On Belonging to Israel, the Spiritual Inheritance of Abraham, and Humanity’s Obligations Before the Almighty
When a person who is not Jewish begins to study the Torah seriously, sooner or later a question arises: if the Torah is a revelation from the Almighty, why are some of its commandments binding upon that person while others apply specifically to Israel? And on what basis is this distinction made? This question becomes particularly pressing for those who have come to the God of Israel through Christian or Messianic traditions. In the letters of Shaul (Paul), they encounter statements that people from the nations become heirs of Abraham, participants in the blessings of Israel, and branches grafted into a cultivated olive tree. This leads to a natural question: if someone has come to share in Israel’s spiritual inheritance, should that person also assume all the obligations of the Sinai Covenant? Familiar explanations suggesting that the Torah was given to the Jewish people and that the other nations have no connection to its commandments fail to capture the full complexity of the issue. Yet the opposite claim—that faith in the Messiah automatically places all of Israel’s obligations upon a person—also requires serious justification. The first step is to clarify what it means to belong to the Almighty, to share in Israel’s inheritance, and to be bound by a particular commandment. These concepts are related, but they are not identical.
The first difficulty arises when the universal significance of the Torah is equated with the universal obligation to observe all its commandments. The Torah reveals the will of the Almighty, His understanding of justice, holiness, responsibility, and the proper ordering of human life. In this sense, its significance extends far beyond the Jewish people. Yet this does not mean that every commandment contained in the Torah is addressed to all humanity in the same way. Such distinctions exist even within Israel itself. For example, commandments concerning Temple service were assigned to the kohanim (priests) and Levites. Other obligations applied specifically to kings, judges, farmers, men, or women. An Israelite who was not a kohen was not considered any less a member of the Covenant simply because he could not perform priestly duties. Indeed, attempting to perform a service to which one had not been appointed could be regarded as a violation of the order established by the Almighty. The account of Korah in Numbers 16 demonstrates how seriously the unauthorized assumption of a sacred office was treated. Thus, the holiness of a commandment does not mean that its observance is obligatory for everyone. Faithfulness to the Torah requires not only a willingness to obey the Almighty’s commands but also a proper understanding of those to whom they were addressed. The question, therefore, is not which parts of the Torah remain valid and which have lost their significance. Rather, it concerns the distinction between the enduring significance of divine revelation and the specific obligations arising within a particular covenant. The Torah remains the Torah regardless of whether a particular individual is obligated to observe every one of its provisions.
One of the principal arguments for extending Israel’s obligations to people from other nations is the image of the olive tree in Romans 11. Shaul describes branches from a wild olive tree being grafted into a cultivated olive tree and becoming sharers in its nourishing root. In Messianic interpretations, this image explains how people from the nations participate in Israel’s spiritual inheritance through the Messiah. Yet it is important to notice what Shaul does not say. He does not claim that a wild branch becomes a natural branch after being grafted in. On the contrary, the distinction between natural and grafted branches remains throughout his argument. Moreover, the grafted branches are explicitly warned not to boast over the natural ones. This detail is of fundamental importance. If grafting meant the complete elimination of distinctions between Israel and the nations, the continued contrast between natural and grafted branches would lose its meaning. At the same time, participation in the root is real, not merely symbolic. The grafted branch genuinely receives nourishment from the tree. The issue, therefore, is not the absence of a connection to Israel, but the nature of that connection. Participation in Israel’s spiritual inheritance is not equivalent to automatically acquiring its national and halakhic status. This distinction becomes even clearer when we consider the promise made to Abraham. In Genesis, the Almighty promises that all the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 12:3). From the beginning, therefore, the blessing has a universal purpose. Yet the promise to bless the nations does not imply that they must all become descendants of Jacob or assume identical obligations under the Sinai Covenant. In Galatians, Shaul states that those who belong to the Messiah are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:29). But inheriting the promise made to Abraham must be distinguished from entering the Sinai Covenant with all its legal obligations. The promise to Abraham preceded the Sinai Covenant. It included the promise of blessing for the nations, whereas the Sinai Covenant established a particular relationship between the Almighty and Israel, including specific obligations for that people. Therefore, sharing in Abraham’s inheritance does not, in itself, demonstrate that one has assumed every obligation placed upon Israel at Sinai.
Another argument concerns the expression “royal priesthood.” In Exodus, the Almighty addresses Israel with the words: “You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). A similar expression later appears in the First Epistle of Peter: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession” (1 Peter 2:9). In Christian and Messianic traditions, these words are often understood as evidence that believers from the nations have received a special standing before the Almighty. However, the original meaning of the expression must be considered. When Israel was called a kingdom of priests, this did not mean that every Israelite received the authority to perform the duties of a kohen. The nation as a whole had a priestly calling among the other nations, while distinctions between different forms of service remained within Israel itself. Thus, even belonging to a royal priesthood did not imply identical obligations for all its members. Applying this image to a community of believers does not, by itself, prove that all the provisions of the Sinai Covenant automatically apply to that community. Furthermore, the question of the original recipients of the First Epistle of Peter remains a subject of scholarly and theological discussion. The text contains images of dispersion, a chosen people, and the former condition of those who are now called God’s people. Scholars differ in their assessment of the relationship between Jewish and non-Jewish recipients of the letter. Consequently, using a single verse as definitive proof of a change in the halakhic status of people from the nations would be unjustified.
The story of Ruth occupies a special place in this discussion. Her words to Naomi have become one of the best-known expressions of faithfulness to the God of Israel: “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). This is clearly more than a simple acknowledgment of the Almighty’s existence. Ruth binds her future to Naomi’s people, embraces their God, and refuses to return to her former life. In Jewish tradition, Ruth’s story is regarded as a model of joining Israel. In the Talmudic tractate Yevamot 47b, her conversation with Naomi is used in discussing the acceptance of a person into the Jewish people. Yet this very point requires careful attention. Ruth does not merely express spiritual sympathy toward Israel. She makes a decision to bind her life to that people. Her story describes a movement toward actual belonging, not simply an inward feeling of religious closeness. At the same time, the Book of Ruth does not describe the later procedure of conversion, or giyur, in all its halakhic details. Modern legal practice cannot simply be projected back onto events of antiquity. Nevertheless, Ruth’s story also does not justify the conclusion that everyone who accepts the God of Israel automatically becomes Jewish. Her example demonstrates that ancestry is not an insurmountable barrier to joining Israel, while also emphasizing the distinction between faith in the God of Israel and becoming part of the people themselves.
The Torah repeatedly contains commandments in which servants and resident foreigners are mentioned alongside Israelites. For example, the commandment concerning Shabbat states: “You shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates” (Exodus 20:10). This demonstrates that certain provisions extended beyond native-born Israelites. A question then arises: if even servants and resident foreigners were included in the observance of certain commandments, should a person from the nations who has consciously accepted faith in the Messiah not be considered a participant in these obligations all the more? Sometimes this conclusion is supported through the principle of kal va-chomer, an argument from a lesser case to a greater one. However, applying this principle correctly requires establishing that the second case is indeed stronger with respect to the particular obligation being considered. Accepting the Messiah does not, by itself, prove that a person acquires a broader legal status under the Sinai Covenant than the resident foreigner mentioned in the Torah. Without first establishing such a status, the argument becomes circular: it assumes that a person has acquired certain obligations and then uses that assumption to prove that those obligations exist. Moreover, the position of servants and resident foreigners in ancient Israel was defined by specific legal and social relationships. The Hebrew term ger in biblical texts refers to a foreigner residing among another people. Later halakhah distinguishes between a ger tzedek, a convert to Judaism, and a ger toshav, a resident alien with a particular recognized status. These later categories should not automatically be imposed upon every occurrence of the term in the Tanakh. Thus, the inclusion of a resident foreigner in a particular commandment demonstrates that the relevant rule applied to a defined category of people, but it does not mean that all of Israel’s obligations automatically applied to every non-Jew.
At the same time, it would be mistaken to claim that the Torah does not envision any participation by people from other nations in the observance of its commandments. In Isaiah 56, the Almighty addresses foreigners who have joined themselves to Him. The prophet speaks of people who keep Shabbat, hold fast to His Covenant, and serve the Almighty. They are promised a place in His house, which is called a house of prayer for all nations. This is an exceptionally important passage. It shows that the relationship of a person from the nations with the God of Israel is not limited to merely acknowledging His existence. The prophetic vision includes genuine devotion to the Almighty, expressed through concrete actions and religious practice. Yet this passage does not automatically establish that all non-Jews are obligated to observe every commandment of the Sinai Covenant. The prophet speaks of particular foreigners who have joined themselves to the Almighty and hold fast to His Covenant. How their joining is to be understood, and the precise extent of their obligations, requires further interpretation. In Isaiah 2, many nations are described as coming to the mountain of the Almighty to learn His ways: “For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3). Significantly, the nations come to learn the Torah while remaining nations in the prophetic description. The universal significance of the Torah and the particular standing of Israel are therefore not contradictory. Israel can remain the people of the Covenant through whom the Almighty reveals His will to the world, while other nations turn to Him, learn His ways, and participate in the fulfillment of His purpose. This does not require assuming the complete disappearance of distinctions between Israel and humanity.
If the question is considered within a Messianic framework, it is necessary to take into account not only Shaul’s words about grafted branches and the heirs of Abraham, but also his statements concerning the position of people from the nations. In First Corinthians he writes: “Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision” (1 Corinthians 7:18). He then explains that circumcision and uncircumcision are not decisive in themselves; what matters is keeping God’s commandments (1 Corinthians 7:19). At first glance, these statements may appear contradictory. Shaul emphasizes the importance of the commandments while not requiring the uncircumcised to undergo circumcision. Yet the contradiction arises only if one assumes that every commandment must be equally binding upon every person. Once a distinction is made between general faithfulness to the Almighty and specific obligations associated with a particular status, the argument becomes clearer. Shaul does not require the elimination of distinctions between the circumcised and the uncircumcised as a condition of belonging to the Messianic community. The issue becomes even more explicit in Galatians, where accepting circumcision in the context of the religious requirement under discussion is linked to the obligation to keep the whole Law (Galatians 5:3). The historical context of this warning is essential. Shaul is arguing against a particular understanding of circumcision as necessary for people from the nations. His words therefore cannot automatically be turned into a prohibition against every voluntary practice associated with the Torah. Nevertheless, they indicate that accepting the Messiah was not, in itself, understood by him as an unconditional requirement to assume the entire body of obligations under the Sinai Covenant. Equally important is Acts 15, where the religious obligations of believers from the nations are discussed. The very fact that such a discussion took place demonstrates that extending all of Israel’s provisions to non-Jews was not regarded as an obvious consequence of joining the community. Different Christian and Messianic traditions interpret the decision and its later implications in different ways. Yet this passage cannot be ignored in any serious discussion of the Torah’s binding authority for people from the nations.
One of the most important questions is whether a person may observe a commandment that was not imposed upon them as a binding obligation. Here, three matters must be distinguished: the obligation to observe a commandment, the permissibility of observing it voluntarily, and the right to claim that the Almighty directly commanded that particular person to observe it. These do not always coincide. Traditional halakhah contains discussions concerning the voluntary observance of commandments by non-Jews. In particular, Maimonides (Rambam), in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim uMilchamot (Laws of Kings and Their Wars 10:9–10), discusses both restrictions and the possibility of non-Jews performing certain commandments in order to receive a reward. His position cannot be reduced either to a complete prohibition against observing additional commandments or to unrestricted permission for non-Jews to adopt the entirety of Jewish religious practice. Particular questions arise concerning Shabbat, the establishment of independent religious customs, and practices associated with a specific covenantal status. Therefore, the question of voluntary observance must be considered in relation to each particular commandment. Voluntary observance does not automatically transform a person into someone to whom that commandment was originally addressed. A person may respect a particular provision of the Torah, study its meaning, and follow it within permissible limits without claiming that it was imposed upon them as a binding command.
The practical significance of this issue becomes especially clear in traditional Jewish blessings. Before the observance of many commandments, the following formula is recited: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to…” These words express more than gratitude or love toward the Almighty. They also affirm that the relevant commandment is addressed to a particular “us,” of which the person reciting the blessing considers themselves a part. For this reason, the permissibility of using such a formula cannot be determined solely by the sincerity of religious feeling. Within Jewish halakhah itself, well-known disagreements exist concerning blessings over commandments performed voluntarily. For example, Maimonides and Rabbeinu Tam take different approaches to whether women may recite blessings over certain commandments from which they are exempt. These disagreements are reflected in later halakhic tradition, including the discussion in Orach Chayim 17:2. However, this debate concerns the position of Jewish women within the Covenant and cannot automatically serve as permission for non-Jews to recite the same blessings. In traditional Judaism, belonging to a Messianic community does not, in itself, change a person’s halakhic status. Within Messianic Judaism, by contrast, different approaches exist regarding the participation of people from the nations in Jewish religious practice, including the use of blessings. Yet the acceptance of a particular practice within a specific community does not mean that it is recognized by traditional halakhah. The question must therefore be stated more precisely: not simply whether a person may recite an established blessing, but on what basis that person claims that the Almighty commanded them to perform that particular commandment. Sincerity of intention is deeply important, but it cannot replace accuracy in what is being affirmed.
Behind the discussion of commandments lies a deeper issue. A Jew who belongs to Israel according to halakhah has a defined basis for understanding their obligations. Such a person does not need to trace their genealogy to a particular tribe of Israel. Most Jews today do not possess such information. Membership in the Jewish people is determined by established halakhic criteria, not by a personal feeling of connection to ancient ancestors. Even if a Jew does not observe the commandments, this does not, in itself, cancel their belonging to Israel or the obligations associated with it. A person from the nations who acknowledges the God of Israel faces a different question. Such a person may sincerely love the Torah, seek to observe its provisions, and feel a deep connection with the history of Israel, while not possessing the same halakhic status. This can lead to a desire to find a basis for assuming all of Israel’s obligations. Within Messianic thought, that basis is often found in belonging to the Messiah. Because the Messiah comes from Israel, it is argued that those who accept him become participants not only in Israel’s blessings but also in all its obligations. Yet this conclusion does not automatically follow from spiritual belonging. Being connected to a person who possesses a particular status does not necessarily mean acquiring all the legal obligations associated with that person’s ancestry. Even within Israel, belonging to the same people does not erase the distinctions between a kohen, a Levite, and other Israelites. Still less does participation in Israel’s spiritual inheritance, by itself, prove a change in the national or halakhic standing of a person from the nations. This raises a fundamental question: is it truly necessary to bear the same range of religious obligations as a Jew in order to be close to the Almighty? The Torah establishes no such criterion. Differences in obligation do not imply differences in human worth. Israel’s particular calling does not deprive the other nations of the possibility of serving the Almighty. Conversely, a sincere desire to draw near to the God of Israel does not require a person from the nations to assume every obligation of the Jewish people. Closeness to the Almighty is not measured by the number of commandments a person chooses to take upon themselves, but by faithfulness to the divine will that genuinely applies to them.
The question of whether the commandments are binding upon people from the nations cannot be resolved by simply opposing two extremes. The first is the claim that the Torah is meaningful exclusively for Jews and that the other nations should not regard it as a source of divine instruction. Such an understanding fails to account for the universal dimension of the Torah, the promise to Abraham, and the prophetic vision of nations turning to the Almighty. The second extreme is the assumption that spiritual participation in Israel’s inheritance automatically obligates a person to observe every commandment of the Sinai Covenant. This approach overlooks the distinctions between promise and covenant, spiritual participation and halakhic belonging, voluntary observance and binding obligation. Both extremes arise from an attempt to establish a single universal rule where the Torah itself recognizes different forms of responsibility. Therefore, when examining any commandment, it is necessary to identify its original recipients, the conditions of its observance, the covenantal framework to which it belongs, and the way in which it may apply to someone outside Israel. Some commandments establish direct obligations. Others reveal moral principles of universal significance. Still others are connected to Israel’s particular status. Certain commandments may be observed voluntarily under specific conditions, while others presuppose a particular status without which their observance is impossible or inconsistent with the established order. This approach does not diminish the significance of the Torah. On the contrary, it makes it possible to approach the Torah without arbitrarily appropriating its obligations or artificially limiting its meaning.
The Torah does not cease to be a revelation from the Almighty simply because a particular commandment is not addressed to all humanity. Nor does Israel’s special standing mean that the other nations are deprived of the possibility of drawing near to God, studying His ways, and ordering their lives according to His will. The story of Abraham demonstrates that the Almighty’s blessing is intended for all nations. The story of Ruth bears witness to the possibility of joining Israel. The prophets speak of the nations turning to the God of Israel. And the writings of Shaul, within a Messianic reading, describe the participation of people from the nations in Abraham’s inheritance without requiring the complete disappearance of distinctions between Israel and the rest of humanity. Yet none of these passages, taken on its own, establishes that every person who acknowledges the God of Israel or the Messiah automatically becomes obligated to observe every provision of the Sinai Covenant. It is therefore essential to preserve the distinction between belonging to the Almighty, participating in Israel’s blessings, and being obligated to observe particular commandments. A person may love the Torah, study it, live according to its wisdom, and seek to observe the commandments available to them without claiming that all of Israel’s obligations were imposed directly upon them. Ultimately, faithfulness to the Almighty does not consist in seeking to acquire as many religious obligations as possible, but in correctly understanding His will. And if the Almighty has established different obligations for Israel and the nations, respecting those distinctions is not a rejection of the Torah, but part of remaining faithful to it.
The Torah speaks to all humanity, but this does not mean that every commandment it contains is addressed to every person. Understanding this distinction allows us to preserve respect for Israel’s particular Covenant while recognizing the universal significance of divine revelation.
