He is a Jew, He is not a Jew: the physical seed of promise

[Davy]

Let me see if I get you right.

You are saying that being a Jew relied solely upon bloodline? And even converts like Rahab and Ruth could not be Jews themselves, but only their descendants after marrying into the bloodline?

So that he is not a Jew that is one outwardly by circumcision of the flesh, because he is only a Jew by bloodline, and he is a saved Jew that also is inwardly circumcised in Christ?

As when Paul referred to himself as an Israelite of the stock of Israel, and also grafted in again to the olive tree of God?

So, no one can lay claim to being of the children of Israel and a Jew outwardly just by circumcision, nor inwardly even with circumcision of the heart, other than them born of the bloodline of Jacob and grafted in again to God's olive tree?

If you'd only study your Old Testament history you'd well understand what I'm talking about. Do I really... need to point it out to you line upon line? No, do your own Bible study! I've given ample Scripture proof already.

Per the JEWISH HISTORIAN JOSEPHUS, he said the title of 'Jew' originated with the tribe of Judah, and that is the name which those returning to Jerusalem from the 70 years Babylon captivity used, including all the strangers that returned with them (which means foreigners NOT born of Israel). (Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, Book XI) That means the majority of Israelitesl did NOT call themselves Jews; the ten northern tribes that were removed from the holy lands about 120 years PRIOR to Judah's captivity to Babylon were not known as Jews.

When Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon came upon Jerusalem/Judea to destroy the city and temple, and take the "house of Judah" captive to Babylon for 70 years, NONE of the ten northern tribed "house of Israel" were present. They were already... gone in their own captivity by the kings of Assyria, about 120 years prior.

Because those of "house of Judah" took the title 'Jew' for themselves, which originated from the TRIBE of JUDAH, that is WHY... Apostle Paul would call himself a Jew, even though he was born of the tribe of Benjamin! If you knew your OT history you'd be aware of this, because when God split old Israel into two separate kingdoms per 1 Kings 11 forward, only the tribe of Benjamin sided with the tribe of Judah at Jerusalem. They eventually included some small remnants of the ten tribes that moved south because of refusing king Jeroboam's gold calf idol worship. Likewise, the Levites in the northern lands also went south and joined with Judah, because Jeroboam made common priests of the people instead. And all those made up the "kingdom of Judah" PER GOD'S Holy Writ, just 3 main tribes and strangers that lived in the southern lands of Judea.

As for your concern over Jewish circumcision, that subject has nothing to do with this, and I think you well know it.

Those who call all... the seed of Israel Jews don't know what they're talking about, and reveal their Biblical illiteracy in the Old Testament Books. Because God removed the ten northern tribes of the "house of Israel", who did not call themselves Jews, ONLY the 3 tribe "house of Judah" was LEFT in the holy land. When the kings of Assyria removed the ten northern tribes of Israel, he put in their place in the northern lands where the ten tribes were, foreigners from 5 different provinces of Babylon! Those foreigners... became the Samaritans of New Testament times. They were not of the seed of Israel at all. This is why Christ's Apostles were amazed at Jesus even speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well.

 

[robert derrick]

Scripture first called them Jews, that were ejected from Elath, which had been of Judah.

They were also called Jews by the Assyrians besieging Jerusalem, which included those of Judah and Benjamin.

However, Paul never referred to Himself as a Jew. He did say he was an Israelite: an Israelite with kinsmen after the flesh: Israel after the flesh. He also called himself an Hebrew of the Hebrews. In Romans 2 he refers to them that are called Jews, and later concludes they are not Jews by outward circumcision, but by inward circumcision in the spirit.

All the remaining physical seed at the Redeemer's coming were called Jews by Scripture, nor did Jesus object to being called a Jew by the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus was of the house of Judah, but all others were called Jews as well: all the lost sheep of the house of Israel were called Jews.

Therefore, there is no separation of the children of Israel of old, between those calling themselves Jews of the house of Judah by the time of Jesus.

And the title Jew for a physical seed of circumcision ended at the cross.

 

[robert derrick]

If you'd only study your Old Testament history you'd well understand what I'm talking about. Do I really... need to point it out to you line upon line? No, do your own Bible study! I've given ample Scripture proof already.

Per the JEWISH HISTORIAN JOSEPHUS, he said the title of 'Jew' originated with the tribe of Judah, and that is the name which those returning to Jerusalem from the 70 years Babylon captivity used, including all the strangers that returned with them (which means foreigners NOT born of Israel). (Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, Book XI) That means the majority of Israelitesl did NOT call themselves Jews; the ten northern tribes that were removed from the holy lands about 120 years PRIOR to Judah's captivity to Babylon were not known as Jews.

When Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon came upon Jerusalem/Judea to destroy the city and temple, and take the "house of Judah" captive to Babylon for 70 years, NONE of the ten northern tribed "house of Israel" were present. They were already... gone in their own captivity by the kings of Assyria, about 120 years prior.

Because those of "house of Judah" took the title 'Jew' for themselves, which originated from the TRIBE of JUDAH, that is WHY... Apostle Paul would call himself a Jew, even though he was born of the tribe of Benjamin! If you knew your OT history you'd be aware of this, because when God split old Israel into two separate kingdoms per 1 Kings 11 forward, only the tribe of Benjamin sided with the tribe of Judah at Jerusalem. They eventually included some small remnants of the ten tribes that moved south because of refusing king Jeroboam's gold calf idol worship. Likewise, the Levites in the northern lands also went south and joined with Judah, because Jeroboam made common priests of the people instead. And all those made up the "kingdom of Judah" PER GOD'S Holy Writ, just 3 main tribes and strangers that lived in the southern lands of Judea.

As for your concern over Jewish circumcision, that subject has nothing to do with this, and I think you well know it.

Those who call all... the seed of Israel Jews don't know what they're talking about, and reveal their Biblical illiteracy in the Old Testament Books. Because God removed the ten northern tribes of the "house of Israel", who did not call themselves Jews, ONLY the 3 tribe "house of Judah" was LEFT in the holy land. When the kings of Assyria removed the ten northern tribes of Israel, he put in their place in the northern lands where the ten tribes were, foreigners from 5 different provinces of Babylon! Those foreigners... became the Samaritans of New Testament times. They were not of the seed of Israel at all. This is why Christ's Apostles were amazed at Jesus even speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well.

As for your concern over Jewish circumcision, that subject has nothing to do with this, and I think you well know it.

I well know it has everything to do with it.

Paul's claim to being an Israelite began with being circumcised the 8th day by the law:

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews.

If not, he would have been cut off from Israel, and been no Israelite at all:

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The children of Israel, later all called Jews, were 1st called so by bloodline. However, any of them that were not circumcised the 8th day by the law, were cut off from the people of Israel: the seed of promise.

The blood line for them was annulled. Birth by blood was made no birth by blood. With the law, it required both to be called Israel.

Neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh.

Now, outward circumcision itself is annulled; therefore, no birth by blood can become circumcised by law, and so all are cut off from birth of Israel by flesh.

All people born of flesh are now all uncircumcision with God, and so all are cut off from the promised seed of God.

They are not Jews by outward circumcision, because there is no more outward circumcision, and they are not of the bloodline of Israel by birth, because they are cut off without circumcision of the law.

 

[robert derrick]

The children of promise by flesh first agreed to the covenant of promise offered them at the mount, and then drew back and rejected it, when God came down upon the mount in their sight and spoke to them all in their ears. (Ex 19,20)

God then made with a them a covenant by law, which they then agreed to also (Ex 24), and would later break completely.

God ensnared them in their own unbelief by offering them a covenant of law binding their bloodline seed of promise to circumcision by law.

Up to that point, so long as they were born of the seed of Jacob, then they would always be the seed of promise. But when they agreed to the law of circumcision, they tied their birth by blood to circumcision by law:

If they were not circumcised by law on the 8th day, they were cut off from the people of promise: their bloodline birth was no more that of promise.

And when they all rejected the One that Promised Abraham, that later made their law, they then made their circumcision to be uncircumcision, so that now there is no bloodline that is not cut off from God's people of promise, not being able anymore to be circumcised by the law.

No outward circumcision is circumcision with God anymore. (Rom 2:28)

The claim of being an Israelite indeed, as Paul declared, began with circumcision by law on the 8th day. (Phil 3)

They had bound themselves to a law, that would one day cut them all off from the seed of promise by birth of flesh.

The only bloodline of Israel of God is that of Jesus Christ, which is only had by birth of faith and inward circumcision in the Spirit.

The covenant of promise with sign of circumcision made to Abraham is now only fulfilled in Christ.

 

[Davy]

As for your concern over Jewish circumcision, that subject has nothing to do with this, and I think you well know it.

I well know it has everything to do with it.

Paul's claim to being an Israelite began with being circumcised the 8th day by the law:

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews.

If not, he would have been cut off from Israel, and been no Israelite at all:

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The children of Israel, later all called Jews, were 1st called so by bloodline. However, any of them that were not circumcised the 8th day by the law, were cut off from the people of Israel: the seed of promise.

The blood line for them was annulled. Birth by blood was made no birth by blood. With the law, it required both to be called Israel.

Neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh.

Now, outward circumcision itself is annulled; therefore, no birth by blood can become circumcised by law, and so all are cut off from birth of Israel by flesh.

All people born of flesh are now all uncircumcision with God, and so all are cut off from the promised seed of God.

They are not Jews by outward circumcision, because there is no more outward circumcision, and they are not of the bloodline of Israel by birth, because they are cut off without circumcision of the law.

So you're saying that all Jewish converts to Christ among the disciples, Paul bade them to get circumcised. Prove it.

Also, where did Paul preach that Jews in Christ must be circumcised? Prove it. (Though I know you can't, because it was the Judaizer converts of the Pharisees who spied out among the disciples to see if they were circumcised. Those who push that as a requirement to be a Christian are orthodox Jews that hide.)

 

[Davy]

Scripture first called them Jews, that were ejected from Elath, which had been of Judah.

They were also called Jews by the Assyrians besieging Jerusalem, which included those of Judah and Benjamin.

However, Paul never referred to Himself as a Jew. He did say he was an Israelite: an Israelite with kinsmen after the flesh: Israel after the flesh. He also called himself an Hebrew of the Hebrews. In Romans 2 he refers to them that are called Jews, and later concludes they are not Jews by outward circumcision, but by inward circumcision in the spirit.

All the remaining physical seed at the Redeemer's coming were called Jews by Scripture, nor did Jesus object to being called a Jew by the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus was of the house of Judah, but all others were called Jews as well: all the lost sheep of the house of Israel were called Jews.

Therefore, there is no separation of the children of Israel of old, between those calling themselves Jews of the house of Judah by the time of Jesus.

And the title Jew for a physical seed of circumcision ended at the cross.

By the time of 2 Kings 16, and the Book of Esther (a later written Book), God had already split old Israel into two separate kingdoms. At 2 Kings 17, God brought the Assyrians upon the northern ten tribe kingdom of Israel and took them all captive to Assyria and the lands of the Medes.

And the actual Hebrew word means 'Jehudite' (from OT:3063) , which can also apply to a foreigner that lived in Judea. It became a common name for those who dwelt in the southern "kingdom of Judah". The Jewish historian Josephus said that's the name those who returned from Babylon used, and that's true, even for the strangers that went captive with the house of Judah to Babylon for 70 years. The term comes from the name of the tribe of Judah, so this isn't that difficult to understand. It's only those who try to say all Israelites are Jews, which is either from Biblical illiteracy or from a political agenda, that mislead the unstudied.

 

[Davy]

However, Paul never referred to Himself as a Jew.

Well, actually Paul did claim to be a Jew...

Acts 21:39
39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
KJV

Rom 11:1
11 I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
KJV



He said it again at Acts 22:3.

All those who were left of the southern "kingdom of Judah" used that title. It became a title also for 'region'. An example would be, if someone born in Asia moved to California and became a U.S. citizen, they would rightly call themselves a Californian, regardless of the original nationality or race. Apostle Paul was born of the tribe of Benjamin, but because the tribe of Benjamin joined with the tribe of Judah to form the southern "kingdom of Judah", all living there took the name Jew as a region marker.

Therefore, after the ten northern tribes of the "kingdom of Israel" were removed out of the land, and lost, the only Israelites left in the holy land were those of the "kingdom of Judah" in the south at Jerusalem-Judea. This is mainly why the title of Jew became a title for those.

The problem is though, some Jewish scholars are ready to cast away forever the ten lost tribe Israelites which God scattered first, which were not called Jews. Many brethren I've noticed are not aware that the MAJORITY of Israelites were of the northern ten tribe "kingdom of Israel", and that they went in their own captivity to Assyria and the land of the Medes, north of Babylon, never to return to the holy land. And that happened about 120 years PRIOR to Judah's later captivity to Babylon for 70 years.

Thus there have been TWO captivities of Israelites out of the holy land, not just one. The first one being the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Moreover, per the histories in The Old Testament, after the split of old Israel in 1 Kings 11 forward, it was the ten tribe NORTHERN "kingdom of Israel" that became known as... ISRAEL. The southern kingdom was known as the "kingdom of Judah". This is very important, because after the split, God's Word most often when speaking of "Israel" is pointing to the ten northern tribes only, even specifically as the "house of Israel", or as "Ephraim", or as "Samaria", or as "Joseph", or simply as "Israel". If the Bible student is not aware of this history, then they will think all prophecy God through His OT prophets is for all 12 tribes of Israel, when it is not. The Book of Hosea is one such example. It was given specifically to the ten tribe "house of Israel" about God getting ready to scatter them.

 

[Davy]

As for your concern over Jewish circumcision, that subject has nothing to do with this, and I think you well know it.

I well know it has everything to do with it.

Paul's claim to being an Israelite began with being circumcised the 8th day by the law:

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews.

If not, he would have been cut off from Israel, and been no Israelite at all:

Nah, that still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You apparently don't understand your OT histories about God splitting old Israel into two separate kingdoms. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, along with strangers and a small remnant of the northern ten tribes made up the "kingdom of Judah" at the south in Jerusalem-Judea. THOSE only took the title of 'Jew' (or Judean), foreigners there included.

The removed northern ten tribes of the "kingdom of Israel" did NOT use that title of Jew (which originated from the name of Judah). Thus it is WRONG for Jews today to claim only Jews are bloodline Israelites. That's not true per God's Word. These are NOT Jews...

Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Gad, Naphtali, Simeon, Dan, Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Reuben.

Amazing isn't it, that the actual MAJORITY of ISRAELITES are NOT really Jews? The ten northern tribes became lost to the Jews, and to the world, but not to God. In Amos 9:9 and Ezekiel 37 He revealed He is going to gather them in final at the end of this world.

 

[Davy]

The children of promise by flesh first agreed to the covenant of promise offered them at the mount, and then drew back and rejected it, when God came down upon the mount in their sight and spoke to them all in their ears. (Ex 19,20)

God then made with a them a covenant by law, which they then agreed to also (Ex 24), and would later break completely.

God ensnared them in their own unbelief by offering them a covenant of law binding their bloodline seed of promise to circumcision by law.
....

You need to go back farther than that in Bible history.

When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into Canaan, the lands of promise, He told them to wipe out literally seven nations of Canaan because of their iniquity. He showed with Abraham that He had given the Canaanites 430 years to repent. So by the time when He led the children of Israel out of the Egyptian captivity, it was time for His judgment upon those nations of Canaan.

Per the Judges 2 & 3, God rebuked the Israelites because they failed to destroy all those nations of Canaan. Instead, the Israelites allowed the leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. God then said He would use those Canaanites to test Israel with, to see if Israel would follow Him or not.

Thus the pagan Canaanites became a taunt and a snare to the children of Israel, making them fall away from God.

So what you're missing is WHY... it was so easy for the children of Israel back in that time to fall away into rebellion against God's covenant. It has not changed for today either, including for Christ's Church. Lord Jesus showed, remove the thorns (Satan's servants), remove the stones (Satan's servants), plow up the hard path, and then only can you sow seed that will take deep root and produce much fruit. Christ's enemies have crept in, and the majority of God's people don't even have a clue.

 

[robert derrick]

So you're saying that all Jewish converts to Christ among the disciples, Paul bade them to get circumcised. Prove it.

Also, where did Paul preach that Jews in Christ must be circumcised? Prove it. (Though I know you can't, because it was the Judaizer converts of the Pharisees who spied out among the disciples to see if they were circumcised. Those who push that as a requirement to be a Christian are orthodox Jews that hide.)

Thanks for getting back with me.

No, I am saying that Paul's boast of the flesh, if there were such a thing with God anymore, and there isn't, was that His claim to be an Israelite indeed began with the fact that he was circumcised on the 8th day according to the Law.

I.e. being an israelite in the old covenant, became tied to circumcision made law of Moses, rather than just a sign given to Abraham.

Though born of the bloodline, they were cut off from children if Israel, if not circumcised according to the law.

One was no more considered a child of Israel by blood only after the covenant by law was given by God and agreed to by all the people.

He ensnared them by their own unbelief, to tie their promise from God to the physical seed of Abraham and children of Israel, to the law of circumcision.

After the cross circumcision outwardly is no more circumcision with God, and so the physical seed is stuck without promise of God, until they are circumcised His new way: Inwardly in the spirit. I.e. the physical seed must now repent and believe Jesus in order to be a child of Israel of God.

Paul was not preaching circumcision as a Christian, but basing his first identity with Israel after the flesh on lawful circumcision.

 

[robert derrick]

By the time of 2 Kings 16, and the Book of Esther (a later written Book), God had already split old Israel into two separate kingdoms. At 2 Kings 17, God brought the Assyrians upon the northern ten tribe kingdom of Israel and took them all captive to Assyria and the lands of the Medes.

And the actual Hebrew word means 'Jehudite' (from OT:3063) , which can also apply to a foreigner that lived in Judea. It became a common name for those who dwelt in the southern "kingdom of Judah". The Jewish historian Josephus said that's the name those who returned from Babylon used, and that's true, even for the strangers that went captive with the house of Judah to Babylon for 70 years. The term comes from the name of the tribe of Judah, so this isn't that difficult to understand. It's only those who try to say all Israelites are Jews, which is either from Biblical illiteracy or from a political agenda, that mislead the unstudied.

I'm not really disputing this point, which I have never considered before: that All the tribes of Israel were Israelite tribes, and so Israelites.

But only the tribe of Judah were the Jews, as they were first called from Elath of Judah. So not all Israelites: those from the other tribes, were Jews, but all Jews were Israelites from the tribe of Judah. Which is fine. Though Benjamites were in Jerusalem, when they were all called Jews, as well as being in Babylon: Mordecai of Benjamin was a Jew.

Therefore, the term Jew applied to at least two tribes of Israel.

And later of course, all the people of promise, who's own the Redeemer came to first, were called Jews.

 

[robert derrick]

Well, actually Paul did claim to be a Jew...

Acts 21:39
39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
KJV

Rom 11:1
11 I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
KJV



He said it again at Acts 22:3.

All those who were left of the southern "kingdom of Judah" used that title. It became a title also for 'region'. An example would be, if someone born in Asia moved to California and became a U.S. citizen, they would rightly call themselves a Californian, regardless of the original nationality or race. Apostle Paul was born of the tribe of Benjamin, but because the tribe of Benjamin joined with the tribe of Judah to form the southern "kingdom of Judah", all living there took the name Jew as a region marker.

Therefore, after the ten northern tribes of the "kingdom of Israel" were removed out of the land, and lost, the only Israelites left in the holy land were those of the "kingdom of Judah" in the south at Jerusalem-Judea. This is mainly why the title of Jew became a title for those.

The problem is though, some Jewish scholars are ready to cast away forever the ten lost tribe Israelites which God scattered first, which were not called Jews. Many brethren I've noticed are not aware that the MAJORITY of Israelites were of the northern ten tribe "kingdom of Israel", and that they went in their own captivity to Assyria and the land of the Medes, north of Babylon, never to return to the holy land. And that happened about 120 years PRIOR to Judah's later captivity to Babylon for 70 years.

Thus there have been TWO captivities of Israelites out of the holy land, not just one. The first one being the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Moreover, per the histories in The Old Testament, after the split of old Israel in 1 Kings 11 forward, it was the ten tribe NORTHERN "kingdom of Israel" that became known as... ISRAEL. The southern kingdom was known as the "kingdom of Judah". This is very important, because after the split, God's Word most often when speaking of "Israel" is pointing to the ten northern tribes only, even specifically as the "house of Israel", or as "Ephraim", or as "Samaria", or as "Joseph", or simply as "Israel". If the Bible student is not aware of this history, then they will think all prophecy God through His OT prophets is for all 12 tribes of Israel, when it is not. The Book of Hosea is one such example. It was given specifically to the ten tribe "house of Israel" about God getting ready to scatter them.

You are correct about Paul referring to himself as a 'Jew'. To clarify again, I was pointing out that Paul's claim to fame after the flesh was as an Israelite indeed, and not as a Jew of the Jews.

He later used the term 'Jew' in order to get audience with the unbelieving Jews, who by now held being a Jew to be the supreme title, being the children of the fathers returned from Babylon, of which the Samaritans were outcasts, not having been captive in Babylon.

Paul used a similar tactic in the Sanhedrin, when he turned their fight against each other over the doctrine of resurrection. He would later call himself a Roman by birth in order to appeal to Caesar.

The point being, that Paul referring to himself as a Jew was not a boast of his birthright and circumcision, but an expedience of the moment, that was not a lie, so far as having been born a Jew under the old covenant and rose up in the Jews religion.

And, since you are making the point that Jews were only of the southern kingdom with Judah and Benjamites, then since there is no more any Jew outwardly after the flesh, then there are no more children of Judah and Benjamin after the flesh.

Because they can no more be circumcised after the flesh, and so are cut off from the people of Israel. And since the other 10 tribes were entirely cut off long ago, then no more people and children of Israel exist with God after the flesh.

 

[robert derrick]

Nah, that still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You apparently don't understand your OT histories about God splitting old Israel into two separate kingdoms. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, along with strangers and a small remnant of the northern ten tribes made up the "kingdom of Judah" at the south in Jerusalem-Judea. THOSE only took the title of 'Jew' (or Judean), foreigners there included.

The removed northern ten tribes of the "kingdom of Israel" did NOT use that title of Jew (which originated from the name of Judah). Thus it is WRONG for Jews today to claim only Jews are bloodline Israelites. That's not true per God's Word. These are NOT Jews...

Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Gad, Naphtali, Simeon, Dan, Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Reuben.

Amazing isn't it, that the actual MAJORITY of ISRAELITES are NOT really Jews? The ten northern tribes became lost to the Jews, and to the world, but not to God. In Amos 9:9 and Ezekiel 37 He revealed He is going to gather them in final at the end of this world.

That's fine. Not arguing the point. However, you are ignoring the fact that everyone Jesus came for as His own were called Jews, and were referred to as the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which the Redeemer came to first: all the lost sheep of the house of Israel were called Jews.

Lost 10 tribes, vs last two tribes is nice scholarly debate, but meant nothing to Scripture, when Jesus preached to them, in order to reach the lost sheep of the house of Israel: the Jews.

And in any case, my original Scriptural point still stands: there is no Jew after the flesh, and Israel after the flesh is in name only, because all and any born of that old bloodline, who are not circumcised the 8th day according to the law of Moses, are cut off from the people of Israel.

And since there is no more circumcision after the flesh, which is not circumcision with God, then none of them can possibly be circumcised after the law in the flesh: all are cut off for the people of Israel, from the Israel of God, from the green olive tree of Israel and of Jacob.

You effort to explain He is not a Jew outwardly, has been lawdable.

But there is no explaining around the fact that there is no circumcision that is outward after the flesh:

neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh.

This scripture is entirely about what is and is not circumcision in Scripture: Scriptural circumcision is now inwardly only. The debate about what is Israelite and what is Jew has nothing to do with it.

No physical seed of Israel can possibly satisfy the circumcision of law of Moses, because God has disannulled outward circumcision entirely, whether as a sign of His covenant of promise with Abraham, or as by law of Moses. Therefore, no physical seed of Israel by blood of Jacob remains today as children of Israel with promise. They are cut off by not being outwardly circumcised after the law.

The only circumcision today with God is inwardly in the Spirit, and only by this circumcision can any by law of God be accepted as true Israelites of God indeed.

 

[robert derrick]

You need to go back farther than that in Bible history.

When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into Canaan, the lands of promise, He told them to wipe out literally seven nations of Canaan because of their iniquity. He showed with Abraham that He had given the Canaanites 430 years to repent. So by the time when He led the children of Israel out of the Egyptian captivity, it was time for His judgment upon those nations of Canaan.

Per the Judges 2 & 3, God rebuked the Israelites because they failed to destroy all those nations of Canaan. Instead, the Israelites allowed the leftover Canaanites to dwell among them. God then said He would use those Canaanites to test Israel with, to see if Israel would follow Him or not.

Thus the pagan Canaanites became a taunt and a snare to the children of Israel, making them fall away from God.

So what you're missing is WHY... it was so easy for the children of Israel back in that time to fall away into rebellion against God's covenant. It has not changed for today either, including for Christ's Church. Lord Jesus showed, remove the thorns (Satan's servants), remove the stones (Satan's servants), plow up the hard path, and then only can you sow seed that will take deep root and produce much fruit. Christ's enemies have crept in, and the majority of God's people don't even have a clue.

True. Enemies have always crept in among God's people, and if we clear our ground from all that which is not of Scripture and off God, we open ourselves to such creeps of false doctrine. Which is not what we are talking about.

You have completely by-passed the teaching on covenants of God, and why all born of blood today are cut off without outward circumcision. There is no naturally born children of Israel with promise today, that have not been cut off: i.e. their bloodline became insufficient alone to be called children of Israel.

The children of Israel after the flesh are in name only, and them born of the blood of Jesus, which is the bloodline of Abraham and seed of promise, are children of Israel and promise indeed by inward circumcision. On any day.

And so it stands: The covenant made by the law of a carnal commandment, became the instrument by which God would be freed of promise to a physical seed on earth. They first agreed to and then refused His offer of a covenant by promise, even as He did with Abraham and promised to do so with Abraham's seed.

If they had not drawn back, when He came down in Person to speak to them all His 10 commandments, then they would have gone on without the Law of Moses, with the Lord Himself through the wilderness and into the land of Promise, and would have indeed been made His own peculiar treasure and people over all people of the earth, even as He had promised.

But, since they drew back from it, they then agreed to a covenant made by law, in which was included circumcision as by law, and not for sign only.

When they then slew Him on a cross, He made that outward circumcision to be uncircumcision, so that none could continue as children of Israel of promise by bloodline, because there is no more outward circumcision by law: Cut off.

There is no more physical seed of promise, nor naturally born children of Israel with promise of God, because there is no more outward circumcised to be circumcised with on the 8th day.

After the cross, all bloodline by Abraham and Jacob after the flesh, are cut off, because they cannot be outwardly circumcised after the law on the 8th day.

I appreciate your study between Israel and Jew, but it is not important to this teaching. All the lost sheep of the house of Israel were called Jews, and they were all cut off at the cross, and stay cut off by uncircumcision of the flesh.

All Jews of Jesus' day were the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as opposed to the Gentiles.

All those lost sheep became all cut off from the house of Israel, when they were all concluded in unbelief at the cross, even as Jesus prophesied they would, and they did not believe Jesus. Even as they did not believe Him, when He prophesied of rising again.

And the remain cut off by uncircumcision, except the repent and be circumcised inwardly in the Spirit, and are grafted in again to the green olive tree of Israel and of Jacob: the true Vine of Jesus Christ.

 

[Davy]

Thanks for getting back with me.

No, I am saying that Paul's boast of the flesh, if there were such a thing with God anymore, and there isn't, was that His claim to be an Israelite indeed began with the fact that he was circumcised on the 8th day according to the Law.

I disagree, as I have already shown, Paul's claim to be an Israelite (or Jew) was that he was born of the tribe of Benjamin, and thus a bloodline Israelite. Without that birth there would have been no need for his flesh circumcision. See, I never disagreed that Paul was circumcised, being a Jew of the "house of Judah", and that prior... to Christ's coming to die on the cross. So really, you're just going around in circles with this, going nowhere.

 

[Davy]

I'm not really disputing this point, which I have never considered before: that All the tribes of Israel were Israelite tribes, and so Israelites.

But only the tribe of Judah were the Jews, as they were first called from Elath of Judah. So not all Israelites: those from the other tribes, were Jews, but all Jews were Israelites from the tribe of Judah. Which is fine. Though Benjamites were in Jerusalem, when they were all called Jews, as well as being in Babylon: Mordecai of Benjamin was a Jew.

What you actually have to consider is the 1 Kings 11 events of when God rent Israel from Solomon's son Rehoboam. Only the tribe of Benjamin sided with the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem/Judea, as written. When God setup Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim as king over Israel in the north at Samaria, two calf idols in false worship were also setup in the northern kingdom. So a small remnant of the ten northern tribes refused those idols, and instead moved south to side with Judah and Benjamin. Also, because the Levites living in the northern kingdom were prevented from doing their priest duties, they also moved south and sided with Judah and Benjamin.

Thus the southern "kingdom of Judah", i.e., JEWS, became the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, a small remnant of the northern ten tribes, and the strangers living in Judea. All those became known as 'Jews'. These events, except the Jew title event, are written in 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles.

So even though the Jewish historian Josephus said those returning... from the 70 years Babylon captivity to Jerusalem used that title 'Jew', the strangers also with them, that does not necessarily mean that is when that title first began to be used by them. Though it's not written, I have to assume the southern kingdom of Judah used that title before their Babylon captivity also.

2 Kings 16 about the Jews in Elath being driven out by the king of Syria, that was after... God had split old Israel into two separate kingdoms.

And the Book of Esther is a POST-captivity Book, i.e., AFTER the split of old Israel, and even after the return of the house of Judah to Jerusalem after their 70 years Babylon captivity.

Therefore, sorry, we cannot properly use that title of "Jew" to be about all Israelites.

Therefore, the term Jew applied to at least two tribes of Israel.

And later of course, all the people of promise, who's own the Redeemer came to first, were called Jews.

It did apply to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, a small remnant of ten northern tribes, and the strangers living in the southern lands of Judea. They became known collectively as 'Jews', and also as the "kingdom of Judah", and also "house of Judah", and as just "Judah", as also as "Jerusalem", all after God split old Israel.

Of course Lord Jesus came to those first, to Jerusalem. But the majority of Israel was not... there when He first came to Jerusalem. The ten northern tribes of Israel had already been removed out the land about long before that. So instead of dwelling on 'Jews', like the orthodox unbelieving Jews like for you to do, why not consider more the ten lost tribes of Israel, as to what happened to them, because God's Word tells us?

Afterall, Lord Jesus said He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Have you ever considered why Anna of the tribe of Asher that saw Lord Jesus, thanked Him, and preached Him and redemption to the people? She's an example of one those of the northern ten tribes that left the north and sided with Judah (see Luke 2). How is it she being a prophetess was preaching Jesus and redemption while the Jews instead were seeking to kill Jesus?

 

[Davy]

You are correct about Paul referring to himself as a 'Jew'. To clarify again, I was pointing out that Paul's claim to fame after the flesh was as an Israelite indeed, and not as a Jew of the Jews.

But Paul claimed both, as an Israelite born of the tribe of Benjamin, and also as a Jew. By his claiming both puts the term 'Jew' in proper perspective as also a 'region' title, like Californian. It's not unlike the usage of the term Christian today; anyone can be a Christian simply by accepting The Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone can become a 'Jew' simply by accepting the Jew's religion. That... Apostle Paul had accepted before Christ converted him, and thus he also was a 'Jew'. Likewise, with all the foreigners living in the lands of Judea, they became known as Jews by following their religion. And some of those foreigners were leftovers from the nations of Canaan, and also Edom.

So your attempts to try and paint the title 'Jew' in some pure way, not really understanding what Paul meant in Romans 2:29, just does not work. Paul was not pointing to the flesh in Romans 2:29 when using the Greek word Ioudaios translated to English as "Jew". He was pointing to the idea of the 'spiritual Israelite' who's Faith was the same as Abraham's Faith, that being on God's original Promise to Abraham, which was by Faith ONLY, and NOT BY THE LAW (see Galatians 3). One paying attention in the Book of Genesis will discover that God gave Abraham the 'token' of flesh circumcision only AFTER... He gave the Promise and that Abraham believed, and Abraham's Faith was counted to him as righteousness.

Therefore, you CANNOT bring flesh circumcision into that Romans 2:29 meaning.

And, since you are making the point that Jews were only of the southern kingdom with Judah and Benjamites, then since there is no more any Jew outwardly after the flesh, then there are no more children of Judah and Benjamin after the flesh.

That idea shows a lack of understanding much Bible history and prophecy in both OT and NT. If those born of one of the tribes of Israel, i.e., flesh Israelites, has no more meaning per The New Covenant, then WHY... did Lord Jesus promise His 12 Apostles they each would sit upon a throne in His future Kingdom judging over the 12 tribes of Israel??? (Matthew 19:27-28).

Those who forget what Lord Jesus promised those 12 Israelites that He chose, reveal they are busy playing churchianity instead of staying in His Holy Word as written. Those might want to look at what God also said in Jeremiah 31 that the literal nation of Israel is forever.

 

[Davy]

That's fine. Not arguing the point. However, you are ignoring the fact that everyone Jesus came for as His own were called Jews, and were referred to as the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which the Redeemer came to first: all the lost sheep of the house of Israel were called Jews.

The real fact of the matter, is that truly Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the "house of Israel", and in that time of His 1st coming, who really were... those of the "house of Israel"? That title at that time belonged only to the ten lost tribes of Israel, not to the "house of Judah"...

Jer 3:17-18
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.
KJV

Jer 5:11
11 For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the LORD.
KJV

Jer 31:31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
KJV

It's not a mistake that those above Scriptures make a distinction between the "house of Israel" (ten lost tribes) and the "house of Judah" (Jews).

Nor is it a mistake that only... the "house of Israel" is mentioned in the same section as that Jeremiah 31:31 verse...

Jer 31:33
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.
KJV

The New Covenant (Jesus Christ, The Gospel) would mainly be accepted by the lost sheep of the "house of Israel" (i.e., the ten scattered tribes of Israel).

That happened after... Lord Jesus was rejected by the majority of the "house of Judah" (Jews) at Jerusalem (even as it still is today).

Lost 10 tribes, vs last two tribes is nice scholarly debate, but meant nothing to Scripture, when Jesus preached to them, in order to reach the lost sheep of the house of Israel: the Jews.

What God did with the ten lost tribes, i.e., the "house of Israel", in The Gospel of Jesus Christ, has EVERYTHING to do with His Plan of Salvation, INCLUDING TO THE GENTILE.

And you pass that off as a little meaningless thing, which is actually what the orthodox Jews see it as. I can tell you don't have a clue about God's prophecies about how the ten scattered tribes of Israel would wind up, with the majority of them accepting The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and believing Gentiles along with them taking that Gospel to the rest of the nations. It's obvious you struggle with the Bible prophecy that Ephraim's seed was to become "a multitude of nations" (Genesis 48).

 

[Davy]

True. Enemies have always crept in among God's people, and if we clear our ground from all that which is not of Scripture and off God, we open ourselves to such creeps of false doctrine. Which is not what we are talking about.

You have completely by-passed the teaching on covenants of God, and why all born of blood today are cut off without outward circumcision. There is no naturally born children of Israel with promise today, that have not been cut off: i.e. their bloodline became insufficient alone to be called children of Israel.

Nah, your accusation is false.

It only shows your lack of Biblical understanding, and instead doctrines of men. Your statement in bold red above, reveals that you are like the Judaites of Acts 15 that were trying to force Gentiles to get flesh circumcised or they could not be saved by Lord Jesus!

Thanks for revealing who you really are!!!

NO TRUE CHRISTIAN believes that flesh circumcision is required to be saved by Jesus Christ!

Welcome to my Ignore List!

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

What you actually have to consider is the 1 Kings 11 events of when God rent Israel from Solomon's son Rehoboam. Only the tribe of Benjamin sided with the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem/Judea, as written. When God setup Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim as king over Israel in the north at Samaria, two calf idols in false worship were also setup in the northern kingdom. So a small remnant of the ten northern tribes refused those idols, and instead moved south to side with Judah and Benjamin. Also, because the Levites living in the northern kingdom were prevented from doing their priest duties, they also moved south and sided with Judah and Benjamin.

Thus the southern "kingdom of Judah", i.e., JEWS, became the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, a small remnant of the northern ten tribes, and the strangers living in Judea. All those became known as 'Jews'. These events, except the Jew title event, are written in 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles.

So even though the Jewish historian Josephus said those returning... from the 70 years Babylon captivity to Jerusalem used that title 'Jew', the strangers also with them, that does not necessarily mean that is when that title first began to be used by them. Though it's not written, I have to assume the southern kingdom of Judah used that title before their Babylon captivity also.

2 Kings 16 about the Jews in Elath being driven out by the king of Syria, that was after... God had split old Israel into two separate kingdoms.

And the Book of Esther is a POST-captivity Book, i.e., AFTER the split of old Israel, and even after the return of the house of Judah to Jerusalem after their 70 years Babylon captivity.

Therefore, sorry, we cannot properly use that title of "Jew" to be about all Israelites.



It did apply to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, a small remnant of ten northern tribes, and the strangers living in the southern lands of Judea. They became known collectively as 'Jews', and also as the "kingdom of Judah", and also "house of Judah", and as just "Judah", as also as "Jerusalem", all after God split old Israel.

Of course Lord Jesus came to those first, to Jerusalem. But the majority of Israel was not... there when He first came to Jerusalem. The ten northern tribes of Israel had already been removed out the land about long before that. So instead of dwelling on 'Jews', like the orthodox unbelieving Jews like for you to do, why not consider more the ten lost tribes of Israel, as to what happened to them, because God's Word tells us?

Afterall, Lord Jesus said He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Have you ever considered why Anna of the tribe of Asher that saw Lord Jesus, thanked Him, and preached Him and redemption to the people? She's an example of one those of the northern ten tribes that left the north and sided with Judah (see Luke 2). How is it she being a prophetess was preaching Jesus and redemption while the Jews instead were seeking to kill Jesus?

I will put forward this, Jesus said he was sent to the House of the Servants of God. that means the Servants of God = Israel! it's a Spiritual thing ! If one is not within the Holy Spirit then one is not of the Body of Christ. So outside of such are all Carnal religious dupes, because they are of this world.
So as Jesus Christ said, You Must be born again and that means you must have the Holy Spirit to come to know God. not to mention that you can not come to know God the Father but only through his only begotten Son. so outside of such is all totally in vane.