Who are the "Jews"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tirian

Puritan Board Sophomore
This answer to this is one that refuses to coalesce in my mind. Here is where I am at:

The Jews in the OT were of Abrahamic descent. The Jews were followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - this is what made them Jews.

In the NT era, the biblical concept of Jews is lost, particularly after AD70. Followers of the one true God are called Christians, or true Israel and include not only OT Jews but all who are grafted in.

There are now Israelites (as they have a recognised state) who are of mixed decent. Some people still claim to be Jews, claiming Abrahamic descent. These people are spread throughout the world and tend to recognise themselves primarily as Jews and secondarily by the nationality. e.g. a german Jew.

We must now make a distinction between biblical Jews and modern Jews??? Modern Jews want to claim the land promises of biblical Jews?

Help!
 
You are confusing spiritual and genetic/secular categories. God's chosen people currently are both genetic Jews and Gentiles who believe. God's land promises were made to the genetic Jews; many of them were not spiritual Jews at all.
 
I would have thought that the land promise foreshadowed a heavenly land (Hebrews 11) and with Christ the earthly type finished. Or do you think that genetic Jews are supported by scripture in claiming modern day Israel?
 
the thought behind that thought is that the land promise was originally to the covenant people called Israel, not genetic Jews at all
 
the covenant people called Israel were genetic Jews. Many may have been spiritual as well, but OT Israel was comprised of a mixed community of both genetic Jews and those were both genetic Jews as well as Spiritual
 
God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an eternal possession, so unless all that business about the Earth being destroyed by fire is not true, then we must take this as spiritual in nature.
 
The Jews are the nation of the Jews, called "Israel after the flesh" by the Apostle in I Corinthians 10. God is committed to always have a remnant of believers among them because of His covenant with Abraham ( Rom 9-11). Gentile believers are engrafted in among the believing Jews to form the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2) or Israel of God (Gal 6:16). The whole earth is promised to the Israel of God including the Land of Israel (e.g. Matt 5:5). If God wished to return the Jews to the Land in anticipation of their conversion, as part of His plan for the Israel of God to inherit the earth, that's His will. The realationship of the Jews to the Land has never been unconditional, and in the NT the Land's typological significance has ceased. The Jews are obliged to treat the Arabs in a Christian way according to Christian laws of war, and the Arabs likewise must do the same by the Jews.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
It is not insignificant--a roundabout way of saying it is quite relevant--to realize that

starting with the household of Abraham himself,
and continuing through the days of the patriarchs going down to Egypt,
importantly (!) at the occasion of the Exodus and the constitution of the nation Israel at Sinai,
and then constantly through the subsequent centuries of OT covenant-life,​

the chosen-people were NEVER a "pure-bred" genetic stock. To begin with, Abraham's house was vastly "top-heavy" with covenant-members who were not his children, much of which was surely unrelated (consider Gen.14:14 as an indicator). This situation may have transformed by the time the patriarchs went down into Egypt, but it is by no means certain that the "seventy" souls (Gen.46:27) who constituted the family-core outnumbered servants.

By the time the people leave Egypt, the single family has become a tribal collection. It isn't vital to this observation to determine the precise ratio of genetic/blood relations to marriage relations, or servants, or any other connections; nor how far back any attached person had become connected. It is enough to observe that the divisions known by then as tribes perpetuated the family-core ideal, to which was added who-knows-how-many attached persons. What is absolutely critical to understand is that EVERYONE who comes out of Egypt saved by the mighty hand of God is constituted into the Twelve Tribes, all of whom swear to the covenant made at Sinai.

The OT people of God were certainly mixed--mixed both genetically and spiritually. Genetically there was a family-core, begun with Abraham then Isaac then Jacob, and then his twelve sons; and with them were extraneous household members. This pattern continued through the Exodus and the national constitution; and it continued throughout the life of the nation as aliens became children of Abraham by faith, and took their place among the ranks of the visible people of God. Given a free-flowing (within the nation) exchange of sons and daughters in marriage, it would be very likely that within two-to-four generations some "blood-link" could be made literally with Abraham and almost any convert, but this is a trivial detail. It is enough that the historic connection between this nation and Abraham was both real, and tied to the covenant-promises.

Spiritually the people were always mixed, since it was possible from the days of Abraham to be a visible member of the community (circumcised in flesh) without being an invisible member (circumcised in heart), ala Ishmael.

Most significant of all is the principle that Abraham really only has ONE SON of absolute importance. That Seed is Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Jew-of-Jews, He is Israel. The NT church has not "replaced" Israel (a people); it is simply a name for the NT people of God, who are either in the Christ/Israel/Vine by an historic relation (to the OT people) or due to some fruitless branches of that stock having been broken off to make room, a wild shoot has been grafted onto the Vine.


Are there still people today who claim either a genetic or a religious (Pharisaic, Talmudic, non-Temple, non-Christian) tie to Abraham and Moses and Judah? Yes, that's just a fact. I don't think there's anything to gain by disputing those folks' desire to be called by the identification they choose. Before the NT is done being written, a distinction is being made between two sets of people who claim Abraham as their father. A difference is being made between those who cling to religious modes that do not recognize fulfillment in Jesus Christ of OT promises made, and those who do. The former cling to the name "Jew," the latter give it up, particularly as the ethnic component of the true faith slips into irrelevance, and national-Jews become a mere component of a trans-national religion.

Today, claiming or adopting Judaism continues to be a religious/cultural move, typically. Some may also use the name as a way of recognizing a portion (whether majority or minority) of their personal heritage.


For believers in Christ, quite apart from any prejudice (an ugly form of collectivism) "there is neither Jew nor Greek" anymore, "but all one in Christ Jesus," Gal.3:28.
 
Followers of the one true God are called Christians, or true Israel

The expression "true Israel" is never used by the Apostle. He uses the expression "Israel after the flesh" and the expression "the Israel of God" (i.e. the Israel that truly belongs to God in distinction from the Israel that doesn't't truly belong to God) and indicates that there will always be some of Israel after the flesh among the Israel of God, because of God's commitment to the Abrahamic Covenant.(Rom 9-11)

The expression " true Israel" for the regenerate, or more widely for the visible Church, could be used, as long as we recognise that God isn't "finished with the Jews", and as long as we don't boast against the natural branches that have been (temporarily) cut out i.e. against unconverted Jews (Rom 9-11).


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
For believers in Christ, quite apart from any prejudice (an ugly form of collectivism) "there is neither Jew nor Greek" anymore, "but all one in Christ Jesus," Gal.3:28.

Many thanks Rev Buchanan - I have been coming back to ponder your post several times a day as I try to get it to sink in and work through it
 
as long as we recognise that God isn't "finished with the Jews"

but is he "not finished" with the Jews in any way different from being "not finished" with any elect of any nation He has not yet regenerated (eg not born yet)?

That's not what the Apostle says in Romans 9-11.

E.g. he calls the unsaved Jews "natural branches" that have been cut off, and says in Romans 11:28-29, "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

We don't have a specific promise that God will always have a remnant among e.g. the Scottish people, although because of the fullsome general promises about the salvation of the nations, we might hope or conclude that; but we do have one respecting the Jews.

Within the church there is no spiritual hierarchy between converted Jews and converted Gentiles, as there was under the Old Testament, but people still retain national and ethnic distinctives. The wall between Gentile believers and Jewish believers that was symbolised by the wall of partition in the Temple, has been knocked down. There is also neither Scots nor American in Christ but that does not mean that these nationalities do not exist side by side in the Church, or lose their identity (Rev.7:9).

See John Murray's commentary on Romans 9-11.

There is a lot of (over) reaction to Dispensationalism in Reformed circles respecting the Jews, because Dispensationalists sometimes (often) go OTT about them; such that on this board, a number of years ago, someone was denying that the Jews even existed, which sounded like a variety of boasting against the natural branches if ever there was one, both those converted natural branches and those unconverted.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of John Murray's commentary on Romans 9-11 as well. For a long time, I had assumed there was no longer a distinction between the physical descendants of Abraham and all others who hear the gospel. Then I heard Romans 11 expounded, studied Mr. Murray's commentary and had to conclude that there will be a future return of some of the physical children of Abraham through the gospel found in Jesus.
 
I was thinking of John Murray's commentary on Romans 9-11 as well. For a long time, I had assumed there was no longer a distinction between the physical descendants of Abraham and all others who hear the gospel. Then I heard Romans 11 expounded, studied Mr. Murray's commentary and had to conclude that there will be a future return of some of the physical children of Abraham through the gospel found in Jesus.

Yes.

The important point regarding distinctions is that when a Jew is converted there is spiritual equality between him and the Gentile Christian within the household of God, the Israel of God.

Under the Old Testament this was not the case. Gentile god-fearers were "second-class citizens" because they were uncircumcised, because of the food laws, and because they could not approach God so closely in the Temple, but had to remain in the Court of the Gentiles.

If you wished to enjoy the full spiritual benefits of the ceremonial law and of being a Jew, you had to become a Jew.

These things were done away in Christ (Eph.2)

As regards different people groups and nations, the Lord has different historical courses for them as had been shown by providence, so why should He not reveal something about His plans re the Jews and Gentiles in NT refemptive history in the Book of Romans.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
We don't have a specific promise that God will always have a remnant among e.g. the Scottish people, although because of the fullsome general promises about the salvation of the nations, we might hope or conclude that; but we do have one respecting the Jews.

As you go on to refer to Rev 7:9 we do have some kind of similar promise to all nations - Paul here is dealing with specific transitional issues entering the Apostolic era. I'm still not convinced this indicates a "special" future blessing for Jews apart from any other nation mentioned in Rev 7:9. It only says that the way is never barred to the elect, even if they belong to a nation once greatly blessed by God who have rejected Him corporately and individually.


There is a lot of (over) reaction to Dispensationalism in Reformed circles respecting the Jews, because Dispensationalists sometimes (often) go OTT about them; such that on this board, a number of years ago, someone was denying that the Jews even existed, which sounded like a variety of boasting against the natural branches if ever there was one, both those converted natural branches and those unconverted.

I agree this kind of thinking does not sit well with scripture - if God saves a miserable man like me He can surely save the elect from any nation, including one which has rejected His Messiah.

Having said that - I'm still not seeing (even having read Murray as you suggested) that the ability to graft in any branch, whether they were originally part of the root or whether they are foreign, is different for one type over another.

When all Israel is saved - we are not suggesting there will be a time when everyone standing on a piece of land in the middle east will simultaneously turn to Christ, quite apart from any other nation?
 
I was thinking of John Murray's commentary on Romans 9-11 as well. For a long time, I had assumed there was no longer a distinction between the physical descendants of Abraham and all others who hear the gospel. Then I heard Romans 11 expounded, studied Mr. Murray's commentary and had to conclude that there will be a future return of some of the physical children of Abraham through the gospel found in Jesus.

I get that - but that is true of every nation in which, by God's gracious covenant, He draws out an saves His elect. Rev 7:9 tells us that - so there is nothing "special" per se about the physical children of Abraham other than Paul is making it clear that we shouldn't write them off...... But then again, we shouldn't do a "Jonah" and write ANY nation off.....
 
As regards different people groups and nations, the Lord has different historical courses for them as had been shown by providence, so why should He not reveal something about His plans re the Jews and Gentiles in NT refemptive history in the Book of Romans.

That makes sense. No nation is written off in God's economy - even one which trampled on the OT era revelation they had been given. Such is the depth of the grace of our God.
 
As regards different people groups and nations, the Lord has different historical courses for them as had been shown by providence, so why should He not reveal something about His plans re the Jews and Gentiles in NT refemptive history in the Book of Romans.

That makes sense. No nation is written off in God's economy - even one which trampled on the OT era revelation they had been given. Such is the depth of the grace of our God.

It is wonderful grace and maybe one of the ways our Lord's prayer,"Father forgive them..." was answered. I suppose we might have expected that all the Jews would have been destroyed in AD70, but instead the people were spared and, beyond that, there has always been a believing remnant among them. I also believe that it is promised that as whole they will become a Christian nation in the future, but I know many do not subscribe to that eschatalogical point. It would certainly appear to be a great miracle.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
The only catch to most of what Richard is saying is that you have to have some sort of "Golden Age" view in order to believe that the "physical" Jews will come back to God. Even though most of them, throughout OT history, repeatedly became idolaters. I'm not excluding ALL "physical" Jews, but it's important to keep in mind what Paul wrote 7 chapters previous to Romans 9: "28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." This is why I DO make a distinction between physical and spiritual. There is such thing as a "true Jew" even though scripture doesn't specifically say "true Jew".
 
for no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly

Good observation! This kind of brings me back to my opening post. So throughout all history, true Jews (including now) = "elect of God"
 
Remember that Paul himself called the Jews Israel after the flesh; so he's not saying they are not Israel in any sense. There is duality in covenant administrations so that e.g. you can be a Christian by virtue of profession or birth, and yet not have the inward reality. Baptists and others tend to collapse the whole meaning of the covenant into the inward reality, so that if someone isn't a Christian inwardly, he's not a Christian in any sense, or if someone's not a Jew inwardly he's not a Jew in any sense. The New Testament doesn't do this. See e.g. Louis Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" on the "Duality of the Covenant".

I have no problem with a Silver Age; the Golden Age is eternity.The conversion of the Jews doesn't entail logically a Silver Age, although biblically speaking the Apostle indicates that the conversion of the Jews will be associated with great general Gospel blessing.

I don't see how it makes sense to restrict what Paul is saying in Romans 9-11 as applying to a transitional period between when he wrote it and the fall of Jerusalem. How would that work out?


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Reflecting on Gal. 3:28, it is observable that there is neither male nor female, yet we still recognise distinct functions for male and female. There is no reason why the statement that there is neither Jew nor Greek should be understood to mean there is no distinct function so far as God's purpose is concerned. Romans 9-11 reveals a different function, and it seems to me that the apostle's language would make no sense if "Israel" were to be interpreted to mean elect Jews and Gentiles. He could have simply said so.
 
According to WLC 191, in the second petition of the Lord's prayer, one of the things we request is the calling of the Jews. Comparing with 178 and 180 and 184, it would seem that the Larger Catechism would teach us to desire that the Jews to be called, to confidently trust that it will be so, and that it will tend to the glory of God.
 
So, this is a bit long, but I think it's an important part of this discussion. I would like to bring Calvin's Commentary on Romans 11 into the equation. Here is what he writes, particularly focusing on verses 25-27.

25. I would not, etc. Here he rouses his hearers to a greater attention, while he avows that he is going to declare something that was secret. Nor did he do this without reason; for he wished to conclude, by a brief or plain sentence, a very perplexed question; and yet he declares what no one could have expected. But the words, Lest ye should be proud in yourselves, 361 show what was his designed object; and that was, to check the arrogance of the Gentiles, lest they should exult over the Jews. This admonition was also necessary, lest the defection of that people should immoderately disturb the minds of the weak, as though the salvation of them all was to be forever despaired of. The same is still not less useful to us at this day, so that we may know, that the salvation of the remnant, whom the Lord will at length gather to himself, is hid, sealed as it were by his signet. And whenever a long delay tempts us to despair, let us remember this word mystery; by which Paul clearly reminds us, that the mode of their conversion will neither be common nor usual; and hence they act absurdly who attempt to measure it by their own judgment; for what can be more unreasonable than to regard that as incredible which is far removed from our view? It is called a mystery, because it will be incomprehensible until the time of its revelation. 362 It is, however, made known to us, as it was to the Romans, that our faith may be content with the word, and support us with hope, until the event itself come to light.

That blindness in part, etc. “In part,” I think, refers not simply to time, nor to the number, but means, in a manner, or in a measure; by which expression he intended, as it seems to me, only to qualify a declaration which in itself was severe. Until does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same thing, as though he had said, “That the fullness of the Gentiles,” etc. The meaning then is, — That God had in a manner so blinded Israel, that while they refused the light of the gospel, it might be transferred to the Gentiles, and that these might occupy, as it were, the vacated possession. And so this blindness served the providence of God in furthering the salvation of the Gentiles, which he had designed. And the fullness of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: for it was not to be, as before, when a few proselytes connected themselves with the Jews; but such was to be the change, that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the Church. 363

26. And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.

As it is written, etc. He does not confirm the whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah, (Isaiah 59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this, — that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the favor of deliverance.

Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah, word for word;

“come,” he says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 59:20.)

But on this point we need not be very curious; only this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to the fountain itself.

But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression. 364 By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet, “shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people, some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish together.

27. And, this is my covenant with them, etc. Though Paul, by the last prophecy of Isaiah, briefly touched on the office of the Messiah, in order to remind the Jews what was to be expected especially from him, he further adds these few words from Jeremiah, expressly for the same purpose; for what is added is not found in the former passage. 365 This also tends to confirm the subject in hand; for what he said of the conversion of a people who were so stubborn and obstinate, might have appeared incredible: he therefore removes this stumblingblock, by declaring that the covenant included a gratuitous remission of sins. For we may gather from the words of the Prophet, — that God would have no more to do with his apostate people, until he should remit the crime of perfidy, as well as their other sins.

I hope this helps.
 
Note the way "Israel" is used in Romans 9-11.

9:6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

9:27, "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:"

9:31, "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness."

10:1, "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

10:19, "But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you."

10:21, "But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."

11:2, "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,"

11:7, "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded"

11:25, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
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 ungodliness from Jacob:"

The name is uniformly used of the covenanted nation of Israel in contrast to the Gentiles throughout the passage. It would be very odd if it changed its meaning to include the Gentiles in the resolution of v. 26, especially given the fact that v. 25 continues to distinguish Israel and the Gentiles and v. 26 quotes an Old Testament text which is immediately connected with the covenanted nation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top