The first Jew was a Gentile [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : The first Jew was a Gentile

Rose

01-25-2008, 02:31 PM

The word Gentile in Hebrew is 'Goyim' which means nations. The first time Gentile is used in the Bible is in Gen. 10:5 'By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.', where it is talking about the descendants of Noah.

Starting at the tower of Babel, we see God causing the language to be confused, and the people scattered who dwelt in the land of Shinar (latter to become Babylon). These people were the descendants of Noah, and the descendants of Shem from whom came Terah, the father of Abraham. Now Abraham was the first 'Gentile' to become a 'Jew' by faith in God, and became the father of many nations. From Abraham, God made a race of people who were not a people. Through faith in God, and the sign of circumcision to show their covenant relationship to Him, the race of the people known as 'Jews' was born.

Some of the first grafted in Gentiles to become Jews were:
Asenath, the wife of Joseph who bore him Ephraim, and Manasseh.
Tamar, who had twins by harlotry with Judah.
Rahab, who was the mother-in-law to Ruth.
Ruth, who was the great-great grandmother to King David.

Any Gentile could be converted, and become a Jew, the only exception was only those who were of the tribe of Levi by birth could become Priests. Now Jesus is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the House of Levi.

A natural born Jew could always be cut off through disobedience, and a Gentile could always be grafted in through conversion.

Under the Old Covenant, circumcision of the flesh was the outward sign of their covenant relationship with God.

Under the New Covenant, the circumcision of the heart is the inward sign of our covenant relationship to God through Christ.

As it was then, so it is now, and continues on: the Olive tree began with Abraham, and since that time branches have been grafted in (Gentiles), and cut out (Jews), according to their covenant relationship with God. There has always been only one Olive tree, that has never changed, what has changed is the Old Covenant has been made New.

It has always been about relationship, not genetics. Isaac, and Ishmael were both genetically related to Abraham.

Rose

Brother Les

01-26-2008, 06:59 PM

Rose

01-26-2008, 08:30 PM

Hi Brother Les :yo:

Thanks for the response.

The reason I used the term "Jew" (granted, in a very liberal way) was to draw attention to the fact that all of our genetics go back to a single point >Noah< and that the "Jews" started as a distinctive race only because of their covenant relationship with God...not genetics, and that anyone could become a "Jew" by entering into that covenant relationship with God, and become grafted into the Olive tree that began with Abraham.

The race of people that today call themselves "Jews" trace their ancestry back to Abraham, through the 12 tribes... not just Judah. That is the sense in which I used the term "Jew".

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

01-26-2008, 11:47 PM

Sister Rose, I am at a loss to understand why you would term 'any' of your examples as 'Jews'. The term 'Jews', would seem to only be viable toward anyone of 'The House of Judah' (The tribes of Juduah, Ben, and some Levis, + any prosylites to 'that' 'House' and religious Cultus system. The 'Northern House of Israel' should not be in this 'type' of thinking. There are, that I recall, two example is Scripture where a few persons from 'some' of the Northern Tribes, did migrate 'south', but later removed themselves from the influences of 'Judeah'. The 'split' in 'The Tabernacle of David', (as you know), happened in the earily days of King Davids, Grandson. He decided to follow the advise of 'his' younger advisors and put an even more of a burden 'upon The People'. Ten Tribes (thirteen) said, "to your tents"...ie. 'were out of here'.

I truely feel that a better labeling for 'The People', would be 'Israel'....'Israel' is made up of many 'Tribes'....'Nations'...ie...Goyem...Gentiles. There are some verses in The Old Testament that 'The House of Judauh' (Jews), used, to indecate that 'The House of Israel' were indeed, 'the Nations', and refered to as 'Goyem.

With Love
Brother Les
Hey there Brother Les,

I just thought I'd add my two cents to this one. There is a lot of confusion around the terms Israel and Jew because they have various meanings and can be used interchangeably. It is true that "Jew" originally probably meant "of the tribe of Judah" but then after the dispersion of the ten northern tribes, the remnant that returned from the Babylonian exile began to use "Judaios" (Jew) and "Israel" synonymously. Here is a snippet of the explanation found in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

The fall of the northern kingdom and the deportation of 722 introduced a new change in the significance and use of the name Israel. ... Israel is now adopted by the southern kingdom and it is used again for the whole of God’s people as a spiritual designation which transcends such political titles as the house of Judah or the province of Judah.

In general, it seems very clear to me that the NT does not make the fine distinction between "Jew" and "Israelite" that you advocate. For example, when Paul was preaching the Gospel and said that "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him" (Romans 10:12) I am quite certain that he was not disctinguishing between "Jew" and "Israelite." He was using the term "Jew" as a generic term refering to those born into the Old Covenant people known as "Israel" which included all 12 tribes of the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel.

Richard

basilfo

01-27-2008, 06:31 AM

Hi Rose,
Thanks for bringing this up. Without getting sidetracked by the technicaly correct term 'Jew' refering to one from the house of Judah, I think I know what you were getting at. Every time I hear people refer to 'Jews' alive today as "God's chosen people", I wonder how they conclude that.

1. Are they under a covenant with God as the nation of Israel was before Christ? If not, can you be "God's chosen people" without a covenant? I don't find that in Scripture anywhere.

2. Does Jesus, sitting on the right hand of God as we speak, also consider them 'chosen' over others who reject Him?

3. Does Scripture allow the OC and NC to run concurrently for 2000+ yrs? I can't find a single verse which gives a caviat about the NC not applying to 'Jews' (who would supposedly still be under the OC).

4. The Olive tree illustration provides only one criterion for being a branch - belief. Jews, by definition, do not believe.

5. I only find 2 catagories of people under the NC, believers and non-believers. Not a 3rd - 'Jewish' non-believers who have some separate distinction in God's eyes. If a Jew dies in disbelief, does he have any different standing in any way in God's eyes than a Gentile who dies in disbelief? I don't see it in Scripture anywhere if he does.

6. What % does one have to be to be considered one of God's 'chosen people'? If it's just ANY part Jewish, there are an awful lot of people walking around today who don't even know they're Jewish! Boy are they going to be surprised when they are 'all saved' (as some futurists claim)!

If it is 100% pure, there are an awful lot of people today who THINK they are Jewish, wearing the right clothes, adhering to the 'Jewish' ceremonial activities, but really are not. So it must be somewhere in between. I need to ask a futurist friend of mine what the cut off is. Perhaps it's 28%.

7. Why did/does the gospel need to be given to the Jews? According to many futurist's eschatology, 'all Israel will be saved'. Can they mean only that 'lucky' generation alive when Jesus returns? The other 99.9% of Jews wouldn't seem too 'chosen' to me.

Great post Rose/Les/Richard.
Peace to you all,
Dave

eliyahu

01-27-2008, 07:14 AM

Under the Old Covenant, circumcision of the flesh was the outward sign of their covenant relationship with God.

Under the New Covenant, the circumcision of the heart is the inward sign of our covenant relationship to God through Christ.
Actually, circumcision of the heart was also part of the old covenant. It was not a new phenomenon of the new covenant. The use of such a phrase in referrence to Gentiles is a new covenant phenomenon.

It has always been about relationship, not genetics. Isaac, and Ishmael were both genetically related to Abraham.

Rose
Isaac and Ismael both had (rocky at times) positive relationships with God. Isaac was the seed of promise because he was born out of a miraculous conception through Sarah. It had nothing to do with Isaac's relationship with God since he was not even alive when God declared that Isaac was to be born as the one who inherited the special promises. Remember, Ishmael, as a son of Abraham, also was blessed and even received special promises of blessing seperate from the Isaac promises. Ismael's life had nothing to do with wether or not he would be the seed of promise. Isaacs' life similarly had no bearing on his election in relation to the special Abrahamic promise.

I think that there is a perceived dichotomy between the Jews and Gentiles being spoken of here by you and others, which is not accurate.

It was really all about the promise being inherited through Isaac. This was because Isaac's birth was a result of the miraculous intervention of God, as was the fact that Abraham even had the initial promises and covenants with God in the first place.

The other factor was circumcision in the flesh (not being "opposed" to the circ. of the heart, even Gentiles of faith that you listed had to be initiated and/or circumcised to enjoin the covenant community). Ismael was circumcised as a young man. Although the physical lineage of promise was already promised as to be through Isaac. Ismael, though he had some rejection/rebellion issues, was not an enemy of God/child of the devil. He was blessed. He had a spirtually rough life but there is no reason to believe that he went to hell or had no relationship with God to speak of. Please, don't get me wrong. I am not accusing you of saying such. I am just saying this for converstaion sake.

basilfo

01-27-2008, 11:52 AM

Hi eliyahu,
I think the issue is with continuing to call 'Jews' today "God's chosen people" even though they are not under any covenant with God as was the case between the initiation of the OC with Abram and when Jesus established the NC. Is there any covenant that remains today other than the NC?? Heb 8 (among other texts) should help us see the answer:

Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --
9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The NC is made with the same people (house of Israel and house of Judah) as the first covenant. Of course, under the NC, gentiles can be grafted in. But verse 13 clearly indicates the OC does not continue on for thousands of years. The 'chosen people' under the NC are believers. Jesus or the apostles
never taught of a sub-set of people who were 'chosen', under New Covenant with God, yet outside the body of Christ, which a Jew is by definition.

Since Isaac and Ishmael were both circumcised, which was a sign of the covenant between God and His 'chosen people', are all the decendants of Ishmael considered "God's chosen people" today as well? If that designation is reserved for 'Jews' today, why not for Ishmael's decendants also? I don't think the pre-mill dispensationalists consider Ishmael's decendants part of 'all Israel will be saved'. Why not, if they were circumcised and 'chosen'?

Peace to you all,
Dave

Richard Amiel McGough

01-27-2008, 12:43 PM

Since Isaac and Ishmael were both circumcised, which was a sign of the covenant between God and His 'chosen people', are all the decendants of Ishmael considered "God's chosen people" today as well? If that designation is reserved for 'Jews' today, why not for Ishmael's decendants also? I don't think the pre-mill dispensationalists consider Ishmael's decendants part of 'all Israel will be saved'. Why not, if they were circumcised and 'chosen'?

Peace to you all,
Dave
Excellent questions Dave. :thumb:

I would add the fact the the "seed of Abraham" is DEFINED in terms faith:
Romans 4:16-18 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
The "seed of Abraham" is defined as all those who believe in Jesus Christ. It has absolutely nothing to to with genetics. The modern unbelieving "Jews" (who are really just ordinary folks attempting to adhere to a covenant that no longer exists) have absolutely no claim to any biblical promises apart from the Gospel promise of Christ given to all the children of Adam.

Richard

basilfo

01-27-2008, 02:54 PM

The "seed of Abraham" is defined as all those who believe in Jesus Christ. It has absolutely nothing to to with genetics. The modern unbelieving "Jews" (who are really just ordinary folks attempting to adhere to a covenant that no longer exists) have absolutely no claim to any biblical promises apart from the Gospel promise of Christ given to all the children of Adam.

Richard

That seems to be the heart of the matter Richard. I've asked it several times in different ways, but never get an answer.

What covenant do 'Jews' currently have with God? The OC and NC are in series (with I believe a small 40 yr transition or overlap of some fashion from 30-70AD). I find no Scripture that says they run in parallel for thousands of years - one covenant for one type people and another for others. I don't see any support for that at all.

In fact,

Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --

The NC was made with the house of Israel and Judah and Scripture clearly says the NC replaced the OC. so where do they get this special classification for non-believers that think they have some amount of Jewish ancestry? I don't get it.

Did God say "I will make a new covenant...." and then continue with the OC for those who did not accept Christ?? That's an amazing conclusion that seems to be required for those giving today's 'Jews' the label of 'chosen people'.

Peace to you,
Dave

Brother Les

01-27-2008, 08:57 PM

Hi Brother Les

Thanks for the response.

The reason I used the term "Jew" (granted, in a very liberal way) was to draw attention to the fact that all of our genetics go back to a single point >Noah< and that the "Jews" started as a distinctive race only because of their covenant relationship with God...not genetics, and that anyone could become a "Jew" by entering into that covenant relationship with God, and become grafted into the Olive tree that began with Abraham.

The race of people that today call themselves "Jews" trace their ancestry back to Abraham, through the 12 tribes... not just Judah. That is the sense in which I used the term "Jew".

Rose

Blessing to you Sister Rose.
By you using the term in such a 'liberal' way, it adds to the sterio-typing of a group, to put forth exsclusive claims that it does not have. As an example ...: When God told Abram and Abram alone, that God would curse those that cursed Abram and bless those that bless Abram.....That verse is taken so far out of context with the word 'Israel' and or 'Jew' inserted and Abram taken out. Judah did not have 'The Birthright', Joseph did, and Judah lost the kingship at 'The Coming of Shiloh.

By saying that 'all' of 'our' genetic make-up goes back to a single point, ie. Noah. This would indicate that you believe in 'a' globel flood. At this point in time I am leaning in the direction of a local 'flood' Biblical view. But even setting aside that view, what you may be labeling as a 'race', is still a very small part of the genetic make up of a thirteen tribes/nations empire. The genetic strain of this one strand can not lay claim to all of the past and future Covenant blessings and Curses that were given.You are in essence, cutting out 75-80% of the rightful 'heirs' of Jacob and giving it only to 20%., by sterio-typing terms that you are using.

Hey there Brother Les,

I just thought I'd add my two cents to this one. There is a lot of confusion around the terms Israel and Jew because they have various meanings and can be used interchangeably. It is true that "Jew" originally probably meant "of the tribe of Judah" but then after the dispersion of the ten northern tribes, the remnant that returned from the Babylonian exile began to use "Judaios" (Jew) and "Israel" synonymously. Here is a snippet of the explanation found in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

Quote:
The fall of the northern kingdom and the deportation of 722 introduced a new change in the significance and use of the name Israel. ... Israel is now adopted by the southern kingdom and it is used again for the whole of God’s people as a spiritual designation which transcends such political titles as the house of Judah or the province of Judah.

In general, it seems very clear to me that the NT does not make the fine distinction between "Jew" and "Israelite" that you advocate. For example, when Paul was preaching the Gospel and said that "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him" (Romans 10:12) I am quite certain that he was not disctinguishing between "Jew" and "Israelite." He was using the term "Jew" as a generic term refering to those born into the Old Covenant people known as "Israel" which included all 12 tribes of the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel.

Richard

I hope to give no disrespect to you or Sister Rose as I say all things (I pray) with Love. It is self evident that the Southern House of Judah, used the name Israelite and The Sons of Israel...That is who they were and had every right to use those labels. The Assyrian Disporia of the Northern Tribes made those Tribes 'as' Gentiles. This was Gods wish, to 'put them away', until Pentecost and 'The Lasts Days' of The Mosaice Covenant, when God would 'bring them back as 'a' chaste Bride. I do not believe that Paul (in Romans) used the term 'Jews', meaning, The Israelites of Judea, as an all incompassing label to include all 12 (13) Tribes. There is a statement in Josephus that goes (paraphrase): "...and unto this day we know that the Northern Tribe of Israel are located 'across the river'..." Josephus seemed to indict that even in the first century, many from the 'Norther Tribes' still knowledge of their lineage. They would have never 'claimed' to be 'Jews'...but only Israelites.

Brother Les

Richard Amiel McGough

01-27-2008, 09:39 PM

I hope to give no disrespect to you or Sister Rose as I say all things (I pray) with Love.

Hello Brother Les. Rest assured that your words are received in love and I sense no disrespect at all. I delight in plain and direct speech.

It is self evident that the Southern House of Judah, used the name Israelite and The Sons of Israel...That is who they were and had every right to use those labels. The Assyrian Disporia of the Northern Tribes made those Tribes 'as' Gentiles. This was Gods wish, to 'put them away', until Pentecost and 'The Lasts Days' of The Mosaice Covenant, when God would 'bring them back as 'a' chaste Bride.

It looks like we are in strong agreement concerning the events of Pentecost. Do you see it as a fulfillment of Ezekiel 37?

I do not believe that Paul (in Romans) used the term 'Jews', meaning, The Israelites of Judea, as an all incompassing label to include all 12 (13) Tribes. There is a statement in Josephus that goes (paraphrase): "...and unto this day we know that the Northern Tribe of Israel are located 'across the river'..." Josephus seemed to indict that even in the first century, many from the 'Norther Tribes' still knowledge of their lineage. They would have never 'claimed' to be 'Jews'...but only Israelites.

Brother Les
It seems to me that we know with certainty that Paul was talking about the entire first covenant community which were marked by circumcision because he identified the "The Jews" with "The Circumcision." I don't know of any time that Paul distinguished between the nothern and southern tribes. It would make no "Gospel sense" to compare "the Jews" wtih "the Gentiles" if the entire first covenant community were not in view.

Could you please give me some documentation to support your assertion that the northern tribes "would have never 'claimed' to be 'Jews'...but only Israelites"? It appears to be speculation.

As for Josephus, he was just communicating a common myth that was obviously a fable because it involve an imaginary river called the "Sabbaton" that was too fierce to cross except on Saturday when it rested, but the ten tribes were "too holy" :lol: to cross it on the Sabbath. I don't think he gives any genuine witness to a continued tribal awareness of any of the ten tribes.

Richard

Brother Les

01-28-2008, 06:53 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-28-2008, 10:28 AM

Brother Richard,
Do not think that I am 'overlooking' the thread, if I do not answer in a timely manner. As with so many others, I am very busy. In the short term, I will say that God 'Put away' (divorced), the Northern Tribes from the Old Mosaic Covenant, ie...'they were no longer 'of the circumcision' of the flesh.....

Brother Les
Good morning Brother Les,

Don't worry about answering fast or slow - I too am busy and may not always answer in a timely fashion.

I understand your point about the "divorce" - but did that include every individual or just the "tribes" as a whole? We can be pretty sure that there were many individuals from the 10 tribes that were living with the Jews under the Old Covenant after the dispersion in 722 BC. I don't see any reason to think that they were "divorced" from their covenant relation with God just becuause of the "sins of their fathers" (Ezek 18).

This will require a little more thought - I'm not inclined to make distinctions that are not clearly made in Scripture, and reading the NT for many years has never caused me to think that Paul was talking only about the Jews in the denotative "Kingdom of Judah" sense. But I'm certainly open to exploring this idea.

Richard

Brother Les

01-28-2008, 11:28 AM

Ram posted
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Les
It is self evident that the Southern House of Judah, used the name Israelite and The Sons of Israel...That is who they were and had every right to use those labels. The Assyrian Disporia of the Northern Tribes made those Tribes 'as' Gentiles. This was Gods wish, to 'put them away', until Pentecost and 'The Lasts Days' of The Mosaice Covenant, when God would 'bring them back as 'a' chaste Bride.

It looks like we are in strong agreement concerning the events of Pentecost. Do you see it as a fulfillment of Ezekiel 37?

Hello Brother.

Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eze 37:28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Ezekiel 37, has been 'fulfilled' and The Kingdom of God is forever growing into the Future, because what is called 'The Church' is 'Israel'. Pentecost did not 'fulfill' Ezekiel 37, it was the begining of the 'fulfillment' of that 'vision' (metephoric vision). Just as 'The Cross' (AD 33?) did not 'end' the Old Covenant, it was most assuridly 'the begining of The End of that Age. Pentecost was 'the begining of 'The New Age'. There was 'a' 'transition period' of 'one Age' growing weaker (fading away) and 'one Age maturing. Judah could not 'claim' to be both 'Houses' at the same time during the end of the Old Covenant Age. We see 'two sticks' coming together duting the time period AFTER Pentecost, not before. The Assembly of God (ie The Church) can claim to 'both sticks' of the Whole House (Tabernacle) of David. With Scripture speaking of 'Judah' first and then 'The Nations', 'The Nations' were not told to 'Repent' from John The Baptist (Elias) to Pentecost, the 'Jews' were. The Holy Spirit worked among Judea, with those who worshiped within the Temple Worship Cultus. It is 'around' (IMO) that the first 'Gentiles' (nations), were not brought into The Body of God, until Cornelius (sp). But God (IMO) never gave them (believers) the full 'breath' (Ezk), as long as the Temple made with hands was standing (it had 'standin'). This full 'breath' of life was 'The Ressurection' of 'The Dead', in AD 70. All, (believers and non) from 33AD (the Cross) to 70AD (Holocost) still went to 'Sheol'...non went to be with God in Heave until 'Full The Judgement' of The Age.

Ram
I understand your point about the "divorce" - but did that include every individual or just the "tribes" as a whole? We can be pretty sure that there were many individuals from the 10 tribes that were living with the Jews under the Old Covenant after the dispersion in 722 BC. I don't see any reason to think that they were "divorced" from their covenant relation with God just becuause of the "sins of their fathers" (Ezek 18).

Gods Grace over comes sins. I am sure that there were many individuals from the Northern Houses (tribes) that moved south,they were 'cousins' after all. These individuals are not judged because of 'The Sins' of their Fathers, they were/'are' judged because of their 'own' sins. Going from one 'cultus' to another (Samaria - Jerusalem) does not give them 'Faith' in the one and only True God. Their 'Houses' and their idenity were what were 'put away'. But, their 'House' and their idenity, would 'hear', Gods voice again and 'they' would be RE-Graffted in 'as' 'a' 'new people' with a 'new name'.....

Brother Les

Brother Les

eliyahu

01-28-2008, 09:32 PM

Since Isaac and Ishmael were both circumcised, which was a sign of the covenant between God and His 'chosen people', are all the decendants of Ishmael considered "God's chosen people" today as well? If that designation is reserved for 'Jews' today, why not for Ishmael's decendants also? I don't think the pre-mill dispensationalists consider Ishmael's decendants part of 'all Israel will be saved'. Why not, if they were circumcised and 'chosen'?

Peace to you all,
Dave

Hi Dave.

That is a good question which I do not have all of the answer to without looking up all these things and seing what others have said. I do know that the promise was revealed by God to Abraham to go through Isaac as opposed to Ishmeal when God told them to be circumcised, Gen 17:20-21. So that means that when Ishmael was circumcised, it was understood that the "chosenness" was upon Isaac alone. The circumcision of Isaace was an act of obedience displaying Ishmael's faith and submission to Abraham and his God. There was no Law of Israel given yet for Ishmael to receive, the old covenant. So the law is not in the equation here. Ismael was "in" God's covenant with Abraham. But the promise was to pass through Isaac and his lineage. That much is clear from Gen 17:20-21. Ismael's descendants did not retain the practice of circumcision or faith in Abraham's God in the long term either. I am not a dispensationalist. I am a sort of a historic premillenial.