The Covenant
I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Genesis 17:7 NASB
You and your descendants– Are you ready? Are you ready to really deal with the implications of God’s covenant promise to Abraham? Oh, I’m sure you think that you are included in this promise. After all, the Church taught you that when you accepted Yeshua as your savior, you were grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. And as far as the Church is concerned, it is the “New” Israel, so church membership is the equivalent of being in the covenant, right?
But what if none of this is really correct?
Let’s take another look at the covenant promise. Did you notice that the promise is to Abraham and his descendants? The word in Hebrew is zârâ. It means “seed,” a euphemism for those who are the product of natural sexual pregnancy, in other words, direct children. This is a physical, natural family line promise. It is not based on what you feel in your heart, what you want spiritually or what statement of faith you utter. The covenant is for human generation—Abraham and his children—down through the ages. If you aren’t from the direct, physical line of Abraham, then the covenant isn’t yours.
Wait, before your head explodes with all those Pauline passages assuring that you have been adopted, pay attention to the implications of the actual text. Wyschogrod says:
“God’s love for Abraham is more than an impartial, disinterested love, but includes an element of eros.”[1]
“ . . . this means that there are no ‘general’ or ‘universal’ paths that lead to redemption. Without a relationship to the people of the election, no relationship to God’s redemptive purpose is possible.”[2]
But you already think this, right? You think you are connected to Israel. You think that the true Israel are those people who believe Yeshua is the Messiah (Jewish, of course), no matter what their particular ethnic heritage. You think what matters is what you believe, not your lineage. Listen to Wyschogrod:
“The church declares that what matters is not one’s corporeal identity as either Jew or gentile, but one’s inward spiritual identity as one who believes. In this way, the church separates membership in the church, the New Israel, from membership in a natural human family, and thereby makes the covenant open and accessible to all persons of every nation. But it does so at the cost of discarding the bond that joins God’s covenant to the natural seed of Abraham, thereby casting off the carnal anchor joining God to creation. . . . By claiming to be God’s new people, the church directly assaults the trustworthiness of God’s promise to Israel and the world. From the Jewish point of view, the church’s claim is one more example of the nations’ protest against the election of the stock of Abraham, which Israel must repudiate as a rebellion against God’s word.”[3]
“The substitution of a universal election of faith for the national election of the seed of Abraham lays the groundwork for a universalization that must, in due course, look to philosophy with its even more universal structures. . . . For this reason, the Christian mind was driven to an ever greater concern with philosophy, a tendency that, while not totally absent in the history of Judaism, never reaches the proportions it does in Christianity.”[4]
Do you consider yourself Messianic? Do you think you have successfully put aside your past illusion about membership in the Church? Are you heading toward Torah obedience (we will have more to say about that soon)? If you weren’t born Jewish, then the covenant with Abraham, the eternal covenant, isn’t for you. Oh, that sounds so harsh! That makes you want to stand up and fight. That seems to eliminate Paul’s great claim about grafting in. But, no, it doesn’t. What it means is this: every one of us who by birth is a Gentile is not part of the promise until we become part of the Jewish family of Abraham. It’s his promise, not ours. So if we want to be part of that promise, we need to change our birthright from Gentile to Abraham-Jewish. And as far as I can tell, adopted children do not get to determine their own family rules. They join the family already in progress. They don’t join the family and change how it has been operating for centuries.
So, you Messianics, what promise do you think you have neatly tied up in your quasi-Jewish pretending? As far as God is concerned, it’s Abraham or nothing.
“There is no way to God except through the Jewish people. A gentile who was ready to accept the whole Torah except that he wished to have no relationship to the Jewish people could not enter the covenant. To enter the covenant one must become part of this particular people or family.”[5]
Topical Index: Abraham, promise, seed, zârâ, covenant, Wyschogrod, Genesis 17:7
[1]R. Kendall Soulen, “An Introduction to Michael Wyschogrod,” in Michael Wyschogrod Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 8.
[2]Ibid., p. 12.
[3]Ibid., 2004), p. 19.
[4]Michael Wyschogrod, “Israel, the Church, and Election,” p. 184.
[5]Michael Wyschogrod, Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 50.
HELP !!!!!!! I have been reading and following this word for today for about six months and my eyes have opened by so many things I have had the privilege of coming to understand. I have had SO many questions over a number of years, and I believe many of those questions have been answered. I am not an intellectual, and cannot write about things I don’t fully understand. I am one of those so called Christian folk, who accepted Jesus (whom I can no longer call by that name, he is Yeshua ) as my Lord and saviour over 30 years ago. I have grown up within the Christian lifestyle in different churches mostly all Charasmatic, and over the years I have had SO many questions, a deep longing for something that has never felt right. I have now come to the place where I can longer attend Church because of the things I see and hear that just don’t seem right, I have beat myself black and blue for the guilt I have felt in what I deemed as judgemental. Going to Church was my lifeline, if you don’t go to Church you are out of Gods will….no man (or woman is an island, the part of the body thing, part of community etc etc) I believe I have a very deep personal relationship with God, I have experienced his great Grace love and mercy in my life, and continue to do so. The problem is…is where to from here. Do I convert to Judaism, do I find a Synagogue to attend, where do I fit in. I LOVE community living but it is not evident within the Church of today, the Church has become so insular.
I would really appreciate some guidance, I just don’t know how to live my life fully submitted to God. I truly love God with all that I am, and want to serve him and live my life giving him the Glory, totally submissive to HIM….YAWEH … No other God will do.
Sorry this is not the usual kind of response you may get, this is just me saying help.
Susan you and me both!
Thank you, I know I am not alone in my struggle. It just feels like it right now though.
Susan, you are in the same boat as many of us. So you’re not alone but it is lonely most of the time. If you would like to talk let me know and we can connect. I have been walking this out for about 8 years and it is an exciting and difficult journey all at the same time.
Thank you so much I am in the UK, could give you my e Mail address but not sure if I can post it here.
Thank you Cheryl, yes it is exciting but as you say difficult. In a strange land and alone doesn’t help either. But God is good and my hope is in him. I am in the UK and would love to chat but not sure how to go about it.
May the Creator and Father of our spirit remind you that you are his. Be anxious for nothing God’s daughter. He demonstrated His invisible qualities through a people so that the entire world may see and so that whosoever will accept his love understood through his word, will be delivered from disconnection and wandering like lost sheep … Clearly the Bible is filled with stories of imperfect people who God continued to lead and continued to love. Look around you, pay attention to nature and you will see the heart of the Creator in diversity and inclusion. The born again process is for us all. Genealogies can sometimes get in the way of our thinking. Your spirit seems perplexed and no intellectual or eloquent speech helps in these moments. A great big hug in the spirit and a reminder of God’s over arching goal is needed. Love and pain speaks many languages and his Presence is with you in both. All of us “must” be born of/by the spirit. We all experience REbirth. REnewal. REdemption.
Titus 3:5-9 … He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we would be justified [made free of the guilt of sin] by His [compassionate, undeserved] grace, and that we would be [acknowledged as acceptable to Him and] made heirs of eternal life [actually experiencing it] according to our hope (His guarantee). This is a faithful and trustworthy saying; and concerning these things I want you to speak with great confidence, so that those who have believed God [that is, those who have trusted in, relied on, and accepted Christ Jesus as Savior,] will be careful to participate in doing good and honorable things. These things are excellent [in themselves] and profitable for the people. But avoid foolish and ill-informed and stupid controversies and genealogies and dissensions and quarrels about the Law, for they are unprofitable and useless.
Dear Susan,
Your appeal is EXACTLY why I even started this blog. If you would be kind enough to write to me (skipmoen@mac.com) I can see if you live somewhere that there are others like you, or maybe make suggestions. Better not to be done on a public web site
Thank you Skip, have sent e mail. Wish you were around the corner right now for a cuppa, in the UK tea seems to be the answer to all problems…HUH ??
Susan you are absolutely not alone. Everything you said is part of my story too. Don’t worry, the shock will wear off. The road is narrow so you can’t expect messianics to build mega churches and be on every street corner. Maybe you can find a few folks locally or just do the online thing and stay close to your Bible. I know the modern electronic age has mostly negatives but it was necessary in these last days for people like us to connect. See the blessings. I’m always available to chat and talk too. I know how frustrating it is. Although I love Skips blog their are a lot of smarty pants on here that speak wayyy over my head. Don’t get discouraged. Just keep going. I’m in Texas btw
I have an inquiry from someone I know in South Africa who suspects you might also be there. If so, let me know and I will connect you.
Try connecting to the “Today’s Word Messianic Community” on Facebook.
This message is somewhat disturbing…Many years ago, I was told by a Jehovah Witness that even if I was to join in this order, I am not one of the chosen 144 thousand individuals that will go to heaven/paradise…So, am I now to believe that my studying the scriptures/The Torah, as a non-Jew, I am not accepted…At present, I am not a Church member of any Church, as I just moved from California to the south/Louisiana…I have accepted that I am loved and care for by a God that exercising in lovingkindness, judgment and righteousness…And, I do believe in the covenant that G-d made with Abraham and his descendants…But, does this mean G-d is a respecter of non-Jews? And less loved…I am not Anti-semitic and never have been…I had made an attempt to attend a synagogue but to no avail did that happen.
Since not being a Jew, therefore not being in the covenant, can I be in relationship with G-d by making is my desire/priority to learn of His truths and his ways, as a non-Jew? And, by believing G-d give His son as a sacrifice for others to know Him, is this delusional?
WAIT! Not being a Jew doesn’t mean you aren’t in covenant relationship. Many Gentiles entered into covenant relationship with YHVH, as Scripture affirms. It just means you aren’t Jewish. And that further means that it is important to see Scripture from the perspective of the ones it was written to, so lots of work needs to be done there. BTW, if you are in south Louisiana, so am I today, and there is a great group here in Arabi, near New Orleans, that would welcome you.
Carol, I can confirm what Skip says about the Arabi group and the LA Bible college itself. They are in or very near the lower ninth ward that suffered so much from Katrina but they are nothing if not resilient. You are in a great location. If I didnt live two thousand miles away I would be there in a heartbeat.
Check out the web site of LA Bible college. I just did and was surprised to see a picture of Skip on the left and me on the lower right corner.
Sorry George my big finger was at the wrong place.
I think what Skip will get to, when he talks more about obeying Torah, is that observing the commands of the covenant are what make us part of Israel. Is that right Skip? We all know the heart is a necessary part of a relationship with God and it seems those here hunger and thirst after Him and His ways. Being obedient to what He calls His people to do in the Torah is what separates one from those who are not His. Hopefully I am not speaking out of turn here. Skip please bring correction if I am. Even in obeying one has to understand the heart of each of the commands. Even the Jewish people have “tweaked” how observances should be handled through the years to accommodate changing times. This makes thing more complicated and at times frustrating. I am sure Skip will walk us through how this looks for us in real time, so to speak, not to fear. We are fumbling through this together. May YHVH reveal His truth to us all that we might walk pleasing in His sight!
I agree, and have actually been thinking about what that would look like practically speaking. Any ideas? There is no Jewish community where I live.
Perhaps you missed my responses to Daniel in the Who Died? TW, with respect to Paul’s interpretation of “seed” (Gr. sperma) in Galatians 3:16, 19, 29, and how Paul is apparently using the thoroughly Hebraic midrashic exegetical approach, with which to include Gentiles in both the “seed” and the Promise?: skipmoen dot com/2019/07/who-died/#comment-64794. Just like Qumran pesharim and Jewish Midrash, verses in the Tanakh are ‘re-contextualized,’ with these additional meanings standing alongside the usual grammatical-historical, or (seemingly) ‘plain sense,’ meanings of the original texts. In the Galatians verses referenced just above, Paul says that the “seed” is singular (in Genesis 12:3, 18:8, 22:18, and 26:4 zârâ is indeed singular [LXX Gr. sperma]; cf. Acts 3:25) , as opposed to a collective singular, referring to Messiah, Yeshua, implying that it is through Him (and by faith) that “all nations (gôyê, Gr. ethnos) on earth will be blessed.”
Again, both Jews and Christians have agreed to disagree at the expense of both camps. The covenant made to the Jews was that the Seed (singular) would come through them to them. Yeshua fulfilled that covenant. The Jews do not have a separate path to God without Messiah any more than we do (sorry, Jews). HOWEVER, Messiah does not offer a separate path to God without the covenant that Torah spells out (sorry, Christians). Let’s not complicate this for purposes of continuing the fight between both camps.
There should not be two camps, but we will not solve the problem by dumping all the contents of one camp into the other camp: the Jews cannot fit into modern Christianity, but the Christians of today cannot fit into modern Judaism, either. That is because both camps have built solitary structures that exclude each other. This wall of mutual partition (identity) must be torn down: neither camp gets in unless and until they both discard what separates them and agree to come together. Messiah and the Olam Haba are waiting.
I’m not so sure Gentiles are to uphold the entire Torah (understood as all 613 commandments). For example, circumcision is explicitly excluded from non-Semites at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Additionally, Jesus Himself declared all foods clean in Mark 7:14-23, most specifically in the final clause of 7:19 (“declaring all foods[/meats] clean”). The only textual variants in this clause relate to the verb form, which does not impact the meaning. What else might be excluded? The Sermon on the Mount certainly spells out the “do”s.
Nobody does all 613, which folks who actually go to study them, know anyway. HOWEVER, I don’t think (Greek reward/punishment style) that those commands are just a test of obedience: I think they actually relate to how reality works. SO, the command to build safety fences in unsafe places, like housetops, is how you build with love. In other words, God did not give us commands arbitrarily: they are really good for us. Hence, when we make sure our dung stays outside the camp via septic, or whatever, it’s not just so we can prove we are obedient: obedience is about doing what actually contributes to life.
What about food? Well, what about it? Forget other times: perhaps there is no time in which the Levitical kosher laws apply more than today. Is modern factory-farmed pork or shellfish nice and clean? Even Gentiles are standing up by the millions and saying “I don’t think so: these things shorten lives”.
You’re right on this. Nobody does all 613 because it is IMPOSSIBLE since the 613 apply to different groups and individuals differently. For example, you can’t be a man, and a woman, a Levite and a non-Levite, living in the Land and not living in the Land, etc. ALL AT THE SAME TIME. The 613 are individually and circumstantially applied.
Yes, and factory-farmed chicken and beef are just as bad, and should be avoided. This is why I buy free range, non-growth hormoned chicken and beef (grass-fed). But, with respect, this is unrelated to my main point.
You have misread Acts 15, and accommodated it to the Christian version. Try again, from a rabbinic point of view. There is a lot about this by various scholars. Try Sanders, Eisenberg, Nanos, etc.
I’ve seen the argument proposed against the Christian interpretation, but I don’t find it persuasive. In addition, I recall a while ago on here that someone (you, Skip?) attempted to bolster the non-Christian interpretation by pointing to Acts 16:3 as evidence. Yet, Piper provides the reasoning for Timothy’s circumcision by comparing it with Titus’ non-circumcision (Gal. 2:1-5): desiringgod dot org/articles/why-was-timothy-circumcised (saving me the trouble of writing it all out).
Laurita, you are definitely heading in the direction of Wyschogrod’s conclusion. We will find out where Skip takes us in this respect.
Regretably many religious Jews and faithfull Christians and are subject to the same condemnation today that Messiah declared to the generation of religious leaders that rejected him “You teach the traditions of men as if they where the oricals of God “
[For the present I’m not responding to nested comments, instead posting singly with ref. to the relevant comment I’m replying to, as these are many times not visible. So this one is in response to Laurita @ July 31, 2019 7:16 am.]
I’m not so sure Gentiles are to uphold the entire Torah (understood as all 613 commandments). For example, circumcision is explicitly excluded from non-Semites at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Additionally, Jesus Himself declared all foods clean in Mark 7:14-23, most specifically in the final clause of 7:19 (“declaring all foods[/meats] clean”). The only textual variants in this clause relate to the verb form, which does not impact the meaning. What else might be excluded? The Sermon on the Mount certainly spells out the “do”s.
Circumcision IS required of Gentiles: but define circumcision. The bodily identity is a symbol of the circumcision of the heart, which even the Tanakh points out. Let’s not get hung up on the symbols when the antitype was what they represented. (Bodily) circumcision is not ‘wrong’ for anyone (most of my relatives are circumcised; even the agnostics, etc.): its just not required for Gentiles, which the NT points out. HOWEVER, circumcision of the heart (antitype) is required of everyone. Circumcision has gone nowhere: we just need to define it.
The entire essence of Torah is love for God and man (the two Great Commands summary). That COULD be expressed by blue fringes, for example (which were very useful in certain contexts) but it is not necessary for the expression of devotion by folks not in those contexts. However, lack of devotion will always be a sin, which is to say, blue fringes do not serve to ‘protect’ the un-devout of heart. Blue fringes are a way of showing us something necessary in reality, just as slain lambs were a way of showing us something necessary in reality: a picture of the truth. Let’s not mistake the pictures for the truth they represent and throw babies out with bathwater. I believe that we need to eat clean food today for our very lives now more than ever before. The Torah shows me how to do that.
Laurita @ July 31, 2019 7:40 am,
Sure one may elect to buy kosher foods (or organic), but my point stands: Yeshua declared all foods clean, which would include pork and shellfish. Certainly the Ten Commandments are valid; but, what else remains applicable?
Well, would you prefer an outhouse? Do you think building safety codes are frivolous? These are examples of Torah applied to today. The vast majority of folks who have figured out how to live together safely and successfully have found that following Torah (whether they have ever read it or not) is the only way to do it. Most law (all the good parts of it, anyway) is built on Torah. If you think about it, Reformed Christianity (Protestants) have reshaped the planet, for better or worse, following MOST of the Torah, (which, until recently, they at least subscribed to in profession, if not in practice). Now, there are terrible perversions that have hitchhiked along (and have now even hijacked) the good stuff, but surely that is because folks decided that they could do that good stuff without it’s Creator. I say, bad mistake.
Perhaps you will want to consult Tim Hegg’s note on the passage in Mark that you claim makes all foods clean. It’s not quite that simple. The technical note is available as a PDF online
I took the time to go through Hegg’s work. Hegg’s analysis is faulty on a number of levels. Even one of the examples he uses to attempt to bolster his point is easily refuted. Specifically, using 2 Thess 1:8 he asserts that “διδόντος (didovtos), ‘dealing out’ is masculine singular genitive, but refers to the previous angels (v. 7, ἀγγέλων [aggelōn]), which is masculine plural genitive,” yet this is not correct. The angels are not the referent. The referent is “the Lord Jesus,” which means a singular masculine is absolutely the proper grammatical rendering. Moreover, even if he were correct, this example would only point to a supposed mismatch in number, as opposed to gender, which is his central argument.
Additionally, that λέγει (legei) is the correct subject for καθαρίζων (katharizōn), “declaring,” is borne out by Mark’s repeating of this verb in the very next word in the very next sentence (ἔλεγεν, elegen—its imperfect form), which concurrently indicates this is indeed a parenthetical comment by Mark in 7:19, and not Jesus’ words. Thus, it is the narrator Mark’s comments , best translated , declaring all foods clean.
Adding a bit more analysis to the above (July 31, 2019 10:04 am), Hegg points to the near-parallel in Matthew 15; however, the Matthean pericope does not provide the disciples’ question to which Jesus would respond; so, this offers no assistance either way. This Q&A is only found in Mark. I do agree with Hegg that using Yeshua as the subject means the context indicates a universal axiom, applicable to both Gentiles and Jews. This comports with Acts 10:15—the dream analogy of unclean animals to Gentiles only works if both were considered unclean, indicating that Peter did not fully understand Yeshua’s words in Mark, which is nothing unusual (cf. Rom 14-15; 1 Cor 10:25, 27).
Yet even if we take Hegg’s conclusion on its face, it doesn’t solidify his main point. The variant is neuter, and this could be used—as does the KJV—without changing the universality of Yeshua’s point. The final clause then, in Hegg’s interpretation of the textual evidence, grammar and context, implies that it is the digestive process that ‘cleans’ the food, or (less likely, IMO) by excreting the food the body is cleansed. Yet Yeshua juxtaposes things from the heart as (potentially) making one unclean, specifying what those are in vv. 21-22, while He makes no such specifications on what goes in the mouth. Thus, any food, bar none, is ‘cleansed’ by the digestion process. But does this really make sense? Is spoiled food, e.g., ‘cleansed’ in such a way? This is why assuming “Yeshua” is the subject for this verse is the best understanding, as noted in my above comment.
There is a very simple answer to the question of what Mark 7:19 is stating. All FOOD may be eaten whether or not one eats it without washing one’s hands, (as per an unbiblical Rabbinic ritual), (or, whether it had been previously offered to a pagan god, 1Cor 8).
But, what is overlooked is what God allows to be permissively eaten, – it must be FOOD in the first place. Just because you can put something in your mouth, doesn’t make it food.
The Death Cap mushroom is fatal about 50% of the time (just ask Pope Clement VII). Would anyone call it a “food”? Did Yeshua purify this item as well? Leviticus 11, spells out what animals are FOOD and which are not FOOD. Simple.
Sure that sounds simple enough. But, the context of Mark 7:19 doesn’t place any limitations or state anything about food–even though Yeshua specifically lists those things emanating from the heart that makes one unclean. Thus, it’s a universal axiom. Moreover, Acts 10:15 makes an even stronger case that all foods are now clean–for Jew and Gentile. The analogy in Acts 10-11 only works if all food has been cleansed in the Messianic era. In other words, the only way Peter could reach the conclusion that uncircumcised Gentiles were now ‘clean’ (Acts 11:3) is if the food Peter saw in his dream/vision was actually ‘clean.’ This indicates that either Peter did not understand Yeshua in Mark 7, or that he was absent for some reason.
Craig: I believe the context to understand Acts 10 passage is found in Hosea 2:18 where the same animals are listed. The rabbinical understanding of that passage was that the animals referred metaphorically to the Gentiles because in the same passage the bow is mentioned along with sword and war ending. That is why Peter immediately understood that God was including Gentiles in the gospel blessing. Peter had been told to sacrifice and eat. The only sacrifice a Jew could eat was the fellowship offering which was normally shared with family and friends. YHVH was now including Gentiles. Realize that this is the immediate and only understanding Peter reached. He never said the vision meant anything about changing the food laws. Why is it that theologians out of the culture and 2000 years removed have a more accurate fix on the meaning than Peter did?
Actually, the vision of the animals that Peter saw on the rooftop was 10 years after he declared the spirit poured out. So he wasn’t even following his own declaration, which is why God had to present him with the vision. Of course, it was NOT ABOUT FOOD, as we see from the ensuring story. Peter was absolutely correct that he could not eat unclean animals because they were not food. But he didn’t see that God had included Gentiles in the fold of Israel. That’s the lesson, not anything about dietary laws.
HSB,
I do see some connection between the two passages. Yet, the way I read Hosea 2 is that this laying down of the bow and sword and the ‘lying down securely’ occurs in the age to come, for there is certainly still enmity between Jew and Gentile (Middle East). Moreover, Peter’s vision goes so far as to have God instructing him to “kill and eat.” I am unsure how “kill and eat” can be then construed as its opposite. In addition, Peter takes some time to reach his conclusion (“was greatly perplexed” in v. 17 and “was still reflecting” in v. 19). In any case, putting this aside for the moment, there are still two other passages with which to contend.
In chapter 14 of Romans Paul first compares those who eat only vegetables to those who eat everything. At this point we might assume the one who feels free to eat everything would logically omit foods deemed ‘unclean’ in Leviticus. Hold that thought. Continuing: Paul doesn’t want the omnivore to look down on the vegetarian and vice versa.
He continues his argument by using a comparison of days—one person holds one day sacred, another person another day. These likely refer to some sort of ceremonial day that some deem sacred while others don’t. Paul thinks this is OK, just as being an omnivore or being vegetarian is OK. The adherent to one position is not better than the other, but each should have his/her choice. None should pass judgment on the other.
In 14:14 the NASB reads: I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Now, one can still construe that this necessarily excludes non-kosher foods. Again, hold that thought. In 14:20 Paul asserts that one should not use his/her freedom with regard to food if such liberty might cause another offense or to stumble. He also makes the universal statement that “all is indeed clean,” and in this context the subject is still food. Again, one may think this would necessarily exclude non-kosher food. But all this hinges on the recipients of Paul’s letter. We know for sure it was the ekklēsia at Rome. And internal evidence suggests that both Gentiles and Jews were in this congregation. Were all the Gentiles apprised of the Levitical laws regarding unclean food? I don’t know that we can answer this in the affirmative. And why didn’t Paul, careful man that he is, ever state a caveat such as “except swine, snakes,” etc.?
More telling is 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. Corinth was, of course, steeped in paganism. The subject in chapter 8 is in regard to meat that had been sacrificed to idols and whether it was OK for Messiah-followers—obviously Gentiles here—to eat this food. Certainly we would not think this meat was strictly kosher, would we? Yet Paul places no restrictions on eating this, except if doing so in front of a weaker brother/sister might cause them to stumble.
I disagree about the context being general, it is not. The immediate previous question (even if it is from 10 verses back), is from the Pharisees asking Yeshua about food,
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat loaves with unwashed hands?
You state that the analogy in Acts 10-11 only works if all animals have been cleansed, and that, the only way Peter could reach the conclusion that Gentiles were now clean is if the animals in his vision were now clean.
Again, I disagree. Peter saw this vision repeatedly. Three times he was plainly told to eat these unclean animals, and what was the result? The very next verse tells us that Peter had no idea what the vision was trying to tell him. Peter could never conceive that pigs could ever be clean. But then the very next verse begins to unravel the mystery that the analogy is referring to Gentiles, and so Peter marches off to see Cornelius.
So we’re agreed about the Gentiles but does the cleansing also apply to the animals? Nowhere in these two chapters does it explicitly say so. That must be inferred, but that’s difficult because animals are never even mentioned again in these chapters.
At 10:28 Peter says, “God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” That would have been the perfect place to say, “any man OR ANIMAL unclean”, but he didn’t.
And similar to this at 11:18, the Jews concede that, “God has also granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles” but the text adds nothing about animals. And for good reason, – there is only a single issue at stake here. It is all about the SALVATION of GENTILES, not the eating of animals.
Craig, I disagree about the context being general, it is not. The immediate previous question (even if it is from 10 verses back), is from the Pharisees asking Yeshua about food,
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat loaves with unwashed hands?
You state that the analogy in Acts 10-11 only works if all animals have been cleansed, and that, the only way Peter could reach the conclusion that Gentiles were now clean is if the animals in his vision were now clean.
Again, I disagree. Peter saw this vision repeatedly. Three times he was plainly told to eat these unclean animals, and what was the result? The very next verse tells us that Peter had no idea what the vision was trying to tell him. Peter could never conceive that pigs could ever be clean. But then the very next verse begins to unravel the mystery that the analogy is referring to Gentiles, and so Peter marches off to see Cornelius.
So we’re agreed about the Gentiles but does the cleansing also apply to the animals? Nowhere in these two chapters does it explicitly say so. That must be inferred, but that’s difficult because animals are never even mentioned again in these chapters.
At 10:28 Peter says, “God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” That would have been the perfect place to say, “any man OR ANIMAL unclean”, but he didn’t.
And similar to this at 11:18, the Jews concede that, “God has also granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles” but the text adds nothing about animals. And for good reason, – there is only a single issue at stake here. It is all about the SALVATION of GENTILES, not the eating of animals.
Laurita @ July 31, 2019 7:51 am,
My larger point regarding circumcision stands. Physical circumcision is not required for non-Semites. Spiritual circumcision is a requirement of the New Covenant in Yeshua for both Jew and Gentiles. However, Jews are expected to be physically circumcised as well.
But, again, what else has been changed regarding the commandments in the New Covenant?
I think the evidence points to the fact that the so-called “New Covenant” is really the original covenant from the beginning (which included the Ten Commands) given again with additional help (the “new” part) to be able to follow it. The planet was aware of those Commands from the get-go, which is why, at Sinai, they were told to “remember”. Abraham surely followed those Commands as part of his heritage: I want to ask anybody to produce any evidence that he was unaware of any of them. I think they were not ‘new’ at Sinai, or at any time from the Garden, on. (Someone show me the evidence.)
The “Mosaical laws” “given by angels” and put “beside the Ark” (as opposed to in it) was Torah additionally spelled out (after they broke the first Covenant with the Golden Calf incident) for that time for those folks to better be able to obey. A lot of it, such as the Tabernacle instructions, and even some of the feasts, pointed to (spelled out) Messiah, so they would recognize Him and His mission. None of it is ‘wrong’, even today, even though a lot of it has been “fulfilled” by Messiah: all of it is still useful for instruction in righteousness. The Jews may no longer have the Temple service, but every part of it instructs us in what Messiah has done and is doing for us. I think the parts that are not applicable (in their original form, anyway) are still useful to show us what superseded them and fulfilled their essence even better.
I want to ask anybody to produce any evidence that he was unaware of any of them. But, you’re asking to prove a negative. In arguments from silence, it’s incumbent upon the one making the argument to provide evidence to make the case. This is the basis of jurisprudence, and this is why, e.g., many have criticized Mueller for his statement that his report ‘does not exonerate President Trump.’ That’s an impossible burden!
I asked it that way because it is hard to say that they were not following, or at least aware that they were supposed to be following, those Ten Commands – if we look at the story content, anyway.
Commands 1,2: we know Noah and ancestors obeyed these. Did they go around taking God’s name in vain(#3)? We know they reverenced it with care and kept the knowledge of His true character (name). The Sabbath was instituted in Eden, and “remember” was what people were reminded to do about that one. Well, what about honoring parents (wait; if they didn’t know that one, then Ham wouldn’t have gotten cursed), murder (oh, wait, Cain wouldn’t have gotten cursed), lying (that is the whole context of the story of Jacob and Esau), stealing (well, so much for what Rachel did to her father’s idols), false witness (Jacob’s sons) or covetousness ? We find adherence to these commands implicit in the Genesis stories. If these folks were unaware of these commands (character of the true God), I think they had a funny way of accidentally keeping them anyway or at least not protesting when they were called out or punished. And we know that God does not punish for what people don’t know. If they didn’t know them, the stories would not have had much (moral) context, either; right?
Well, as we know, people can HAVE the ‘moral’ content and present as tho the abide by it, and yet – – have only that appearance of godliness.
~selah
Re: I want to ask anybody to produce any evidence that he was unaware of any of them….
In regards to Abraham, you are asking for PROOF that he was NOT aware of the commandments?
Seriously? as in, are you KIDDING me?
Setting the record straight, for you, Abraham was a PAGAN! He was called out of a PAGAN land! He was brought up, NOT on righteousness, but on rebellion against YHVH, he didn’t even know YHVH existed until he was well into manhood and YHVH came to HIM!
His WHOLE LIFE basically SCREAMED unrighteousness! In relationship to his wife he was a spineless liar that demanded that she acquiesce to his fear by becoming a sexual commodity not ONCE, but Twice. (see Skip’s post, 4 March 2007 “Sarah – A Life of Discontent” for further details on that).
His base legal code was NOT the ten commandments but the Babylonian Law which was codified around his time. It was THAT law that allowed at least FOUR instances where he, personally, benefited, from the interaction with Hagar that produced his first born (one of many instances where the first born did not inherit) to his inability to sell Hagar. That last item was dictated in Leviticus but it was first outlined in the laws of Khammurabi and those laws were what he was sliding in on, NOT the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Adam and Eve not withstand, Abraham BEGAN the covenant, he did NOT, in any way, embody it.
~bp Wade (Although i no longer go by Wade)
Over the past few years I have been become suspect or disillusioned with the writings of the Apostle from Tarsus and more so in the past few months. I don’t know whether to credit Skip or the cyst growing in the middle of my brain for this spirtual paranoia. Either way I’ll be interested to see where Skip is going with this line of investigation. Without question Shaul, with his “five earned degrees including a D. Phil. Oxford”…uhh… I mean, his sitting at the feet of Gamliel in a rabbinic yeshiva was more educated than most of his contemporaries and was likely more influenced by Hellenistic Greek philosophy than the other apostles who were fisherman and laborers. It seems that all the Church docrines that cause controversy and division in Christendom, such as the idea of the Trinity, the divinity of Yeshua, transubstantiation (the literal changing of the elements of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Yeshua) and the idea of the “vicarious penal substituatary blood atonement” to name but a few controversial issues, all flow the the pen of Paul. Was the three years “in the Arabia desert” with the Spirit worth more than the 3 years of daily interaction with the Master? Did James and the other leaders in Jerusalem have unresolved “issues” with Paul’s message to the gentiles, but failed to foresee how popular his “free grace/ grafting in” gospel message would resonate with the pagen gentiles, with Rome eventually supplanting Jersusalem as the center of this new Messianic movement? Can we gentiles rein in the “Apostle to the Gentiles” some 1900 years after the fact? Does he need to be? Or do I need to see a neurologist?
I think Galatians 3 needs to read again, particularly the last four verses. Verse 26 says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” and verse 28 “There is neither Jew or Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. We need to be careful, selecting, picking and choosing scripture that support one position and ignore whole other sections. Verse 29 goes on to say, “And if you are Christ’s, THEN you ARE Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” I do not agree that the church replaced Israel, that’s ridiculous, but Jesus (yes, He is both man and God – I have read/heard all the arguments that never make sense) has created “in Himself one new man from the two” (Eph 2:15). I am not an alien (non-participant) from the commonwealth of Israel nor a stranger from the covenants of promise (Eph 2:12). I don’t understand why people are fighting to get out of the “one body” (Eph 2:16) the Spirit has had Apostle Paul reveal through the letters to the ekkelsia.
Terry Hayes
Terry,
See my comment @ July 31, 2019 6:39 am here, which provides a link to a discussion of Galatians 3:16-29 in the Who Died? thread.
Terry, its beyond interesting to me that at the time of Paul’s writing the Body was exclusively found within the context of Judaism (even if Judaism hated it from the get-go). However, part of the reason they hated it, I think, is because huge numbers of Jews subscribed to it. These Jews did not quit being Jews; nor were the Gentiles that Peter started adding in, as well as the ones Paul added in, supposed to seek to ‘change’ that context: they were “grafted in” according to original Torah specifications. Yeshua did not make up new specifications; neither did Paul. But I want to ask, grafted in to what?
Both Christianity as well as Judaism have been corrupted substantially since then, and I can’t help but believe it is because they both wanted to not have to deal with each other, even though the specifications of the Body were that they both do so, as per Paul and Peter, et al.
I am with you, however, in asking why folks want out of the Body instead of seeking to purify it. If the Jews don’t get another choice, neither do the Christians. I think neither will have it right until both do, and that right will be together: grafted TOGETHER. Both sides: one Vine. Even if we do everything wrong at first, shouldn’t we at least be trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
Skip, I know you are probably going somewhere with this but it almost sounds as if you are saying we all need to convert to Judaism. I’m anxious to see where you go from here but one thing I am confused about is this. Abraham came before Jacob and Judah came from Jacob and the Jews are from Judah so how in the world was Abraham a Jew? The promise is to Abraham…not the Jews right?
I am certainly not saying we need to convert to Judaism, especially since contemporary Judaism in ANY of its forms is a long way from the Jewish way of living in the first century. Of course, that doesn’t mean people might not want to convert. Judaism offers structure, antiquity, community in ways that many Christian groups don’t. But that is a choice, not a requirement. There is more to say. In this edition of Today’s Word we are only raising questions about the covenant relationship with Israel, usually ignored or re-interpreted by the Replacement Theology of the Church.
I would just like to add, in listening period. To these added posts. This goes back to the beginning understanding replacement theology or even dual covenant theology.. In my understanding not to direct a new course for some added enlightenment. But just what people come to grips with. Two scripture without any explanation. Isaiah 11 2 and 3. Know that. Spirit is capitalized.
And the only other one that I camping sharing is Romans 8:2……. very sobering indeed. There is a law that we follow… Sometimes I have summed it up as the moral code that God has given us. It is spiritual law.
This is just becoming the clarity of the one new man in Ephesians. Where are you and Gentile come into the Commonwealth of the house of Israel. I am so excited about what God is doing him. Note that in October of last year I believe the date is correct that. Even bible-believing Christians who trust in the. God of the Bible. Along with Israeli Jews, have allowed to become citizens of Israel. This is groundbreaking Hallelujah
I have been following Avi Lipkin, and the block party in Israel.
I don’t know why, but for the past few days or even a week what I have commented has not been posted. If you don’t want me around that’s fine but I don’t think you would work that way. I commented after the last post. Which was at 12:21 I now putting it at the top I have read the posts upon till then. And this sounds like the simple, or not so simple.. Replacement theology or dual covenant theology. Or as some call it super sensationalism. Over the past years I have shared only two scriptures with thoughts to ponder first is Isaiah 11: 2 + 3 note that each time that. Spirit is mentioned it is capitalized. Love it. The only other scripture I will add is Romans 8:2. There is a lot that we follow in the New Testament.. It has always been God’s moral code thanks very excited hope this one gets posted
I have no idea why your comments have not been posted. It has NOTHING to do with keeping you off the site. As I mentioned in another place, we are trying to redo the whole web site and there have been, and will be, issues until this is finished. It is NOT an easy task.
Brother Brett, I’ve noticed the same thing happen to a couple of my comments lately only to magically reappear in a few hours or a day or two later. Perhaps that is why the Apostle Paul told us to persevere and be long suffering. Your vacationing input is valid and valued.
I always would like, prayer to be added to being corrected with any of my comments so I know I’m on spot always praying for this work of God.
Brother Brett I’ve experienced the same thing in the last few weeks. Then days later my comment would appear. My first knee jerk reaction was to think that I had been censored. Then I came to my senses and remembered that in the nine years of participating in this community my experience is that Skip just doesn’t do that.
As a (way off topic) side note I’d like to issue a warning to us all. We’re all being conditioned these days to be quick to take offence. It was a heads up for me to remember who my trusted by trial friends are and respond with grace believing the best of them first. Part of being in the covenant is sticking by our brothers and sisters in the covenant as they walk through hard times. Are we our brothers keeper? We’re going to be heavily tested on this. There’s coming a time (and it’s actually already begun) when we will be tempted to abandon those who have been faithful. They will even look guilty according to the cultures standards of prejudice. We need to brace our knees and respond biblically and presume innocence until proof of guilt by two or more CREDIBLE witnesses has been lawfully established. In this day and age of technological alterations we will need to rely on the content and faithfulness of people’s character and not be duped by how things look. These little irritations IMO are designed to set our hearts straight before the bigger tests come.
In my opinion, for what it’s worth, the arguments about fine points of interpretation in the “New Testament” are somewhat meaningless. They are meaningless because the Gospels are polemic narrative, likely written by Hellenistic sympathizers. They are masterfully and selectively created by people attempting to memorialize the memory of Yeshua (or the subversion of the Jewish people). A cursory examination of the details of the Gospels reveal glaring inconsistencies yet fanciful but heartwarming stories. They are simply not credible witnesses to the uncorroborated details of history. [Why do the three wise men travel to Jerusalem? So that the star knows where to lead them.] We accept these stories as “truth” because the Church told us they were true. Nowhere does the Tanakh reference a virgin birth for the Messiah. Sorry, Is. 7:14 wasn’t written about Jesus, nor does it speak about a “virgin” conception. Furthermore, a virgin conception isn’t a sign to anyone, as no one can observe anything. Paul, whose writings pre-date the Gospels, makes no reference to a virgin birth. Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, contains no mention of the virgin birth or a bodily resurrection of Yeshua. Virgin births are absent in Tahakh, but illustrious within pagan mythology. It is quite obvious that Mark (or Q,) is the common thread around which Matthew and Luke are constructed. In essence, there are two accounts of Jesus’ life: the three Syn-optics and John.
The Gospels are first in the “New Testament” because someone important (in the Church) put them there, not because they contain factual truths. The stories themselves, including the deity of Jesus, have become objects of faith, all to the exclusion of faith in YHVH and His plan of redemption through Israel. I know this will cause much consternation among the faithful, but it is where I am at. It is time to get back to the Tanakh as the word of God as accepted by early disciples of Yeshua. Maybe then we can shed the barnacles of Christian Egypt still clinging to our souls.
Your comments here are quite useful, and I think probably much more accurate than a lot of our typical understanding of the newer texts. We easily forget the social and political agendas of the authors. And we ignore the inconsistencies because of our (much later) view of inspiration. In this case, the doctrine determines what we do with the text. Thanks for adding this.
Well, that sure simplifies things. On an a priori basis, just deem the New Testament hopelessly flawed and incapable of communicating anything really meaningful. End of story. That’s certainly anyone’s prerogative, but there were many who were martyred by others defending the veracity of what they saw as the truth-claims represented by this corpus.
But, you are also overlooking the possibility that passages such as Is 7:14 were subjected to a midrashic approach–a thoroughly Hebraic practice, evidenced by the Qumranites. Their approach is very similar to the New Testament’s in that they re-contextualized sections of the Tanakh to fit their eschatological beliefs. This practice, absent the eschatological aspect, is not dissimilar from that found in the Jewish Midrash corpus.
Well Craig, I with you on this one, (but I’m not so quick to apply the midrashic approach to Gal 3:16 That stands on its own).
Daniel,
I think the ‘midrashic exegesis’ angle needs to be explored more, generally, by those on this site who reject portions of the NT, or the presumed ‘reinterpretations’ of the Tanakh by Christians. That’s not to say some Christian scholars are not guilty of the latter in their zeal to attempt to retain some sort of grammatical-historical sense of both the Tanakh and the NT (wrongheadedly, in my opinion). This is most certainly a problem on both sides of the aisle. Frankly, I’m disappointed I’d not considered this sooner, given that I’d looked at some of the Qumran pesharim material years ago, out of possible interest of how this sect might be related to both Jews and Christians in the first century.
Very good Paul! It is time for us to take off the rose-colored church glasses and read the script with the eyes and understanding of the Ancient Near East audience.
Skip, you are treading where few will go, but this is what the Scriptures say. Certainly, there is a ton of verses to reconcile, (which for me is a requirement), but I have recently been trying to establish this exact point of yours. Politely “arguing” with Craig that,
TW “This is a physical, natural family line promise. It is not based on what you feel in your heart, what you want spiritually or what statement of faith you utter. The covenant is for human generation—Abraham and his children—down through the ages. If you aren’t from the direct, physical line of Abraham, then the covenant isn’t yours.”
But you think you have a solution to this harsh discrimination.
TW “every one of us who by birth is a Gentile is not part of the promise until we become part of the Jewish family of Abraham . . . So . . . we need to change our birthright from Gentile to Abraham-Jewish. And as far as I can tell, adopted children do not get to determine their own family rules.”
Unfortunately, parents adopt children, children do not adopt parents, and that includes us adopting Abraham as our genetic father. It can’t be done. This is the whole point of the story of Ishmael. Abraham pleaded with God to make Ishmael his son of promise, but God said absolutely not. “Only in Isaac shall be thy seed be called.” This singular seed is the singular family of Jacob/Israel. It is exclusive to them whether we like it or not. Not the plural seed families of Ishmael, Keturah, or anyone else.
If God had wanted to include, in His family of promise, anyone who believed in a manner similar to Abraham, then He would have arranged it that way, but He didn’t. God’s CHOSEN people can be identified by genetics, not by THEIR faith. God promised Abraham he would have hundreds of millions of descendants. And Abraham believed in this promise. THIS is what Abraham believed, and therefore this is what the FAITH OF ABRAHAM is, and, what it means.
These descendants are what Abraham believed in. THEY ARE the faith of Abraham. (In this context, God is NOT the object of Abraham’s faith, God’s promise of descendants, is the object, and therefore the faith, of Abraham.)
One does not HAVE, or take, the faith of Abraham. One either IS, or, is not, OF the faith of Abraham. If you ARE of the faith of Abraham, then you MUST BE one of his genetic children.
Who is not now related to Abraham? That’s a little like saying who is not now related to Genghis Khan. If we are talking genetics, then let’s by all means consult a genetic historian. I bet a whole lot of folks out there are obligated, by blood, to circumcision that didn’t know it! Maybe (likely) you and me, too. But is this really what it’s all about?
Dan, keep reading Wyschogrod. When you are finished you will have a better understanding for this accommodation.
Since Abraham was not a Jew and he is the father of Ishmael does that include all of Ishmael’s descendants in the covenant. Are all the 12 tribes called Jews regardless of them not being in the tribe of Judah?
Abraham was not even an Israelite, let alone a Jew or Jewish. He was the first Hebrew (ibri), (perhaps from being) a descendant of Eber, but not of Israel/Jacob.
I believe it’s all about “crossing over”…from one side of the river to the other…from darkness to light…from the kingdoms of this world to YHWH’s kingdom. If one has crossed over to Yah’s kingdom…to His household, abiding by His house rules (torah/torot)…he/she is a Hebrew…one who is “born from above”…just as Jesus (Yahusha/Yeshua) was born from above, declared to be so by YHWH during his immersion.
And YHWH promised that Abraham would be the ”father of MANY/a MULTITUDE of nationS.
Genesis 17:5 (NASB)
“No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.”
To Jacob/Israel, Yah promised to make him A (singular) great nation…
Genesis 12:2 (NASB)
“And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing;”
The more I study and dig through Scriptures, the more I see the importance of words and their meanings. Hence, my love and appreciation for this blog site and community.
This is my first time to post here, but not my first time to read. I’ve been loving and learning much from the community here…in silence. I appreciate and thank Abba Yah for the important work that Skip does (here and elsewhere) for His kingdom. Yah bless and shalom!
I am also confused about this. I tried to pose that question earlier but I guess that’s not the focus of the blog. It seems that many people refer to Abraham and all his seed (all 12 tribes) as Jews but I have always thought the Jews were just from Judah. So I’m confused…again. I just thought Abraham was a Hebrew, not a Jew.
Am very interested to see where you are going with this Skip. Poses some very eyebrow raising questions with this post! Again questioning what post Christ Christendom has always taught the sheep to believe and follow without question! Seems to be a very old paradigm.
Very interesting also the various posts here. I personally believe there is a very human tendency to get mired down in details and make things very complicated. What about where scripture talks about knowledge puffing up? Also the fact that Yeshua came to heal the sick and not the physicians? Faith as simple as a child? A child shall lead them and so on.
The world is a complicated place and religious battles on-going. It seems nothing is simple or straightforward anymore. *sigh*
As far as I know, I am not of Jewish descent and I have absolutely no desire to do the DNA or Ancestry thing. Nothing in my family history says anything about the possibility of being Jewish. So I am not among the Chosen people.
Am I lost because of this? I do not believe so. Do I desire to become Jewish? No thank you.
I know it is not complicated to love God and His son and desire to do what is right in His eyes. I refuse to make it that way and while I appreciate those who have taken the time to become scholars in biblical study it is not for me. I am simple like a child and am okay with that. Doesn’t mean I am stupid or naive.
Stay tuned. I know Skip has more to come on this!
This article addresses exactly what my husband and I have been struggling with over the past few years, especially in the past few months!
Skip, we have been following this website and reading your books for a few years now and we very much appreciate everything we have learned from you. This article addresses much of what we have been discussing in our home lately.
Since getting married and having our first child and now expecting our second, I have been increasingly concerned with giving our children the stability of community. We have no family relationships due to addiction, unmanageability, and other issues, so we are really starting over on our own. Because of this we feel we have the opportunity to raise our children differently and in faith.
We are from the West side of Cleveland which is predominantly Christian. We are considering moving to the east side to be around the Jewish community. There is a Messianic Jewish congregation out there but they do not accept converts and will not guide hopeful concerts through conversion.
I have attempted to reach out to several Messianic Jewish believers because for awhile now my husband and I have desired to live a Jewish life.
Much of the response we get from Christians is not to follow Torah because “we have freedom in Christ” and much of the response we get from Jewish people is that we don’t need to uphold Torah and shouldn’t because we are not born Jews.
What do we do? Do you have suggestions for us? We want our children to grow up in a community that accepts them where they can grow in their faith. But where? How?
Caught in the middle of 2000 years of mutual antagonism – that’s where you are. With the rest of us. Bob Gorelik advises those like you to find a Conservative Synagogue (not a Messianic one, which in my view is just another denomination of Christian thinking) and visit the rabbi with the intention of joining. Since you live in Cleveland, I think there are other reads in that area. Send me your ZIP codes and I will look.
Thank you so much! My zip is 44070.
I have a few readers in Cleveland area and one great friend in Lebanon but that’s about all. No one in the same ZIP
Thank you for looking into it for me.
Spot on Skip! Agree entirely with your idea….and the Covenant with the Jewish people.