|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Jul 26, 2007 17:04:06 GMT -8
Anyone want to go first on this one?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 30, 2007 4:04:00 GMT -8
This is a difficult question to answer because it really depends upon who you ask. In answering, one should be sensitive to both the religious and cultural understanding of others. Since I usually wear a kippot and tallit katan, I am often asked the question. I typically answer that I am one who has alleigned himself with Israel.
Yet, sometimes when I'm feeling a bit aggressive, and my audience smuggly considers himself Christian, I might answer, "Aren't you?" and quote Romans 2:28-29.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Even among ethnic Israeli Jews there is a broad standard of acceptance or exclusion. One common saying goes, "If Hitler would've killed you, you're a Jew." Legally, for Israeli citizenship, documentation is required proving ethnicity within three generations from the mother's side. Strict levels of orthodoxy require both father and mother to be varifiably both ethnic and practicing Jews. Most suggest that any acceptance of or even consideration of Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah, that the Messiah has already come, that the Messiah is any manifestation of deity, is immediate rejection of any consideration as being a Jew (Jews don't believe in Jesus- the two concepts are considered mutually exclusive).
So what makes a person Jewish? If you consider the ancient pictology that attributes to each Hebrew letter a specific word picture, thus making each word a descriptive accrostic, the word Jew: yod-hey-yod-dalet-yod (Yehudah, transliterated as Jew) makes the following image:
a work (yod) that reveals (hey) a work (yod) the pathway of or to a work (yod).
In Exodus 19:6, the Jewish people are defined by Adonai as a kingdom of priests. Those who bridge the gap between the world and mankind. Peter attributes this same definition to the believers in the gentile churches in 1st Peter 2:5-9.
A Jew is one who is demonstrating by his or her life the pathway to God.
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jul 30, 2007 4:36:32 GMT -8
Well, in modern times, "Jew" has two meanings. Someone following the religion of Judaism (whose precise definition is hotly debated), and someone who is descended from Jews. Many of the latter group aren't Jewish at all. Many of the Ashkenazi Jews are actually descended from Jewish converts, interestingly enough. Some of these "Jews" are actually just Russians. Sha'ul HaTalmid said "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but who is one inwardly." So, apparently, Sha'ul interpreted the term as the former. He used to to refer to someone who followed the religion of Judaism. Now, as to what Judaism is, I go by a simple definition. Let's break down the word. Juda ism. It is basically that which is of Judah. It is the religion practiced by the tribe of Judah. This requires a broader definition than Rabbinic Judaism likes. It can refer to Rabbinic Judaism, to Karaitic Judaism, to "Messianic" Judaism, or any other sect that is closely related to the tribe of Judah. I would not call the Samaritans a Jewish sect, because they originate with other tribes. I would not call Christianity a sect of Judaism because, though its origins were Jewish, it split off and rejected the people and principles of Judaism.
Shalom, Nachshon
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 30, 2007 13:40:27 GMT -8
I think we need to be very careful about how we use the Romans verses as it relates to this subject. I think there is increasingly a blur in the distinction between those born Jewish and not born Jewish in the movement. One must not elevate Jewishness, but elevate Messiah.
When you consider that HaShem supernaturally cut off and blinded his own chosen people in order to reconcile the nations to Himself, there is no greater elevation for those not born Jewish than this.
When one considers that Shaul was speaking to Jews in the context of those verses, one should not do what they accuse Christians of doing, which is to rip verses out of their proper context.
Shaul was not using those verses to say that those who were not born Jews now became Jews because they were inwardly acting as Jews. He was in fact saying that those who were Jews who only acted outwardly as Jews, were in fact not true Jews.
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jul 30, 2007 13:57:54 GMT -8
And in Galations when Talmid Sha'ul states that those who are of the faith are b'ney avraham? I simply think that, as a rule, when the "NT" refers to Jews, it is refering to those who follow the religion called Judaism, of which Ribi Yehoshu'a lead a sect.
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 30, 2007 18:34:04 GMT -8
One can of course make an argument for both sides, however, I was just commenting on the use of the Romans verses, and made no allusion to anything else.
Do you disagree with my assessment of the Romans verses?
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Jul 31, 2007 2:12:25 GMT -8
I am starting to get the impression that even in the "New Testament", the word "Jew" has different meanings depending on who is talking and what the context is.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 31, 2007 3:32:16 GMT -8
Yitzhak,
I understand what you are saying; and yes, the verse is often misapplied to suggest something substitutiary, particularly when it is mixed with a few other choice Scriptures in a sort of a Catholic Stew.
In any other religion there is a clear distinction between ethnicity and faith. You can have Muslims, Mormons, Baptists and Catholics that are associated with any country in the world. Only Judaism is singularly identified with a specific plot of land and geneological heritage.
The thing that messes this up, though, is the grace of Adonai.
In Romans 1:16 we are told that the gospel is given to everyone who believes: to the Jew first; but also to the Greek. This has been grossly interpretted by the Greek Church as an ordianl statement: to the Jew initially; but now to the Greek. However, the participle that determines the definition of the word "first" is the word "also". The Gospel is given to the Jew PRIMARILY; but also to the Greek.
Adonai is the God of the Jews: He is their Father. They have total right of inheritance to His kingdom and all that He possesses. Some of them have been blinded by the curiosity of the world outside. They abandoned their fortune in heaven and instead, took all of their piggy banks to the carnival. When the children left, Adonai left the door open for them to return anytime they might desire. Yet, I was passing by looking through garbage cans when I saw how warm and clean it was in there. When I peeked inside, he offered me a place at his table, a new suit of clothes and a clean bed to sleep in. He adopted me as one of his sons. This does not devalue his own children. It doesn't even make me something that I'm not. Yet, His grace allows me equal inheritance to His kingdom, not because of who or what I am (or was); but because of who He is.
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 31, 2007 4:23:59 GMT -8
Mark,
Of course you know that explanation was not necessary, but I do appreciate it for the others that read our forums.
I have become deeply concerned as of late regarding the as I have previously noted, the blur in distinction of callings between those born Jewish and those not. While, of course I realize the adoption, and the drawing near through the blood, which makes Gentiles both heirs and fellow citizens, there are still distinct callings in my reading of the scriptures.
AS the "church" has been the assailant of this distinct calling for so long, it really is our responsibility in Messianic Judaism to safeguard this, whether Jew or grafted in. Otherwise there is the potential for a very subtle replacement taking place. Not intentional of course.
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 11:09:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 11:16:11 GMT -8
The other school of thought is: that Gentile Christian believers are "grafted in" and are therefore automatically become part of Israel (that does not make them "Jews" but rather "Israelites"). Moshe brought a lot of "foreigners" out of Eygpt along with the Jews, and YHWH told them that they were to worship Him EXACTLY the same way as He had commanded the Jews - which shows that YHWH had no qualms about accepting non-Jews: Numbers 15: 13 "'Everyone who is native-born must do these things in this way when he brings an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do. 15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD: 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.'" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob they fall under the exact same covenant. YHWH made His "New Covenant" with the Houses of Israel and Judah; no one else! (Jeremiah 31:32) He gave a new covenant, not a new in which Gentiles believers can claim they're under some different law. He did not make a "new covenant" with the Gentiles because He did not have an "old covenant" with the Gentiles. He did, however, extend His grace and mercy to the Gentiles who, once they become believers in Yeshua, automatically become part of "Israel"! And God told Israel: "I give you good instruction: Do not forsake my " (Proverbs 4:2). As far as Acts 15: Often, people try to use Acts 15 to show that Christians have a different calling from Jews. While this is true to a certain extent, we've seen that it's not only the Jewish people, but all Israel (anyone who chooses the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are to remain a distinct people. Those who choose to be grafted in to the Olive Tree, thus becoming "one in Messiah," cannot go against God's original teachings. The Tanach shows over and over that, in Biblical times, if a Gentile joined him or herself to Israel, they were required to give up their old, pagan ways. The Bible states that there is one for Israel and the Gentile who dwells with her. God specifically said: Exodus 12: 49 "The same teaching is to apply equally to the citizen and to the foreigner living among you." Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 11:23:51 GMT -8
This is a post on the first camp from someone on another boards:
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 31, 2007 11:29:09 GMT -8
Marc, Thanks, I am familiar with both of these articles, and the two perspectives. I am all for believers attaching themselves, and sojourning with Israel. There are many today who have what I like to cal the "heart of Ruth", and thus they feel led to maintain a Jewish lifestyle according to . I think this is wonderful. As members of the commonwealth, they are brought near by the blood of Messiah to the covenants and promises, and have been made fellow citizens. However, we have a large group of believers who do not have this heart. We pray that the L-rd will touch them, and they will also have this desire. These people should not be forced to follow and observe before they have been moved by the Spirit. They should also know that one does not become a Jew by taking on this lifestyle and calling. I think it is a much greater witness that those who were born non Jewish have chosen to acknowledge that the is valid, and they have taken it upon themselves to worship HaShem in this way, without claiming that they are now Jews. I know someone who has been in Messianic leadership for close to 25 years. You would not be able to tell that he is not Jewish, both in his teaching and lifestyle. However, he has never maintained that he is Jewish these 25 years. He has decided recently that he would like to convert. This is of course a personal decision, as he more closely identifies with the Jewish people after 25 years, then he does with any other group, obviously. I am not suggesting that anyone should convert, but giving an example of an individual who has maintained a observant lifestyle for 25 years, but still refers to himself as a Messianic Gentile. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 11:58:00 GMT -8
Yitzchak, I completely understand what you are saying. I'm also looking at it from another angle. is not necessary for salvation, correct? Now let's look at from a 1st century perspective to see how it applies today. There is the command of a circ male must eat the passover and an uncirc must not eat it. Now from the looks of scripture although the uncirc male is living among Israel he must not eat it. Now what did that mean in the 1st century gentile believers? The uncirc as Paul addresses. Because of Yeshua are Gentiles now(in the present tense of the 1st century) able to eat the Passover? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jul 31, 2007 12:10:17 GMT -8
One can of course make an argument for both sides, however, I was just commenting on the use of the Romans verses, and made no allusion to anything else. Do you disagree with my assessment of the Romans verses? Shalom, Yitzchak I do certainly agree with your asessment of Romans.
|
|