Jewish Racism – never of YHWH
I guess www.chabad.org didn’t really understand the Torah either (as a soft spoken message of racism is shown in words in attached image).
Diversity was a curse due to the Tower of Babel sin. Before that sin, God never created diversity and had only created “one language, one race” (implied in verse below):
“Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.” (Genesis 11:1, NASB)
God is not against mixed marriages even in the Old Testament (e. g. Ruth) but against wives who turn one’s heart away from Him to serve other gods as verses below clearly describe:
“But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.” (Ruth 1:16, NASB)
“For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.” (1 Kings 11:4, NASB)
The Jewish racism comes from the Talmud and NOT from the Blessed writings of the Torah or the Prophets.
In fact, even Moses (through whom the Law was given) had an interracial marriage with a wife of “Ethiopian” descent (“Cushite”, not a Hebrew woman) as clearly Written in verse below:
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” (Numbers 12:1, KJV)
We all know that God’s Anger burned toward Aaron (the High Priest) and Miriam (the prophetess) for their “racist” words against Moses for marrying that Ethiopian or Cushite wife till Miriam became leprous proving that God is NOT a racist at all:
“and they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And the LORD heard it.
(Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.)
Suddenly the LORD said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, “You three come out to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them came out.
Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward,
He said,
“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
“Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”
So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed.
But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous.
Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned.
“Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”
Moses cried out to the LORD, saying, “O God, heal her, I pray!”
But the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.”
So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again.
Afterward, however, the people moved out from Hazeroth and camped in the wilderness of Paran.” (Numbers 12:2 – 16, NASB)
Conclusion
God is only against any marriage for believers which brings a believer ‘away from God’ (certainly NOT His Will).
In short, if a potential marriage candidate leads you away from Him, that person is surely not God’s Will in marriage for a believer.
P/S:
Wasn’t Jewish people disallowed to marry other races in the past?
It was disallowed under the Context of Foreign women turning the Jewish man away from YHWH to serve other gods.
As even the case of Ruth proves (Ruth 1:16) that if a foreign woman is loyal to YHWH, she is allowed to marry a Jew proving that the prohibition is in the context of loyalty to God (1 Kings 11:4) and not race (Numbers 12:1).
The Torah gives this “same” reason for interracial marriage prohibition under the “context (reason)” of ‘turning their heart away from Me (YHWH) to serve other gods’ as is clearly stated (implied) in verse below:
“Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
“For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.” (Deuteronomy 7:3 – 4, NASB)
We cannot read a verse without understanding the reason found in the verse itself causing us to misunderstand His Commands.
How about this verse? Does it speak of a Gentile being able to convert into a Jew?
“and in every province and province, and in every city and city, the place where the word of the king, even his law, is coming, gladness and joy are to the Jews, a banquet, and a good day; and many of the peoples of the land are becoming Jews, for a fear of the Jews hath fallen upon them.” (Esther 8:17, YLT)
It doesn’t speak of a conversion in the context of loving YHWH but in the context of “fearing the Jews”.
That is, they “became Jews” by mimicry.
If your reasoning is valid, a verse should read being converted into a Jew due to “fear of the LORD (YHWH) “.
So, Esther 8:17 speaks of “becoming a Jew” in the context of ‘assimilating’ out of ‘fear of other Jews’ (that’s all).
The ‘assimilating’ is similar to “becoming a Jew” for non-bible-contradicting reasons or practices as even apostle Paul declared or used a similar meaning phrase in verse below (usage highlighted here in analogy though different meanings by Context):
“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;” (1 Corinthians 9:20, NASB)
God is “not” impressed by those ‘becoming Jews’ for the reason of ‘fear of other Jews’ as Esther 8:17 describes agreeing (in principle to the verse below too, being a “feigned” or “in pretense” type of ‘fake obedience’ which you are quoting) to ‘escape the Jew’s avenging decreed by the king’, context:
“A copy of the edict to be issued as law in each and every province was published to all the peoples, so that the Jews would be ready for this day to avenge themselves on their enemies.” (Esther 8:13, NASB)
There is no full fledged Jews out of ‘Love for YHWH’ or ‘by the fear of the LORD’ or anything like that described in Esther 8:17.
It is a fake conversion or one Motivated by fear of the revenge of the Jews which these ones tried to escape as the context of Esther 8:13 clearly states. That is, the context of conversion in Esther 8:17 is “fear of Jews” to “escape their revenge” (Esther 8:13).
That’s the meaning of became Jews in the context of fear of Jews, i. e. by Assimilating or Practising Judaism.
The phrase “became Jews” means that since the only other meaning is that ‘their race became Jewish’ which is absurd.
By the Context of this passage, these converts to Judaism (“became Jews”) by ‘practising Judaism’ out of ‘fear of the Jews’ (Esther 8:17) to ‘escape the revenge of the Jews’ (Esther 8:13).
We can only see these truths when we ‘quote the reasons found in these verses in full’ instead of just quoting ‘became Jews’ by ‘not mentioning the reason for it’.
Regarding the term “Jew”, please consider:
Esther 3:6 & Esther 3:10 defines the context of Jew in these passages to mean ethnicity (Israelite people, generally) establishing the claimed context.
Other verses where such a general use of the term “Jew” is used to refer to the “Descendants of Jacob” generally (though it has a meaning referring to those in particular from the tribe of Judah), please consider, to quote:
During the Captivity, and after the Restoration, the name, however, was extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Daniel 3:8 Daniel 3:12 ; Ezra 4:12 ; Ezra 5:1 Ezra 5:5 ).
Should such a conversion (from a Gentile to become a Jew in the sense of being able to be a heir of Abraham in all sense, equivalent) was possible, it should be in the Torah. Where is this non-existent verse please?
So, one is born a Jew. Jews are Israelites descended in the flesh from Jacob.
I’m using Jew in the general Israelite sense.
Yes, a convert into Judaism (e. g. The meaning of “became Jews” in Esther 8:17) is not becoming a Hebrew but just a proselyte who is not part of the covenant in Old Testament times but may live as a “foreigner or alien” being subjected to the Torah as it’s Written in Scripture which is clearly contrasted against the “native born-Israelites” (“Hebrew”, ‘a descendant of Jacob in the flesh’) too (e. g. Leviticus 18:26). These different terms (“ger” or foreigner vs ‘native born Israelites’) in these verses clearly proves that there’s a distinction between them though with regards to God’s Law both are equal (Leviticus 24:22, Exodus 12:49).
For example, New Testament Scripture clearly proves the distinction between “a Gentile converted” into “Judaism” who is called a “proselyte” vs one who is born in the flesh as a “Judahite” (a “Jew”), to quote:
When these folks converted they didn’t miraculously become Judahites and Hebrews. How could anyone?
“Judahites and proselytes…“ (Acts 2: 11)
The people of Sepharad, like the Ashkenazim and all the others who converted to the religion of the ancient Judahites, only professed to adhere to the various rules of the faith. They maintained their own cultures and identities. Today they are known as Talmudic Jews and Torah Jews.
This is how apostle Paul uses the term “Jew” generally likewise too as implied in verse below:
“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,” (Romans 3:29, NASB)
Abrahamic Jewish Promises by Covenant was through Jewish-blood-line only until Christ through Whom the Way was made possible for Gentiles to be co-heirs in Christ (Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:29).
Without Christ there was no hope for Gentiles to be fellow heirs but thank God, we have it through Christ (Blessed be His Holy Name!):
“to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” (Ephesians 3:6, NASB)
“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:29, NASB)
To restore the ‘right Unity’ (Genesis 11:1), God Will achieve it by “Gathering in One, all things in Christ” in the ‘fulness of the times’ as revealed in verse below:
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven(s), and which are on earth; even in Him:” (Ephesians 1:10, KJV)
**Why is the definition of being a Jew in the flesh important?
For example, Rabbinical Judaism teaches today (commonly) that a “Jew in the flesh” is “only through the mother” (A rule NOT found in the Torah as a verse but through the interpretive fallacy of the oral torah).
Hence, it is common for Jews to deceive some Christians by claiming this “false-rule” and stating the fact that one of the persons in the lineage of Christ (through Mary, in the flesh) is “Ruth” (who is a non-Jew by descendant, a Gentile) —-> hence leading to the “false” claim that Christ cannot be the Messiah due to not fulfilling this “man-made requirement”.
Fact is, a Jew can be descended (in the flesh) from either parentage (suffices) as Scripture proves. Here’s a brief explanation regarding this for edification, please consider:
Here’s are two examples where they were Jews NOT by “mother descent”, to quote:
“In the Five Books of Moses, there are two mentioned examples of Israelites who married apparently non-Hebrew women whose children were Israelite. Judah married the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua,] with whom he had one surviving son, Sheilah.
In Egypt, Joseph married Asenath the daughter of Poti phera, priest of On. Joseph and Asenath had Menashe and Ephraim.
According to the Torah, these examples predate Israel’s nationhood and the Giving of the Law at Sinai by centuries, and matrilineal descent may have only been a requirement after the Law was given.” – Wikipedia
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism
If the oral Torah’s requirement of “mother based Jewish descent is true”, then the two examples given in the Torah contradicts it clearly.
Also, such a rule of “must have Jewish mother rule” is NOT written in the Torah.
So, the oral Torah “adds” to the Torah even against the example found in the Torah itself where an Israelite is formed without the mother being Jewish, one parentage in the flesh suffices would be the correct and accurate interpretation with “no” contradictions.
Also, I don’t believe in something not written in the Torah such as the “added” logic by the Oral Torah perpetrators that ‘such a Rule was only after the Law was in force’. Hebrew or Israelite definition pre-dates the Law itself (as descendants of Jacob in the flesh) and thus how it was accepted before the law (by either father or mother in the flesh as a descendant) holds true as the example from the Torah demonstrates.
Another joke in the Oral Torah misinterpretation of this fact, is this:
Can God’s Law change (from either parent) to “only via a Jewish mother” based on ‘before & after the Law’?
The joke is on your Oral Torah’s view of it and I certainly don’t accept that as Scripture at all.
Regarding an example of being a Jew in the flesh via a Jewish mother with a Gentile father, please consider Acts 16:1 and that’s why Timothy could be circumcised too (Acts 16:3).
In doing this, apostle Paul is NOT contradicting the fact (as commonly fallaciously claimed too without a proper Scriptural understanding of this) by which he commanded the “believing Gentiles (not Jews)” where these MUST NOT be circumcised (Galatians 5:2) especially for a ‘religious reason of being compelled by Judaism (Acts 15)’.
Shalom
Comments – Jewishness – Paternal or Maternal or Both?
Answer: Both
Example:
—> Joseph’s case (Paternal) since the wife was a Gentile though he was Jewish
—-> Timothy’s case (Maternal) since the mother was Jewish but the father a Gentile
1) Rabbinical Judaism invented the idea of being able to “become a Jew” via conversion based on Esther 8:17 as discussed prior which actually means ‘practising Judaism’ (in context of fear too, not whole-heartedly Esther 8:13) and ‘not heirs of Abraham according to the promise’ for these ‘proselytes (converts, Acts 2:11)’ which is ‘only possible through Christ’ (Galatians 3:29).
Here’s a further discussion for edification:
2) Claim: Why didn’t the sons of Moses inherit anything? Because Zipporah didn’t fully convert.
Reply:
Regarding Moses’ sons or even Zipporah (his wife) the Torah doesn’t give much details.
That doesn’t mean that Rabbinical Judaism can invent a lie that she didn’t convert to Judaism and so her sons were rejected.
Firstly, from the incident where God almost Killed Moses, ironically it’s Zipporah who did the circumcision. An author elaborates:
“So we don’t exactly know if Zipporah worshipped idols or not at the point when she was married to Moses, it is said that Jethro first kept Moses prisoner and she helped him. But it is clear that she did she converted to Judaism at some point. Circumcision episode is explained that Zipporah made Gershom a Jew by performing circumcision to her son. Second son Eliezer was raised as Jew.”
The Rabbinical literature speaks more too, consider, to quote:
“Interestingly Jerome and Rabbinic tradition say that Jonathan mentioned in Book of Judges is son of Gershom. He was the Levite priest who was in the house of Micah, but later became priest for the Tribe of Dan. It is said that his decendants continued in that position till the land was conquered.”
3) Claim:
Jewish father + non Jewish mother = non-Jewish child
Reply:
The problem with fake equations like this
Jewish father + non Jewish mother = non-Jewish child
Is that, it’s NOT from Any verse from the Torah but man made misinterpretations outside Inspired Scripture.
It’s from here:
If one of the parents is not Jewish, the rule is that the child takes the status of the mother (Kiddushin 68b, Shulchan Aruch, EH 4:19)
Example, here link below (please notice that no verse distinguishing the paternal vs maternal lineage is found in the Torah, only a strong paternal lineage for inheritance is mentioned).
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1014792/jewish/To-a-Child-of-a-Jewish-Father.htm
In fact, no verse from the Torah describes that tribal descent and Jewishness is distinct and based on paternal vs maternal lineage.
These are man made interpretations that rule out Joseph’s descendants but the claim that his wife converted doesn’t make any difference.
Notice that in the passages where a Gentile converts to Judaism, he is still referred to as a “ger” and “not a Jew” where he gets equal justice in the eyes of the Law (Leviticus 24:22, Exodus 12:49).
The verses which speak of “ger” in the Torah never calls him a Jew even after converting. The Esther verse proves the conversion to Judaism as a ger for reasons mentioned prior and the phrase “became Jews” meant that clearly.
If becoming Jews from a Gentile was possible, the “ger” (foreigner/stranger) words need not exist for this Gentile who has accepted Judaism (such is not the case and the Torah maintains this word, proving distinction between the converts of Judaism vs those practicing Judaism by being Jacob’s descendant paternal/maternal as even the verse in image shows):
“(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs–we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:11, NIV)
4) Claim: Ishmael doesn’t get inheritance as Hagar didn’t convert
Reply:
Ishmael was not chosen by God. It has nothing to do with his mother (Hagar) being pagan.
God is the One Who chose Isaac to be born of Sarah (please note the word “God” in Genesis 21:2 – 3 and “no” mention of ‘it is due to Sarah’s conversion to Judaism or that Sarah became Jewish as some Non-believing Jews claim this absurdity’).
The Scriptural definition of “Jewishness” (son of promise in the flesh to Abraham, Galatians 3:29) is that they must be descendants in the flesh (paternal, maternal or both as shown at the start) —-> of “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” as ‘God’ decided it thus (that’s why in Old Testament times, God often identifies Himself as the ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ pertaining to that Covenant, e. g. Exodus 3:6) to highlight this ‘flesh/Jewishness’ part of the Old Covenant (Can you see it?).
In New Testament Scripture, we see that the “Gentiles are included as co-heirs in Christ” (Galatians 3:29) which was not revealed explicitly (e. g. In the Torah) in “earlier ages past to the sons of men” (Ephesians 3:5 – 6).
Thus, in the New Testament, apostle Paul echoes that God is the God of the Gentiles too (and not Jews only) in verse below:
“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,” (Romans 3:29, NASB)
Please note that the “closely related similar” meaning between “God of the Jews” vs “God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob”. Can you see that the “Jewishness” definition is linked by the flesh to the descendants of “Jacob (called Israel)” proving this point with New Testament Scripture too?
5) Claim: The verses from the Torah teach “only” maternal lineage Jewishness in the flesh.
Reply:
Now to debunk this myth completely, let’s look at the so called verses from the Torah that teaches this as follows:
(i) Deuteronomy 7:1 – 5
No mention of definition of Jewishness is based on the mother. Which phrase in this set of verses please?
In fact both sons and daughters are mentioned not to intermarry to avoid the influence of serving other gods (both genders equally mentioned).
(ii) Leviticus 24:10
“And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.” (Leviticus 24:10)
Please note that the person with a Jewish mother was called “son of an Israelite woman” (where the mother is identified as an Israelite but not the son) as opposed to the “man of Israel” phrase identifying the other person as an Israelite.
So if the Rabbinical Judaism’s claim was true, that person with an Israelite mother should be called “a man of Israel” too under the Jewishness passed on to him. To claim that this person is Jewish due to his mother from this verse certainly is adding to Scripture something which is not written here.
At most, one can say that since the father was not an Israelite, the son (though of a Jewish mother) may only be called the “son of an Israelite woman” and not “a man of Israel” giving weightage to paternal lineage to be identified as an Israelite. Nothing more is to be added.
(iii) Ezra 10:2 – 3
” And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra: ‘We have broken faith with our God, and have married foreign women of the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this thing.
Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of the LORD, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.” (Ezra 10:2 – 3)
In these verses, it is speaking of putting away these foreign wives who have caused a brokeness of Faith toward God (verse 2).
It is not speaking of whether one is Jewish based on paternal or maternal lineage (that’s not the topic or context here at all). The topic here is “broken faith toward God” due to “marrying foreign wives who serve other gods (implied by comparison)” and hence it is suggested that the best option is to put away these wives and children from among the loyal Israelites so as to not cause influence toward the departation of faith.
Nothing more is meant in these verses and we should not add to His Word and just take it as it is written.
Conclusion
When the actual verses from the Torah are read, we clearly see that these claimed verses to support their claim is baseless as not even one verse quoted speaks of any relationship between “Jewishness” vs “paternal or maternal physical lineage”.
Did you notice that the phrases “Jewishness” or “paternal or maternal physical lineage” are NOT found in ‘any of the verses quoted from the Torah in the above’?
Also, in each case, either a “different phrase” (example, “ger” or foreigner is distinguished from “native born Israelites”, e. g. Leviticus 19:34 implying a difference in the flesh or descent, blood-line implied by the word “native”) or an entirely different topic (a case and how to handle it according to the Law is spoken of instead of paternal vs maternal lineage as often falsely claimed using these verses)
I rest my case.
