Should Ephraim not criticize Judah?

For the sake of making a broader point, many generalizations follow. Hopefully most people will be able to see through the generalities, knowing that they of course don't apply to every single individual and culture and circumstance.

Judah (Jewish people) knows how to receive criticism. Judah also knows how to give it. Ephraim (a multitude of largely christian peoples), on the other hand, is the one who issues criticism but doesn't generally know how to receive it... without then cutting off relationship with the one offering or delivering the criticism.

Culturally, Judah is an expert critic. "Two Jews, three opinions" ring a bell? He is also a funny critic. The Seinfeld Series is probably one of the best examples. You'll see four Jewish friends argue and criticize each other throughout the entire series, but somehow they continue in friendship and even become closer over time. But Ephraim (maybe because of the silent and sometimes barely veiled arrogance that permeates all Ephraimite cultures) doesn't receive criticism well. In a way, Ephraim is culturally non-confrontational (there are exceptions). And this may be why you'll hear Two House teachers from within Ephraim saying Judah shouldn't be criticized... because culturally it generally means Ephraim doesn't intend to draw closer to Judah. Well, if criticism is presented in a way that desires separation in the end, then yes, Ephraim shouldn't confront and argue with Judah. But if Ephraim argues with Judah as Judah argues and criticizes Judah, then the criticism and/or disagreements will bring Ephraim even closer to Judah in the end, but only if Ephraim lets Judah volley, which means the dialog must be face to face (not necessarily in person). So it shouldn't be gossip-based, behind the scenes anti-Jewish talk (which is how it generally is). Basically, Ephraim needs to speak AND listen. Albeit, "listening" doesn't mean Ephraim agrees or complies on every level. It simply means Ephraim listens, considers, and carries on in dialog... hopefully finding topics of agreement (which is how Judah carries on within himself). Both parties may indeed learn from each other. If nothing else, both sides will see the core or heart of the other.

It may be good to have a policy of no dialog when it comes to Terrorists, but Ephraim and Judah are brothers and as brothers should talk and dwell together, even if that means criticism and disputes will be an inevitable part of the package.

A fool despises his father's instruction,
But he who receives correction is prudent. -Proverbs 15:5

Ephraim has this complex that "if I criticize someone, it is as if I'm killing them." Well, in some cases one may destroy another person's character or reputation behind another parties' back, but we're not talking about personal or individual character gossip and assault here. We are talking about two large bodies of people communicating with each other.

Usually Ephraim's criticism of Judah is directed toward Judah's "Oral Torah" (considered to be man-made commandments by much of Ephraim) and their disbelief in Yeshua as Messiah. Judah's criticism of Ephraim is generally pointed at Ephraim's pagan traditions, general belief in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah, and their unwillingness to follow the Oral Torah, which is (what I believe) one of their largest reasons for not allowing Ephraim to return to the Land of Israel as "Israelites". So do both parties have rightful reasons to criticize? I would say from both perspectives, yes they do on various levels. But I would also offer that it isn't Judah who ultimately lets Ephraim return to the Land in mass according to the Prophets. It will be יהוה, the Creator of the Universe, who brings Ephraim back, and clearly יהוה hasn't made His most strategic move yet.

"It is to a man's honor to avoid strife" (Proverbs 20:3) of course, but let Ephraim and Judah occasionally argue and criticize each other if it causes them both to understand the other more. Historically, brothers have often fought with each other, but how often do they make amends and restore fellowship in the end, being even closer than they were originally? Is the act of arguing a good thing? Well, arguments that turn to murder, no. But disagreements during regular discourse always seem to erupt at some point. It is how disagreements are responded to... where they test our patience, check our agenda, and teach us. That is where they are good.

Ephraim can levy criticism just as Judah will certainly do so, but Ephraim doesn't need to comply with Judah's orders of correction in every case, even though it would probably be beneficial if Ephraim could modify his response after criticism and correction is levied by Judah. Indeed, from Judah will come the Lawgiver, the Messiah, and Ephraim will comply with His orders, but Ephraim need not be troubled with Judah's many elders unless they themselves comply with the Torah of יהוה and not their own torah if it comes in direct conflict with the Written Torah... for we know Yeshua acted within some Jewish tradition, but he also rebuffed the Rabbinic order of the Pharisees at times (Mark 7:5). From my own study of Talmud (Oral Torah), I've found many things worthy of praise, but I've also found things that trouble me a great deal. Even so, attacking the entire package blindly is unwise in my opinion. So if Ephraim is going to confront Judah on Talmudic-levels, it would be wise for them to tread lightly or they might bite off more than they can chew. On the other side, there are well-studied Ephraimites who have strong and legitimate arguments against the Oral Torah and/or aspects of it.

More important than anything, Judah and Ephraim simply need to start looking at each other, face to face, recognizing who the other is in prophetic contexts. Ephraim must stop envying Judah, and Judah must stop troubling Ephraim (Isaiah 11:13).