that's the issue? Or is it authority given with certain roles that determines who declares a Jewish heritage? Or is it a matter of some things as examples in scripture being taken further than the authors intended for it to be seen (i.e. prescription vs description)?

 

[macher]

That's my point. It isn't cut and dry. And no matter how much validity there is in patrilineal decent, it becomes a moot point in most Jewish circles, or at least the ones that matter.

Yes it's moot in Judaism. But we are discussing.

 

[macher]

Good points - for is it the symbolism of fathers giving identity rather than mothers that's the issue? Or is it authority given with certain roles that determines who declares a Jewish heritage? Or is it a matter of some things as examples in scripture being taken further than the authors intended for it to be seen (i.e. prescription vs description)?

The discussion is where does Jewish indentity come from, the father or the mother. Judaism of course says it's from the mother and being Jewish I'm challenging that here.

I'm referring to descendancy/lineage.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The discussion is where does Jewish indentity come from, the father or the mother. Judaism of course says it's from the mother and being Jewish I'm challenging that here.

I'm referring to descendancy/lineage.

I understand you're challenging things with descendancy being based on the mother alone - and I shared earlier how I think there's a lot of merit on it, even though there are other things to consider.

Numbers 27:18
The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached 2 the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, 3 “Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah’s followers, who banded together against the Lord, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 4 Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.”

5 So Moses brought their case before the Lord 6 and the Lord said to him, 7 “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and turn their father’s inheritance over to them.8 “Say to the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the Lord commanded Moses.’”

Numbers 36

Inheritance of Zelophehad’s Daughters

36 The family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, who were from the clans of the descendants of Joseph, came and spoke before Moses and the leaders, the heads of the Israelite families. 2 They said, “When the Lord commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. 3 Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. 4 When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our forefathers.”
5 Then at the Lord’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. 9 No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

10 So Zelophehad’s daughters did as the Lord commanded Moses. 11 Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah—married their cousins on their father’s side. 12 They married within the clans of the descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in their father’s clan and tribe.

13 These are the commands and regulations the Lord gave through Moses to the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho

1 Chronicles 7:15
Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister’s name was Maacah.Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.
1 Chronicles 7:14-16

Joshua 17
Now Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons but only daughters, whose names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. 4 They went to Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the leaders and said, “The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers.” So Joshua gave them an inheritance along with the brothers of their father, according to the Lord’s command.
​

Saying Jewishness had to be determined patrilinearly doesn't seem to add up since the scriptures do not always show such to be true. I'm reminded of Joshua 17:3-4. For although women did not traditionally inherit property in Israelite society, Moses put justice ahead of tradition and gave these 5 women mentioned the land they deserved (Numbers 27:1-11). In fact, God told Moses to add a law that would help other women in similar circumstances inherit property as well...and Joshua, in his time, was carrying out that law. Numbers 27 gives more information on the issue. For up to that point, the Hebrew Law gave sons alone the right to inherit. But the daughters of Zelophehad, having no brothers, came to Moses to ask for their father's possessions. God told Moses that if a man died without sons, his inheritance would go to his daughters. But the daughters could keep it only if they married within their own tribe, probably so the territorial lines would remain intact (Numbers 36:5-12)

 

[macher]

I understand you're challenging things with descendancy being based on the mother alone - and I shared earlier how I think there's a lot of merit on it, even though there are other things to consider.

Numbers 27:18
The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached 2 the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, 3 “Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah’s followers, who banded together against the Lord, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 4 Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.”

5 So Moses brought their case before the Lord 6 and the Lord said to him, 7 “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and turn their father’s inheritance over to them.8 “Say to the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the Lord commanded Moses.’”

Numbers 36

Inheritance of Zelophehad’s Daughters

36 The family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, who were from the clans of the descendants of Joseph, came and spoke before Moses and the leaders, the heads of the Israelite families. 2 They said, “When the Lord commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. 3 Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. 4 When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our forefathers.”
5 Then at the Lord’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. 9 No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

10 So Zelophehad’s daughters did as the Lord commanded Moses. 11 Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah—married their cousins on their father’s side. 12 They married within the clans of the descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in their father’s clan and tribe.

13 These are the commands and regulations the Lord gave through Moses to the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho

1 Chronicles 7:15
Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister’s name was Maacah.Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.
1 Chronicles 7:14-16

Joshua 17
Now Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons but only daughters, whose names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. 4 They went to Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the leaders and said, “The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers.” So Joshua gave them an inheritance along with the brothers of their father, according to the Lord’s command.
​

Saying Jewishness had to be determined patrilinearly doesn't seem to add up since the scriptures do not always show such to be true. I'm reminded of Joshua 17:3-4. For although women did not traditionally inherit property in Israelite society, Moses put justice ahead of tradition and gave these 5 women mentioned the land they deserved (Numbers 27:1-11). In fact, God told Moses to add a law that would help other women in similar circumstances inherit property as well...and Joshua, in his time, was carrying out that law. Numbers 27 gives more information on the issue. For up to that point, the Hebrew Law gave sons alone the right to inherit. But the daughters of Zelophehad, having no brothers, came to Moses to ask for their father's possessions. God told Moses that if a man died without sons, his inheritance would go to his daughters. But the daughters could keep it only if they married within their own tribe, probably so the territorial lines would remain intact (Numbers 36:5-12)

That's comparing apples to oranges. Their father died. They received the land because of patrilineal anyway. Who else was going to get that land?