“Hebrew Yeshua vs Greek Jesus” by Nehemiah Gordon

This is a rather long video. But it gives profound insights into the “Oral Torah” of the House of Judah (Jew-dah) and makes an attempt to reconcile Matthew 15 with Matthew 23, where Yeshua seems to both condone and then reject the “traditions of the elders”… that is: commandments added to what יהוה instructed Moshe (Moses).

Nehemia Gordon’s book by the same title is also something I highly recommend. It can be purchased here. Even so, the video is more entertaining.

If the video freezes at any point, you can drag the slider forward and backward to cause Google to reinitialize the video. Seems to be a buffering problem for some people.

Related content:
Should the majority rule? Rambam, 1001 Rabbis versus 1000 Prophets

What happened to the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel? (Part-1)

Below is how you’ll likely hear this common question answered by mainstream “scholars” within Christianity and some Messianic Jewish circles:

Answer: There are many mysteries, legends, and traditions as to what happened to the 10 lost tribes of the Northern Kingdom. The truth is that the tribes were never lost. Most of the people of the Northern Kingdom were deported to ancient Assyria (2 Kings 17:6). Many of those who remained in the land re-united with Judah in the south (2 Chronicles 34:6-9). Assyria was then conquered by Babylon, who then went on to conquer and deport the two remaining tribes of the Southern Kingdom, Judah and Benjamin (2 Kings 25:21). When King Cyrus allows the Israelites to return to Israel (Ezra chapter 1), many from the northern ten tribes and southern two tribes returned to Israel. In the New Testament, the prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36) was from the tribe of Asher (one of the 10 supposed lost tribes). In Jesus’ day, Israel was a mix of those from the former Northern and Southern Kingdoms. In the end times, God will call out witnesses from each of the 12 tribes (Revelation 7:4-8).

The answer above is actually taken directly from GotQuestions.org. It isn’t terribly unique in its attempt to diminish the prophetic promise of Israelite (Ephraimite) multitudes.

The answer says King Cyrus of Persia allowed Israelites from all 12 tribes to return to the Land of Israel, yet the books of Ezra and Nehemiah only account for Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Isn’t that interesting? The answer says, “many from the northern ten tribes and southern two tribes returned to Israel”. Really? And what proof are we given of this? The presence of “many” is proved by the presence of “one” Asherite (Luke 2:36). Now that is compelling!

So what are the biggest problems with the above answer?

First of all, why would Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer be arguing about the return of the ten tribes of the House of Isarel as though it hadn’t happened yet (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 110b), if those tribes had already returned 500 years earlier as the answer above suggests?

Secondly, the Jewish Historian, Flavius Josephus, outright says the ten tribes were still east of the Euphrates River in the first century CE. See his discourse regarding the ten tribe by clicking here.

Thirdly, the Prophets of the Hebrew Scripture foretell the descendants of Ephraim would become a “multitude of nations” or “the fullness of the nations” (Genesis 49:18). If Ephraim already rejoined Jewdah, where are the “multitude of nations”? Can the “Jews” claim such? Arabs can claim numerous nations, but why not the “Jews”? The reality is: no tribe within the Kingdom of Judah was ever promised “nations”, but Ephraim was. To see the many promises from Scriptures, click here.

Fourthly, there are prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures, which clearly indicate a “Latter Day” context, where the House of Israel and the House of Judah are reunited then, in the Last Days, NOT in antiquity. The two sticks of Ezekiel 37 is probably the best known and the most clear prophecy with an End Times context. If the two Kingdoms rejoined during the reign of King Cyrus, as the answer above suggests, then how does one make sense of Ezekiel?

The ten tribes may not be “lost”, but they certainly are indiscernible to many, which was probably the ultimate plan of YHVH. To become “not a people” as Hosea prophesied, the Israelite people would need to become unknown (forgotten) to themselves and unknown (forgotten) to surrounding peoples.

Related Content:

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 110b, Will the Ten Tribes of Israel return?

The Babylonian Talmud (Mishnah) Sanhedrin 110b quotes the opinions of Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus:

“THE TEN TRIBES WILL NOT RETURN [TO THE PROMISED LAND], FOR IT IS SAID, AND CAST THEM INTO ANOTHER LAND, AS IS THIS DAY: JUST AS THE DAY GOES AND DOES NOT RETURN, SO THEY TOO WENT AND WILL NOT RETURN: THIS IS R. AKIBA‘S VIEW. R. ELIEZER SAID: AS THIS DAY — JUST AS THE DAY DARKENS AND THEN BECOMES LIGHT AGAIN, SO THE TEN TRIBES — EVEN AS IT WENT DARK FOR THEM, SO WILL IT BECOME LIGHT FOR THEM.”

Read the entire tractate here: Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 110b

You can chose to believe YHVH is a liar like Akiva did, like many secular and religious scholars do today, OR you can be like Eliezer, who trusted in the Creator of the Universe and the promises spoken through His Prophets. Even so, your belief or non-belief isn’t going to bring the tribes back, for the Almighty said He Himself will gather them (Ezekiel 34.11-13). It isn’t up to you or me. The Great One will show Himself strong before all nations, even the resistant multitudes of Abraham and Ephraim.

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).

Why we need the Urim and Thummim again?

Because Messy-antics (Messianics) can’t agree on anything and the rabbis (great ones) aren’t so great. That is why.

The Urim and Thummim (Urim v’Tumim) were stones used by ancient Israel’s leaders to reconcile difficult matters (something the Pharisees claimed to do, but apparently only made things more difficult in general). In a sense, the two stones were Two Witnesses for all the people to see… similar to the Two Witnesses who יהוה has indicated He is going to send to judge Israel and Judah again in the Last Days (Revelation 11:3-19). Who knows, maybe they will have the original or new Urim and Thummim stones.

← Previous Page — Next Page →