You're confusing a spiritual state with a physical one. Your proof texts are about spiritual sons of God. They do not disown physical children from their physical fathers.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Theological perspective, Jew & Gentile
- Thread starter Sonny Chancelor
- Start date
I'm not really sure what you mean here.
The biggest problem I see with people spiritualizing scripture, is the tendency to label the church 'spiritual Israel' because they are all 'gentiles' and separate these physical descendants from their physical fathers.
Jer 31:31 says the new covenant was with both houses, Israel and Judah. Jesus sent His disciples to the lost sheep, and even told them that they would not have gone over all the cities of Israel before He came again. (Mt 10:23) This is because scattering them, as God did, made huge numbers of Israelites (descendants) in the countries they were in. This is prophesied too in Gen 48:19 where Jacob stated that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of nations.
These people were divorced from YHWH and could no longer be called Israel, but could never be anything but descendants of Jacob/Israel.
Hosea 1:10 says plainly that these Israelites would, in the future, be called the sons of the living God.
At some point the future becomes the past. (That baby grows up *grin*) We believe this prophesy was fulfilled by Israelites who were called gentiles, who believed and followed Jesus.
P.S. there are many references supporting this. I'm trying to keep the post short.
The biggest problem I see with people spiritualizing scripture, is the tendency to label the church 'spiritual Israel' because they are all 'gentiles' and separate these physical descendants from their physical fathers.
Jer 31:31 says the new covenant was with both houses, Israel and Judah. Jesus sent His disciples to the lost sheep, and even told them that they would not have gone over all the cities of Israel before He came again. (Mt 10:23) This is because scattering them, as God did, made huge numbers of Israelites (descendants) in the countries they were in. This is prophesied too in Gen 48:19 where Jacob stated that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of nations.
These people were divorced from YHWH and could no longer be called Israel, but could never be anything but descendants of Jacob/Israel.
Hosea 1:10 says plainly that these Israelites would, in the future, be called the sons of the living God.
At some point the future becomes the past. (That baby grows up *grin*) We believe this prophesy was fulfilled by Israelites who were called gentiles, who believed and followed Jesus.
P.S. there are many references supporting this. I'm trying to keep the post short.
We're going to agree to disagree on this one.
Zec, I must point out that on this issue Jolene is providing a lot of references to support her position, and you are simply repeatedly stating that you disagree. It is not even clear whether you understand her point.
As far as I can see, Jolene is simply stating that genetic Israel, ie the people who truly are descended from the patriarch Jacob / Israel, are all known by God. Whoever they are, wherever they may be, He knows who they are. Given that He is all-knowing, I would think this would go without saying.
Additionally, non-descendents may choose to accept Yeshua and thus be grafted in. While the genetic descendents can choose to reject him and become cut off, as in the parable of the fig tree and the branches.
It has been many, many years since the Jews were exiled from Jerusalem by the Romans, and even more years since the northern kingdom of Israel was scattered to the nations. In that time many things have happened to confuse matters, such as Orthodox Judaism's move to reckoning someone's Judaism by their descent down the female line, instead of down the male line as would be biblically correct. And most people simply have no records of their genealogy back further than a century or so. There are obviously many people who do not identify as Jews who are actually genetic Israelites - while at the same time there are quite probably people who do identify as secular Jews but in error, so are not genetic descendants, nor are grafted in as they have no personal faith. And then there are the true Jews who choose to reject their Messiah. It's a mess, and we can never hope to unravel it. Only YHWH knows.
The Jews have been dedicated to preserving scripture and the commandments according to their understanding of them, and we are deeply indebted to them. None of the above in any way contradicts that. It simply recognises that the issue of descent can get messy, and is not a simple binary "this person is absolutely a Jew - this one is absolutely not".
Jolene's thesis, as I understand it, is fundamentally that "you will know them by their fruits", and so out of this confusion we can identify true Israel - ie those both descended and those grafted in, we may not know who is who but that doesn't matter at all since we are all one in Christ - by observing their faith and commitment to serving Yeshua. That has a lot of New Testament backing. How is she wrong scripturally?
As far as I can see, Jolene is simply stating that genetic Israel, ie the people who truly are descended from the patriarch Jacob / Israel, are all known by God. Whoever they are, wherever they may be, He knows who they are. Given that He is all-knowing, I would think this would go without saying.
Additionally, non-descendents may choose to accept Yeshua and thus be grafted in. While the genetic descendents can choose to reject him and become cut off, as in the parable of the fig tree and the branches.
It has been many, many years since the Jews were exiled from Jerusalem by the Romans, and even more years since the northern kingdom of Israel was scattered to the nations. In that time many things have happened to confuse matters, such as Orthodox Judaism's move to reckoning someone's Judaism by their descent down the female line, instead of down the male line as would be biblically correct. And most people simply have no records of their genealogy back further than a century or so. There are obviously many people who do not identify as Jews who are actually genetic Israelites - while at the same time there are quite probably people who do identify as secular Jews but in error, so are not genetic descendants, nor are grafted in as they have no personal faith. And then there are the true Jews who choose to reject their Messiah. It's a mess, and we can never hope to unravel it. Only YHWH knows.
The Jews have been dedicated to preserving scripture and the commandments according to their understanding of them, and we are deeply indebted to them. None of the above in any way contradicts that. It simply recognises that the issue of descent can get messy, and is not a simple binary "this person is absolutely a Jew - this one is absolutely not".
Jolene's thesis, as I understand it, is fundamentally that "you will know them by their fruits", and so out of this confusion we can identify true Israel - ie those both descended and those grafted in, we may not know who is who but that doesn't matter at all since we are all one in Christ - by observing their faith and commitment to serving Yeshua. That has a lot of New Testament backing. How is she wrong scripturally?
I've decided to not engage on this one for several reasons, one of them being is that I don't have the time to go through and reply to the depth and breadth that Jolene has gone to.
Another reason is that I don't disagree with large swaths of it and other portions are with in acceptable bounds. But I can not and will not ever agree that we have a right to sit in judgement of the Jews or to even worse claim we've supplanted them. They are God's problem and He will solve it in a way that preserves His Word and honors the special place they have in His heart.
He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. The Jews are the only vestiges of Israel we have and I will bless them. And we can judge them by their fruits. Look at a list of significant Jews, from Christopher Columbus to Isaac Newton their fruits have been huge.
So because this is an emotional issue more connected to some of our hopes to be members of Israel ourselves, and my problem is with one small part of it, I am retiring from the field.
I think it is dangerous and presumptive to try and get between God and His Chosen People. I won't do it. And to really make the point I would probably have to get a little aggressive and that never goes well anyway.
Another reason is that I don't disagree with large swaths of it and other portions are with in acceptable bounds. But I can not and will not ever agree that we have a right to sit in judgement of the Jews or to even worse claim we've supplanted them. They are God's problem and He will solve it in a way that preserves His Word and honors the special place they have in His heart.
He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. The Jews are the only vestiges of Israel we have and I will bless them. And we can judge them by their fruits. Look at a list of significant Jews, from Christopher Columbus to Isaac Newton their fruits have been huge.
So because this is an emotional issue more connected to some of our hopes to be members of Israel ourselves, and my problem is with one small part of it, I am retiring from the field.
I think it is dangerous and presumptive to try and get between God and His Chosen People. I won't do it. And to really make the point I would probably have to get a little aggressive and that never goes well anyway.
Thank you Zec and Sam and everyone who has contributed to this thread. I am greatful to see every contributors charity even while discussing such a polemic as the one signified in the title of this thread. I feel responsible as I started the thread by quoting a source that "singular-izes' the bride of Christ (ekklessia). Again thank you all for contributing your precious time and Berean bible-study of this deep subject found in our beloved bibles. + Peace + Shalom +
Maybe I am wrong in my assessment of the disagreement, but I think you are stating here the aspects that Zec and I would probably agree with. It is messy. Nobody disagrees with that!
Maybe I am wrong again, but it seems to me that what Jolene seems to be professing is that the lost genetic tribes that have been scattered, are found by virtue of having accepted Christ. The only true genetic Gentiles are non believers. If you are a believer, you are the true genetic AND spiritual Israel. In other words, your "chosen" status is by virtue of you discovering your true destiny as a lost genetic Jew brought back to the fold of God through Christ...sans free will (more Reformed overtones). The only true Christians are genetic Israelites and vice versa. We just didn't realize we were the true genetic Jews???
Am I getting it all wrong?
Mojo, the thrust of this reasoning as I understand it from more people than just Jolene, is that God's chosen people will be drawn to Him. Therefore a large proportion of them will end up being found in the church, and they will be well overrepresented there. However the church will also contain true Gentiles who have chosen to follow and become grafted in, and the unbelieving masses will contain unrepentant Israelites also. But as God has plans for the people He has chosen, there will be a trend for the genetic Israelites to end up in the church.
Hmmmmm....I can't deny scripturally what you say here. But, I don't think this is what Jolene is proclaiming. Only she can attest to her doctrine, but I am hearing otherwise. I am newer here so I don't want to upset the apple cart too much. You all have been gracious enough.
I just can't meld Israel and the church as easily as is being proposed. Maybe my biblical paradigm is so tainted by previous teaching that Jolene and I are speaking two different languages. She is probably as frustrated with us over this doctrine as many of us are frustrated with those who seem to reject the possibility of polygyny..."why can't you wrap your head around it!"
God chose his nation on earth. They will always be his nation, regardless of their belief. I can't explain why. In fits of rebellion, and disbelief, he still called out to them. His bride Gomer went a whoring, but he still took her back. There is just too much residual blessing for me to say otherwise. Business, finance, politics, science, industry, education...behind every door, you will find a Jew. That's not conspiratorial, or bigoted, it's just truth! His Son is denied, but the blessings still show up! It's just how it works. I can't explain it other than God fulfilling his promise. God cannot lie! Judgment will come to Israel. He cannot lie.
Peter and Paul had the very first Christian Council convened over this very issue. They affirmed Jew and Gentile equality in Gods eyes, through Christ, but couldn't deny the distinctions either...and neither can I.
It has been a busy week, and being a wife, secratary, and mom has not left a lot of time for writing posts.
Here I am, the sort of woman who wouldn't mind my husband marrying his secratary, and I have to BE the secratary! I don't really mind that either. He's a great guy to work for.
Samuel I think has pretty well summed up what I have been trying to say. I feel like heaving a sigh of relief, and do find it comforting. One can start to feel as though they are speaking a foreign language.
Thank you Samuel!
I understand how easy it can be to read something wrong, or misunderstand. Thank you for being so patient with me. To try and clarify our understanding. Because the new covenant (His law on the heart and His spirit in them) according to Jer 31:31 was to be with both houses of Israelites, we see these qualities that believers in Jesus/Yeshua have, as identifying factors, that logically should help us locate the Israelites.
Most of the resistance to this concept seems to be rooted in years and years of churches and ministers teaching the wrong definition of the word Gentile. A word study there is very enlightening. It really is akin to being told for years the only moral form of marriage is monogamy, and then having someone try and tell you those verses should be understood differently.
A study of the word Gentile reveals that it was translated from goy in Hebrew, and ethnos in Greek. Goy is best rendered nation, as it is NOT singular, but rather refers to a large group. It was used of heathen and foreign nations, but was also used of ISRAEL. Context in this case is everything. Ethnos is pretty much the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Goy.
Gentile is defined as "of the same gens or clan" so it indicated a familial relationship somewhere.
When you look at how goy and ethnos are used in the Bible, you find that they do not exclude Israelites or Jews. In other words Israelites ARE gentiles, gentiles ARE Israelites, but not exclusively. To simplify this, think of the word nation. Israel was a nation, but that didn't mean other people were not nations as well.
I personally love the verses in Isaiah 56 where God is speaking to the unichs and strangers, making them promises and stating that He is going to gather still others to Christ. We very much believe He accepts anyone who truly accepts, and believes on His Son.
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch, and since then all followers of Christ (from ANY family of the earth) have been one in Him.
There is no way I could top that thought, so I'm going to just post this late night contribution. I hope the spirit of my post is not as confusing as the subject can be.
Here I am, the sort of woman who wouldn't mind my husband marrying his secratary, and I have to BE the secratary! I don't really mind that either. He's a great guy to work for.
Samuel I think has pretty well summed up what I have been trying to say. I feel like heaving a sigh of relief, and do find it comforting. One can start to feel as though they are speaking a foreign language.
Thank you Samuel!
I understand how easy it can be to read something wrong, or misunderstand. Thank you for being so patient with me. To try and clarify our understanding. Because the new covenant (His law on the heart and His spirit in them) according to Jer 31:31 was to be with both houses of Israelites, we see these qualities that believers in Jesus/Yeshua have, as identifying factors, that logically should help us locate the Israelites.
Most of the resistance to this concept seems to be rooted in years and years of churches and ministers teaching the wrong definition of the word Gentile. A word study there is very enlightening. It really is akin to being told for years the only moral form of marriage is monogamy, and then having someone try and tell you those verses should be understood differently.
True Christians are anyone who is in Christ. I don't care what color someone is, or what family of the earth they come from. The great commission is being carried out, and the true bride is the one who, with the bridegroom, is calling people to the marriage.
A study of the word Gentile reveals that it was translated from goy in Hebrew, and ethnos in Greek. Goy is best rendered nation, as it is NOT singular, but rather refers to a large group. It was used of heathen and foreign nations, but was also used of ISRAEL. Context in this case is everything. Ethnos is pretty much the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Goy.
Gentile is defined as "of the same gens or clan" so it indicated a familial relationship somewhere.
When you look at how goy and ethnos are used in the Bible, you find that they do not exclude Israelites or Jews. In other words Israelites ARE gentiles, gentiles ARE Israelites, but not exclusively. To simplify this, think of the word nation. Israel was a nation, but that didn't mean other people were not nations as well.
I personally love the verses in Isaiah 56 where God is speaking to the unichs and strangers, making them promises and stating that He is going to gather still others to Christ. We very much believe He accepts anyone who truly accepts, and believes on His Son.
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch, and since then all followers of Christ (from ANY family of the earth) have been one in Him.
There is no way I could top that thought, so I'm going to just post this late night contribution. I hope the spirit of my post is not as confusing as the subject can be.
Given this is such a controversial, divisive issue, I do need to point out that it is off-topic for this forum, and a matter that this ministry takes no position on. So I don't want to get into a debate over it at all, and am not attempting to persuade anyone to a different viewpoint. However as we all dig deeply into scripture in order to understand polygamy, we run up against the issue of "what is law", "who does it apply to" etc. I'm on a journey of figuring that out myself, and I'm just sharing what I'm finding, in case that is useful for anyone else in their journey also. Having ensured that is clear:
In 2 Kings 17 we read how the northern kingdom of Israel was punished by being captured and taken away to Assyria. This was the fulfilment of Deuteronomy 28:63-64, which states that Israel would not only be scattered to the nations but they would even become heathen idol-worshippers. They never returned en-masse (no doubt a few individuals came back and joined Judah at various times, but the nation as a whole is still in exile). Ancient "Assyria" is New Testament "Asia" and modern Syria and Turkey. The historical centre of Christianity. The churches spoken of in the New Testament were almost all in this area, where Israel was exiled to. So when Paul and others went into this area, only a few hundred years later, and were converting heathen idol-worshippers from the nations (gentiles), who were these heathens? At least some of them would certainly have been Israelites, that is inevitable given the history. Gentile does not mean "non-Israelite".
However, the council then chose a small number of basic laws that they were going to require new converts keep - avoiding idols, fornication, and eating blood (animals strangled rather than drained, and directly eating blood). These are not exclusive. The church would clearly teach far more than this, and does - the ten commandments for instance are additional to this (e.g. the church would clearly also teach "do not murder"). Even the two greatest commandments are additional - "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart" is only partially covered by "avoiding idols", and "love thy neighbour as thyself" is entirely additional. So these few basic laws do not set a limit on what anyone is expected to follow. Rather, they are a starting point. They are a few basic rules that would ensure that those coming from pagan religions into the Church would not offend those coming from Judaism into the Church, as all were being united as one. They ensured nobody brought blood sausages to the church shared lunch for instance, or sodomised each other in the back row...
Because when we come to faith, we then wish to serve our Lord. We do this by doing what we believe He would have us do. We find that out from His word. Romans is very clear that we are justified by grace alone, yet at the same time the law is upheld, which is difficult to wrap our heads around but we all accept it to a greater or lesser extent by choosing to follow at least some of the law and recognising that to fail to do so would be sin.
The only distinction being made between Jew and Gentile in this passage is therefore a matter of background. The Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19) are distinct from the Jews who are turning to God, simply because they come from a different religious background so are moving in different directions - they're both going to the same destination, but one is moving south to get there and the other is moving north. The result is that all are united in one body, and the distinction is eliminated (Eph 2:14-15).
I thoroughly agree with you both scripturally and your observations of His blessings today. He chose His nation, and certainly continues to bless them. But we need to constantly remember that the word Jew comes from the name Judah - it refers to Judah and those from other tribes who returned from Babylon with them after the 70 years of their exile. His chosen nation is Israel, which is far more than just Judah. Certainly He blesses the Jews, because they are part of His people - but there are far more who are also His people, and that He will be blessing also.
In 2 Kings 17 we read how the northern kingdom of Israel was punished by being captured and taken away to Assyria. This was the fulfilment of Deuteronomy 28:63-64, which states that Israel would not only be scattered to the nations but they would even become heathen idol-worshippers. They never returned en-masse (no doubt a few individuals came back and joined Judah at various times, but the nation as a whole is still in exile). Ancient "Assyria" is New Testament "Asia" and modern Syria and Turkey. The historical centre of Christianity. The churches spoken of in the New Testament were almost all in this area, where Israel was exiled to. So when Paul and others went into this area, only a few hundred years later, and were converting heathen idol-worshippers from the nations (gentiles), who were these heathens? At least some of them would certainly have been Israelites, that is inevitable given the history. Gentile does not mean "non-Israelite".
The Acts 15 council was convened over the question of law, so I'm going to have to delve into law to address this, remember I'm just stating my opinions not giving an official ministry position at all... The fundamental teaching they were addressing was Acts 15:1 "...Except ye be circumcised after the matter of Moses, ye cannot be saved". The question was about salvation by works (circumcision and the law, v5) vs salvation by grace. The Pharisees said that new converts must adhere to the entire law before they could be saved. The conclusion was that we are saved by grace alone, since the gentiles Peter had preached to had been given the Holy Spirit before having any opportunity to start following the law (v7-8), and Abraham had been called while uncircumcised (v14), demonstrating that someone can be saved purely on the basis of their faith. So following the law is unnecessary for salvation - for both Jacob's descendents, and those not descended from him.Mojo said:
However, the council then chose a small number of basic laws that they were going to require new converts keep - avoiding idols, fornication, and eating blood (animals strangled rather than drained, and directly eating blood). These are not exclusive. The church would clearly teach far more than this, and does - the ten commandments for instance are additional to this (e.g. the church would clearly also teach "do not murder"). Even the two greatest commandments are additional - "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart" is only partially covered by "avoiding idols", and "love thy neighbour as thyself" is entirely additional. So these few basic laws do not set a limit on what anyone is expected to follow. Rather, they are a starting point. They are a few basic rules that would ensure that those coming from pagan religions into the Church would not offend those coming from Judaism into the Church, as all were being united as one. They ensured nobody brought blood sausages to the church shared lunch for instance, or sodomised each other in the back row...
Because when we come to faith, we then wish to serve our Lord. We do this by doing what we believe He would have us do. We find that out from His word. Romans is very clear that we are justified by grace alone, yet at the same time the law is upheld, which is difficult to wrap our heads around but we all accept it to a greater or lesser extent by choosing to follow at least some of the law and recognising that to fail to do so would be sin.
The only distinction being made between Jew and Gentile in this passage is therefore a matter of background. The Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19) are distinct from the Jews who are turning to God, simply because they come from a different religious background so are moving in different directions - they're both going to the same destination, but one is moving south to get there and the other is moving north. The result is that all are united in one body, and the distinction is eliminated (Eph 2:14-15).
Last edited:
I understand the terminology, it's just easier than writing "that part of Gods chosen people Israel, made of mostly Judah, and then Benjamin, taken captive, but returned........"
No disagreement here, but Gentile as it is used, doesn't provide that distinction, so, as you say, it's inevitable, but hard to determine.
Yes, it was about following the Law (Judaizers) but the end results were that they couldn't deny that there were still distinctions. There's a famous saying in Texas: "Anyone can become an American, but you must be born a Texan." I hold to this in that anybody can become a Christian, but you must be born a Jew (Israelite). Sometime after this, we find that Paul and Peter divide their mission work (Peter to the Jews, Paul to everyone else) because there were inevitable distinctions that required them to be treated and approached differently.
There are scholars who would disagree. Some say it wasn't additional, it was summarized, or distilled. The first four of the 10 deal with loving God. The last six of the 10 deal with how to treat others. I agree with them. Jesus loved the Law.
Which leads us back to polygyny. Is it just "for them at that time" or does it still apply?
I don't mean to imply that a distinction means a different rule or different "dispensation". All are under the curse of Adam, but only some were divinely chosen as part of a nation God chose to use and bless.
Thanks for taking time to answer my concerns. I do believe this entire thread fits under the greater umbrella of the topic of polygyny, though. Most who deny its current validity struggle with understanding how the OT and NT mesh. What applies to the past? Does God change his mind, or only wink at things he allows? Did polygyny only apply to Israel? Does a Gentile have a right to lay claim to following polygyny as it was practiced in the OT?
I think we often spoke past one another in this thread and said many of the same things, but in different terms. It just struck me as sort of "conspiracy", "X-files" language in some areas. I also think it's dangerous for us to start speculating about the validity of accepting those who call themselves Jews now. I don't want it to lead to anti-semitism.
Ah shoot! I answered some of your statements, but within your quote...just noticed it scrunched it all up within the quote field. Oh well.
Last edited by a moderator:
It has been a busy week, and being a wife, secratary, and mom has not left a lot of time for writing posts.
Here I am, the sort of woman who wouldn't mind my husband marrying his secratary, and I have to BE the secratary! I don't really mind that either. He's a great guy to work for.
Samuel I think has pretty well summed up what I have been trying to say. I feel like heaving a sigh of relief, and do find it comforting. One can start to feel as though they are speaking a foreign language.
Thank you Samuel!
I understand how easy it can be to read something wrong, or misunderstand. Thank you for being so patient with me. To try and clarify our understanding. Because the new covenant (His law on the heart and His spirit in them) according to Jer 31:31 was to be with both houses of Israelites, we see these qualities that believers in Jesus/Yeshua have, as identifying factors, that logically should help us locate the Israelites.
Most of the resistance to this concept seems to be rooted in years and years of churches and ministers teaching the wrong definition of the word Gentile. A word study there is very enlightening. It really is akin to being told for years the only moral form of marriage is monogamy, and then having someone try and tell you those verses should be understood differently.
True Christians are anyone who is in Christ. I don't care what color someone is, or what family of the earth they come from. The great commission is being carried out, and the true bride is the one who, with the bridegroom, is calling people to the marriage.
A study of the word Gentile reveals that it was translated from goy in Hebrew, and ethnos in Greek. Goy is best rendered nation, as it is NOT singular, but rather refers to a large group. It was used of heathen and foreign nations, but was also used of ISRAEL. Context in this case is everything. Ethnos is pretty much the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Goy.
Gentile is defined as "of the same gens or clan" so it indicated a familial relationship somewhere.
When you look at how goy and ethnos are used in the Bible, you find that they do not exclude Israelites or Jews. In other words Israelites ARE gentiles, gentiles ARE Israelites, but not exclusively. To simplify this, think of the word nation. Israel was a nation, but that didn't mean other people were not nations as well.
I personally love the verses in Isaiah 56 where God is speaking to the unichs and strangers, making them promises and stating that He is going to gather still others to Christ. We very much believe He accepts anyone who truly accepts, and believes on His Son.
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch, and since then all followers of Christ (from ANY family of the earth) have been one in Him.
There is no way I could top that thought, so I'm going to just post this late night contribution. I hope the spirit of my post is not as confusing as the subject can be.
Just curious. Do you believe it is possible to be able to identify a Genetic Israelite (northern tribes)? Is there a way to determine if you can exclude a Jew (southern kingdom) from Israel (north and south)?
Mojo, I took the liberty of tidying up the quotation breaks (click "edit" on the post to see what I did and how to do it in future).
One fundamental misunderstanding to clarify:
My point is that it can appear on initial reading that in Acts 15 the gentile believers were given a far shorter list of commandments to those that the Jewish believers were following, since they are only told to avoid idols, fornication and blood. This can make it appear that there is a distinction. However the short list of instructions in Acts 15 is not a complete list of everything the gentile believers were to be taught to follow. All Christian denominations agree that they would also be taught the 2 commandments and the 10 commandments, at a bare minimum. The 2 and the 10 are additional to the Acts 15 list. This means that Acts 15 does not limit the instructions given to gentile believers, just gives a starting point - if there is a limit it must be found elsewhere. There is no distinction made here between the full list of instructions given to Jewish and gentile believers. This means that there is not a lasting distinction given between the two sets of believers, just a consideration of how to bring them into the church.
Once inside, there is no distinction based on genetics or anything. All are one body. I could rattle off a big list of verses, but you'll know them already I'm sure.
One fundamental misunderstanding to clarify:
I agree that the two commandments certainly summarize the ten, I was saying something different.Mojo said:
My point is that it can appear on initial reading that in Acts 15 the gentile believers were given a far shorter list of commandments to those that the Jewish believers were following, since they are only told to avoid idols, fornication and blood. This can make it appear that there is a distinction. However the short list of instructions in Acts 15 is not a complete list of everything the gentile believers were to be taught to follow. All Christian denominations agree that they would also be taught the 2 commandments and the 10 commandments, at a bare minimum. The 2 and the 10 are additional to the Acts 15 list. This means that Acts 15 does not limit the instructions given to gentile believers, just gives a starting point - if there is a limit it must be found elsewhere. There is no distinction made here between the full list of instructions given to Jewish and gentile believers. This means that there is not a lasting distinction given between the two sets of believers, just a consideration of how to bring them into the church.
Once inside, there is no distinction based on genetics or anything. All are one body. I could rattle off a big list of verses, but you'll know them already I'm sure.
Looks like that we're all in "general" agreement. That's good. But I just wanted to throw this out there.
The question was brought up if there is anyway to determine genetic Israelite/Jew (or whatever). Has anyone else noticed a huge push in the secular world right now to have their DNA analysed to determine ancestral origins? It's currently under the guise of "one people" and "stop the hate" kind of thing, but I don't think it'll be too long before they'll be able to answer the 'genetic Israelite' question. And when that comes, maybe that's "run for the hills" foretold in prophesy. As curious as it may be, I would be wary to have this test done.
Also, just a reminder:
The question was brought up if there is anyway to determine genetic Israelite/Jew (or whatever). Has anyone else noticed a huge push in the secular world right now to have their DNA analysed to determine ancestral origins? It's currently under the guise of "one people" and "stop the hate" kind of thing, but I don't think it'll be too long before they'll be able to answer the 'genetic Israelite' question. And when that comes, maybe that's "run for the hills" foretold in prophesy. As curious as it may be, I would be wary to have this test done.
Also, just a reminder:
The problem with DNA testing is that you can only compare one person against another person. So you can compare the DNA of two men to a child and figure out which is more similar and therefore which is the father. Great technique. But how would you identify the 10 tribes?
If you analyse the DNA of Jews, you can identify common genetic characteristics, compare other people to Jews, and estimate whether they might be related to the Jews. But this doesn't necessarily help you find the "lost tribes", because:
- Judah is not the other tribes, their genetics might be different
- After 2000 years of interbreeding, the genetic characteristics common to all Israelites may be very diluted in modern Jews, and it may be other characteristics that you identify that have nothing to do with being Israelite but actually have more to do with the general population in the countries they were exiled to for the past 2000 years.
- Some Jews will actually be descended from converts to Judaism many generations back, rightly consider themselves Jews, be in your base group of people identifying a "jewish" genetic signature - but actually not be Jewish genetically themselves. This will mess up the signature also, but you'll never know.
Ultimately all such testing only gives you a probability that a person might be related to another person. It will never conclusively identify the "lost tribes". At best, it might tell you something like "15% of your genetic signature is most comparable to that in modern Jews, 20% is similar to Russians, 5% is similar to Chinese, 10% is Irish, the rest is too common to identify". Which is really rather useless information, because it doesn't tell you whether your paternal ancestry leads back to an Israelite male or a Russian male or a Chinese male or anything else. It just says that you have many many different ancestors, like everyone else, which you already knew. Only YHWH can identify the lost tribes, scientists cannot.
If you analyse the DNA of Jews, you can identify common genetic characteristics, compare other people to Jews, and estimate whether they might be related to the Jews. But this doesn't necessarily help you find the "lost tribes", because:
- Judah is not the other tribes, their genetics might be different
- After 2000 years of interbreeding, the genetic characteristics common to all Israelites may be very diluted in modern Jews, and it may be other characteristics that you identify that have nothing to do with being Israelite but actually have more to do with the general population in the countries they were exiled to for the past 2000 years.
- Some Jews will actually be descended from converts to Judaism many generations back, rightly consider themselves Jews, be in your base group of people identifying a "jewish" genetic signature - but actually not be Jewish genetically themselves. This will mess up the signature also, but you'll never know.
Ultimately all such testing only gives you a probability that a person might be related to another person. It will never conclusively identify the "lost tribes". At best, it might tell you something like "15% of your genetic signature is most comparable to that in modern Jews, 20% is similar to Russians, 5% is similar to Chinese, 10% is Irish, the rest is too common to identify". Which is really rather useless information, because it doesn't tell you whether your paternal ancestry leads back to an Israelite male or a Russian male or a Chinese male or anything else. It just says that you have many many different ancestors, like everyone else, which you already knew. Only YHWH can identify the lost tribes, scientists cannot.
Last edited:
On the subject of identifying someone's origins, Joseph Dumond of Sighted Moon has a three hour presentation where he traces the lost tribes to a great degree. I found it fascinating, and thought it was more in keeping with the scope one would expect to see of a multiplied posterity of a blessed people.
He shares too how a family name, or coat of arms shows what tribe someone came from, connecting it to the heraldry of Israel.
I agree with mojo. Because the term Israelite is defined as a descendant of Jacob/Israel, you do have to be born one, but I appreciate that God has called, and accepts others, and we are all one in Christ.
Here it is again for anyone interested.
To be clear, I don't see this as in any way necessary for salvation, and it should not be a point of contention, but my kids thought it was neat looking up names of friends, and family members, on a website called "house of names" and looking at the coats of arms and symbology. It was uncanny how well some of those family mottos fit!
He shares too how a family name, or coat of arms shows what tribe someone came from, connecting it to the heraldry of Israel.
I agree with mojo. Because the term Israelite is defined as a descendant of Jacob/Israel, you do have to be born one, but I appreciate that God has called, and accepts others, and we are all one in Christ.
Here it is again for anyone interested.
To be clear, I don't see this as in any way necessary for salvation, and it should not be a point of contention, but my kids thought it was neat looking up names of friends, and family members, on a website called "house of names" and looking at the coats of arms and symbology. It was uncanny how well some of those family mottos fit!
Thanks for tidying it up.
This is where we end up back to polygyny. You say most agree with 2 and 10...but from there...whoo boy! Since many evangelical groups seem to lean towards almost no respect of the other laws (except those that are convenient like men/men prohibitions) we get the "we live under grace" arguments against polygyny! When debating this with a coworker, who is also a pastor, one of his questions was why Jews of today don't practice polygyny since they are still under the law. It's as if only Jews could validate the practice because they are law and we are grace. That distinction is inevitably made.
Thanks for the video. Really long so I skipped around. Funny how he mentions the UK. People always wonder about Tom Jones and Cary Grant. "Why are they so swarthy?" Members of the lost tribes?
You also have the Ethiopians to the south that claim "lost" status.
Some say China.
Some suggest North America by way of Greenland.
God only knows
If you were unclear on the answer, this is because around 1000 years ago the German rabbi Gershom issued a ban on polygamy - probably to reduce the persecution of Jews by Christians, however most Jewish authorities rationalise it and insist it was for practical reasons such as the fact that two wives are more expensive than one. This was accepted as law by the Ashkenazi Jews in Germany and France, but not by the Sephardic and Yemenite Jews, who continued to practice polygamy in Spain and the Middle East, but the practice very gradually reduced in frequency over centuries as Gershom's ban became more widely accepted. Good summary from a Jewish source here.
It is important to note that every sound Jewish source I have seen on this states clearly that Torah does not forbid polygamy, only that it appears to present monogamy as ideal and states that the Rabbis have required monogamy for practical reasons. For instance, the Jewish Encyclopaedia. So if he thinks we should follow the Jewish interpretation of the law, that's awesome, just show him what they say it teaches!
Last edited: