Below is a series of exchanges between "MW" and Yada. Yada's responses follow each portion of quoted text.
Quote:From: "MW"
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:15 PM
To:
email@yadayahweh.comSubject: Greetings.
Just started reading articles on your site. I like what I read so far. Three years ago I started studying the Hebrew language intently in my search for the truth. éäåä has begun revealing to me many of the things he has revealed to you. One challenge that I see so far for is you refer to the Jews éäåãé as éäåä chosen people. I am not necessarily challenging that statement as much as clarifying. Many operate on the standardized notion that the words Jew, Hebrew and Israel all mean the same thing. They don't. Hebrew òáø means to crossover (in faith as Abraham did), Jew éäåãé are the decedents of Judah (sometimes biblically also denotes the Southern Kingdom) and Israel éùøàì means the decedents of promise to Israel (sometimes biblically refers to the Northern Kingdom) who are children of éäåä , not necessarily by physical decendeny but by faith. For example, many Jews would say Abraham was a Jew. He was not, he was a Hebrew. Abraham was not a son of Judah. Many Jews would say Moses was a Jew, he was not. Moses was a Levite. Genesis 49-50 outlines many of the blessings for the children of Israel, and yes there are many wonderful blessings chosen for Judah. However there are 11 other brothers who receive blessings as well. Elohim's chosen people are not the Jews but are Israelites who are the children of Elohim through faith. You refer to the prophecies of Hosea, and that Elohim divorced Judah. He did not divorce Judah but divorced Israel, (in this case referring to the Northern tribes). His marriage to Judah remained in tact. Although he has been deemed a heretic by many, Eddie Chumney clears much of this up in his teachings about the two Houses. Remember the Renewed Covenant (Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8) is with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. I can see you already understand that the Renewed Covenant is not with the Church. However you do need to understand why éäåä makes this designation, or the thinking you build on top of it will be in error.
In your list of sources you list many Lexicons that were developed in the past 100 years. I have learned that Brown's Drivers Briggs can be helpful in certain instances, but in others is no more reliable than the 1611 King James. There are other sources that might be beneficial to you.
Final point, I find Eklessia comes from the Hebrew Kahal, not Miqra. Kahal literally means flock in Hebrew and comes form the root Kal which means Shepherd.
Hope I have been helpful and not come across as critical
Shalom,
"M"
"M,"
While it is difficult to communicate without occasionally using the modern terms Jew and Israel, in the Scriptural citations I only use Yahuweh’s terms, such as Yisra’el and Yahuwdym. In my commentary, I define these terms based upon etymological research. They not only represent a nation, a race, and a tribe, they are symbolic of much, much more. As for the modern terms, I agree that they are confusing and misleading.
As you know, Abraham was from Ur, once the capital city of Sumer, but at that time, Babylonian. That is why Yahuweh asked Him to leave. I don’t call him a “Jew.”
Your focus with regard to Yahuwdah appears to be primarily tribal. If it is, you are correct, but at the same time you are missing a great deal. You go on to connect the chosen people to God by nation and faith, but when it comes to being chosen by Yahuweh, trust and reliance are operative, not faith, and nationality isn’t germane to our adoption. The Covenant is familial, and not primarily political or racial. The Chosen People serve as an example, as a metaphor, but not as a political or racial divide which excludes the adoption of others.
I have not read my Hosea review in a couple of years, so it may need some editing. But my recollection is that I said that it served as Yah’s divorce decree with the Northern Kingdom, with Ephraim. I went on to say that He had more work to do through Yahuwdah (specifically the Messiah) so that this divorce could not, and would not occur for many more centuries.
I was afraid that you would end up as a promoter of Two House Theory. I’ve read enough about it to know that I’m opposed to it because while it fits some things, it contradicts too many others. Yes, there was a Northern and Southern Kingdom; yes, Ephraim and Yahuwdah are different; yes, on occasion Yah differentiates between them; and yes Yisra’el will one day be reunited in the same family. But that’s the end of it. Between now and the time He establishes His Millennial Sabbath, racial and tribal affiliation mean less to God than is promoted in THT.
There is no “Church” in Scripture as you know, nor any mention of any such thing in the Renewed Covenant. I make no such claim and do not promote the religion of Christianity nor any form of Replacement Theology. As for the KJV, it is political rubbish based upon an academic fraud. If I’m reading you correctly, you agree, and aren’t endorsing it. The fact is, there is no completely reliable tool and great effort is required to translate Scripture accurately from the oldest MSS. It is why I use no fewer than forty lexicons, dictionaries, interlinears, and etymological tomes and try to remove the Vulgate, KJV, Masoretic, and Textus Receptus influence from the Word. I make no claim of perfection in this regard, only that of sincere effort.
Ekklesia, like miqra’, means “called out” or “to call out” in Greek and Hebrew. One word isn’t from the other. They just share the same meaning. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I have no problem with your association with flock, however, but the Miqra’ are central to the Covenant and ekklesia is central to the RC.
Based upon your letter, I’m confident that your heart is in the right place and that you mean to be helpful. We agree on many things. Hopefully, we can celebrate our points of agreement and not focus on what divides.
Yada
Quote:From: "MW"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:25 PM
To: Yada Yahweh
Subject: RE: Greetings.
Yada
It seems we share mostly common ground. I truly appreciate your thoughful reply. Most importantly we agree on the sea of deception generated from the rubbish of poor trasnlations. I am not completely attached to two house thoery and do agree adoption is entirely by faith and has nothing to do with genetic heritege. However as people finally acknowledge that dispensationalism is a crock, they invent further false theologies perpetuated by poor translations inveted from thier systematic theologies. Case in point, David Sterns Jewish Bible. If heard him speak recently and he seems to be teaching replacement replacement theology for lack of a better word. I am curious as to your criticisms of Two house teaching as I am in the process of checking it ouy thouroughly and don't find too many flaws. Perhaps you can save me some time.
As far as church and ekklesia. I simply raise the point that your readers can find much more proof for your points if they investigate the strongs numbers for Kahal as well as Miqra. Kahal refers to the assembly (more correctly flock) itself, not a specific gathering, and was always translated as Ekklesia in the Septuagint (OT strongs number 6951). Miqra on the other hand refers to the specific gathering of the Kahal itself pertaining to Feasts or Sabboths, from the root Kara to call (strongs number 4744). Since there are 122 uses of Kahal vs 15 uses of Miqra, your readers will easily see the proof that church is a man made concept, if they take the time. Miqra does have a similar literal meeting but was never translated as ekklesia in the Septuagint.
Shalom,
"M"
"M,"
Religious agendas and poor translations are a horrible blight on humanity. The fact that you are one of the few who recognize this and at the same time seek to know Yahweh and His Word, confirms that we share a common understanding.
Adoption based upon trust and reliance, rather than race, is a significant part of what separates me from Two House Theory. Since you share this conclusion, your position regarding two houses is only a matter of interest as opposed to a salvation issue.
We agree that the names and terms Yahweh chose are important, should be used, and should be explained. We agree that the notion of a human institution called the “Church” replacing Yahuwdym as Yahuweh’s Chosen People is nonsense. It has been promoted to demean Jews, to invalidate the Old Covenant, and to usurp power.
I have two issues with THT. The first is Scripture presents reliance-based adoption as opposed to salvation based upon race or political relations. The second is that THT advocates, like most all religious proponents, only cite passages which support their position and ignore those which are opposed. There are many passages and parables which tie the Renewed Covenant to Gowym. So since it is tied to Yahuwdym and Gowym, it must include both. So while there is plenty of support for two houses, and for their ultimate unity, it is not germane to salvation, nor does it substantiate an exclusive enclave. Knowing, trusting, relying upon, and reconciliation with Yahuweh is all that counts in this regard.
The two houses are mostly a metaphor, example, and prophetic marker along the way—that is until the Millennial Sabbath. Starting with Sukah in 2033, tribal Yisra’el will be reestablished and I don’t fully understand how adopted Yahuwdym will be grafted into that vine. Further, my curiosity level in this regard is low.
The only elements I like of TH are that its advocates typically understand that the rabbis and church are wrong. They know that Scripture is poorly translated and that neither the Masoretic nor Textus Receptus can be trusted. They typically emphasize the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They understand the Miqra better than most. And most THT advocates recognize Yahushua as Messiyah. But then they elevate a subplot to preeminence, tying salvation among other things too it. And they reject the Taruw’ah harvest of souls because they don’t know how to deal with the Philadelphia ekklesia.
Here’s the bottom line: The central plot is family, not race. It is relationship, not religion.
To demonstrate how selective support leads to errant theology, consider the example of how the church came to preach that there are only two options after death—eternal life in heaven or eternal suffering in hell, making their god sadistic. Yet in actuality, there are over 500 passages which speak of death being the end of life and of the destruction of the soul. Since there are some 100 passages which speak of eternal life in heaven and some 50 which address eternal anguish in the abyss, there must be three options, not two.
With regard to qara’, we are on the same page because it is the root of Miqra’. As for the kahal, flock, aspect, it’s insinuated in ekklesia, so your point is valid. That said, the connection between the seven miqra’ and the ekklesia is essential. Not understanding this connection, and its importance, is the root of such nonsense as dispensationalist and replacement theology. The Covenant’s foundation is the Miqra’ and the renewal of something does not make a second, different thing. There is only one Covenant and its foundation remains the Miqra’.
We don’t possess any old copies of the Septuagint and we know that by the end of the first century CE, it had been horribly corrupted. Further, it was written during the time rabbis were beginning to fight Levites for control in a place heavily influenced by Greek and Egyptian paganism. I occasionally look to it on issues like numbering, and for evidence of Masorete meddling, but not for much else.
I appreciate you thoughtful reply and have enjoyed this dialog. Please continue to read YY and share your observations and well as your concerns.
Yada
