Primary
among the movement's spokespersons are Batya Wootten and Marshall, a.k.a. Moshe,
Koniuchowsky.
Analysis
Logic and Exegetical Method
Batya Wootten and
Koniuchowsky build their theology of the church as physical Israel on typological and
grammatically suspect readings of the stories of the biblical patriarchs and the fall of
the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C.E.
A Multitude of Nations
Starting with the patriarchs,
Wootten argues that Jacob's promise to Ephraim in Gen 48:19 predicted the transformation
of Ephraim/Israel into Gentiles.2
Wootten claims that every time the Hebrew word, goy, is employed, it is a reference to a
Gentile or a Gentile nation.3
This is incorrect. In the Hebrew
Bible and the Apostolic Writings, while the word goy (English: people, nation; Greek:
ethnos) may refer to a Gentile nation, it may, just as easily, refer to the nation of
Israel. The term is used to refer to Israel or the Jewish people in Exod 19:6; Deut 32:28,
cf. 32:45; Josh 10:12-13; Isa 1:4; Isa 26:2; Jer 31:36; Zeph 2:9.4 Note especially Jer 31:36: "'If
this fixed order departs from before me,' declares the LORD, 'Then the offspring [lit.
"seed"] of Israel also shall cease from being a nation (goy) before me
forever.'" In the Greek Apostolic Writings, the word ethnos refers to the Jewish
people in Luk 7:5; 23:2; John 11:48-52; 18:35; Acts 10:22; 24:2,10,17; 26:4; 28:19; 1 Cor
10:18; Phil 3:5. The first contention, then, that goy or goyim is always translated as
Gentile or Gentiles is patently incorrect.
Because of this error, Wootten and
Koniuchowsky argue that all the blessings promised to Abraham's and Joseph's physical
heirs are in fact blessings promised to Gentiles. But because the premise is wrong (that
goy always means Gentile), the conclusion is also wrong.
Dust of the Earth
Another major cornerstone of this
teaching is that social-historical Israel, as it is traditionally perceived, cannot
possibly fulfill the promises of physical multiplicity that was to equal "the sand of
the sea," "the dust of the earth," or the "stars of the sky."
Such a hyper-literalist reading of these phrases, which rules out their common-sense
interpretation, ignores the scriptural record. For 2 Chron 1:9 states clearly that the
people over whom King Solomon reigned [Israel] were "a people as numerous as the dust
of the earth." Isa 10:22 also refers to the people of Israel being "as the sand
of the sea" in number. Recognizing hyperbole in the Bible is not a matter of
"spiritualizing" the promises as Wootten and Koniuchowsky contend. It is a
matter of being knowledgeable about the rhetorical conventions used by the biblical
writers.
Parallel Universes
Fundamental to Wootten's and
Koniuchowsky's claims is a suspect view of history. Wootten argues that the northern
Israelite tribes taken captive by Assyria in 722 B.C.E. were "never
once…call[ed] Jews [italics hers]."5 For her, the exile of the northern kingdom automatically
transformed that people into Gentiles.6
Wootten and Koniuchowsky hope to
establish that the members of the former northern kingdom cannot possibly have been called
Jews from the post-exilic period on. If successful, they then hope to ask the question as
to how God could allow for 10/12ths of God's people to be annihilated. The obvious answer
to this is that God could allow no such thing! They then hope to demonstrate that these
"lost tribes" are indeed Christians — that they are not lost at all but
have been waiting for this end-time prophetic movement to reveal their true natures. As
Wootten states, "God allowed them to become lost among the nations. He allowed them
to become — Gentile Israel [italics hers]."7
Wootten tries to make a strong
distinction between post-exilic Judah and Israel by quoting Jeremiah speaking to
"'the house of Israel and the house of Judah' (Jer 11:10)."8 Based on this phrasing, she claims
that the two "houses" were distinct. As a matter of fact, while there are indeed
cases in which Ephraim and Judah are referred to separately, scripture just as often uses
the terms "Ephraim" and "Judah," or "Israel" and
"Judah," in tandem, employing the two terms as a parallelism — a poetic way
of speaking synonymously of the two groups. Thus when the Psalmist states, "God is
known in Judah; His name is great in Israel," the intention is not to differentiate
Israel and Judah but to equate them.9
"All Israel"
Despite their arguments, the Bible
tells us that many of the northern kingdom's subjects rejoined the southern kingdom both
before and after its people were exiled. Based on this, scripture makes the claim that the
Jews today represent "all Israel." The term, "Gentile Israel," used by
Wootten, is an oxymoron in terms of the biblical world of ideas.10
Jer 30:10 addresses the Judahite
exiles (cf. Jer 29:1, 30-31) and calls them "Jacob" and "Israel." Jer
31:17-20 reports that Ephraim has repented (past tense) and describes Ephraim grieving
over its own acts. Ezra 2:70 states of the returned exiles, "and all Israel lived in
their cities." Zechariah addresses the same Medo-Persian returnees as "Oh house
of Judah and house of Israel" (8:13; cf. 8:15) and distinguishes them from the people
of the nations (Zech 8:23). It is thus not accurate to argue that references to
post-exilic Judah are unique to Judah and do not apply to Israel.
Those who returned from exile
referred to themselves both as Jews and as the people of Israel because they affirmed the
theocratic reign of God centered in Jerusalem, the capital of the former kingdoms of
united Israel and, later, Judah (Yehudah).
Thus the phrase "the Jewish
people" has become the title for all of Israel. The term Jew encompassed all those
who were taken into captivity by the time of the Babylonian exile, both former Israelites
and Judahites, "the remnant of Israel" (Jer 31:7. Cf. Jer 50:33; Neh 12:47; Dan
9:11; Lam 2:5). By the time of the writing of Esther, the term Jew, derived from Judah,
could refer to someone from the tribe of Benjamin (Esth 2:5). In the Greek Tobit 11:17, in
a clear reference to the Assyrian exiles, it states, "So on that day there was
rejoicing among all the Jews who were in Nineveh." This designation became so
widespread that by the time of the Hellenistic period, the term Jew identified those of
all the former tribes who dwelt in the diaspora and who affirmed a particular religious
system. Wootten's claim that the northern Israelites were "never once called
Jews" is false.11
Israel in the Apostolic Age
The Apostolic Writings reflect
this Hellenistic usage. In Acts, Peter refers to his Jewish audience members as "all
the house of Israel" (Acts 2:36; cf. 4:10; 5:21; 10:36; 21:28). In Acts 13:24, John
proclaims his baptism of repentance "to all the people of Israel." His audience
was comprised of Jews. In Acts 26:7, Paul refers to the hope of "our twelve
tribes" with no reference whatsoever to Ephraim. Luke 2:36 mentions Anna as being
from the tribe of Asher. Paul states that he himself is of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom
11:1; Phil 3:5). Thus some members of non-Judahite tribes still maintained a memory of
their original tribal affiliations. Yeshua claims that his followers are to sit on twelve
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). Their function here
is that of representatives of the full twelve tribes.
In fact, the Apostolic Writings
make no mention whatsoever of a gathering of lost Ephraimites. Instead, they portray the
ingathering of Gentiles as a novum, an unexpected move in the history of redemption and a
breaking in to the present of God's final age of redemption.
In Romans 11:7-14, Paul states
that salvation has come to the Gentiles in order to make Israel jealous. If Gentile
believers are Israel, then how can Israel make Israel jealous? Note that while Paul makes
a clear distinction throughout his writings between Gentiles and Jews, he refers to Israel
and to Jewish people interchangeably.
The Ephraimite message undermines
the great power of the claims of the Apostolic Writings. It tries to change a message of
hope and comfort for all peoples regardless of their heritage, regardless of their station
in life, into a racist and race-based plan of salvation for those with the proper
bloodlines.
Who Is Israel?
Wootten and Koniuchowsky give
contradictory evidence as to how all believing Christians throughout history could be
physically descended from the ancient northern Israelite exiles. At times, they argue that
all people on earth are physically descended from Israel. At other times, they concede
that there may indeed be "perhaps some true Gentiles" among the believers.12 Or they call believing followers of
Yeshua "another 'sect' of Judaism," without any explanation as to how they can
be a sect of Judaism and not Jews!13
Wootten further confuses things by
declaring that Gentiles become Ephraimites only at the moment when they become
"grafted in" to the olive tree of Israel and no sooner.14 Thus we see wild contradictions in
the effort to explain how non-Jewish Christians today can be natural descendants of
ancient Israelites.
What about genealogy? Is it
statistically possible that everyone on earth is descended from one man? Only if no one
but Abraham had ever produced offspring that survived — making Abraham the "new
Adam." Intuitively recognizing the flaw in this argument, Wootten desperately tries
out another angle, arguing that today's followers of Yeshua, although considered Gentiles,
are actually physical offspring of those early Jewish and Samaritan believers.15 Thus descendants of Jews, who are
not Ephraim by Wootten's own definition, have somehow become Ephraim. Not only is this
inherently contradictory, but it is statistically and historically untenable. Finally, as
we will see, Wootten and Koniuchowsky claim that these descendants are found primarily in
the West. Yet, if one were to follow this logic, if any Christians today can make the
claim to physical descent from the early Jewish followers of Yeshua, it should be
Christians of North African, Egyptian, Syrian, and Palestinian descent, all non-white
peoples. However, we will see that Wootten and Koniuchowsky focus their hopes primarily on
white people, reserving only threats of annihilation for the Palestinians and others from
this region.16
Finally, Wootten and Koniuchowsky
protest repeatedly that their claims to Israelite heritage are physical and are not
spiritual. Yet, the basis for their claims are often wholly subjective -- when "you
knew in your 'knower,'" as Wootten claims.17 She cannot have it both ways. Either it is physical or it is
spiritual. Wootten makes both contentions, but ultimately she rejects the spiritual angle
and bases her argument on physical, race-based claims.
This pseudo-genealogy that Wootten
and Koniuchowsky have created is a desperate and contrived one — one that exists if
you "know it" in your heart. This differs drastically from the kinship groups of
social-historical Israel which have shared communal memories of kinship that are supported
by a rich history of literature, archaeology, and epigraphic evidence.
Parallels to Anglo-Israelism and
Racial Theory
Where have these ideas of
Wootten's and Koniuchowsky's come from? The sources they give are few. Koniuchowsky cites
Yair Davidy as a major source, but attributes to him few specific citations.18 Neither he nor Wootten make any
mention of theirs or Davidy's dependence on another probable source, the writings produced
during and after the eighteenth century movement called Anglo-Israelism or
British-Israelism. And it is for good reason that these sources are not mentioned, as they
are popular among some American anti-Semitic groups for their pro-white, racial claims to
being Israel. Wootten and Koniuchowsky make the same pro-white, racial claims.
I will list several parallels that
are striking in their agreement. Both groups (Anglo-Israelites and Ephraimites) build
their theories on the mythic story of the ten "lost tribes" of the northern
kingdom. Both groups put great store by suspect and contrived etymologies of English words
based on Hebrew. Both groups claim pre-eminent, "first-born" status as purported
heirs of Ephraim. Both share an innate hostility toward Roman Catholicism and Judaism.
Both proclaim that the teaching they propound is a "mystery" revealed only
through their teachers. Both argue that the lost tribes migrated to areas where they
eventually became known as Saxons. Both groups make mention of the nobility of
anglo-Saxons as evidence for their biblical, Israelite heritage.
White Supremacy
Of most concern about the
Anglo-Israelite and the "Two House" theory is the racial element found in both.
Both focus primarily on the anglo-Saxon "race." Wootten uses other racial terms
such as "blood-line Israelites." She is concerned about "dilut[ing] the
bloodlines."19 She refers
to Jews today as "biological Jews."20
Yet God's relationship with Israel
is not racial. The social-historical people of Israel have never claimed racial priority
as the basis for their covenant relationship to God. Jewish identity is based, not on
racial deliberations but on a shared communal memory and on choice.
The same exegesis, the same
contrived etymologies, the same constructed histories, the same white, Anglo-Saxon racial
focus, the same arguments against the church and the Jews — the parallels are
unmistakable and undeniable. Wootten and Koniuchowsky have built their "Two
Houses" on the shifting sand of Anglo-Israelite theology. The concerns that this
raises for Jews, whether Messianic, rabbinic, or secular, and for non-Jewish Christians
are evident.
Anti-Jewish Elements in the
"Two House" Theology
Certainly Wootten and Koniuchowsky
are not overt Jew-haters. But their words often echo and have the same effect as those of
people who hate Jews.21 Thus
despite the fact that Koniuchowsky claims to be Jewish (we have not verified this), and
despite his vigorous protests, there is indeed a great deal of anti-Jewish rhetoric in his
and Wootten's claims. Following what has become a typical motif among Christian critics of
Jews, Wootten accuses Messianic Jews of "feelings of superiority," of believing
they are "'Twice Chosen,'" and of having a "false racial pride."22 The motif of the "blind
Jews," a long-standing, standard motif of Christian anti-Jewish rhetoric, is there
also.23 Wootten states,
"They cannot hear. They cannot see. Until the Lord lifts the veil…"24 She scolds Jews, demanding that they
"must accept" her own viewpoint.25
Wootten and Koniuchowsky demand to set the vision for Messianic Jews today. Wootten argues
that it is only when Jews follow her teaching that they will be obedient to God, "for
only then," she promises, "will you be what the Father called you to
be…"26
With an irony that Koniuchowsky
seems to be unaware of, he refers to his solution for the problem of Jewish and Christian
relations as "the biblical final solution."27 We do not need another "final solution." The Jewish
people barely survived the last one. In this, Wootten and Koniuchowsky, in their grand
claims to have solved the issue of racial pride, merely replaced an old racial argument
with a new one. For them, race and "bloodline" is the determining factor.
Dangers of the Movement
Wootten's and Koniuchowsky's words
elicit the gravest concern in the images they construct for the future. For along with
their claims to be physical Israel, they expect someday to wield territorial control over
10/12th of the ancient tribal boundaries of Israel. They create an
"enemy" that includes Jews now living in regions once occupied by the ancient
tribal groups, which, they contend, now belong to the Ephraimites. For the Palestinians
they expect total eradication.28
In the pages of both Wootten's and Koniuchowsky's writings lies a strong assumption,
sometimes stated implicitly, sometimes explicitly, that the land belongs to them (along
with the Jewish people, whose portion, they contend, should be limited to 2/12ths of
Israel's territory). For the "Two House" proponents, the land of Israel is
"their land."29
Here again, the acorn has not
fallen far from the tree. Traditionally, Anglo-Israelite thinking has also included an
expectation that the land would be theirs as physical Israel.30 It evokes for us memories of the
Crusaders of the 11th through 13th centuries, who also, based on the
claim to be heirs of Israel, sought to take their "rightful place" as dwellers
of the land through conquest and warfare.
Conclusion
The position of the I.M.J.A. is
that the Ephraimite, or "Two House" movement is in error for the following
reasons:
- flawed, unwarranted, and dangerous interpretation of
scripture
- inconsistent logic and contradictions
- racist and race-based theology
- theology that functions in the same way as
supersessionism
- historically inaccurate depictions of Israel
- dangerous, false, and militant claims to the land
which threaten the stability of the current State of Israel
For additional
information on this subject or for a copy of the complete positional Paper e-mail us |
|
