Israel, Judah and Jew are not synonymous terms

[Hope]

Hello everyone

I would like to share with those who have the "eyes to see" a study a found very interesting and important to talk about due to the lack of knowledge of many regarding the difference between Israel, Judah and Jews. But first let me look up the meaning of the word: "SYNONYMOUS". What is a synonymous?According to the merriam webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/...mous)synonymous means:1: having the character of a synonym; also : alike in meaning or significance2: having the same connotations, implications, or reference — syn·on·y·mous·ly adverb Before I post the link to the study I will like to say a few words the Spirit inspires me to share with you here.From LOVE I have learned that the Holy Spirit has no colour (RACE) and by Gods will, it chooses who or what to speak thru.From LOVE I have learned that the term "ISRAEL" is for the spiritual people. Those that admit God in their lives and that thru the study of the Scriptures came to Christ, and learned from Christ to accept Him as our SAVIOUR, are part of ISRAEL.From LOVE I have learned that all that YHVH wants is for us to LOVE Him truly from the heart by understanding the TRUE meaning of His LAW, which is LOVE.From LOVE I have learned that being BAPTIZE means to be BORN from ABOVE by understanding that we come to this world in flesh and blood for the tame and training of our soul for the world to come.From LOVE I understand that EVERYTHING is under GODs control and that for everything there is a timing. So if you feel you are not able to understand His word fully just learn to be pacient and when ever you are ready He will make you understand.John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Please link to:http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ESmFH...en&ct=clnk&cd=7After you read :study: carefully the document we can start talking about it.Regards,Hope

 

[Christina]

I didnt read this whole article but its not nessary scripture tells this is true that all are not equal the Jews today in prochey are called by the name of the largest of the two tribes Judah, They are the Jews in the land of Israel today, The ten so called lost tribes are called most often Ephraim and Manaseh in Prophecy, and represent most of the Christian nations today. When scripture refers to the Whole House of Israel it is refering to all 12 tribes Jew and Christian together as in Eze. 37 Israel can also mean all believers (reguardless of their christian,jewish or gentile standing) There are two sticks as Eze. tells us one is Chrisian one is Jewish both will be joined together into one.This all comes down to understanding the the inhertance was split.

 

[tim_from_pa]

The bile clearly speaks of two houses, the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The house of Judah (the Jews) retained the Law. The house of Israel became lost to history and became as Gentiles. These mainly became the Christian nations of NW Europe, Britain, her Commonwealth and ultimately the United States. Yes, Israel is spiritual, but unbeknownst to themselves they have the seedbed and genealogy (the actual race) of Israel.In other words, Israel has dualistic tendencies of being both the physical and spiritual seed of Abraham. When only the latter is detected, this is where the erroneous doctrine of replacement theology comes into play, i.e. that the spiritual people replaced the true Israelites when in fact, the physical Israelites became the spiritual people but forgotten their physical roots (it only looks like the Christians replaced them, but in fact many Christians are physically Israelites). The Jew on the other hand rejected the gospel but remembered their physical roots. From that seedbed of Israel, they brought the gospel to the other nations thus graphing in non-Israelite Gentiles as well.

 

[Richard_oti]

(Hope;51400)
I would like to share with those who have the "eyes to see"... Please link to:
As I personally do not have much time for discussion currently, please allow me to clearly state that I am not open for discussion at this time.That being said: The link provided is clearly in error. The "House of Judah" consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It [the "House of Judah"] also later consisted of those from the other tribes who came over to the "House of Judah" from the "House of Israel".I did not read the article in question beyond that point, for if the premise is flawed, so too is the conclusion.Kind regards,Richard

 

[FoC]

Israel and Jew are synonymous when the context of the passage shows that they are meant generically.

 

[FoC]

Apparently and Israelite and a Jew ARE synonymous in the NT in many cases.http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/vie....php?f=30&t=164Paul shows that he IS a "Jew";

Act 21:39 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.​

Paul has just said above in no uncertain terms that he is a JEW.And here;

I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. (2Co 11:21-22 KJV)​

Paul IS an ISRAELITE by his own admission AND he IS a JEW by his own admission

 

[FoC]

I wanted to start another thread here because the point may be derailing another thread and I dont like doing that to other peoples discussions*MY* point in that thread was that when we see 'Jew' or 'Israel' in the NT that it is many times simply referring to the descendants of the man Jacob, whom God named "Israel" and not necessarily denoting any distinction between the kingdom of Judah versus the Kingdom of Israel as some erroneously seem to claim.I have other passages as evidence, and I will be adding to the following small article to be sure that any confusion is removed, but below Paul very clearly refers to himself as both 'Israelite' and 'Jew' proving conclusively that these terms ARE interchangeable in the NT and are not necessarily making any distinction about a kingdom (Israel or Judah), but instead in many to most cases in the NT are simply referring to the peoples who are descendants of Jacob as a whole.
Israelites versus Jews in the New Testament.by Wm TiptonAssertions/Conclusions of this ArticleSome assert that the words Israel and Jew are referring to the northern and southern kingdoms when used in the NT.My personal viewpoint is that the terms are used quite generically much of the time and are not meant to show any distinction but instead are simply in reference to the peoples who are descendants of the man Jacob whom God named 'Israel'.Supporting EvidenceThis evidence will simply show that Paul refers to himself as both Jew and Israelite showing conclusively that the two terms ARE used interchangeably in the New testament.Paul shows that he IS a "Jew";
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. Act 21:39
Paul has just said above in no uncertain terms that he is a JEW.And here;
I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I.Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.(2Co 11:21-22 KJV)
Paul IS an ISRAELITE by his own admission AND he IS a JEW by his own admission.This evidence shows us very clearly that the usage of "Jew" and "Israel(ite)" in the NT are not meant to be referring to the two separate kingdoms but that Paul uses these terms quite generically/interchangeably.http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/vie....php?f=30&t=164Again, I will be adding quite a bit to this article on our web site over the next few days since Ive now seen this argument brought up a couple times and feel that it could be a real threat to sound doctrine.

 

[tim_from_pa]

So, in a nutshell, you are saying house of Israel and house of Judah are synonymous and have the same fate? That all prophecy to Judah (the Jews) can apply to Israel?

 

[FoC]

(tim_from_pa;51509)
So, in a nutshell, you are saying house of Israel and house of Judah are synonymous and have the same fate? That all prophecy to Judah (the Jews) can apply to Israel?
I dont remember ADDING that idea to the text. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what IS said instead of ADDING your own thoughts in so much

you seem to be an 'either/or" type of person who fails to accept that not EVERY instance of word HAS to ALWAYS mean what you want it to mean.Ever hear of a word called 'context' ?CONTEXT will show whether the 'house of Judah' is meant...that intent isnt just automatically applied just because you see the word 'Jew'....By the way...I have PROVEN my point that Paul calls himself both Jew AND Israelite.http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/vie....php?f=30&t=164Im afraid you will have to deal with that fact, Tim

How does that fact fit into your theory ?

 

[tim_from_pa]

I'm very well aware of that verse by Paul. All Jews are Israelites (i.e. children of Israel) But Israelites are not Jews. All Californians are Americans, Not all Americans are Californians. There was a major earthquake and to everyone's surprise, the rest of the continent fell into the ocean and was lost and California remained. Jesus said, Go to the lost Americans. In this context, that excludes the Californians that are not lost, but are in their proper location.All I am saying is that Jews in the strictest sense of the word only had basically 2 tribes with them. However, if a member of any other tribe identified with them nationally, then they could take on the name of Jew.Let's face it. When we speak about a "Jew" in the NT, we envision a person abiding by the Law of Moses, and they practice their faith knowing they are the children of Abraham, and they dress and act like a Jew. The lost ten tribes did not. And since these tribes became as Gentiles, they would be willing to accept the gospel. This is the meaning of the putting new wine in new wineskins. IT would not work with the Jews who abide by the old (the Law of Moses). The lost sheep of the house of Israel (the lost tribes) did not practice Judaism after the separation. Judaism was something that was ingrained originally in the southern Kingdom of Judah. Israel did not want anything to do with the Southern Kingdom. An no wonder, the Lord divorced his one wife, Israel and she forgotten her identity. The other wife, Judah, he punished.

 

[FoC]

I think we all know & understand the history involved here, Tim.And the point again is that the terms do not have to be absolutely refering to one or the other.Ill be adding this to the article as one more smaller piece of evidence to refute this error, but Paul says this about the JEWS;

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom 3:1-2 KJV)​

When were they entrusted with the very Words of God ?Im sure you've heard of a man named Moses thru whom Israel was given the laws of God.Was this before or after the split into 2 kingdoms, Tim ?If it was before, how then does Paul call them 'Jews' IF he meant 'Israel' instead ? Why not just call them Israelites there to avoid any confusion ?How can Paul even refer to them AS 'Jews' when they were given the oracles of God IF 'JEW' ONLY intends to mean 'of the house of Judah' ?The terms MUST be synonymous in these sorts of cases.Your theory is filled with holes, in my opinion, and Ill be working on making that article quite thorough in dispelling the error that the NT usage of 'Jew' is necessarily intended to mean 'house of Judah', unless the context itself shows that to be the case

 

[Christina]

I agree with Tim here in prochecy Jews are called Judah, Christains/gentiles are called Ephriam and Manaseh Israel can be the Land the 12 tribes or the Whole of believers in Eze. 37 These are called the two sticks This is another vision, dealing still with the House of Israel. However the House of Israel is brought in to the picture, which is covering a later time period.Ezekiel 37:16 "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: Then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:"On the first stick, Ezekiel wrote the name of Judah, and it will represent all those who call themselves "Jews". It doesn't matter if they have Jewish blood or not, as long as they consider themselves of Judah. These people include those people of the tribes of Benjamin, and Judah, as well as part of the Levitical priesthood.The whole "House of Israel", are all the Christian nations around the world . The English People are the offspring of the tribe of Ephraim, in large part. However, this second stick represents all the House of Israel that were divorced by God, and brought back as the "sons of the Living God".By using the two sticks, God is symbolizing the division between Israel, and Judah, or in terms of today; Christian and Jew.Ezekiel 37:17 "And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."This joining of the two sticks will not happen until the first day of the Millennium age, when our Lord Jesus Christ returns.Ezekiel 37:18 "And when the children of thy People shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?"When Ezekiel performs the joining of these two sticks, and is questioned by the Israelites, this is what God instructed him to say.Ezekiel 37:19 "Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in Mine hand."They will be joined as one people, and one nation, just as they were in the days of Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon: before the nation split into two nations. This will be a great day, and it will happen when our Lord Jesus Christ returns.Ezekiel 37:20 "And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes."This is the symbolic joining together of the whole house, all the tribes. It is to show us that God will and does always keep His word. Though we think we know who we are, in that day there will be no doubt. This time has not happened yet, and when the appointed time comes, God knows where each "kernel of His grain", each of "His own children" is. Not one soul is lost from God.Ezekiel 37:21 "And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be one, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:"Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:"

 

[FoC]

Hi Kriss

I never said I dont agree with the prophecies...that seems to be a sticking point where what Im stating is being misunderstood.This isnt about the prophecies or the history, its about the terms used in the NT.Tim has said in his own post here that;
All Jews are Israelites (i.e. children of Israel)
Which shows (at the very least) that the use of 'Israel' in the NT does not necessary mean 'not of the house of Judah'...and Paul shows what the case is there.I believe, and Im sure I can show that Im not alone, that the other term 'Jew' also is used generically in the NT and does not necessarily mean 'of the house of Judah' in every single instance it occurs.The Law was given to Israel thru Moses, yet Paul says in Romans it is the JEWS that were given the oracles of God.Pauls usage of 'jews' there MUST be a generic term for Israel since it was Israel that was given the law.Tim has pretty much been evading the actual point I am making and going on about prophecy and history on which I have not even yet begun to comment here or in any other thread, because its not my point.

 

[tim_from_pa]

FoC and Kriss:I'm starting to think that this is a semantics issue. FoC is apparently using "Jew" the way I would use "all Israel" (meaning 12 tribes). In my vocabulary there is all Israel, the house of Israel and the house of Judah (and I restrict Judah to using the word 'Jews'). And in the strictest definition, the way I use the words is the way it should be since the etymology of 'Jew' came from the the tribal name "Judah".However, I still am unaware of any scripture that calls all Israelites "Jews". For example, the Judahic tribe were supposed to be the lawgivers and practice the Law. It was prophesied in Genesis 49:10. So the passage for example that says:What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. This is also true of Israel, but only the Jew at that time was following the Law, and this statement would still be true even if for only Judah and does nothing to endorse calling "all Israel" Jewish. As for the house of Israel in the NT, they at that point did not become many nations, and were also being punished and wandering yet. Depending on the context in Romans 9-11, Paul sometimes means all Israel, sometimes Israel and sometimes Jews. The point being is that they did not share the same fate and destiny, and in Romans 11:25 is where the Ephraim part of Israel would eventually fulfill its destiny of becoming many nations and in that manner all Israel would be saved.

 

[FoC]

(tim_from_pa;51527)
However, I still am unaware of any scripture that calls all Israelites "Jews".
Thats apparently because you dont want to see the evidence for what it is.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.(Rom 3:1-2 KJV)​

The Law (the oracles of God) was given to Israel (ie 'Israelites'

).The use of "Jews' here MUST be universally speaking of the nation of Israel.A response is not a refutation, Tim. Just because you give a response doesnt mean youve done away with the evidence.Pauls use of 'JEW' there IS speaking about the NATION of Hebrews, not just a couple tribes. And again with the history involved, I am not discussing that here in any way, shape or form.The topic HERE is that the word "Jew" in the NT does not necessarily mean 'house of Judah' by default but ONLY where the context shows that that is the case.Ill again state that on this point you have not proven that "Jews" does in fact always mean 'of the house of Judah".

 

[tim_from_pa]

Again, a semantics issue. If you want to believe he was talking about the past Israelites when they first received the Law as opposed to his present day Jews that practiced the Law, then the application would be to all 12 tribes. But most people take the context of that passage (as I do) as his present day practicing Jews. The Jews in the land of Israel at Jesus' time were just basically two tribes, so to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel would require them to travel abroad.And if there were Israelites abroad, you can be rest assured they were not practicing the Law. The people of Judah in the Diaspora were practicing the Law however.There is an apocryphal chapter of Acts 29 telling how Paul went to Britain to preach to the children of Israel there. In addition, Jeremiah transferred the throne of David over to the isles, as my signature genealogy traces.As long as these distinctions are made between these people and the Jews in the land of Israel, then "have at it". Call them what you will. I don't much care one way or the other. But the bottom line is there are two groups of people that God dealt with, and if you want to use the term Jew so broadly, then I'll (for your sake) simply call them the house of Israel and the house of Judah. But I do want people, especially those newer to the faith, to understand that some physical seed of Jacob are law keepers (aka Jewish) and many,many more physical seed became as Gentiles and mighty nations whom many of them embraced Christianity, and that makes for Ezekiel's two sticks.I believe I am from the tribe of Joseph for example, and therefore have every God-given right to the land of Israel as the Jewish people do. However, I'll wait until the Lord comes back to allow me to possess it. It's too messed up right now over there. I'm in my own appointed place over here that the bible also prophesied about and my proper place is here for now.

 

[FoC]

(tim_from_pa;51541)
Again, a semantics issue.
Tim, do you honestly think I expect you to honestly look at ANY evidence given here that will refute your position?Ive seen this same 'semantics' nonsense pulled by others in debates probably 100 times this past month.Its typical to play the semantics card in this sort of case.I was on the phone earlier with one of my mentors and he was pretty amused by your views concerning 'jews' here as well.He said he has seen a lot of cases where someone looks at scriptures, comes up with a 'theory' and then will weed thru scripture trying to PROVE that theory and nothing that shows anything contrary will be taken into consideration. I see this same nonsense all the time in the MDR debate.Posters such as Sealedeternal here at this forum have drawn premature conclusions and instead of amending their theories to accomodate conflicting data, they pull the same 'semantics' game youre playing with me now to keep from actually accomodating that data and looking at their views again.Its the same here with you.youve come up with a theory and put so much effort into it that you refuse to accept any actual evidence that will put that theory into question.What I think is that you need to amend your theory where it is clearly misrepresenting the details...otherwise you end up looking desperate...which frankly, is what Im beginning to believe here.
If you want to believe he was talking about the past Israelites
I choose to believe what is clearly presented.The "JEWS" can only have been entrusted with the words of God *IF* it were actually meaning Israel as a whole.That you cannot accept this doesnt alter the fact.Is it a huge detail ? No, its not...its just one more minor one.Can I prove that 'other sheep' means gentile ? No, I cant.Can you prove that 'other sheep' means 'Israel' ? No, you cannot.One some points we're just going to have to agree to disagree, apparently, because Im personally convinced that 'Jew' does not necessarly have to mean only the 2 or 3 tribes in the NT.-Irrelevant historical details meant to distract from the actual issue at hand snipped-

 

[FoC]

I believe I am from the tribe of Joseph for example, and therefore have every God-given right to the land of Israel as the Jewish people do
I see.Frankly, I have been wondering for a bit here if this wasnt going to be a factor here.This is a personal issue so I realize its going to be harder to remain objective.Just a note to you, the particular point Im arguing doesnt affect YOUR views in the least. If you ARE of that tribe, how on earth is that affected if Paul uses the word 'Jews' in the NT at times to generically speak of ALL of Jacobs descendants?It surely doesn't.Im not arguing in any way against the idea that the house of Judah may have been the origin of the word 'Jews'..not in the least since I am not qualified to make that call.ALL that I AM arguing is that the word 'JEWS' in the NT is in many cases used simply to talk about ALL of Jacobs descendants, not only those of 2 or 3 tribes.The reason this is a huge issue here is that *IF* you convinced a new bible student to believe that "Jew" = "of the kingdom of Judah" then that directly affects how they understand a great many passages in the the NT. Horribly erroneous doctrine will be the result.

 

[FoC]

deleted....figured that one out

 

[FoC]

For you readers, bear in mind that my ONLY point is that in many cases in the NT 'JEWS' is simply speaking generically about 'Israel' as a whole, not just a couple tribes.for you readers, here are a few more verses offered as evidence of the point above.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (Rom 3:9 KJV)​

Jews and Gentiles.That would pretty much cover everyone on the planet...unless "jew" doesnt include the lost 10 tribes here.Can we assume that those tribes are somehow exempt from the above statement ?

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: (Rom 3:29 KJV)​

Again here, is God the God of Judah and us gentiles only ?Can we assume that the other 10 tribes have been entirely forgotten by God ?

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; (Rom 2:9 KJV)​

Can we assume that this does not apply to the other tribes that some expect us to believe isnt included by Pauls use of 'Jew' ?