Getting Lost on the Road

How did a Gentile become a part of Israel? It was all a matter of the Covenant. Anyone who was willing to embrace the covenant in full could become a part of Israel, and it had nothing to do with DNA. That was God’s Word: You became a “child of Israel” — and by implication a full vested claimant in the promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was supposed to be a matter of faith, of full personal commitment to embracing an identity of personal loyalty to God. You were actually become part of God’s family. He willingly adopted anyone who became loyal to Him personally.

But we know how quickly the bulk of Israeli people kept forgetting that. They kept slipping into the mindset about DNA and being a “true Israelite.” They kept trying to make it a matter of objective fact, not a question of moral commitment. This is behind Jesus’ comment that God could make stones into more valid “Children of Abraham” than someone with dubious claims to customary inheritance through DNA. The stones would have been more faithful to God’s purpose.

Look at the academic study of the Ancient Near East in terms of history, culture and literature. We have no ideas about an ethnic identity for terms like “Aramaic” or “Akkadian.” We already know those folks were all about the language and culture, and were most certainly of mixed DNA from any number of nations and tribes roaming and mixing across that region of the world. What held those people together was a language and a moral outlook that manifested in common intellectual assumptions. And for all we can tell, they would have asserted such themselves. They were bound together by anthropological affinity, not some objective immutable fact. In their own minds it was never a question of being or doing, but a matter of who you were in your soul.

Think about the actual meaning of the terms often abused today. As noted above, “Israeli” was supposed to be a matter of covenant identity. If you weren’t faithful to the Covenant, your identity as a Child of Israel was on soft ground (sand as opposed to bedrock). Covenant identity would presumably include a necessity of learning the Hebrew language, because the Hebrew culture was contained in, and transmitted by, the spoken language. The whole meaning of the Israeli Covenant was in the narrative; it was the centerpiece of meaning itself. Only incidentally was it about writing things down. Hebrew was a narrative language and the mystical truth was not in the words, but the living experience implied by a dramatic rendering in narrative words. Hebrew language was indicative, not descriptive; it pointed to a meaning that was beyond words. The language itself was supposed to help you trust less in some imaginary “objective reality” and to put your trust in moral truth.

So today we have people slinging around terms like “anti-Semite.” The academic meaning of that term is actually a matter of hating a group of languages. The term “Semite” refers to a linguistic group, not a race or ethnic group. Semitic languages today include Hebrew, Arabic, and a smattering of related tongues used by small groups of people in the Middle East. In other words, you cannot reduce “anti-Semite” to some objective fact. While the term is used that way for the sake of propaganda, it’s sheer nonsense.

This is why I keep reminding folks that the name “Israel” is not properly a geographic term, nor a racial or ethnic identity, but a name used by God to denote a moral commitment to His revelation. It’s a name denoting people who have joined into the faith commitment by a man God called “Israel.” Today, the proper use of “Israel” according to God’s Word is anyone who follows Jesus. But it excludes folks who call themselves “Christian” if they are Westernized and cling to a religion based on Enlightenment assumptions about reality. In other words, if you have not adopted a Hebrew mystical approach to thinking, you cannot rightly call yourself “Christian” because you would not be actually following Jesus and His teachings. You may well still be struggling to learn what that means, but by faith you should have embraced it already.

About Ed Hurst

Disabled Veteran, prophet of God's Laws, Bible History teacher, wannabe writer, volunteer computer technician, cyclist, Social Science researcher
This entry was posted in eldercraft and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Getting Lost on the Road

  1. Mr. T. says:

    “In other words, if you have not adopted a Hebrew mystical approach to thinking, you cannot rightly call yourself “Christian” because you would not be actually following Jesus and His teachings.”

    I’m not sure if it is very clearly spelled out in the Bible itself. If you didn’t bring this up, I’m pretty sure it’s easy to miss (of course my Bible knowledge isn’t that great yet). But hopefully the Holy Spirit will “implicitly”/”tacitly” lead Christians to truth even if they don’t know how they should “propositionally”/”logically” think?

    Even in general it seems that spiritual things, including morality, are really hard to exactly put into words even if they sometimes do have very concrete manifestations. There are so many philosophical theories of morality, not to mention psychological and sociological. What’s the “correct” and Godly answer to the Trolley Problem for example? Utilitarism or virtue ethics and so on and on… And practical real life is of course where things really do matter and “spiritual effects” might show most by being hear-led.

    I have tried to think about it, for example, as pointing myself to the right direction according to a spiritual compass — or general directions (up, down). I recently read this page ( and found it making things a bit more concrete and practical (like C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters) — if it’s necessarily a good thing is of course doubtable.

    Still trying to put things together. I have my intellectual sand castles still in existence, questionable if they really actually influence anything in the real world or my day to day behaviour.


  2. Ed Hurst says:

    I don’t have much comment about Swedenborg’s theology except to note that I don’t care for it. His teaching isn’t consistent with mine. Not all mysticism is alike by any means. Still, my whole point is that the starting place is the Hebrew mystical approach. Where you go from there is between you and God. If my message calls to you, take what you need. If something else calls, go there. It’s not a question of which theology is correct; it’s a matter of having the proper approach to personal faith and religion. You are personally responsible to God for the formation of your religion.


  3. Mr. T. says:

    The difficulty indeed is that even if there are common themes, everyone really has their own theology. And it’s quite difficult to deal with such abstract topics. Maybe “high end” understanding isn’t always absolutely necessary, but even getting the basics (a general map) figured out can they time and effort.

    Thanks for the effort in teaching, though! I for one am trying to understand.


  4. Ed Hurst says:

    God bless you, Mr. T. See today’s post for more on the topic.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.