Who Were the Judaeans of the New Testament? | Anglo-Saxon Israel

Who Were The Judæans Of The New Testament?

Introduction

The word “Judæan” is like the word “Glaswegian”, or the word “Texan”. Each of these words refers to a geographical location or place. They are commonly found in two forms in the English language. In their adjective form they tell us that the object of discussion, whatever it might be, pertains to that particular place. To use our examples we might talk about Judæan sandstone, Glaswegian weather or Texan oil. When used in their noun form these words always refer to people. They describe to us where those people live or come from. They tell us nothing else about the background of those people, only that they reside in or hail from that place. In its noun form then, the word “Judæan” means any person, regardless of race, religion, colour or creed, who lives in or comes from Judæa. Just as the word “Glaswegian” means any person, regardless of race, religion, colour or creed, who lives in or comes from Glasgow. I will let you figure out the word “Texan” for yourself.

Part of what follows deals with the erroneous usage of the word “Jew” in our modern Bibles. Quite simply it should not be there. I suspect that what I say, indeed what I have already said, will initially arouse a strong negative reaction in most readers. I also suspect that were I to have queried the use of any other word in our Bibles but the word “Jew” then those readers might not have reacted quite so strongly. The word “Jew” does indeed seem to be an emotive one for many people. But I deal with facts, not assertions and suppositions. I am interested in Hebrew and Greek, not modern English words that have been put into our “Bibles” since the 1700s for questionable reasons. When we are translating words in the scriptures we need to think carefully about what the original Hebrew and Greek words actually mean and take care to choose English words that have the same meaning. If we don’t do that then surely we are wasting our time. Our correct understanding and use of words are paramount if we are to properly assimilate and convey knowledge. And nothing could be more important when we come to study the scriptures. It is God’s Word we are dealing with, so there is absolutely no room for compromise or error.

A Few Examples

The common usage of the word “Hebrew” often causes me to wonder just how many of us have ever stopped to consider what that word actually means. If we do then we will realize that every single Arab on the face of the earth is a Hebrew as they are descended from Abraham, the first Hebrew, through his first son Ishmael. We might even go further and realize that the Arabs are also a truly “Semitic” people as they are directly descended from Shem, from whose name the word “Semitic” is derived. Now, realizing these things should we not then challenge someone when we hear them referring to the Jews as “THE” Hebrew race, or using the term “anti-Semitic” of someone who criticizes the Israelis? Are those people using the words “Hebrew” and “Semitic” in an appropriate way? Since when have the Jews had exclusive rights to the use of the words “Hebrew” and “Semitic” to describe themselves? We should not allow hundreds of millions of people to be brushed under the carpet in this manner as if they don’t exist.

Another example is the use of the word “gentile” in the New Testament. We are told that this word refers to all “non-Jews”. But how many of us go to the trouble of checking these things out? The word “gentile” is from the Latin “gentilis” which means “a person who belongs to the same family, tribe or clan, A FELLOW COUNTRYMAN”. It stems from the adjective “gentilis” meaning “OF THE SAME FAMILY OR CLAN”. Hmmm, my suspicions are becoming aroused at this point. But of course the word “gentile” as it appears in our New Testament is translated from the Greek word “ethnos”, so it is the meaning of the word “ethnos” that really matters. However, a quick glance at a good etymology dictionary tells us that the word “ethnos” means: “a band of people living together, a nation, a people, PROPERLY PEOPLE OF ONE\’S OWN KIND”.

We have a serious problem here, do we not? We have some questions that need to be answered, like who put the word “gentile” into our New Testament if the original word “ethnos” has a completely different (dare I say opposite) meaning? And why did they do it? Or has the meaning of the English word “gentile” perhaps changed since it was first introduced and someone has simply forgotten to tell the Bible translators? Whatever the answers to these questions might be, one thing is clear: the word “gentile” should NOT be in our New Testament as it does NOT mean the same as the original Greek word “ethnos”. If we do not properly understand the meaning of the word “ethnos” then we cannot possibly understand the correct meaning of those passages of scripture that include it. And what is more, not to point this out to others would be nothing less than dishonest.

Knowing its real meaning, we can now see that when the Lord Jesus used the word “ethnos” (He probably used the Aramaic equivalent) He was in fact referring to His own people, the house of Judah, and NOT to “non-Jews”. For example, when He is recorded as having said to the disciples:

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles … [that was to be Paul’s job] … But go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel ….” (Matt 10:5-6)

what He was really saying was “Don’t go to our own people … go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel instead”. It was Paul who was told to go and preach to the “ethnos”, or “Gentiles” as our modern Bibles tell it. Have you ever wondered why Paul, having been instructed to go and preach to the “Gentiles”, headed straight for the nearest synagogue? He preached the gospel in one synagogue after another. Are we to believe that Paul disobeyed the Lord? Does it seem that Paul understood the word “ethnos” to mean “non-Jews”? No, he went and preached to members of the house of Judah, the very people the Lord Jesus had sent him to.

[NOTE: Paul’s evangelical mission to the “ethnos” is recorded for us in the second half of the book of Acts. It is imperative that we do not confuse this with his epistles. The latter were written to people who were already believers to provide instruction and clarification, and often to rebuke those who had fallen back into bad (Judaistic or other pagan) practices.]

You see, we have been deceived as to what the scriptures are actually telling us because someone has been, let’s just say, “careless” with a word. Now, when we read our New Testament with this new knowledge a lot of things are going to start making a lot more sense. And if we also correctly translate the word incorrectly rendered “Jew” in our modern Bibles then EVERYTHING starts making a lot more sense.

The Real Meaning Of The Word Jew

So let’s take a look at the meaning of the word “Jew”. The word “”Jew”” is a religious term. Despite what you might have been led to believe it denotes a person’s religion, NOT their race or ethnic background. There are white Polish Jews, black Ethiopian Jews, yellow Chinese Jews, white Russian Jews, brown Iranian Jews, darker brown Indian Jews and the list goes on. The word “Jew” does NOT denote race. Neither Halakha (Jewish law) nor the Jewish authorities make any claim whatsoever that the word “Jew” has anything to do with race or ethnic background. When asked the questions: “What is an Israelite?; What is a Jew?” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem stated:

“THE TERM ISRAELITE IS PURELY BIBLICAL. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, OR CONVERTED TO JUDAISM, who is THUS IDENTIFIED AS A MEMBER OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE or religion.” (Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, February 1998; emphasis mine)

This response is perfectly in accordance with Halakha. Note that the term Israelite is “purely Biblical” and has, therefore, no relevance to the definition of a Jew. According to Halakha and the Jewish authorities the word “Jew” denotes any person, anywhere in the world, who is born to a mother who is already a Judaist or who CONVERTS to Judaism. Converting to Judaism makes one not only a member of the religion of Judaism, but also “A MEMBER OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE” they say. This clearly demonstrates that according to Halakha, the word “Jew” refers to a person’s religion, not their race or ethnic background. In context then it is no different from the words “Muslim” or “Buddhist”. It is vitally important that we understand this if we are to properly comprehend what follows.

Now, if we honestly look at the history of “the Jewish people” we will see that there have been a surprisingly large number of conversions down through the centuries. Whole peoples converted at times, most notably the nations of Edom (the descendants of Esau) and Khazaria, a Turko-Mongoloid people from southern Russia, but who originated in middle Asia. Together these two groups, neither of which are descended from the ancient Israelites of the Bible, make up more than ninety-five per cent of today’s Jews. Even the Jewish encyclopedias testify to the fact that both the Edomites and Khazars are to be found among the Jewish people today.

The Word “Jew” Should Not Be In The Bible

The word “Jew” is a modern word. It replaced the Middle English word “Iewe”, pronounced “yew”, in our Bibles from 1729 onwards. The word “Jew” did not, therefore, appear in the 1611 Edition of the King James Bible. [NOTE: if you have a King James Bible that claims to be the 1611 edition but has the word “Jew” in it then it is actually a 1769 revision of the 1611 edition.]

Remember the problem we had with the word “gentile”? Well, we have a very similar problem here. Unlike the Middle English word “Iewe” used previously in our Bibles, the word “Jew” does NOT mean the same as the original Hebrew and Greek words used in the scriptures. The Middle English word “Iewe” has its origins in the Latin word “Iudaeum” from “Iudaeus”. The Latin “Iudaeus” simply means “Judæan”, ie “from the land of Judaea”. The word “Iudaeus” is a loan from the Aramaic word “Y\’hūdāi”, from the Hebrew “Yhuwdiy”, meaning a “Judahite” or “a member of the tribe or house of Judah”. This linkage between the Aramaic and Latin words meaning “Judahite” and “Judæan” respectively is explained by the fact that Judaea had been the territory and natural homeland of the tribe of Judah from the time of King David, later becoming associated with the house of Judah after God divided Israel into two separate kingdoms. Now let’s see if the word “Iewe” was a good translation.

The Hebrew word translated “Jew” in our modern Old Testaments is יְהוּדִי or “Yhuwdiy”. It specifically means a descendant of Judah, or a member of the tribe or house of Judah, ie a “Judahite”. It is never used in the scriptures of any member of the house of Israel. The word “Yhuwdiy” should, therefore, be translated “Judahite”. It should NOT be translated “Jew” which means a follower of the religion of Judaism. There was no such thing as Judaism in Palestine when the word “Yhuwdiy” is first used to describe members of the house of Judah:

“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians – that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament]. It is, of course, a fallacious impression … Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.” (Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, “Judaism and the Christian Predicament”, page 59)

“The return from Babylon, and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, mark the end of Hebrewism [the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] and the beginning of Judaism.” (Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, formerly Chief Rabbi of the United States)

“Judaism is, specifically, the religion of a Jewish community living among Gentile peoples and is to be distinguished from the religion of ancient Israel.” (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Reference Encyclopedia, 1959, Volume 14)

So the word “Yhuwdiy” as used in the Old Testament can have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or Jews.

The Greek word translated “Jew” in our modern New Testaments is Ἰουδαῖος or “Ioudaios”. It means a “Judæan”, ie any person, regardless of race, religion, colour or creed, who lives in or comes from Judæa. However, it is sometimes used in the New Testament in the Old Testament sense to refer to a “Judahite”. The context tells us which way to render it correctly. The word “Ioudaios” should, therefore, be translated “Judæan” or “Judahite”, depending on the context.

So the Middle English word “Iewe”, which means a “Judahite” or a “Judæan”, was a perfect rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek words in the scriptures. The word “Jew”, however, means a follower of the religion of Judaism and has absolutely nothing to do with being a “Judahite” or a “Judæan”. The word “Jew” is, therefore, an erroneous rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek words. The reason I am stressing this point is to illustrate that when someone reading a 1611 King James Bible in the 1600s came across the word “Iewe” they would immediately have known that it was referring to a “Judæan” or “a member of the tribe or house of Judah”. Now ask yourself this question. When most Christians today come across the word “Jew” in their modern Bibles, do they immediately think of a “Judæan” or “a member of the tribe or house of Judah”? No, I would suggest that they immediately think of those people living in the world TODAY who call themselves “the Jews”. Once again the true meaning has been changed. The word “Jew” should NOT be in our Bibles.

A Little Judæan History

So if the word translated “Jew” in the New Testament really means “Judæan”, then who exactly were “the Judæans”? Aren’t we just talking about the Israelites who lived in Judæa in the time of our Lord Jesus? Let’s have a look at some Judæan history.

The fact is that the vast majority of the people in Palestine during the Lord Jesus’s day were not Israelites. They could not possibly have been Israelites. Of the entire nation of Jacob/Israel taken captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians (a conservative estimate is six million based on the number of fighting men) less than 50,000, ie less than one per cent, returned from captivity. They were the remnant of the house of Judah who returned from Babylon under Ezra and Nehemiah. Compare that to the whole nation of Edom (Idumea, NT) who were already living in Judæa when the tiny remnant of Judah returned, and who later CONVERTED TO JUDAISM under John Hyrcanus in 126 BC, well before the Lord Jesus was born. Never mind all the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Samaritans and the rest who had taken over the land when the Israelites were removed. Here are some Biblical and other historical facts pertaining to what happened in Palestine just prior to and during the period between the Old and New Testaments:

1. When the house of Israel and most of the house of Judah were removed from the land by the Assyrians, the latter brought all manner of foreign peoples into the northern territory of Samaria to possess it and occupy it:

“And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.” (II Kings 17:24)

They intermarried with what few members of the house of Israel were left in the land (the berries on the uppermost branches etc, Isaiah 17:6) and became known as the Samaritans.

2. When the remnant of the house of Judah were taken into Babylon, the Edomites went down into Judæa and took it:

“After this [the Babylonian captivity of the remnant of the house of Judah] they [the Edomites] settled in southern Palestine [Judæa], and for more than four centuries continued to prosper.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, under “Edom, Idumaea or Idumea”)

“The Edomites pressed into the now empty lands in the South of Judah [Judæa]” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, under “Edom; Edomites”)

3. The entire nation of Edom converted to Judaism in 126 BC and became part of the kingdom or house of Judah:

“… during the warlike rule of the Maccabees they [the Edomites] were again completely subdued, and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites, and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. The Edomites were now incorporated with the Jewish nation.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, under “Edom, Idumaea or Idumea”)

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews … they were hereafter no other than Jews.” (Judahite historian Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIII, Chapter IX, sec. 1)

4. On the conversion of the Edomites to Judaism, “Antipater the Idumean”, the Edomite governor, became procurator of Judæa, Galilee and Samaria. Through collusion with the Romans he consolidated his power and effectively usurped the Judahite throne by arranging for his son Herod the Great, followed by his grandson Herod Antipas, to become king of Judæa:

“In 126 BC the country was subdued by John Hyrcanus, who compelled the people to become Jews and to submit to circumcision. Antipater, governor of Idumaea, was made procurator of Judæa, Samaria and Galilee by Julius Caesar. He paved the way to the throne for his son Herod the Great. With the fall of Judah under the Romans [70 A.D.], Idumaea disappears from history. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, under “Edom; Edomites”)

Herod the Great, an Edomite, killed all of the Judahite Rabbis bar one and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem to his own requirements and specifications, thus indicating that he took over the religious affairs of the nation as well as its throne (see what Josephus has to say about the ethnic background of the Pharisees and Sadducees later).

So by the time the Lord Jesus arrived in Palestine the Edomites had seized the kingdom from the true Judahites, the descendants of the tiny remnant of Judahite exiles who had returned from Babylon. The Edomites had control of the land, the throne and the temple when the Lord Jesus was here. They were posing as true Israelites of the house of Judah, but the Lord Jesus knew that they were impostors. And He warns us about them in the book of Revelation:

“…I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews Judahites, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:9)

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews Judahites, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” (Revelation 3:9)

The Lord Jesus is telling us that there are impostors posing as true Judahites, members of the tribe or house of Judah. Who are these verses talking about? In the Lord Jesus’s day they were the majority of those people referred to in the scriptures as “the Judæans”. Who are they today?

An Aside, But An Important One

If this suggestion that the bulk of the people present in Judæa in the days of our Lord Jesus were not Israelites seems absurd to you, or you are just finding it difficult to take in, then please realize that the Edomites were simply doing what their forefather Isaac had prophesied they would do when, on comforting Esau, who had just thrown away his birthright, he told him:

“And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother [Jacob/Israel]; and it shall come to pass WHEN THOU SHALT HAVE THE DOMINION [KINGDOM], that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.” (Genesis 27:40)

From this it is clear that Esau/Edom was to possess the kingdom at some point in time. So given the history of Judæa just prior to the arrival of the Lord Jesus, is there really anything at all startling in what I\’m saying? If Esau’s descendants were not in possession of the kingdom at the time of the Lord Jesus, then when exactly were they in possession of it? Did Isaac’s prophecy fail? Remember, the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees, the representatives of the Judæans, that the kingdom would be taken from them:

“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

Why would the Lord Jesus tell the Judæans the kingdom was to be removed from them if they were true Judahites and, therefore, the rightful heirs to that kingdom? Because it wasn’t rightfully theirs to begin with, as they were NOT Judahites.

The Scribes And Pharisees

But we should know all of this from the scriptures which clearly tell us that the Scribes, Pharisees and most of the Judaeans who they represented were not Israelites. The Scribes and Pharisees admitted this with their own mouths when they said:

“We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man” (John 8:33)

To understand this properly let’s go back a few steps. There is a very good reason why the Judeans, as represented by the Scribes and Pharisees, received harsh comment from our Lord Jesus and why they rejected and killed Him. And it is to do with who they were. God referred to these people in Isaiah Chapter 6:

“And he said, Go, and tell THIS PEOPLE, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; LEST [IN CASE] they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and CONVERT, and be healed” (Isaiah 6:9-10).

It is clear from this passage that God did not want “this people”, whoever they might be (note that he did not say “MY” people), to understand His message and be converted. But we know that it is the Judæans who God was speaking about because the Lord Jesus quotes these very verses when the disciples ask Him why He speaks to the Judæans in parables:

“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because IT IS GIVEN UNTO YOU TO KNOW THE MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT TO THEM IT IS NOT GIVEN … For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; LEST [IN CASE] AT ANY TIME THEY should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and SHOULD BE CONVERTED, and I should heal them.” (Matthew 13:10-11,15)

The first thing to note here is that the Lord Jesus uses the terms “YOU” and “THEM”. When Jesus said to the disciples “unto YOU it is given” it should be obvious that He didn’t mean that the disciples were the only twelve people on the earth who would ever be able to understand His message. Jesus was, therefore, referring to a particular group of people of whom the disciples formed but a part. Likewise, when He said “but to THEM it is not given” Jesus wasn’t referring only to that gathering of people who happened to be present on the sea shore on that particular day, but again to a larger group represented by that gathering. So by His use of the terms “you” and “them” it is clear that Jesus was referring to two separate and distinct groups of people.

The next thing to notice is that Jesus here confirms that these people are NOT ALLOWED to understand (“unto them IT IS NOT GIVEN”). So we can’t just brush this under the carpet by claiming that Jesus was talking about “believers” and “unbelievers”. Surely we have to hear, understand and accept the message BEFORE we can become a believer. Therefore everyone is an unbeliever to begin with. So we cannot say that a person does not understand and accept the message because they are an unbeliever, but rather they are an unbeliever because, for whatever reason, they have not yet understood and accepted the message. Even the disciples had to have the parables of the kingdom explained to them (Jesus never explained them to the multitudes). Thomas continued to doubt right up until the end. No, this was an act of God as per His own prophecy as recorded in Isaiah Chapter 6. These people were NOT ALLOWED to understand. And Jesus confirms the reason why, and that is that they are NOT to be converted. Furthermore, He makes it clear that they can NEVER be converted (“lest AT ANY TIME they … be converted”).

So who are these people who are never allowed to partake of the kingdom? We know that the Lord Jesus was sent to Israel and to Israel alone:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24)

That is why, when sending the disciples out to preach the kingdom message, He instructed them:

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles our own people [the house of Judah], and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt 10:5-6)

The Lord Jesus’s mission was clearly to His “lost sheep”, the house of Israel. Now look at what He said to the Scribes and Pharisees:

“I am the good shepherd and know my sheep, and am known of mine … But ye believe not because YE ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:14,26-27)

Note carefully that He did not tell them that they were not His sheep because of their failure to believe. In fact He said the very opposite. He told them that the reason they did not believe was BECAUSE they were NOT OF HIS SHEEP. Do you see the difference? It is vitally important. Check your concordance and you will find that the term “sheep” is used literally dozens of times throughout the scriptures to refer to the nation of Jacob/Israel, God’s chosen people. So could it be that these people, the Judæans, are not Israelites? The Pharisees provide us with the answer. In their response to the Lord Jesus’s statement “the truth shall make you free”, the Pharisees give us an astounding piece of information that is vital to a proper understanding of the scriptures. Again:

“We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.” (John 8:33)

The Pharisees here state that they are descended from Abraham but have never been in bondage. But we know that all Israel were in bondage in Egypt (Exodus 1:1-5,13-14). The Pharisees cannot, therefore, be Israelites. Now, and this is important, please do not believe anyone who tells you that the Pharisees were lying when they made this statement. If you do then you are prepared to accept that the Lord Jesus is a liar because not only does He not rebuke the Pharisees for lying, but a few verses later He actually confirms what they say:

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed” … [BUT] … “If ye were ABRAHAM\’S CHILDREN, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:37,39)

The Lord Jesus accepts their claim of descent from Abraham, but says that they are not “ABRAHAM\’S CHILDREN”. What does He mean by the expression “Abraham’s children”? There is no need to attempt to spiritualize this expression away as many do. Indeed it is grave error, as Paul provides us with a full explanation of it in Romans 9:

“For THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL, WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL: NEITHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN: BUT, IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. THAT IS, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED.” (Romans 9:6-8)

He then goes on to explain how the promises passed to Jacob. Paul is telling us here that not all of those calling themselves “Israel” are actually Israelites. He explains that being descended from Abraham is not sufficient to make them “children”, but rather only the “CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE”, ie those descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are counted for the seed (the promises passed down from Abraham through Isaac to Jacob/Israel). So the “children” the Lord Jesus is speaking about in John Chapter 8 are the “children of the promise”. And in case we are still in any doubt as to the identity of the “children of the promise”, Paul confirms it for us:

“MY KINSMEN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH: who are ISRAELITES; TO WHOM PERTAINETH THE … PROMISES.” (Romans 9:3-4).

Paul is telling us, well after the Lord Jesus has been and gone, that the “children of the promise” are his literal brethren – flesh and blood Israelites, descendants of Jacob/Israel. So we see that in John Chapter 8 the Lord Jesus does indeed confirm the revelation by the Pharisees that they are not Israelites. They CANNOT be Israelites as they are not “children of the promise”, ie they are not descended from Jacob/Israel. Didn’t you ever think it odd that the Pharisees never claimed to be descended from Jacob, only ever claiming descent from Abraham? Now you know the reason why.

The Judahite Historian Flavius Josephus, writing in around 69 AD, also confirms that the Pharisees were not true flesh and blood Israelites:

“For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews Judahites. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect … are called Essenes. THESE LAST ARE JEWS JUDAHITES BY BIRTH.” (Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Book II, Chapter VIII, sec. 2)

Josephus is clearly telling us that the Pharisees and Sadducees were NOT “Judahites” by birth (the same translation problem applies here by the way), ie they were converts and, therefore, imposters. [NOTE: Josephus was a true Judahite, a flesh and blood Israelite of the house of Judah.]

[1] If you use a modern translation like the NIV then great care must be taken with the sentence: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (KJV). Modern versions tend to swap the two clauses of this sentence around and render it: “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Read literally this translation is nonsensical. What the translators are attempting to do here is to have us believe that Paul is talking about a “spiritual Israel”, ie the Church. But this totally contradicts the rest of Paul’s teaching in these verses. Indeed Paul goes to great pains here, and also elsewhere, to make it clear that both he and the Lord Jesus were referring to literal, flesh and blood Israelites.

So who were the Judæans? What group of people:

1. were descended from Abraham;

2. were not in captivity in Egypt;

3. were not “children of the promise” (descendants of Jacob);

4. were present in Judæa in large numbers during the time of Jesus; and

5. were excluded from the kingdom?

Only one group of people fits this description. There is one very prominent group in Bible history who the scriptures tell us are to be cut off from the kingdom for all time. They are Edom, the Edomites, the descendants of Esau who despised and threw away his birthright and the promises. The book of Obadiah records for us the wrath which is to be poured out on Edom as punishment for their treatment of their brethren Jacob/Israel:

“For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and THOU SHALT BE CUT OFF FOR EVER.” (Obadiah 10)

I recommend that you read Obadiah and related passages to remind yourself of what the Edomites did to their brethren, the nation of Jacob/Israel, to deserve such wrath and final condemnation and punishment from Yahweh God. It relates how they behaved treacherously towards their neighbours and kinsmen, murdering them in cold blood, giving them up to be slaughtered and taken captive by the invading Babylonians, moving in to steal their land, their homes and everything they owned. I repeat my earlier question: Who are these people today?

Finally

This has not been an in-depth study, and really it would require a book to go into this question fully. However, it is hoped that the importance of being careful with words has been impressed upon the reader and that my paper has, at the very least, given you some food for serious contemplation. Please don’t just discard this paper simply because the contents are unfamiliar or objectionable to you. Equally, please don’t just believe what I say. I implore you to check it out for yourself, with an open mind and an open Bible in front of you. Put the words and opinions of men away for a little while and allow God’s Word and His Spirit to speak to you. I assure you that once you see the truths explained in this paper for yourself then a whole new world will begin to open up for you in the scriptures. Enjoy!

Mike Green

2 April 2010