JOHN 3-16 FALSE P# 2

This non-scriptural doctrine pre-supposes that non-Israel races need salvation from a broken law which they were not given to break in the first place. This cannot be found as a doctrine in either Testament.

NOTE: No statement about the final destiny of non-Israel races has been made or suggested in this book. The idea about all races needing redemption comes mainly from the misuse of all, whosoever etc in the New Testament. But there is no denial that the non-Israel nations should be made subject to the Law of Christ. Jesus will rule with a rod of iron, and the nations will bring their glory to the New Jerusalem, but we are told that the other nations will be outside that City.

The extra-scriptural doctrine about “Jews and Gentiles” arises from interpretations of the books of Romans and Galatians. But, the racial statements cannot be eliminated from these books, even if it is thought God should have given the covenants to every race on Earth. The expressions, The House of Israel, and The Twelve Tribes still exist through the New Testament.

In concluding his argument about the so-called “Jews and Gentiles”, the Apostle Paul says:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away un-godliness from Jacob.

There is no mention about any but all Israel being saved. None other than the seed of Jacob are included in being turned from un-godliness. Other races can never be part of all Israel or Jacob.

Rom 3:30 Seeing that it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Those whom God would justify are shown to be:

The circumcision … The House of Judah.

The uncircumcision … The House of Israel.

The House of Israel had become dispersed among the nations and were known as the un-circumcision. They had become as strangers and aliens to the Judeans, but they were still Israelites by race. To the Judeans who had the temple worship, the House of Israel was unclean and was despised.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

It is still to Abraham’s seed that the promises were made. This includes all from Jacob to Jesus who believed God. All Israel was saved by Jesus. But it is belief in God that saves the individual person within that seed. The popular doctrine says the seed is only a spiritual seed which can be made up from all races.

Rom 4:16 ¼ to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; ¼

Paul is not talking about other races. It is always to the one seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. These are the children of promise. Prophetically the New Testament is made only with the two Houses, the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Hebrews 8:8 shows the promise of the New Testament concerns only these two Houses. This is the fulfilment of Jer 31:31. Paul sums up the two parties, and declares:

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, ¼

All the objections in the world are not going to change what pertains to Israel or to the Word of the Lord. This verse says Who ARE Israelites.

23. STRANGERS can become Israelites

It is claimed by many that the word strangers indicates other than Israelites. In the Book of Peter we find this Apostle to the circumcision writes to strangers scattered as also does James, in the first verse of his book.. The Strangers scattered, contains the same word that is used in James, who addresses his book to the Twelve Tribes. Please look this up and make sure about this. So these strangers are still of the Twelve Tribes!

If any want to consider this matter further they can find that looking at the word pilgrim as used by Peter will help. This is exactly the same word that is translated as stranger in 1 Peter 1:1. The words, pilgrims and strangers, also appear in Hebrews 11:13 which clearly isolates them as being Hebrews [that is, Israel]. A later chapter titled Pilgrims, Strangers and Israel examines this in more detail.

This again is the language of the Old Testament where David says:

Psalm 39:12 ¼ for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.

My fathers gives immediate racial identity. But, further to this, the Hebrew words used for stranger and sojourner are:

Ger meaning a stranger (an unknown person) of ones own blood, tribe, or race.

Toshav meaning only a pilgrim or a temporary resident, and one who has no rights OR KINSHIP in any way at all with the people of the land in which they have taken temporary residence.

In this Psalm, David is saying that he is a stranger away from his home with God and he has no kinship with any other race around him. Peter make this same distinction.

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ¼

In Chapter 2 of this book we looked at this word “elect” and the elect nation, whom God is saying that He foreknew in the Old Testament.

Rom 11:2 God has not cast away his people which he foreknew.

1 Peter 2:10 goes on to quote from Hosea, (which is a book dealing primarily with the ten-tribed House of Israel).

1 Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

In Hosea and Peter, the not a people refers to the same people and hence cannot be non-Israelite “Gentiles”. Peter would have had trouble in convincing the Judeans that they had become not a people at some past time.

24. JESUS IS NOW THE KING

Remember how God said that David would never want for a descendant upon his throne until Jesus came to take this throne?

Jer 33:17 For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want for a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

At the time of Jesus, the throne of the Kingdom of Judah and Solomon’s line had long gone from Judea. The throne must therefore be manifest somewhere else and within the ten tribes headed by Ephraim. The Epistles are in full accord with the Law, The Psalms and the Prophets. But they are not in accord with tradition!

The people to whom Peter was writing had a King [1 Peter 2:13 and 1 Peter 2:17]. This again confirms that these people were not the Judeans, although they were Israelites. The people addressed had a king they were to honour. Peter tells us who they were racially. The indicators are given in the expressions an Holy [that is, set-apart] nation and a peculiar people as pointed out in the early chapters of this book.

25. “IN THEE SHALL ALL NATIONS BE Blessed”

The phrase all nations is supposed to mean ‘every race’. The reason why this cannot be so is presented at the end of the chapter entitledGalatians and Israel Exclusive.

CONCLUSION

We can see that the churches today have a major problem in doctrine. This is simply through wrong teaching that has arisen through failure to base doctrine upon the same basis used by Jesus and the Apostles. The basis must ever be the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets.

The Law and the Word of God were given only to Israel among the nations. Because of the misuse of the word all, particularly within the New Testament, the presumption is made that the Law of Moses, together with the associated covenant with Israel, was given to every person of every race. In this way, all have sinned is taught forgetting the context statement whatsoever the Law saith, is said to them who are under the Law [Rom 3:19].

Look at this quotation which is one of many which shows “all” in the reverse situation.

Deut 28:10 And all the people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee.

Here all the people of the earth does not include Israel! This same situation exists more often the other way around with all being Israelites. There is yet one more important impediment preventing people accepting an exclusive Israel. It is addressed in the next chapter, That Unfortunate Word “Gentile”. The unity of the Scriptures is made or broken upon this word Gentile and what that word actually means.

CHAPTER 6: THAT UNFORTUNATE WORD “GENTILE”

When we establish the exclusive nature of Israel as being a holy (set apart) race among all the other races of this globe, we find conflicts with the common belief about “Jews and Gentiles”. The common teaching is that “The Jews” are Israel and the “Gentiles” are everyone else. The two views are against each other; one cannot be held together with the other because we will show that “The Jews” cannot equate to all Israel and that some “Gentiles” may be Israelites in Scripture. Because the traditional teaching is so ingrained in commentaries, concordances, Bible dictionaries, books and in people’s minds, it is very hard for anyone brought up with this belief to shake it off.

Accordingly we will make an examination of both the words “Jews” and “Gentiles” as used in Scripture.

That there are two parties in the New Testament does not mean to say the two parties have to be Jews and Gentiles in the way that this is taught. Rather than that, the existence of the two parties confirms what is taught in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets about the division of Israel into two kingdoms from which arose the House of Israel [ten tribes] and the House of Judah [two tribes]. These two houses are shown in prophecy to be a continual vexation to each other, with a wall of partition between them, until they are reconciled together under the New Testament [Isaiah 11:13].

WHERE DID “GENTILE” COME FROM?

This word, GENTILE, originated from the Latin Vulgate translation, where the Roman doctrine said that the Roman Church had become the Israel of the Bible. Even more recently, Pope Pius XI reinforced this saying, “Spiritually, we Christians are Semites”. The inference of the word, Gentile, in the Roman Catholic context is one who is not of Rome. In the English translations that were based upon the Latin Vulgate, this Latin word has carried on with a similar meaning but instead of meaning not of Rome it has become to mean not of Israel.. In the minds of those to whom Rome and Israel were synonymous, there was no difference; to be of the Roman Catholic Church was to belong to and to be part of Israel. Rome accommodated all races who could buy citizenship. Rome calls herself a universal church with a universal Pontiff and is the originator of both modern and ancient universalism in the Christian religion.

But, unfortunately, translators have transliterated this Latin word, Gentile, into their versions, and it has carried forward even into recent translations. By transliterating the Latin form, it has allowed scope for the idea that it referred to Roman and non-Roman to continue. Switch the “Roman” to “Israel” [because Rome said she was Israel] and we then find how Rome expressed the two parties as “Israel” and “non-Israel”.. This has continued even to this day. This doctrine has found its way into commentaries and Bible dictionaries and through these media, most Christians are still influenced.

The Latin meaning of Gentiles is confusing in its own right – it does not mean ‘nations’. The Latin noun gen means ‘a nation’ and is equivalent toethnos. However, the word gentiles does not come from the noun but from the adjective, gentilis, which means of or belonging to a nation. In his epistles Paul does not write to nations as a whole, but to individuals within, or belonging to other nations. As all his writings are to Israelites, he uses ethnos to refer to his outcast kinsmen of Israel because that is how they were addressed in the Old Testament Scriptures – Gen 19:4-6; Gen 18:18; Deut 32:41 (the “with” is not in the Hebrew text); Ps 22:27,28; Ps 57:9; Ps 67:4; Ps 81:8; Ps 108:3; Ps 117:1; Is 5:26; Is 11:12; Is 34:1; Jer 1:5,10.. The Latin distorts and obscures these facts and we need to check its context every time it appears in the text.

HOW “GENTILE” IS MISUSED

In both the Hebrew and the Greek there is no word even approaching the way “gentile” is used today. In the concordances we can see the influences of the religious teaching of the day and age where the Roman influence is manifest.

Strong H1471. Gowy or goi [goyim Pl.]: a foreign nation, hence a gentile, also a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts, heathen.

Strong G1484. Ethnos [Ethne Pl] a race [as of the same] habit, that is, a tribe; spec. a foreign [non-Jewish] one [usually by impl. pagan] gentile, heathen, nation, people.

We must remember that concordances give usage rather than definitions but within these we can see part of the true meaning like of the same habit and tribe. The lexicons are more definitive.

Thayer: A multitude [whether of men or beasts] associated or living together … of the same nature or genus.

Vine Denotes firstly a multitude or company, then a multitude of people of the same nature or genus.. It is used in the singular of the Jews for example, Luke 7:5, Luke 23:2; John 11:48:50-52.

Vine goes on to show that Gentile is used in Scripture of both Jews and non-Jews. [Strong and Vine use the word "Jew" for "Israel" following the understanding of the periods].

HOW the HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS ARE TRANSLATED

It is time to look at the words translated as Gentile in the KJV translation of the Bible and immediately something strange will be seen:

Hebrew: gowy, goi, goyim	Greek: ethnos, ethne
374 times as nations	64 times as nations
143 times as heathen	5 times as heathen
30 times as gentile(s)	93 times as gentile(s)
11 times as people	2 times as people

In a later chapter, Galatians and Israel Exclusive, we will look at the “Greeks”. In the original text the word Hellen is used thirty five times, but our translators have also chosen to translate this word (wrongly) as “gentile”, particularly in the Book of Romans. Ethnos and Hellen are quite different words! Sometimes the justification is to say that the Greeks were not Jews and therefore they must be Gentiles. This is not translating; rather it is interpreting Scripture in the translations. There is no rhyme nor reason for all these various translations and mis-translations, other than to perpetuate a belief!

The commonly accepted meaning of the word “gentile” immediately falls flat from the translation point of view alone. When we add the fact that the word in Hebrew is used also of Israel it falls even flatter! When we show the real meaning from the New Testament, it becomes so flat that it cannot be seen! The Hebrew and Greek words mean “nations” as races and peoples. They mean any group of a common origin, including Israel.

Let us look at some Old Testament Scriptures where the word Gowy, Goi or Goyim are used. If we apply the logic concerning Gentiles for these verse, we can see the ridiculous conclusions that could be reached. Remember that Goi and Ethnos are used of Israel as well as of other races.

Gen 12:1,2 Now the Lord said unto Abram … and I will make of thee a great nation ¼

Gen 17:5 ¼ a father of many nations have I made thee.

Did God make a great non-Israel “gentile” nation out of Abraham and did Abraham father many Gentiles? Was the great nation other than Israel?

Gen 25:23 And the Lord said unto her (Rebecca), Two nations are in thy womb ¼

Could Rebecca have known what would become two non-Israel “gentiles” were in her womb?

Gen 48:19 ¼ and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

There is no evidence in Scripture that Ephraim would produce a lot of non-Israelites.

Gen 46:3 And he said, I am God, the God of thy father (Isaac) fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation.

Could the sons of Jacob be non-Israel “gentiles”?

Jer 31:36 If those ordinances [the sun and the moon] depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before me for ever.

As the word for “nation” is the same as that translated “gentile”, we could equally read the seed of Israel shall not cease from being Gentiles before Me. We could even say Israel would not cease from being heathen! This is absurd!

When we consider the word ethnos, which is sometimes translated “gentiles” in the New Testament, we have another block of translations among which we could make transpositions. The consequences are equally absurd!

Luke 7:5 For he loved our nation, and has built for us a synagogue.

Would that section of Jewry be pleased if the Centurion had built a synagogue for the so-called gentiles or the heathen? “Nation” is the wordethnos.

Luke 23:2 We found this fellow perverting the nation, ¼

Would “The Jews” care so much if Jesus was perverting the “Gentiles”?

John 11:48 ¼ the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

For the Romans to come to Judea and take away “our” gentiles gets a little silly.

John 11:49,50 Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

Caiaphas did not know that this word ethnos would be translated as Gentile and heathen and note he used “nation” in the singular. Jesus did die for the sheep which the Father had given Him and only that many. He gave Himself a ransom for many; but not every race on earth. It has been explained that the Law and Covenants were given to the seed of Israel only.

Acts 10:22 Cornelius … of good report among all the nation of the Jews ¼

“Nation” is ethnos which is often translated as “gentiles”, so could we possibly have “Gentiles of the Jews”?

Acts 24:17 ¼ I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings.

Here Paul would be saying that he brought alms to his “Gentiles” in Jerusalem. Paul was an Israelite.

We just have to admit that there is no such word in all of Scripture which matches up with the common acceptance of the word “gentile”. We can now see that goi and ethnos can mean both Israelites and non-Israelites.

Some teachers who admit to goi and ethnos being used of Israel declare that in the singular they refer to Israel and in the plural they refer to all the non-Israel nations. Galilee of the Gentiles in Matthew 4:15 is said to refer to “gentiles” because it is the plural. When we make a comparison with Acts 1:11, ye men of Galilee, and Acts 2:7, are not all that speak Galileans? it has to be admitted that the disciples were Israelites even if they were from Galilee.

POPULAR THEOLOGY ABOUT “GENTILES” … IS IT RIGHT?

We have already made comment on the origin of the word “gentile”.. We have pointed out that there appears to be no evidence that the Apostles could properly distinguish between Israelites and non-Israelites in the nations, to which they went. Hence the message had to be taken to the nations in order for the message to reach “all men” of the descendants of the outcast Israelites. These men had the capacity to believe God and so could accept the ‘good news’ and be reinstated as God’s people. But the Roman error was picked up and it has come to prevail. Luther, Knox, Calvin and Wesley together with cult leaders such as William Miller, accepted the error. Of course, the originator, the arch-cult-type, the Roman Catholic Church keeps on its unchanging doctrine. But she is the one with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication and by whom they have been deceived through her sorceries [Rev 17:2 and Rev 18:23]. It was Rome who originated the error in doctrine.

But we are told to come out of her my people [Rev 18:4]. This is the time to come out. God’s chosen people are warned to come out of all of Rome’s doctrines, including Rome’s universalism! Multitudes today are going Rome’s way. What religion leads the ex-communist states? What is sweeping the earth? But the great whore will be cast down; God has so decreed, and none need be partakers of her plagues. Who rejoices when Babylon is cast down? Is it not the holy [set-apart] apostles and prophets? [Rev 18:20]. One has to come out to be set-apart! The Faithful and True will come to judge and make war on that false prophet Rome [Rev 19:11]. The “wife” must get ready. It is the saints [Israel by Bible definition - see Psalm 148:1] who wear the white linen [Rev 19:8]. The voice from out of the Throne addresses His servants.. This is why time was taken in Chapter Two to establish clearly just who is the servant race and who are the saints in Scripture. They are the ones who have the right to enter the city through those twelve gates. Would there be much point in mentioning this if every race went through those gates?

Rev 21:12 And a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes the children of Israel.

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Who works the abomination in doctrine? Is it not the mother of harlots and abominations? Who spreads the doctrine of universalism? Who originated it? The meaning of Catholicism is universalism! Search the Scriptures and see which race is the only race written in the Book of Life!

THE KINSMAN-REDEEMER

JESUS IS THE REDEEMER OF KINSMEN. This is another view some take. If anyone believes the go ye into all the world and Jesus died to save the world doctrine in the way Rome interprets the world, then that person cannot believe that He is our [that is, Israel’s] Kinsman-Redeemer. At the Second Advent Jesus will ignore those who are not His kinsmen.

TO WHOM DID THE APOSTLE PAUL WRITE?

In our second chapter, The Exclusive Nature of Israel in the New Testament, many New Testament Scriptures were quoted to show that the Apostle Paul wrote to Israelites and that he could not have been writing to anyone else.

Gal 2:7 … the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.

Rom 11:13 For I speak unto you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, ¼

It is important to remember that the word translated as “gentiles” in these verses is ethnos in Romans and hellen in Galatians. Ethnos refers to Israelites by the same term that applied to them in the Old Testament. Hellen will be discussed in the chapter Galatians and Israel Exclusive. Everyone who has been taught that the Gentiles are always non-Israel does experience difficulty in “unlearning”. This is understandable, because this doctrine is what theology has taught; this is written into translations in a way which makes unlearning difficult.

Now we can look at some other Scriptures from the New Testament that show Israel as the only people being addressed.

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching (proclaiming) peace by Jesus Christ.

Acts 10:43 To Him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 13:23 Of this man’s seed hath God, according to his promise raised up unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

Acts 13:32,33 ¼ how the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the sameunto us their children ¼

Here we see direct Scriptures that are particular and exclusive. In Chapter Two many such Scriptures were pointed out. We also have awhosoever to which all the prophets of Israel give witness. Now, in the Old Testament books, to what whosoever does the Redeemer of Israel come? Is it whosoever of Israel as the prophets say, or is it the whosoever of every race as translators think it should say? A positive decision has to be made!

Someone might be thinking, Yes, but there are still two parties. This problem completely disappears when we take note of the historical fact that Israel separated into two Kingdoms and became known in prophecy as:

The House of Israel [10 tribes].

The House of Judah [2 tribes].

Subsequently, both Kingdoms went into captivity in Assyria and Babylon, respectively. Following the captivities, all of the 12 tribes (except for a small remnant) went North and were dispersed among the nations. These became known as the Dispersion or Uncircumcision. A small remnant of the Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom returned to Palestine and formed the Judean nation. The ruling classes of the Judean nation were dominated by Edomites and their subversion of the Scriptures, the Traditions of the Elders, became the religion of the land. The Judean nation practised circumcision and hence in the Scriptures, are referred to as the Circumcision. Consequently, the New Testament refers to two groups – the Uncircumcision (the Israelites outside the Judean nation) and the Circumcision (the Israelites inside the Judean nation).

The other uncircumcised races are not included in the uncircumcision, because the sum of the two groups addressed is all Israel.

JESUS’ MINISTRY WAS NOT PRIMARILY TO THE JEWS OR IN JUDEA

Most people would question this statement without even thinking about it! But let us look at this matter more closely. In the gospels, Jesus makes a clear distinction between Galilee and Judea, the latter being the territory of “The Jews.”

John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

John 11:53,54 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim.

Matt 19:1. And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan.

Matt 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee[from Judea].

Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee …

The highlighted words show clearly that the two territories are treated differently. There was a clear barrier between the two.

Matt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom …

Matt 4:15,16 The land of Zabulon and the land of Nepthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness saw great light …

The latter verse identifies these Israelites in Galilee and calls them “gentiles”! In the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, the footprints of Jesus are presented graphically on Pages 274 and 275 showing that Galilee was the major area of Jesus’ ministry.

Matt 4:13 And leaving Nazereth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum …

Most Christians seem to think that Jesus dwelt among “The Jews” in Jerusalem, but this is not so. Christians seem to think that Jerusalem was the centre-point of Jesus’ teaching ministry. Jesus went to Jerusalem at particular times for particular purposes. His disciples did not appreciate these times about going up to Jerusalem, as Jesus once told them, Your time is always now, but My time is not yet [John 7:6]. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament times exactly regarding the Sabbaths and the feasts of Israel. Jesus said He knew the exact day of His crucifixion at Jerusalem [Matt 26:2]. He went to Jerusalem on exactly the right day [Nisan 10th] to be chosen by the Israelite people among the population as their King, and He was delivered to become the all-sufficient sacrifice for the redemption of His people.. Jerusalem was the centre-point where Jesus would fulfil His mission and His Father’s Will to be the Passover Lamb for Israel. The institution of the Passover Lamb was only to Israel.

Across the border from Judea, mention is made of Ephraimites and Galileans [Benjamites]. Jesus was safe amongst the Israelites in Galilee whereas He was not safe amongst the Judeans. This fulfilled the prophecy made by Moses:

Deut 33:12 And of Benjamin he said, the beloved of the Lord shall dwell safely by him; and the Lord shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.

We have seen from Matthew 4:15,16 above that these Israelites in Galilee are called Gentiles. It was Galilee from whence Jesus picked out eleven of His disciples. Judas, the Judean, was the one who betrayed Jesus! Eleven of the disciples were not of “The Jews” and were not of Judah either. When Jesus ascended, the witnesses are described as Men of Galilee in Acts 1:11 and Acts 2:7. In Acts 2:22 those addressed were Men of Israel, but not “Jews”. But whilst addressing the Men of Israel, the disciples soon came up against “The Jews” in the national leadership. The more we look into this matter, the more impossible it becomes to say The Jews and the Men of Israel refer to the same people. Today most denominations insist that “The Jews” and “Israel” are the same! We read that some of the priesthood believed in Jesus; all were not Edomites or other proselytes. Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews and so was among the leaders. But his counsel was somewhat different as a non-Edomite! Jesus was speaking primarily of the leadership in general when referring to “The Jews”. Jesus described these leaders as hirelings, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not. Each such person in the religious leadership was climbing up some other way and each was a thief and robber [John 10:1]. In Verse 5 Jesus calls them strangers and they are identifiable because of what they were doing as making them different.

COMMENT

God says that Israel would always be a nation. The word ethnos could not apply to a multi-racial church. Israel is a separate people of a common racial origin. They would remain a nation [or nations] as long as the sun and the moon are shining [Jer 31:36].

The Hebrew and the Greek words which are sometimes translated “gentile” have both pagan and Israelite connotations. The words goi andethnos are used of any group of a common racial origin. The idea that the word refers only to non-Israel people comes from the translators, who took their lead from the Latin Vulgate whose interpretation of “gentile” was one who was not of Rome. This can never mean not a Jew in the sense it is given today. There are other words that apply to heathen and barbarians and Paul could have used these to describe non-Israelites if that had been his mind. But he did not! What the word “gentile” has come to mean is not the original meaning and therefore not the true meaning.

It is necessary to point out:

If “The Gentiles” does not mean what we have been taught, then the word “Church” may not mean what tradition teaches either.

If we want to declare that “The Gentiles” are non-Israel, then why does God say something different and still isolate Israel and Judah from the other races?

If any want to say that Israel is now “The Church”, called out of every race, then they have a problem understanding the difference between race and nationality. These are not identical. Israel was scattered among the nations, and is regathered out of [not of] them. This means that they are separated from other races.

The Apostle Paul concludes his argument in the Book of Romans by saying:

Rom 11:26 And so shall all Israel be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away all ungodliness from Jacob.

It is not said that the Deliverer will turn away ungodliness from others as well as from Jacob or that other than all Israel will be saved. We cannot somehow change all races into “Jacob”.

The parties that make up all Israel are still the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Thus says the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets! Thus says the New Testament also! Therefore, the two groups are not “Jews and non-Jews”, or “Jews and Gentiles” in the popular concept.

WHAT IS BEING SAID?

This chapter says that the so-called “gentiles” being addressed cannot possibly be other than Israelites. In general, they represent the House of Israel as opposed to the Judean nation. The Bible is a book about the whole nation of Israel and the covenants and promises made to that nation, either as a whole nation or to individual parts of it. The other races are mentioned in the Bible only as they affect Israel.

In the second chapter, we looked at many Scriptures that show the exclusive nature of Israel through the New Testament. The term “Greeks” will be examined in the chapter Galatians and Exclusive Israel.

The popular modern use of “gentiles” is wrong!

CHAPTER 7: COULD THE MODERN JEWS BE ISRAEL?

Although the Bible is the main source of information in this paper, there are quotations given in support from various Jewish Encyclopaedias as well as from the Roman historian Josephus. Modern Jewry should find no offence at direct quotations from their own encyclopedia. Modern Jewry talks about being the singular ancient people chosen by God, about being Edom and about being multi-racial, all at the same time. Christians and non-Christians have been mis-lead into thinking that the word “Jews” refers to a singular race of people being God’s chosen people, but in fact, this is not so. The “Jews” returning to the Israeli state today are multi-racial and we could hardly admit that a Chinese Jew and a Negro Jew are of the same race!

We will start with three references from “Jewish” sources which may help those who have been led to believe that the word “Jews” relates specifically to Israelites.

From Alfred M. Lilienthal’s book What Price Israel:

Here’s a paradox: an anthropological fact, many Christians have more Hebrew – Israelite blood in their veins than their Jewish neighbours.

The Jewish author Yair Davidy in his book The Tribes – Israelite Origins Of Western Peoples [Foreword by Rabbi A. Field] tells in much detail that the Saxon folks are Israel.

Jewish author Harry Golden wrote in 1967:

Isaiah the prophet wrote that the remnant of Yahweh’s people would be found in the Islands of the Sea.

These Islands are shown to be North and West of Palestine, that is, the United Kingdom.

Modern Jewish authorities who say, Modern Jewry is Edom [that is, they descend from Esau, not Isaac].

Quoting from the modern Messianic Jewish writer John Fischer in his book, The Olive Tree Connection, we find:

Page 96. The Jews of today are truly a people from many ethnic, cultural and racial backgrounds.

Page 97. Jewishness, however, consists of many elements: sociological, cultural, ethnic, religious, national, racial, historical, psychological and intellectual. The strength and mixture of these elements varies from person to person. This variety, therefore makes Jewishness elusive to define.

Jewishness is elusive to define simply because many racial and ethnic backgrounds cannot be one singular racial and ethnic background at the same time. At the time of the gospels a similar situation existed. The reader might readily see the multi-racial situation with the modern Jew, but at the time of the First Advent, this was not so obvious.

Mr. Fischer goes on to say:

Perhaps the Jews of the world are best described as a large community of people undergirded by a strong set of traditions.

These traditions were, and still are, a strong deceiving spiritual force. Traditions or religion do not specify race; traditions do not make any people The People of The Book. Jesus had problems with the Jewish traditions and we will see that the principles behind these traditions prompted Jesus to say some very disparaging things about the Jews in Judea that highlight both racial and belief factors.

The very title to this chapter might well astound those who have been brought up to believe that “The Jews” always means Israelites. One of the strange things about the words Jew, Jews, and The Jews as used today, is that these terms are not generalised in the Hebrew and Greek originals the way they are commonly used today.

According to the popular concept, the word “Jew” is supposed to relate to Israel or to all of God’s chosen race as a single entity. But prophecy from Moses onwards gives separation between each tribe of Israel and separation in destiny between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, right into the last days. Yet the Churches lump all the tribes of Israel together and call them “The Jews” and add in any person of any race who calls himself a Jew.

Most Christians talk a lot of nonsense when it comes to the subject of Jews. They can talk about a non-Israel “Church” which is supposed to have inherited the same promises that were made to Israel and at the same time talk about Jews being Israel. In effect Christians talk of two Israels. Furthermore, we hear popular but nonsensical sayings such as Abraham was the first Jew. If “Jew” is supposed to relate to Judah, then how could Abraham descend from his own great-grandson, since Abraham pre-dated the Tribe of Judah by three generations?

So, there is much misconception about the word “Jew”. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus says that there are people who call themselves “Jews”, but who are not Jews in fact. The Greek text uses the term Judeans, not Jews – there are those who call themselves Judean (of the Judean nation set up by the remnant from Babylon) who are not Judeans. Let us work through this to determine the identity of these false Judeans.

Quoting from R.K. and R.N. Phillips in “The Book of Revelation”, Part Two:

The word Jews in verse 9 should be translated Judeans – this is a direct reference to John 8:25-59 and John 10:25-39 where Jesus unmasks the Edomite interlopers. In the letter to Smyrna He shows the activities of these interlopers are well known to Him and will not go unpunished in the fullness of time. Mentioning them in this letter sets the contrast between the deeds of the Pharisees with their Traditions of the Elders and those who obey God. The same Judeans are named again in the letter to Philadelphia.

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

We find the words, Yehuwdah or Yehuwdiy, used 813 times in the Old Testament and they are usually translated as Judah, but as “Jew” or “Jews” in the books of 1 Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Daniel. In the remainder of the Old Testament, “Jews” usually refers to the remnant of the House or Tribe of Judah which returned to Palestine from Babylon. Yehudah simply means ‘Judah’ and is the name of the patriarch Judah. It is used to refer to the tribe which stemmed from him. It is also used for the land or territory occupied by that people, and following the division of Israel after Solomon’s death, it was used for the House or Kingdom of Judah. This was the only term used in this way up to the time of the Babylonian captivity. Following their deportation into Babylon, another term was employed. This was Yehudi [plural:yehudim]. Originally this word meant an inhabitant of Judea, or the people who came from that country. As such it does not necessarily represent descendants of Judah, but can include any people of other races who resided there. It applies to the Edomites who moved into the land vacated by the Southern Kingdom when it was taken to Babylon. It has come to represent any persons, irrespective of racial origin who embraced the Jewish religion, Judaism.

From Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11.5.7 we read,

So the Jews prepared for the work; that is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon, which is taken from the tribe of Judah, which came first to these places, and thence both they and the country gained that appellation.

By the time of our Lord, this mixed Edomite/Israelite population had absorbed proselytes from many other sources and made Judaism (the Edomite corruption of the Pentateuch) their religion. This explains the antagonism of the Jews towards Jesus – He made many references to their practice of encouraging proselytes into the nation.

The nation that formed in Palestine after the captivity of the Southern Kingdom in Babylon, was made up initially of people from the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, together with some Levites. They settled in two regions, with the Judahites primarily in Judea and with Benjamin in Galilee. Internally they are referred to as Judeans and Galileans in the New Testament. The Judeans of the region of Judea came to include all the people living there, regardless of their racial origins. All these people are referred to by translators as “Jews”, because they were “of Judea”. But this does not mean “of Judah” only. Included in the population were many descendants of Esau [Edomites]; these came to control the temple, and these were the leaders whom Jesus said could not hear [and understand] His words.

This is the view of modern Jewish authorities:

Encyclopedia Judaica 1971, 10, 21:

From the division of Israel and Judah, the term Yehudi applied to all the residents of the Southern Kingdom, irrespective of tribal status.

The words “Jews” and “Judean” did not apply to the Northern Kingdom. They never have!

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the New Testament we have two different words rendered as Jews:

Strong G2455 Ioudas Of the descendants of Judah [Hebrews 8:8 where it is a racial term].

Thayer Praised or celebrated … see Gen 29:35 - the tribe of Judah, the descendants of Judah.

Ioudas is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Yehudah. In the nine NT references it is rendered as Judah, Judea (the land of Judea) or Judas, always in reference to Judah, his descendants, or their country.

Strong G2453 Ioudaios Belonging to Jehudah or of Judea [in the sense of as a country].

Thayer The word is also used of Christian converts from Judaism [Gal 2:13] – of Jewish Christians

Vine It especially denotes the typical representatives of Jewish thought contrasted with believers in Christ.

Ioudaios is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Yehudi. It is translated as “Jew” and includes proselytes to Judaism. This then is more a matter of being a Jew by religion or region, rather than by race.

Thus we can see that the generalisation of the word Jew cannot be sustained in Scripture. One Greek word covers all the peoples occupying the former land of the covenant people, while the other word covers the covenant House of Judah in isolation. Ioudaios does not specifically refer to race at all and usually refers to people who are not of the descendants of Judah. This does not mean to say that there were no Ioudas [Judahites] or members of other tribes amongst them. From all this we can see that Jew and Judah are not synonymous terms and that there is a sharp distinction between them. It follows that the name, Israel, should not be applied to the Jewish people as a whole or to the country they occupy.

Historically, in the land of Judea, in addition to Judahites, there were Canaanites, Edomites and others, all of whom were proselytes to the Jewish religion. As a consequence these were labelled “Jews” since they were “Jews” by religion and they lived in the land of Judea. But they were not of the descendants of Judah! The territorial term explains how Paul could be called a Jew. Paul was a Benjamite [Philippians 3:5]. Paul and eleven of the disciples did not descend from the Tribe of Judah.

To help with understanding here it must be pointed out that the word Ioudaios can cover a mixture of races which may include some of Ioudas,both of which were in the territory of Judea. In the New Testament, the words translated as “The Jews” are used in a bad sense, whereas today they are commonly used in a good sense. Jesus continually condemned “The Jews” [plural] as did the Apostle Paul. “The Jew” [singular] as used in Romans is used in a different sense. First of all then, we will consider the bad sense in which “The Jews” is usually used in Scripture.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This territorial term for Jews in Greek is in line with the United Nations and Race Relations Conventions. Under auspices of these bodies, the dictionary definition of ethnic, which used to mean peoples who are other than Christians or Jews, has been changed. The re-interpretation refers to any group’s common or characteristic customs, culture, classification, traditions, beliefs, speech, descent, colour or ethnological division or national origin. In this context multi-racial Jews can thus now be claimed to be an ethnic group. Anti-Semitic now is made to refer to anything against the new concept of having this “Jewish” ethnic group.

In Judea, there were many races, and these could all be called Jews in the sense of being “Judeans”, having this territory and/or a religious belief in common. Hence the phrase The Jews does not necessarily mean any common genetic origin such as physical descent from Abraham through Isaac. In John 8, Jesus was talking to the Judean leadership who historically were mainly of Edomite extraction, and hence this majority were not Israelites in the racial and Biblical meaning. Israelite is a genetic racial-tribal term through Scripture.

In this book, the word translated as “The Jews” and “Judeans” refers to the Judeans of any race in the territorial or religious sense, [not the racial sense] and this must be taken this way. It does not relate to Israel racially at all. The word “Judahite” is used in this book to refer to the House of Judah, which is racial.

Those Who SAY THEY ARE JEWS, BUT ARE NOT

Rev 2:9 ¼ I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; …

At face value, the translation is saying that there are people who say that they are Jews but who are not Jews in fact. The common acceptance of the word “Jew” says every Jew, regardless of race, is a good Jew and that everyone who says that he is a Jew is a Jew. Jesus is contradicting this. Let us go a little further and see some other things Jesus says about “The Jews”.

JOHN CHAPTER EIGHT

John 8:21 ¼ ye shall seek me, but shall die in your sins …

This thought might upset some Christians who generalise everything and teach that everyone who seeks will find in the way they do. The ye is to the particular people being addressed. Jesus says of the Jews that they shall die in their sins. So it does not include everyone in Judea. The Judahite by race and the “Jew” by religious tradition are not the same thing. We will again see that amongst the Judeans there was a racial mix and that those of the Judahites could believe, whereas the non-Israel proselytes to Judaism could not believe [see v31].

v21 … whither I go, ye cannot come.

Jesus is saying that it is impossible for the Jews to go where He was going.

v23 ¼ Ye are from beneath; ¼

This is in contradistinction to “from above” in the same verse or the term Christians usually but incorrectly refer to as “born again”. The Greek text reads begotten from above.

v44 Ye are of your father the devil, ¼

v47 ¼ because ye are NOT OF GOD.

These are clear statements about who they are; that they are not begotten from above, nor of God.

v19 ¼ Ye neither know me, nor my Father, if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

This matter of knowing and being known of God has already been touched upon in an earlier chapter. Oida (know) signifies primarily to have seen or perceived, or to know from observation.

v 37-39 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed … If ye were Abraham’s children …

Here Jesus makes a distinction between Abraham’s seed and Abraham’s children. All of Abraham’s offspring were not heirs of the promises made to Abraham, for it was in Isaac shall thy seed be called – these are the children of the promise.

v 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Some might like to rationalise this away, but it has earlier been pointed out that only Israel can hear [hear and understand and act upon] God’s word. We have seen that The Word and The Law are stated in the Old Testament as given only to Israel of all the races on earth, as a covenant.

v 47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

In these last two verses there is the word “hear”. Thayer’s lexicon gives several meanings, among which we find:

To be endowed with the faculty of hearing [not deaf]

To attend to [use the faculty of hearing].

To understand, perceive the sense of what is being said.

The cannot and the not of God indicate that the Jews Jesus was addressing could physically hear but could not use their full faculty of hearing. Because they were not begotten from above, they do not have the innate spirit that provides the capacity to hear and understand and act on what Jesus is saying.

v55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: ¼