Hebrew, Israelite, Jew
by
Philip du Nard
Before commencing our study of Genesis, for the sake of understanding, it is important to discuss some terms commonly used in the Scriptures.
There is a very bad habit that Christians often carelessly indulge in that leads to certain assumptions when trying to understand the Scriptures and that is to use the Biblical terms Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew interchangeably and, finally, to use the third term to the exclusion of the first two. Thus, we commonly hear Abraham spoken of as being a Jew and of the time that God "led the Jews out of Egypt." God is said to have made a covenant with the Jews at Mt. Sinai.
It seems so inconsequential to do and so picky to insist on a more accurate and Biblical use of these terms but consider what it would be like if we replaced other Scriptural terms with words that we thought had the same meaning. In Acts 11:26 we learn it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. Suppose someone read it this way: It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Baptists. I expect more than a few people would protest, maybe even the Baptists. If that someone were to say in response to this protest, that the two words mean the same thing because Baptist teaching is Christian and the words are therefore readily interchangeable to the point that everytime we use the word Christian we can say Baptist and even prefer that over the term Christian would this be excusable?
Now no one will deny that centuries later many Christians came to be known as Baptists and they are among the most devout Christians on the face of the earth but not all Christians are Baptists.
In Genesis 14:13, Abram, who was later renamed Abraham, is referred to as "Abram the Hebrew." He is never called a Jew or Israelite. His grandson Jacob was renamed Israel and his descendants were called Israelites. Abraham is the father of the Arabs also but it would not be appropriate to say Abraham was an Arab. The Israelites were in Egypt, not the Jews! The law given to Moses is just that, the law of God or the law of Moses, not Jewish law. The people who came out of Egypt were the Israelites, not the Jews. God made a covenant with the children of Israel, not the Jews.
You will look in vain in the King James Bible in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, in other words, the books of Moses. and also most of the historical books, for any reference made to Jews. The very first time the term Jew is used in the Bible is in II Kings 16:6 and it refers to the people that the king of Syria and the king of Israel being allied together were driving out, not the people under the king of Israel. It had reference to those living in the southern kingdom of Judah. Bible students should recall that the nation of Israel was divided into two separate kingdoms soon after the death of Solomon, hence, the Biblical references made to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah.The term does not really become widely used in the Bible until the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther and it is clear that it is a reference to those Israelites of the three tribed southern kingdom of Judah who had gone into Babylonian captivity, and also the remnant that returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity. It was not used to refer to the tribes from the northern kingdom of the house of Israel that went into Assyrian captivity some 150 years before, Clearly, some Israelites came to be known as Jews but not all Israelites are Jews.
Later, the term came to have a religious meaning as well ( Rom. 2:28-29; Gal. 1:13) and with the fact of religious conversion, it can no longer be said that all Jews are Israelites and, indications are, most are not.Thus, we have a people trying to claim the covenant promises to which they are not entitled.
But some will continue to insist through wishful thinking that the Jews that came back from Babylon represented all the tribes of Israel, that the tribes from the Assyrian captivity found their way back to Jerusalem along with their southern brethren though the Scriptures do not declare that and that the term Jew can therefore now be legitimately applied to all the tribes and that the people known as Jews are all there is to think about when discussing the Biblical Israel. This is insisted upon despite the fact that it is shown in the book of Zechariah that the division between Israel and Judah would continue past the time of the well known transaction involving thirty pieces of silver (the price of our Lord's betrayal by Judas Iscariot) Zech. 11:10-14, and that the reuniting of the tribes was to transpire toward the Messianic age as described in Ezekiel 37. An example like Anna at the time of Christ who was of the tribe of Asher must, therefore, be considered an isolated example like a Frenchman living in England.
I can't speak for all Jews, I'm sure that they have a variety of opinions, but I talked to the head of a Jewish educational center years ago and he acknowledged that Jews consider themselves, at best, to be descended mainly from three tribes, Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. This fits in with the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah where only these tribes are mentioned specifically.
Even these three tribes are not restricted to Jewry as part of Judah went into the Assyrian captivity with the northern tribes II Kings 18:13 and there are other non-Israel peoples who have become Jews. Does anyone imagine that the instance recorded in Esther 8:17 where we learn that "the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them" is an isolated occurrence? As previously stated, there are historical indications that it was not.Does anyone imagine that the people referred to in this passage who became Jews can be considered to be of the covenant people and heir to the promises of Abraham simply by being associated with what is now an antichrist religion?
In Rom. 11:1-2, we are reminded of a glorious truth that "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." God has not cast away the Israel people as some Christians believe. In the days of John the Baptist, when he was preaching in the wilderness of Judea, the Pharisees and Saducees came to check up on him. This is what he told them:
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
In other words, God does not need the Pharisees and those who adhere to their traditions in order to raise up children unto Abraham and thus be faithful to the covenant He made with Abraham. This is because of the multiplicity of seed God promised to Abraham and I'm not referring to some so-called "spiritual Israel." This is the exact opposite of what we hear coming from Christian pulpits today. We are told that a people whose cultural identity has been forged through centuries of adherence to Pharasaic tradition is indispensable to God in fulfilling His racial covenants that He made with Abraham.
Let's forget for the moment any discussion of "lost tribes" from the days of the Assyrian captivity which are lost only in the sight of men but have not been lost to God's view. Consider the many Israelites living in Galilee or Judea at the time of Christ who became Christian, some of whom may still have been known as Jews before this conversion. I say some because in John 7:1 , the term Jewry seems to apply strictly to Judea with Jerusalem as its center and not Galilee from whence most of the Lord's apostles came. Acts 2:7Consider all those "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" who were in Jerusalem at Pentecost and heard Peter preach and became members of the body of Christ on that day. What became of these people and their descendants? For a generation or two, they may have still called themselves Jews by descent although they also considered themselves Christians as well. Most, if not all of these Jewish converts to Christianity have lost all traces of their past as a result of their beliefs. Are we to say that because of this, their descendants are no longer of the covenant people and are not heirs to the land, etc. because they became Christian and don't know who they are and cannot be identified with those who owe their identity to their rejection of Christ? Do not the Scriptures say that " And if ye be Christ's, then ye be Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise?" Gal. 3:29 Are we to say that these "natural branches" are not natural after all?
Perhaps one of the most serious effects of limiting the descendants of Jacob-Israel to the Jews is it makes a liar out of God because there are certain blessings and prophecies pertaining to Israel that have not and could not be fulfilled in the Jews but have been fulfilled in other peoples. Christian people are therefore left without the light in their lamps that they need to understand the times in which we are living and to therefore be operating more fully in the will of God.
That is why it is a little more than troubling to see Christians "betting the farm" ,so to speak, on how they think things are supposed to develop in the Middle East where the present Israeli state is concerned. I do not question that God has a hand in all of this and there is some prophecy being fulfilled here but it may be of a sort that will cause many to be in for a shock and a rather rude awakening comparable to the unexpected shock that the Lord's crucifixion was to the disciples despite His attempt to prepare them for this.
Next:Noah's Prophecy