A Case Of Mistaken Identity
telling about the conversion of the Gentiles and they caused great joy to all the brothers. Acts 15:3
Conversion – The word “conversion” is used only once in the New Testament. It is epistrophe. It comes from two Greek words that literally mean “to turn toward or return.” Anyone familiar with Hebrew immediately recognizes the connection with the verb shuv – to return, to turn back. While the verbal form in Greek occurs frequently, there is something about the idea of conversion that is not quite so obvious to us. It is never applied to Jews! That’s right. Conversion and converting is only applied to Gentiles, those who are outside the covenant with Abraham. If you were Jewish, you did not convert. How could you? You already believed in the One True God, YHWH. What a Jew needed was to accept that Yeshua is the promised Messiah, not that he had to convert to Christianity.
Paul did not convert to Christianity. Christianity did not exist when Paul was preaching. None of the disciples “converted” to Christianity. It’s unlikely that they ever used the term. The word “convert” in the NT is never used of a Jew who comes to believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. It is always used of a pagan who converts from false religion to the truth. Jews did not convert. They returned to the God they already knew.
This Greek word does apply to most of us because we are Gentiles. We had to give up our false and idolatrous religions and “convert” to the Way. We left behind our pagan roots and were grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. But most of the men and woman of the New Testament were not converts. They were Jewish believers who accepted Yeshua HaMashiach. There were thousands of them, but they were always considered a sect of Judaism until the Greek influence of the church fathers and the persecution of the Romans drove a wedge between “Christians” and Messianic Jews.
Today it’s very popular to talk about a conversion experience. That’s appropriate for all former pagans, but don’t think it is the common description of the New Testament. The New Testament is about Jews and that means its perspective is Jewish, Hebrew and founded on Torah. The big issue in the New Testament for those who believed that Yeshua is the Messiah was about the inclusion of Gentiles in the congregation of Israel, not about Israel leaving Judaism behind and joining a Gentile Christianity. When you read the New Testament, keep that in mind and see if it doesn’t start to make more sense.
What’s happened to us? Now we think we need to “convert” Jews for Jesus. We don’t understand or appreciate that Israel is still God’s people no matter what the bloodline. Do you suppose it’s time to make some effort toward rejoining the group that first loved us enough to die for us? Instead of praying that the Jews will find Jesus, maybe we ought to be praying that we will find our Jewish heritage. That would certainly make the conservation easier, wouldn’t it?
Topical Index: convert, Israel, commonwealth, epistrophe, Acts 15:3
Amein! Amein!
Let us get beyond replacement theology and to the truth … once and for all!
Skip, once again you hit the nail on the head (and not your hand OUCH!)
“Do you suppose it’s time to make some effort toward rejoining the group that first loved us enough to die for us? Instead of praying that the Jews will find Jesus, maybe we ought to be praying that we will find our Jewish heritage.”
Grace and Peace, Jay
Bob Gorelik’s audio entitled “Who We Are” seems to touch on this in more detail. It’s an interesting reminder of the context of the NT writings. I would like to see if there is any significance to chapter 8 of the book of Hebrews. I’m curious to find out what the author meant by “a better covenant” and “the first covenant”.
Shawn
Greetings Shawn …. I did not know if you wanted feedback on the “better covenant” … anyway ….
The better covenant (in brief) is the one that is not just the shadow of the perfected covenant to come. When the Tanakh is viewed objectively we can see virtually all things pointing to Yeshua.
The Mo’adim (Biblical Festivals), The Sacrificial System, The Priesthood …. it is all about Yeshua.
Much of Paul’s writings explain these matters in very rich detail. The context in which Paul discusses old and new is that “by, in and through Yeshua” the shadow of many things to come has been realized and perfected.
The priesthood now has its Kohen HaGadol before the Heavenly Throne; The perfect Sin Offering has been sacrificed and accepted; The First Fruits have been presented and deemed acceptable …. Grace and Mercy (the means of reconciliation) have been delivered.
The better covenant (signed, sealed and delivered during the Spring Mo’adim not coincidentially) is the one by which YHVH Himself does our part for us since we can not! I like to think of it this way:
In the wilderness YHVH had Moses do the deal with the people … Exodus: 24,7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: ‘All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.’ 24,8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you in agreement with all these words.
The New Covenant is pretty much the same deal but instead of of us people signing the contract we have Yeshua (Bless Him) sign the contract for us and sprinkle upon it His own precious blood. But everything does not go away. The stipulations still remain …. Yeshua did not need to go through them again …. the stipulations have already been detailed and are understood.
But now through HaMashiach we have Ruach HaKodesh to guide us and circumcise our hearts with Torah. Now in Yeshua we can succeed …. and if we falter, not out of rebellion, He has promised to regard not our sins.
We clearly know that this New Covenant did not change the way the Apostles practiced their Jewish religion. They still went to the temple …. they still celebrated Pesach/Passover …. they still observed Torah … and so forth. So clearly the real church fathers …. the Hebrew church fathers did not see the New Covenant in the same manner as does The Church.
Sadly …. as Skip points out time and time again, the idea of this “New Covenant” was utilized by subversive elements throughout the last 2,000 years to justify a shift away from the roots of our faith and religious practices. To conveniently introduce pagan practices and thought processes. And mainstream Christianity wonders why mainstream Judaism finds its practices so foreign to them? Not going to make the Jews jealous one could venture without going to far out on a limb. 🙁
Drew,
Great comments. Thanks for the feedback. I was told not too long ago that the gospel of Matthew was written to the Jews and the others their respective audience. Has there been any discussion on the implications of the use of the words for Kingdom of “Heaven” rather than the Kingdom of “God”? Does this suggest the authors audience as I’ve been taught? I’ve been told that Matthew is careful to use the word Heaven due to a specific Jewish audience, therefore suggesting that the other accounts are documents and recordings meant for a gentile audience. Any comments from yourself or Skip?
Also, this one as a bonus if you have time. I’m trying to piece some of this together with a recent discovery of the Islamic focus on the writings of Paul. They attempt to place Paul as one of the first to define Christianity and therefore corrupt the original view of God’s messenger. Does this Jewish perspective help in defense of Christ’s deity and Paul’s apostolic commission? I realize Muslims have many issues with the text and ultimately broad brush the argument by saying men corrupted the text. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Shawn
Greetings Shawn,
I’ve seen similar discourses regarding Matthew and the target audience. However I believe John, the non-synoptic Gospel, to in fact be the most Hebraic of all. A careful review of John will see how he focuses upon the events in Judea and Jerusalem … how he is careful to point out the happenings in line with the mo’adim …. how he is less about history and more about Yeshua’s commentaries and teachings.
Despite being tagged as the early “theologian” of the Christian Church it is clear that John’s theology is really Hebraic. He starts by revealing Yeshua as The Word Incarnate tied right to Genesis …. can’t get more Hebraic than this. John is also closely aligned with the The Immerser/Baptizer and surely was influenced by him as well …. as can be deduced in review of John’s Gospel. Certainly the Immerser, a rightful Kohen by birth, can not be viewed in anything but Hebraic terms.
Ultimately John’s Gospel is just so personal … it really depicts matters through the eyes of faith and it does not get more Hebraic than this! 🙂
My two cents anyway!
Regarding the writings of Paul with respects to defining Christianity? Mainline Christianity defined itself with doctrinal development beginning in earnest after the Nicaen Council in 325 CE. Paul can not be blamed for these outputs by any stretch despite the fact that the Roman Church mis-applied Paul’s Writings to suit Hellenistic philosophy.
The problems are not with the text or Paul’s commission …. the problems are with the translations and non-Hebraic contextual development of doctrine and acceptable religious practices. Paul was a pharisee among pharisees … so he really was Hebraic. Does mainline Christianity look Hebraic? … I think you get my point. Paul was not defining a new religion he was explaining how the original religion had been perfected!
Then again the Gentiles were not the only ones to mis-apply the writings and make translations to suit their desires.
Hence the love and respect we have for our brother Skip who obviously has been raised up by YHVH to combat the onslaught of historical mis-information!
I was just reviewing some TWs and I ran across this summary of yours. (I don’t know why I didn’t read this TW that day) It is really, really , well stated. I believe all of the points you have summarized so well. Keep on contributing in your wonderful clear gift.
here I offer Colossians 3:11 to think about.
To all in the loop. I asked Rabbi Bob Gorelik to comment on all this and he did. It will be posted tomorrow. Take a look.
Thanks Skip. I added more concerns. I’m sure they’ll be address at one point or another in personal study or the resources both of you have made available.
Shawn