The Short Version:
Hi all, I want your opinion on my argument. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
I consider that the terms “Israelite”, “Israelites”, and “Israel”, as used in the Old Testament, are most properly understood as referring to the assembly or congregation of God, not to an ethnic group or national group based on blood, culture, or secular identity of any sort. That being said, the membership in this congregation is traced by one’s lineal descent from the patriarch Israel, no matter how distant or miniscule it may be. This isn’t about blood percentage but rather about physical line of descent. Furthermore, it is also possible to join the assembly or to leave it through conversion and certain types of sin, respectfully. Therefore, descent is only the primary factor that determines membership but not the only one.
Finally, I would like to add that the Christians took the New Testament concept of the church exactly from this pre-existing Jewish notion of the church. They are one and the same in origin. The “church” concept is not some aberration of Judaism as non-MJs frequently maintain. I would love some clarification as to how the idea of the Church evolved in the new Testament, according to your perspective as Messianic Jews.
*
*
*
Full Version:
----------
I am aware that the term "Son of Israel" is used numerous times and that this type of epithet is applied towards other groups of people (e.g., “Sons of Moab”). It can does usually represent an ethnic identifier. However, it doesn't have this sense in nearly all of the cases in which it appears in the Old Testament. Why? Because the term Israelite doesn’t appear practically ever, whereas as ethnic terms such as Moabite, Ammonite, Egyptian, and Midianite, appear frequently. The lack of correspondence between the ethnic term Israelite and ancestral the term "Sons of Israel" is not possible to dismiss as an accident or coincidence. This contradiction is not only incredibly obvious but it is also incredibly deliberate. Notice, furthermore, that when an ethnic or even linguistic descriptor is applied to the Israelites it is the term "Hebrew". Even this is rare, it happens I believe around 10 times in total and almost all in the same passages. Don’t you think it's strange that the Old Testament uses this word instead of Israelite, which is the obvious choice? The wording is bizarre, actually, except when viewed as intentional. The only reasonable explanation is that the Old Testament is de-emphasizing ethnic identity and emphasizing ancestral lineage from Israel. This is in perfect accordance with the primary theological themes running through the texts.
To summarize my argument:
1. It is evident from the Old Testament that there is an assembly of God which is determined firstly by ancestral descent from the patriarch Israel. Secondly, males (at the least) may join the assembly through circumcision. Third, people who are not part of the assembly but who live within it are expected to follow its religious laws (at least primarily). Fourth, a member of the assembly can be cut off (excommunicated) if they do not follow the law or are not circumcised. Fifth, it is stated that should the assembly ever break the covenant with God it will either be physically dispersed or even destroyed.
Therefore, there is a congregation of worshipers whose existence is organized around the worship of God, and whose entire purpose is to fulfill its divine mission. The central factor in belonging to this assembly is lineal descent through the male line from the patriarch Israel, no matter how faint or far removed.
2. The Old Testament almost never uses the term Israelite when we would expect it to appear frequently. We expect it because other groups of people such as the Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and Egyptians are often called by the equivalent terms to Israelite. When the Israelites are referred to with an obvious ethnic descriptor, only a dozen times maybe, the term used is almost always Hebrew(s). This is strange because they are not ever referred to as the "Sons of the Hebrews", but are referred to as the "Sons of Israel". So if anything you would expect the term Israelite to appear and not the term Hebrew.
Therefore, identity as Israelite or Hebrew on secular grounds is next to irrelevant in the Old Testament, and there is no "ethnic" community that is central.
So, I come to the following conclusions:
Regarding the people of the Old Testament primarily as an ethnic group or national group named the Israelites, rather than as a church, is totally unwarranted. The primary descriptors that should be applied to this group are "Children of Israel", "People of Israel", "Israel", "Assembly of God" or "Congregation of God". The group in question represents a religious assembly or congregation defined principally by descent from the Patriarch Israel. That is, a person who can trace their lineage, no matter how far removed, back to Israel, is a born member of the congregation. The term Israelite can only be understood properly as meaning a born or adopted member of this assembly or congregation.
Hi all, I want your opinion on my argument. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
I consider that the terms “Israelite”, “Israelites”, and “Israel”, as used in the Old Testament, are most properly understood as referring to the assembly or congregation of God, not to an ethnic group or national group based on blood, culture, or secular identity of any sort. That being said, the membership in this congregation is traced by one’s lineal descent from the patriarch Israel, no matter how distant or miniscule it may be. This isn’t about blood percentage but rather about physical line of descent. Furthermore, it is also possible to join the assembly or to leave it through conversion and certain types of sin, respectfully. Therefore, descent is only the primary factor that determines membership but not the only one.
Finally, I would like to add that the Christians took the New Testament concept of the church exactly from this pre-existing Jewish notion of the church. They are one and the same in origin. The “church” concept is not some aberration of Judaism as non-MJs frequently maintain. I would love some clarification as to how the idea of the Church evolved in the new Testament, according to your perspective as Messianic Jews.
*
*
*
Full Version:
----------
I am aware that the term "Son of Israel" is used numerous times and that this type of epithet is applied towards other groups of people (e.g., “Sons of Moab”). It can does usually represent an ethnic identifier. However, it doesn't have this sense in nearly all of the cases in which it appears in the Old Testament. Why? Because the term Israelite doesn’t appear practically ever, whereas as ethnic terms such as Moabite, Ammonite, Egyptian, and Midianite, appear frequently. The lack of correspondence between the ethnic term Israelite and ancestral the term "Sons of Israel" is not possible to dismiss as an accident or coincidence. This contradiction is not only incredibly obvious but it is also incredibly deliberate. Notice, furthermore, that when an ethnic or even linguistic descriptor is applied to the Israelites it is the term "Hebrew". Even this is rare, it happens I believe around 10 times in total and almost all in the same passages. Don’t you think it's strange that the Old Testament uses this word instead of Israelite, which is the obvious choice? The wording is bizarre, actually, except when viewed as intentional. The only reasonable explanation is that the Old Testament is de-emphasizing ethnic identity and emphasizing ancestral lineage from Israel. This is in perfect accordance with the primary theological themes running through the texts.
To summarize my argument:
1. It is evident from the Old Testament that there is an assembly of God which is determined firstly by ancestral descent from the patriarch Israel. Secondly, males (at the least) may join the assembly through circumcision. Third, people who are not part of the assembly but who live within it are expected to follow its religious laws (at least primarily). Fourth, a member of the assembly can be cut off (excommunicated) if they do not follow the law or are not circumcised. Fifth, it is stated that should the assembly ever break the covenant with God it will either be physically dispersed or even destroyed.
Therefore, there is a congregation of worshipers whose existence is organized around the worship of God, and whose entire purpose is to fulfill its divine mission. The central factor in belonging to this assembly is lineal descent through the male line from the patriarch Israel, no matter how faint or far removed.
2. The Old Testament almost never uses the term Israelite when we would expect it to appear frequently. We expect it because other groups of people such as the Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and Egyptians are often called by the equivalent terms to Israelite. When the Israelites are referred to with an obvious ethnic descriptor, only a dozen times maybe, the term used is almost always Hebrew(s). This is strange because they are not ever referred to as the "Sons of the Hebrews", but are referred to as the "Sons of Israel". So if anything you would expect the term Israelite to appear and not the term Hebrew.
Therefore, identity as Israelite or Hebrew on secular grounds is next to irrelevant in the Old Testament, and there is no "ethnic" community that is central.
So, I come to the following conclusions:
Regarding the people of the Old Testament primarily as an ethnic group or national group named the Israelites, rather than as a church, is totally unwarranted. The primary descriptors that should be applied to this group are "Children of Israel", "People of Israel", "Israel", "Assembly of God" or "Congregation of God". The group in question represents a religious assembly or congregation defined principally by descent from the Patriarch Israel. That is, a person who can trace their lineage, no matter how far removed, back to Israel, is a born member of the congregation. The term Israelite can only be understood properly as meaning a born or adopted member of this assembly or congregation.