lost tribe

[Joleneakamama]

This passage isn’t talking about Judah and Israel but rather Jews and Christians.

Well, YHWH said He was going to make the new covenant with both houses of Israel. These are the two sticks of Ezekiel. The dry bones were the ten tribes that had been cut off. Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Paul applied the prophesies to and about Israel in Hosea to the gentiles. Those same gentiles that were converting in mass because they were sheep....of a different fold. Jesus said there was going to be ONE FOLD and one shepherd. What scriptures really support a 2000 year division?

 

[PeteR]

I

Well, YHWH said He was going to make the new covenant with both houses of Israel. These are the two sticks of Ezekiel. The dry bones were the ten tribes that had been cut off. Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Paul applied the prophesies to and about Israel in Hosea to the gentiles. Those same gentiles that were converting in mass because they were sheep....of a different fold. Jesus said there was going to be ONE FOLD and one shepherd. What scriptures really support a 2000 year division?

Is the new covenant fulfilled? Multiple verses support a 2730 year division... I could point you to a book detailing the saga....

 

[FollowingHim]

If this reconciliation and rejoining is future, how do you explain this?

Eph. 2:14
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

This passage isn’t talking about Judah and Israel but rather Jews and Christians.

I don't think that can be talking about Jews and Christians. There were no Christians separate to the Jews to be reconciled to them - the first Christians were Jews. Following @IshChayil's clarification above, I think we need to be very careful to separate religion from ethnicity when looking at this also.

Were religious Christians reconciled with religious Jews? Not at all, much of of the New Testament is a call for people to come out of Judaism and follow Messiah. There is no religious reconciliation in scripture at all, that would undermine the entire message. The first such "reconciliation" I can think of is modern Christian Zionism.
Were ethnic Christians reconciled with ethnic Jews? No, there is no such thing as an ethnic Christian.
These are not two parties to be reconciled.

Rather, the two parties discussed in Ephesians 2 must be Jew and Gentile, within the church. Jewish (ethnic) followers of Yeshua, and Gentile (ethnic) followers of Yeshua. Nothing else makes sense of that passage.

Whether "gentile" is a reference to those from the Northern Tribes, making this a prophetic fulfilment of the two houses of Israel being united is of course a much deeper and separate question, which I am not offering an opinion on. I'm just saying that this MUST be referring to ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles within the church, not Jews and Christians.

This strongly reminds me of New Zealand politics. NZ was founded largely by a treaty in 1840 between indigenous Maori tribes and the British Crown. The union of Maori and British became the country of New Zealand, which represents and includes both. However, in recent years, political factions have reinterpreted this and generally try to make it seem like the treaty was between the New Zealand government and Maori, turning the NZ government into a party to the treaty rather than the unified body formed as a result of the treaty - and this misinterpretation has now become the basis for government decisionmaking. That misinterpretation completely twists our history and perpetuates racial divisions in our politics right up to the present day, which is extremely damaging. And it all comes back to misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) who the two parties were whose "middle wall of separation" was broken down.

This is important to get correct.
If Jewish and Gentile belivers have had their "middle wall of separation" broken down, we are one in unity regardless of ethnicity - but separate from religious Jews.
If religious Jews and religious Christians need to have that "middle wall of separation" broken down, that has enormous theological ramifications and undermines the very core of Christianity - the fact that Yeshua is the Messiah and the only way to salvation.

 

[FollowingHim]

To clarify, if that wasn't quite clear enough:

In New Zealand, uniting Maori and British formed a new entity, New Zealand. There is no division, we are now one people, and both Maori and former British peoples are represented in and by the New Zealand government.
But if this is misunderstood as the New Zealand government (which did not exist at the time) uniting with the Maori in a partnership, then the New Zealand government does not represent Maori and has to continually work with Maori tribes in order to fulfil the original treaty. There is no longer a united country, but a perpetual uneasy relationship between disunited peoples. Striving towards a new "unity", but a unity that will never come because the true unity has been rejected.

In God's Kingdom, uniting Jewish and Gentile believers formed a new entity, the Church (the Assembly of believers, the earthly Kingdom of God). There is no division, we are now one people, and both Jew and Gentile are represented in and by the Church.
But if this is misunderstood as the Church (which did not fully exist either before it had been formed through this unity) uniting with the Jews in a partnership, then the Church does not represent Jews and has to continually work with Jewish organisations in order to fulfil that promised unification. There is no longer a united Body of Christ, but a perpetual uneasy relationship between disunited peoples. Striving towards a new "unity", that is hoped for in the future but may be a misplaced hope if we are rejecting the true unity God was intending.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil, thankyou for answering my question. This does get complex! ...

I think members of any group often find the rules of who is a member and who is not by others confusing.
I had countless discussions with Russians who thought "American" is a race.
Christians for example will often claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians, or Eastern Orthodox are not Christians yet those are 2 of the oldest and largest sects of Christianity and some could argue that without them there would not be other CHristian sects today.
Or when Muslims will accuse Christians of various things often Christians wills say "those were not real christians" and so the Muslims are confused. Navigating who is a "real Christian" is very confusing for Muslims and Jews I have found when trying to defend Christianity and Christians from various atrocities done by "Christian Nations" (i.e. where the dominant religion is Christianity); invariably "they weren't real Christians" comes out in such discussions. Very confusing for Jews and Muslims to try to understand so it's perfectly normal if the Jewish understanding of who is in that club is confusing to you too brother!

To simplify:
For Jewishness it's actually pretty simple: mom is a Jew or father is a Jew depending on the sect since there are not many converts. Maybe I should have just written that; I often tend to give too much information when someone asks something (the teacher in me). This covers most cases (excluding conversions). These are merely religious attempts to classify who is a member of the team and may be wrong. I personally have long suspected that anyone drawn heavily to the Torah must have some Jewish ancestry they are unaware of; (like you mentioned the Arabs who identify as Palestinians with similar ancestry).

The tribe is always through the father though, so someone who's mother is what we call kol yisrael (some other tribe, presumably Judah but not tracked any more if not special like Leviy), and the father is Leviy, then the child is Leviy. The mother thing is not about tribe, it's about religion. In reality very few orthodox don'thave both parents as jews and very few convert; especially since the Rabbi is required to turn converts away (if they are already monotheists).
The only time the tribe goes through the mother is if the father is not Jewish; presumably this is why Yeshua's lineage through Miriam to Judah is also given, in case the lineage of Yoseph as an adopted father should be rejected.

 

[IshChayil]

Oh I just saw your new post sam I think what @The Revolting Man means is Jewish believers and non-Jewish believers (i.e. Hebrews and non-Hebrews to use the Russian parlance). This would meld well with your New Zealand example. There is a new kind of citizen in Israel and it includes those who were not of the seed of Abraham but converted to join.
This does not imply in any way that they are from the tribe of Ephraim or any other tribe; but that they are rather like immigrants to a new country (once separate from the politea of Israel, and the convenants, and the promises, but now brought near...)
No longer a need for a 1-3 year study / conversion; instead the conversion is immediate, then the study begins for the strong graft to take place as a citizen of spiritual Israel.

*** edit *** I just realized we are in the messianic section so I can say this, haha
I would not call this the "church" I would call this 'Israel'
Those born gentile but accepting of the messiah were *supposed* to join Israel.
You are certainly right that "the church" is what has happened though so that the opposite has prevailed. instead of grafting in to the cultivated olive tree, the wild olive tree did it's own thing and if a native wanted to join that native needs to be grafted in. It's an inversion of Paul's teachings. the word church is even alien to the Greek which uses instead a word which maps through the LXX to the "assembly of Israel" indicating the ideal of those coming from pagan nations to assimilate to the culture of the kingdom, not vice versa.

 

[Pacman]

In God's Kingdom, uniting Jewish and Gentile believers formed a new entity, the Church

This is a case of mistaken identity. "the church" in the NT is the assembly of Israel in the Tanakh there was no new group formed that's how they act but they aren't supposed to.

I would not call this the "church" I would call this 'Israel'
Those born gentile but accepting of the messiah were *supposed* to join Israel.
You are certainly right that "the church" is what has happened though so that the opposite has prevailed. instead of grafting in to the cultivated olive tree, the wild olive tree did it's own thing and if a native wanted to join that native needs to be grafted in. It's an inversion of Paul's teachings. the word church is even alien to the Greek which uses instead a word which maps through the LXX to the "assembly of Israel" indicating the ideal of those coming from pagan nations to assimilate to the culture of the kingdom, not vice versa.

Spot on thank you sir.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Those born gentile but accepting of the messiah were *supposed* to join Israel.
You are certainly right that "the church" is what has happened though so that the opposite has prevailed. instead of grafting in to the cultivated olive tree, the wild olive tree did it's own thing and if a native wanted to join that native needs to be grafted in. It's an inversion of Paul's teachings. the word church is even alien to the Greek which uses instead a word which maps through the LXX to the "assembly of Israel" indicating the ideal of those coming from pagan nations to assimilate to the culture of the kingdom, not vice versa.

Those believing in Messiah are gathered to Him. Thia is what Jacob/Israel prophesied would happen when Shiloh came. Getting "grafted in" to those that rejected Him and remained in the synagogues would not make sense at all.

Ecclesia means "the called out" and they were called out (and put out) of the synagogues, and called out of the nations too. Those nations that the ten tribes were dispersed into. Yeshua said He is the true vine and those who abide in Him bear fruit.

 

[steve]

I would not call this the "church" I would call this 'Israel'
Those born gentile but accepting of the messiah were *supposed* to join Israel.

I agree.
The “Church” was already a perversion by the time that Constantine organized it.

I am going to regret entering this fray.

 

[FollowingHim]

I would not call this the "church" I would call this 'Israel'
Those born gentile but accepting of the messiah were *supposed* to join Israel.

This is a case of mistaken identity. "the church" in the NT is the assembly of Israel in the Tanakh there was no new group formed that's how they act but they aren't supposed to.

I agree. When I use Church with a capital C, I always refer to the true Assembly, the Body of Christ, the true Israel of God, the Kingdom of God. There is only one people. Pre-Christ this was obviously and simply the nation of Israel (with people able to convert and join as we see many did). Post-Christ it is still the same, those who follow Messiah are grafted in and those who reject Him are grafted out and are no longer in the Kingdom. It's all one and the same body with many names.

 

[IshChayil]

Those believing in Messiah are gathered to Him. Thia is what Jacob/Israel prophesied would happen when Shiloh came. Getting "grafted in" to those that rejected Him and remained in the synagogues would not make sense at all.

Ecclesia means "the called out" and they were called out (and put out) of the synagogues, and called out of the nations too. Those nations that the ten tribes were dispersed into. Yeshua said He is the true vine and those who abide in Him bear fruit.

Actually they kept meeting in the synagogues and in homes as witnessed in the Apostolic writings; some like the Bereans actually had the entire synagogue come to agreement with the B'sorah. Heck Paul even participates in vow taking at the temple with several Messianic believers to prove he was still apostate and had not fallen away.

On Ekklesia the etymology of the word is an attempt to mimic the underlying hebrew; Greek Ekklesia comes from kaleo "to call" mapping to the Hebrew qra' "to call, summon, happen" which is the root of miqra-qodesh "a holy happening/meeting."
Ekklesia also maps to Qehal Yisrael in the Septuagint, "the congregation of Israel" which is what I was getting at.
To just focus on the Greek here is a bit 2D and misses what's really happening under the hood, though even the Greek is not translated "called out ones" in the great lexicons:

1- regularly summoned legislative body, assembly
2-a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering
3-people with shared belief, community, congregation
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

We can't just take a root of a noun and re-extrapolate meanings from that root; John Wilson may have done this regularly in trying to turn coincidences into linguistic axioms; but this is not how language works.

 

[IshChayil]

So for anyone wondering, the way to say "called out ones" in Greek is not ekklesia;
"called out ones" is kekleymenoi

Καὶ λέγει μοι· Γράψον· Μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου τοῦ ἀρνίου κεκλημένοι. καὶ λέγει μοι· Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσιν. -Revelation 19:9
"Then he said to me, 'write אשרי ashrei [blessed,happy] are those who to the wedding feast of the lamb are invited.'" Then He said to me, "these are true words of האלוהים ha-elohiym [the God]. Revelation 19:9

 

[Joleneakamama]

Actually they kept meeting in the synagogues and in homes as witnessed in the Apostolic writings; some like the Bereans actually had the entire synagogue come to agreement with the B'sorah. Heck Paul even participates in vow taking at the temple with several Messianic believers to prove he was still apostate and had not fallen away.

Exceptions do not a rule make. Had they all continued the words of Yeshua would have been pointless rather then prophetic when He told them in John 16 they WILL put you out of the synagogues.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Here is Mathew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 19But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

21And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

23But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

24The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

Who was the they?? Mathew 12:24
“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.”

I choose to believe the prophetic words of Yeshua who painted a very different picture from.

Those born gentile but accepting of the messiah were *supposed* to join Israel.
You are certainly right that "the church" is what has happened though so that the opposite has prevailed. instead of grafting in to the cultivated olive tree, the wild olive tree did it's own thing and if a native wanted to join that native needs to be grafted in. It's an inversion of Paul's teachings.

The church is both groups Jew (Judahites) and Gentiles (those coming to faith in those CITIES OF ISRAEL populated by those with the birthright....prophesied to become a multitude of nations) and they are gathered to Shiloh as they should be.

 

[FollowingHim]

Ecclesia means "the called out" and they were called out (and put out) of the synagogues, and called out of the nations too.

Ekklesia also maps to Qehal Yisrael in the Septuagint, "the congregation of Israel" which is what I was getting at.
To just focus on the Greek here is a bit 2D

I agree entirely with @IshChayil's point, however, to focus on that alone would also be to miss part of the issue. I think that the whole "3D" picture is that the word signifies both being "called-out", and being God's people. There is no argument between these definitions.
God's people are always "called-out". Noah was called out of a sinful world. Abraham was called out of Ur. Israel was called out of Egypt. And so forth. God's people are the "called-out" ones - and the congregation of Israel.

Regarding the synagogues and the temple, I think it is important to remember that the temple was established in scripture - but the synagogues were not. The synagogues, in my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) were established by the sect of the Pharisees as a meeting place for Jews in the towns, and this was a new thing. It was a source of considerable power struggle between the Pharisees who ran the synagogues and the Saduccees who ran the temple - meaning they were not a universal meeting place of all Jews, but rather the meeting place of one sect (although a very dominant sect). They do not represent God's established people or system. They are not a scriptural thing, but a practical / tradition thing. And as such, I have no problem with "called-out" being interpreted, in part, as being called out of the synagogues (though it has a much broader meaning actually - being "called-out" of everywhere to follow God, and 'everywhere' just happens to include synagogues).

The prophecies of Jesus were that the followers of Him would be "put out of the synagogues" - and this happened, except where the majority of the congregation converted and the synagogue "became a church" (to keep the terminology simple @IshChayil). They always went to the synagogues first when preaching, because it is logical to start at the place where you'll find a load of people who are likely to be receptive to your message and already trying to follow God, but were never told to join the synagogues. But at the same time, they continued to attend the Temple until it was destroyed, as we see with Paul's example - the Temple being an entirely different entity to the synagogues, being established in scripture.

 

[MeganC]

Just want to say I'm really enjoying this topic! All the comments are challenging me to study the Word more intensely!

 

[IshChayil]

I agree entirely with @IshChayil's point

This actually does happen sometimes; it's a beautiful thing to behold Sam

... however, to focus on that alone would also be to miss part of the issue. I think that the whole "3D" picture is that the word signifies both being "called-out", and being God's people. There is no argument between these definitions. God's people are always "called-out". Noah was called out of a sinful world. Abraham was called out of Ur. Israel was called out of Egypt. And so forth. God's people are the "called-out" ones - and the congregation of Israel.

It's fine to talk about people having missions in life, being called out from pagan nations or whatever; the point I was making is that this is not what the word ekklesia means. It definitively does not mean "called out ones" and to take it further to say "some are called out of Israel," as someone else had posted (sorry for the paraphrase) etc. is building a theology on a linguistics of sand.
None of the believers who were Jews were called out from Israel. Israel was not a pagan nation as the other nations were (like the land of Ur in your example). The tree which is Israel may be pruned, but believers in the Messiah who came/come from Israel are not called out of Israel; they remain in their tree, in the solid trunk. Others may be pruned out of it, and those born Gentile can be grafted in to the trunk (i.e. convert, study the word etc. to make a strong graft). Then they are as immigrants who have obtained their rightful place in the kingdom of Israel (I don't mean the secular nation only).

The prophecies of Jesus were that the followers of Him would be "put out of the synagogues" - and this happened, except where the majority of the congregation converted and the synagogue "became a church" (to keep the terminology simple @IshChayil).

No a synagogue did not become a church when they all accepted the Messiah; it remained a synagogue.
church is a totally alien word. It's funny how some English translations will translate the Greek synagogey "church" when it's positive like a body of believers and translate the identical word synagogue when something bad is going on there "i.e. the synagogue of Satan."
A synagogue is just a gathering, Greek synagao means "I gather together."
There is no "church," there is the qehal-Yisrael which many many ethnoi (ethnics as Paul calls them) have joined.
Ekkleisia in all likelihood expressed the idea of a sub-group within the synagogue community.
See this photo I took from a footnote in mark Nanos, "The Irony of Galatians-Paul' Letter In First-Century Context" (p.73), Fortress Press


Jews were not called out of the Jewish community; the ekkleisia was/is the Jewish community; there just happen to be MANY immigrants now Hope you at least found this interesting guys.

 

[steve]

It's fine to talk about people having missions in life, being called out from pagan nations or whatever; the point I was making is that this is not what the word ekklesia means. It definitively does not mean "called out ones" and to take it further to say "some are called out of Israel," as someone else had posted (sorry for the paraphrase) etc. is building a theology on a linguistics of sand.
None of the believers who were Jews were called out from Israel. Israel was not a pagan nation as the other nations were (like the land of Ur in your example). The tree which is Israel may be pruned, but believers in the Messiah who came/come from Israel are not called out of Israel; they remain in their tree, in the solid trunk. Others may be pruned out of it, and those born Gentile can be grafted in to the trunk (i.e. convert, study the word etc. to make a strong graft). Then they are as immigrants who have obtained their rightful place in the kingdom of Israel (I don't mean the secular nation only).


No a synagogue did not become a church when they all accepted the Messiah; it remained a synagogue.
church is a totally alien word. It's funny how some English translations will translate the Greek synagogey "church" when it's positive like a body of believers and translate the identical word synagogue when something bad is going on there "i.e. the synagogue of Satan."
A synagogue is just a gathering, Greek synagao means "I gather together."
There is no "church," there is the qehal-Yisrael which many many ethnoi (ethnics as Paul calls them) have joined.
Ekkleisia in all likelihood expressed the idea of a sub-group within the synagogue community.
See this photo I took from a footnote in mark Nanos, "The Irony of Galatians-Paul' Letter In First-Century Context" (p.73), Fortress Press
View attachment 1903

Jews were not called out of the Jewish community; the ekkleisia was/is the Jewish community; there just happen to be MANY immigrants now Hope you at least found this interesting guys.

I ran across a teaching some time back that the ekkleisia was the ones called out of the local congregation for local leadership. Thus the letters to the local leaders.
Is that a possibility?

 

[FollowingHim]

No a synagogue did not become a church

As I stated clearly, I knew you would disagree with that terminology, but I was summarising and everyone knows what I meant. I could add several paragraphs of exposition of your objection to the terminology in order to demonstrate that we're ultimately saying the same thing with different words, but I don't think that would be worth either of our time!

 

[IshChayil]

I ran across a teaching some time back that the ekkleisia was the ones called out of the local congregation for local leadership. Thus the letters to the local leaders.
Is that a possibility?

Well I'm still pushing back on the "called out" because the word doesn't mean that. The other word I shared a couple posts up means "called out." If you want to say that the ekklesia to whom Paul was writing letters to were in some instances a sub-group of the existing synagogue system (as explained by Nanos above) and that sub-group happened to be those in more leadership roles well I think that could make some sense.

As I stated clearly, I knew you would disagree with that terminology, but I was summarising and everyone knows what I meant. I could add several paragraphs of exposition of your objection to the terminology in order to demonstrate that we're ultimately saying the same thing with different words, but I don't think that would be worth either of our time!

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about my disagreement. It's true, the ludicrous wholly invented word unrelated to scripture "church" has only caused to confuse people about who and what Isreal is; but my second response wasn't so much picking on you about that; the nuance I was trying (and perhaps failing) to nail down was that the ekklesia was not a new thing. It was the synagogue system further refined (sub-group as Nanos and the scholars he quotes puts it). Jews were not leaving the synagogue system, born Gentiles were coming in and beginning their process of grafting, learning the Israeli / Kingdom culture and changing their Gentile ways to conform to the culture of the Kingdom.
My pushback on your continual use of the word church is only due to the confusion that word brings with it and all of its historical traditions. There is no church. There is the congregation of Israel as it has been for thousands of years. Yes, those who hear the basorah in a correct way in an "Israelite" or Jewish context (not a Romanized version Jesus, church, christmas trees, Easter, Sunday worship etc.) then those may be cut off from the community. The community, nevertheless, remains an Israeli thing. I only write may since there are also verses from Paul explaining that G-d Himself keeps many Jews blind so that more ethnoi can enter in to Israel. The only difference with the ekklesia now, is we now have immigrants into the kingdom than we used to. Messianic Jews have not left the kehal/synagogey, they stay put and should help those born as ethnoi (Gentiles) to learn how to follow the rules of the kingdom as laid down by our judges since Moses until now. Once a person who was born an ethnos is proficient in Torah he is equal in authority in the kingdom to a "native" and his own children have the title ezrach "native," hence there is torah achat (one Law/Teaching) for the native and the grafted-in alike. The problem is most ethnoi never complete their graft.

Please note sometimes I respond to something you or someone else writes and I am not wholly disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to illuminate the nuanced difference or just piggy back an idea. The flow seems better to respond to a certain poster to extend that conversation than to just make a fresh post.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about my disagreement. It's true, the ludicrous wholly invented word unrelated to scripture "church" has only caused to confuse people about who and what Isreal is; but my second response wasn't so much picking on you about that; the nuance I was trying (and perhaps failing) to nail down was that the ekklesia was not a new thing. It was the synagogue system further refined (sub-group as Nanos and the scholars he quotes puts it). Jews were not leaving the synagogue system, born Gentiles were coming in and beginning their process of grafting, learning the Israeli / Kingdom culture and changing their Gentile ways to conform to the culture of the Kingdom.

The term "church" does confuse, and mostly because people wrongly assume that the gentiles, because Paul contrasts them to Jews, were not Israelites. People then see "the church" as another thing/group and again wrongly assume that those who rejected Jesus and stayed in the synagogues were Israelites. What a mess!
No Ish, the ecclesia was NOT a refined synagogue system. One was run by pharisees and had people in positions of authority. Jesus said His ecclesia would be built on the knowlege that He is the Messiah. That is not a 'modified synagogue' it is the new Jerusalem, made up of believers from all tribes and strangers, built on THE ROCK of faith in Yeshua Messiah not on those traditions of the elders that Jesus said made the law of God of no effect.

I don't think that can be talking about Jews and Christians. There were no Christians separate to the Jews to be reconciled to them - the first Christians were Jews.

I have never seen someone get so close....and not see the whole thing.

Rather, the two parties discussed in Ephesians 2 must be Jew and Gentile, within the church. Jewish (ethnic) followers of Yeshua, and Gentile (ethnic) followers of Yeshua. Nothing else makes sense of that passage.

Whether "gentile" is a reference to those from the Northern Tribes, making this a prophetic fulfilment of the two houses of Israel being united is of course a much deeper and separate question, which I am not offering an opinion on. I'm just saying that this MUST be referring to ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles within the church, not Jews and Christians.

People are looking for lost tribes today because they missed that just like Isaiah prophesied (54:1) more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife , saith YHWH.
Those ten tribes cast into the nations intermarried and multiplied Israelites faster then the Jews. There were TEN tribes out there and only 2+ that went to Babylon.

Either those gentiles were Israelites, or Paul misapplied Hosea to them in Romans 9:23-26
Jesus sent them to the lost (destroyed) sheep OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. Did they know where to go and who to take the good news to? I say they did.
There is so much that supports and confirms that. It is like when someone finally accepts polygyny. Once you see it, the scriptures are full of it!

And as we also know from those that reject polygyny, there are none so blind as those who will not see.