|
Webster and the Term “Jew”
Judgment Day Perspectives By Eli James. E-Newsletter Volume III, #9, October 13, 2006. Webster and the Term “Jew” by William Norwood Hollis Friends of Christian Israel, one of the things we must understand about Judaism is the fact that the rabbis are chameleons whose doctrine is constantly shifting sand. The most difficult task in creation is to get a straight answer from a Jew. That is because the Jews are not what they claim to be. In reality, they are a mass of contradictions. This article by William Norwood Hollis explains why not even Jews can define the word \’Jew.\’ This is a good one. Enjoy! –Pastor Eli W e b s t e r a n d t h e T e r m “J e w” By: William Norwood Hollis, M.A One of the tactics used in debate is to get the opponent off the major premise and onto a minor premise — thus defeating him. One must use the proper denominator in order to solve any mathematical problem. The navigator, when his compass fails, turns to the North Star. Pope Leo XIII said, “When a civilization is perishing, it would behoove those who would restore it to recall the principles from whence it sprang.” Such wonderful advice! It is applicable to all areas of our lives today. Our schools are failing. If you will look to the beginning of the schools in our country, you will learn that they were Christian. They were proud of it and not ashamed. It may surprise you to know that Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Syracuse, and countless others were originally the products of Christian money, philosophy, and the ethic, hard work. Their curricula evidenced this fact. The same applies to our public schools where early history books, often began with Adam and Eve. Even our Young Men’s Christian Association and Young Women’s Christian Association over a period of time became the Y.M.C.A and the Y.W.C.A. Then, finally, they became simply, the “Y”. Now, nothing is Christian about them at all. The same applies to our government. Just go back to when it started and you will see that we realized the maximum amount of freedom. This freedom lasted until 1932 when Charles A. Lindberg’s baby was kidnapped and the Federal Kidnapping Law was enacted. Prior to this time, the Federal Government could not lay its hand upon an American citizen except for the defense of our country. Now look at how our lives have become regimented, our privacy invaded. And this has all happened within the lifetime of many of us. Our churches have not been immune to this attenuation of our liberties! By studying the history of the Church in the first century, you will find that all alms given were for “widows and orphans”, either for the local “brethren”, or for those “brethren” who were in need in another village. This practice continued for the next three hundred (300) years. Now our government is taking care of the “widows and orphans”, and our collections are going for bureaucratic church salaries, and opulence in both buildings and trappings. The foregoing points out how these things, over a period of time, ceased to be, or do, what they originally set out to be, or do. Time seems to have a corrupting influence, and especially so with organizations and with words. The evolution of many words has met with the same fate. For example, when I was a young lad back on the farm in Mississippi, my dear mother used to play and sing a song entitled, “Little Rosewood Casket”. Not having learned the words until recent years, I envisioned a person lying in a coffin; therefore the song, to me, was very sad. Then in recent years I obtained the words to the song. The lyrics to the first verse are as follows: “There’s a little rosewood casket, Resting on a marble stand. There’s a package of love letters Written by my true love’s hand . . .” Only then did I learn that the “casket” in the song was a small box often made of precious wood, and placed in a conspicuous place in a person’s home. It contained valuables and memorabilia, such as the love letters. There was no similarity between the words “casket” and “coffin” then, as there is presently. When this love song was written, the word “casket” denoted a treasure chest; but, as you know, the word is now synonymous with a funeral bier. So it is with many of the words which we use today! This, of course, includes some key Biblical words — such as “Israel”, “Jew”, and “Hebrew”! It is absolutely necessary that we get a complete understanding of their origin, and meaning at the time of their origin, before much of the Bible will make sense to us. One such scripture is found in the book of Revelation 3:9, where Jesus Christ states: Behold, I will make them of the (S)ynagogue 1 of Satan, which say they are Jews, 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) {1 The Bible has a lower case “s”; but the word seems to be incorporated into a proper name, and thus should read, “Synagogue of Satan”.} I submit that this verse is completely void of meaning and purpose if we subscribe to the organized church’s teaching that the “Jew” is the Hebrew, the “Chosen” of GOD! Have you read anywhere in the Bible that anyone claimed to be a Jew, and was found not to be one? Absolutely not! Rather we read in I John 5:10: He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not GOD (JEHOVAH) hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that GOD gave of his Son. (1 John 5:10) And who are those who do not believe in JEHOVAH-GOD? Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not GOD. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9) If we can believe what the Bible says, we now know that if you have the Son, you have the Father (JEHOVAH-GOD). And further, that if you don’t believe in JEHOVAH-GOD, the Father, you are a liar! Now where in all the Bible is there a record of anyone being a liar? The Jews did not believe in GOD, and therefore were LIARS! However, if we place the proper translation of the word “Jew” in this scripture, it would read: Behold, I will make them of the (S)ynagogue of Satan, which say they are Israel, and are not, but do lie . . . [The author’s point will become more evident as you read on. Technically, the word in both Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 is ‘Ioudaios,’ meaning “of a country”, Judeans. It is true, however, that these same Jews of Christ’s time claimed to be Israelites of the House of Judah, a claim which is totally bogus, because these Judeans were Edomites from Idumea. These Edomite Jews never had anything to do with the Ten Tribes of the Dispersion, which were carried away captive starting in 745 BC. No ancestor of any Jew today ever had anything to do with the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel. – Eli] We know that there are those who did this, because we find in Romans 9:6: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: (Romans 9:6) You see, Israel is the chosen seed of GOD — a race — people — a servant people. It is easy for us to understand why someone would like to consider himself a member of GOD’s “Chosen race”; but no one wants to be branded as “liars”\’ and “antichrist”. We can understand why one would prefer to be a legal blood heir rather than an “adopted” one; and may, therefore, claim to be a “son” when he was not. This makes sense, and nothing else does. Also, Jesus Christ, being GOD “incarnate” and who knew us from the “foundations of the earth”\’ certainly knew who were Israelites, and who were not. Therefore, when he told the “Jews” that they were “not Abraham’s children” (John 8:39), and “not of GOD” (John 8:47), He certainly knew what He was talking about! Perhaps now, we are ready to explore the fascinating trail of the evolution of the term, Jew. We intend giving you a most comprehensive study of this word. After reading and studying it, we feel that you will cease to look upon most of the “Jews” among us as GOD’s “Chosen” race. To do this, we will take you back in time to the very first appearance of this word in the Bible. It is found in II Kings 16:6. At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day. (II Kings 16:6) In this scripture text, we find the Kingdom of Israel, joined with the King of Syria, marching to Judea to “fight the Jews”. This was written about the year 742 B.C. This is a very significant scripture as it definitely shows that the Israelites (Hebrews-Children of Israel) were not called Jews since they were “going up to Jerusalem” to fight the “Jews”. You see, the Twelve Tribes of Israel (the Chosen) had split into two distinct kingdoms. Ten tribes formed the Kingdom of Israel, and the remaining two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) formed the Kingdom of Judah. It should be noted here, that throughout the Bible, the Kingdom of Israel was never — never — never called “Jews”. In the scripture noted above, it is the Kingdom of Israel allying itself with Syria in the joint military action against “the Jews”. [Question: If the Jews are “Israel,” then why aren’t the Israelite confederates of Rezin ALSO referred to as “Jews” in II Kings 16:5? Quite an oversight, isn’t it?] At the time, (circa 742 B.C.) the term “Jew” was derived from the Hebrew word, “Yehudah”, Judah, son of Jacob (Israel). The term was purely racial when it was first given at this time in history. Thus a “Jew” at this time, and perhaps for the next two centuries, would be of the “Chosen” race of GOD. However, the term plays no significant part in Biblical history until after the return of some forty-three thousand captives from Babylon, circa 536 B.C. Only this small portion of the approximately one and one-half million of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the Chosen), who had been taken captive some three generations previously, came back to the land of Judea that had been repopulated by non-Hebrew, pagan people in their absence. The northern portion (the old Kingdom of Israel of the Ten Tribes still in captivity) of the “Promised Land”, had also been repopulated by various tribes of non-Hebrew people, themselves captives of the Assyrians. Even so, there was still a large segment of Israelites (Hebrews) who were left scattered throughout that portion of the land. The result of all of this was that when this small contingent of Judahites returned to the City of Jerusalem, there were few true Israelites in the entire land. The majority of these were congregated in the area of Galilee, a north-eastern portion of the former Kingdom of Israel. We can see from this background of Biblical information that from the time of Abraham, the father of the “Chosen Race”, some 2000 years B.C. down to 742 B.C.; the term “Jew” was never used in the Bible. Then, after its appearance in this one instance where Israel was “fighting the Jews”, it was not used again until the “Babylonian Captivity”, which comprised only the two of the twelve tribes of Hebrews. The term “Jew” was then given to the less than 44,000 returnees, who returned only to the city of Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple and the walls of the city. [And even here the term ‘Jew’ is incorrect because these people were all racial members of the Tribe or House of Judah. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah clearly explain how all mongrels and pretenders were expelled from the congregation after their genealogies were checked according to the records in the Temple – Eli] Later, the term designated anyone who lived in the city of Jerusalem, and by the advent of Jesus Christ, the term “Jew” meant anyone who lived in the country of Judea. Anyone who lives in Texas is a Texan. You will recall that Jesus Christ and eleven of the Apostles (excepting Judas Iscariot) all lived in Galilee, and were therefore, called “Galileans”. They were never called “Jews” in the Bible! It is also significant that not only the term “Jew” came back with the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, but also the Synagogue! [This statement needs some explanation. The term ‘Jew’ (‘Ioudaios’), meaning both “Judean” and “Judah” was not used until the time of Herod. These synagogues were Judahite in character and were loyal to the Law and the Prophets. It was in these synagogues that the Aramaic Targums originated. The Targums are Judahite, not Jewish literature. Again, Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as I and II Maccabees, clearly tell us that the Mosaic Law, not Judaism, was practiced in these synagogues. The synagogues were later subverted by the Pharisees and their teachings became Talmudic. – Eli] By the time Jesus Christ first set foot in a Synagogue, Judaism, “the religion of the Jews”, had already taken root and was well advanced. [This is only true of the synagogues in and around the city of Jerusalem, where there was a polyglot population of mixed races. The synagogues of the smaller cities and towns were not so infiltrated or mixed, especially those in Galilee, where the Pharisees had much less influence. You will note that the bulk of Jesus’ ministry was enacted in Galilee and all of the Apostles, except the traitor Judas, were citizens of Galilee, not Jerusalem. – Eli] After Jesus\’ death and resurrection, Jerusalem was never the same, and was plagued with riots and civil commotions. Finally Rome became intolerant of these uprisings, and the Roman general, Titus, came with his army, leveled both the city and the temple to the ground, and “scattered the Jews”. From this time on, the term “Jew” was given to anyone who embraced Judaism, “the religion of the Jews”. This evolution of the term “Jew” from one of race — to one of political (geographical) boundaries — to one of a religious adherent, will be born out in subsequent quotations from various reference books. { In my research for this work, I have purchased many old dictionaries, encyclopedias, and history books, which include information on this subject. Others I have copied, and have these also in my files. For our purpose here, we will simply use a representative sampling of them which extend over a period of time, but should be adequate to prove how the meaning of the term “Jew” has changed over the years. } WEBSTER\’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY Published 1923 “Jew: 277 Ju-Joo n. (ME, k Jew, Jeu, Giu, of Jueu, Juieu, Gieu, F. Juif, L. Judaeus, Gr. Iovoaios, Fr. Iouoa a the country of the Jews, Judea, fr. Hebrew-Yehudah Judah, son of Jacob. Cf., Judiac) “Orig. 3 one belonging to the tribe or the kingdom of Judah; after the return from the Babylonish captivity, any member of the Hebrew state; hence any member of the Hebrew race of people, or anyone whose religion is Judaism 4 The Jews of today do not uniformly reveal a pure Semitic type, but show evidences of intermixture in the various countries where they dwell. As a rule they are shorter than the native populations and especially in northern Europe, more brunette. They are characteristically distinguished mainly by their features, especially by the turn of the nostrils, and a peculiar cast of the eyes and eyebrows. “The Jews are not a race, but only a people, after all. In their faces we read its confirmation; while in respect of their other traits we are convinced that such individuality as they possess, by no means inconsiderable–is of their own making from one generation to the next, rather than a product of unprecedented purity of physical descent. W. Z. Ripley” As you can see, this is a rather lengthy description of the term “Jew”, and you will notice that much of what is said here (which covers the entire spectrum) will diminish in subsequent accounts. This account gives the following: 1. Originally a member of the tribe of Judah; 2. Member of the Kingdom of Judah; 3. Any member of the Hebrew race, or people; 4. Anyone whose religion is Judaism. In addition to these definitions, it tells us the following about this people: countries with whom they dwell. 2. Physically, they are shorter, dark headed, with distinctive eyebrows, eyes, and nostrils. 3. They are not a race! Incidentally, this is about all that we intend saying about the subject in this work. We simply want to show that preachers and Sunday school teachers who teach that Abraham and Moses, etc., are Jews, when the Bible calls them Hebrews, are not intellectually honest. You can see that the term “Jew” was first (originally) given to members of the tribe of Judah. Well, Judah was Abraham’s grandson, and thus it was impossible for Abraham to have been born a member of his grandson’s tribe. Likewise, Moses was not a Jew from the tribe of Judah, and he never set foot in the “Promised Land”; therefore, he cannot possibly be called a “Jew” — and the Bible never called him one either. THE MODERN ENCYCLOPEDIA: (A DICTIONARY OF UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE) By Sir J. A. Hammerton . . . London (circa 1925) “JEW: Men of Judah, or of Judea. In the Bible itself (Esther 2,5) Jew signified an adherent of Judaism. These two connotations of Jew — the one racial, and the other religious — have persisted into modern times.” This account gives basically the same definition as the one above, and in the proper order. One racial, then by citizenship, then by religion. However, this account is very significant in that it tells us the Bible itself, in the book of Esther, records people other than Hebrews or members of the tribe of Judah, who became “Jews” by converting to Judaism, “the religion of the Jews”. The Book of Esther was written in 521 B.C. after the Babylonian captivity. It covered events which transpired during the time that the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were under the rule of Ahasuerus, the King of Persia. This is also the era mentioned above, that saw the greatest promulgation of the term “Jew”, and it was these Persians who embraced Judaism “for fear of the Jews”, as recorded in the book of Esther. HOLY BIBLE: KJV (THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD EDITION) 1954 In the back of the Bible is found a section called the “condensed Bible Commentary”. In it, we find the following: “What is the origin of the name, \’Jew\’?” ANSWER: The appellation “Jew” is derived from the patriarch Judah, and was originally applied to all members of that tribe and also subjects of the separate Kingdom of Judah, in contradistinction to the seceding ten tribes, who retained the name of Israelites. During the captivity and ever since, the term “jew” seems to have applied indiscriminately to the whole race.” This definition confirms the one previously stated, that the term “Jew” related to a person who lived in Judah; but it also revealed that it was a distinction of the Tribe of Judah from the other tribes, who were called ISRAELITES. It also stated that the term has now been “applied indiscriminately to the whole race”. This is absolutely correct; and it is this reason that this work exists. YOUNG\’S ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE TO THE BIBLE 1970 “JEWS: A descendant of Judah, in later times also an Israelite. Strictly speaking, the name is appropriate only to the subjects of the kingdom of the two tribes, (Judah and Benjamin) after the separation of the ten tribes, B.C. 975.” We have underlined “in later times . . .” It does not mean Biblical times, as Israelites were never Jews in the Bible, nor called such. This is a much later practice of applying the term “Israelite” to anyone who embraces Judaism, and is called a “Jew”. Shortly, you will see from their own reference books how this came about. We see that in this reference book the term “Jew” means: 1. A descendant of Judah. (All others confirm this.) 2. Subjects of the kingdom of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin. 3. In later times, also an Israelite. 4. The term “Jew” is used to separate Jews from Israelites! Number 2 above, states that the term “Jew” was applied to all subjects of the Kingdom of Judah. This, of course, means residents, people who lived within the confines of that kingdom, or state. It was later called Judea at the time of Christ. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. BOSTON, 1971 “JEW: 1. An adherent of Judaism. 2. A descendant of the Hebrew people. adj. Jewish-considered offensive. Jew down. The best in bargaining by haggling of shrewd practices. An offensive expression, used derogatorily. (Middle English GIW, JU… from Old French: GIU, JUIU, from latin Judaeus {Smith’s Bible Dictionary states that the English word “Jew” was from the Latin Judaeus, which simply means a resident of Judea.} from Greek IOUDAIUS, from Aramaic YEHUDAY, and Hebrew, YEHUDI…after the Tribe of Yahudah, Judah.)” This reference to the term “Jew” is highly significant in that we now find the formerly preferred Number 3 definition has moved into the Number 1 position, making the original, and true definition of the term the least preferred — or used! It also shows that in spite of all efforts to eliminate it for the past two hundred years, (more about this later) the term still carries a derogatory connotation. However, in this same year, we find Webster’s still clinging to what we have shown previously as the historic meaning of the term “Jew”. WEBSTER\’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY Published by G. & C. Merriam Co., 1971 “JEW: Yehudah-Judah, Jewish kingdom Southern Palestine after Yehudah Judah, 4th son of Jacob an ancestor of the Judahites. Published by: First Century Christian Ministries at 7 Webster and the term “Jew” 1. a.) Judahite, b.) Israelite. 2. A member of the nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D., within which the elements of Judaism largely developed. 3. A person belonging to the world-wide group constituting a continuation through descent, or conversion of the Jewish people, and characterized by a sense of community: one whose religion is Judaism, see: Ashkenazi- Sephardi. 4. A person believed to drive a hard bargain. “ASHKENAZI: A member of one of the two great divisions of Jews comprising the eastern European Yiddish-speaking Jews — compare Sephardi, a branch of European Jews early settling in Spain.” {“SEPHARDI: Region, probably in northern Asia Minor where Jews were once held in captivity. A member of the occidental 6 Webster’s New World Dictionary – 1968 College Edition. “OCCIDENTAL: 1. western, 2. of the Occident, its people, or their culture-Western, a native of the Occident, or a member of a people native to that region.” } Other than the traditional definitions of the term “Jew”, two new elements are introduced. Of the definitions of the term “Jew” above, number two is perhaps the most important evolution of the term thus far. This definition tells us that the term no longer has a racial connotation; but has taken on a geographical (political) meaning. It states that a Jew is any “member of the nation (Judea) existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.”. This, of course, verifies what we have previously told you, and that is the term “Jew” principally came into usage after the Babylonian Captivity — 585 B.C. [It is more correct to say that the term ‘Jew’ came to be applied to these people retroactively and anachronistically, because those Judahites never called themselves “Jews.” They referred to themselves as “Judah.” – Eli] We further stated that it was from this period of time, down to the time that Jesus Christ walked the streets of Jerusalem, that the term “Jew” evolved into nothing more than the designation of a person who lived in the country of Judea. We know this because the Bible tells us so. Because we know also that the people who lived in Galilee were called “Galileans”, the people who lived in Moab were called “Moabites”, and the people who lived in Egypt were called “Egyptians”. Secondly, terms are given for a division of world Jewry. These are two distinct groups of people. The term “Jew” no longer applies only to: a.) a member of the tribe of Judah, b.) members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, c.) a resident of the kingdom of Judah (Judea), d.) any person descended from the Hebrews, e.) any person thought to have descended from the Hebrews, f.) any adherent to the religion of Judaism; but now we find that there are two distinct groups of this already hodge-podge of people. For the racial characteristics of these two divisions of Jewry, their complete historical background, see The Thirteenth Tribe, published by Random House in 1976, and written by Arthur Koestler, a highly acclaimed European Jewish author. The book proves without question, that the Ashkenazi Jews, which comprise all but some 500,000 Jews worldwide, cannot trace their ancestry earlier than the 7th century, and absolutely not to any of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Hence the title, The Thirteenth Tribe.) WEBSTER\’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY Copyright, 1973 “JEW: Heb-Yehudhi, Yehudah-Judah, Jewish kingdom. 1. a. A Member of the tribe of Judah. b. Israelite. 2. A member of a nation existing in Palestine from 6th century B.C. to 1st century A. D. 3. A person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion, of the ancient Jewish people. 4. One whose religion is Jewish.” Now we are beginning to see even more confusion being added to the already completely meaningless term “Jew”. Whereas previously, one of the definitions given was “a person descended, or was thought to have descended, from the Hebrews” (Israelites); we now see that it is merely a person who “descended from the ancient Jewish people.” Or, more confusing still, “one whose religion is Jewish”. Not Judaism — but simply Jewish! BICENTENNIAL KJV HOLY BIBLE Regency House, 1976 “JEW: The Bible provides definitions: 1. The members of the State of Judah. Neh 1:1-2, Jer 32:12, 40:11. “The term is now highly fluid. It covers religion and birth, religion only, or birth only.” We can see from the above definition of the term “Jew” that by 1976 it means whatever you desire it to mean. This is fine except it can’t be equated with the terms “Israel” or “Hebrew” since they are racial terms for the twelve tribes of Jacob (Israel). “Highly fluid”, then, is very appropriate for the term “Jew”, and as you will learn later from their own sources, the Jews like it this way! THE UNIVERSAL STANDARD ENCYCLOPEDIA Printed USA, 1955 “JEWS: The word itself stems from the Hebrew Yehudi, originally meaning a member of the Hebrew tribe of Judah and later, as Judea, applied to the Jewish state: the English word “Jew” is derived directly from the Latin Judaeus, meaning an inhabitant of Judea. Modern Jews are members of a separate ethnic community or fellowship rather than of a race . . .” This reference is of signal importance. In addition to showing us that the term “Jew” was originally racial (member of the tribe of Judah) it states that the word “Jew” is an English translation of the Latin word “Judaeus”, which means an inhabitant (resident) of Judea. THEREFORE, EACH TIME YOU READ THE WORD “JEW” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, IT SIMPLY MEANS A PERSON WHO LIVED IN THE COUNTRY OF JUDEA — THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF PALESTINE. This is all that the term “Jew” means — A JUDEAN. [I agree with this 100%. Therefore, there is no Scriptural reason for the word ‘Jew’ to be in the Bible. It only causes confusion! In the OT, the word ‘Judah’ is more accurate and avoids any confusion with today’s Jews; and in the NT, the correct meaning is “Judean.” Understanding this, it is left up to us to decide from the context of the NT passages whether Judahites of the House of Judah are meant or whether the impostor Edomite Jews are meant. – Eli] Tell me now, how did this English word “Jew” come to mean Hebrew? The Children of Israel? The Chosen? More about this later, however, you may find it of interest at this point to know that a Jewish reference book from which I will later quote, states that the term “Jew” did not come into existence until the year 1000 A.D. I have yet another reference that says the term “Jew” was not in existence at the time of the original King James Translation of the Holy Scriptures, and was not used in that edition. At present, I am trying to find and purchase one of these Bibles. (I have since purchased a commemorative edition of the 1611 A.D. K.J.V. Bible.) SMITH\’S BIBLE DICTIONARY By: William Smith, LL.D. Fleming H. Revell Company, Pub.1970 “JEW: The name was properly given to a member of the Kingdom of Judah, after the separation of the Ten Tribes. The term first makes its appearance just before the captivity of the Ten Tribes, (II Kings 16:6). After the return (Babylonian Captivity) the word received a larger application. Partly from the predominance of the members of the old Kingdom of Judah among those who returned to Palestine, partly from the identification of Judah with the religious ideas and hopes of the people. All the members of the new state were called “Jews” (Judeans), and the name was extended to the remnant of the race scattered throughout the nations. (Dan 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12, 23, etc…) Under the name of “Judeans”, the people of Israel were known to classical writers (Tac. H.v.2, etc.) The force of the title “Jew” is seen particularly in the gospel of St. John, who very rarely uses any other term to describe the opponents of our LORD. The name indeed, at the close of the apostle’s life, came to be the true antithesis of Christianity, as describing the limited and definite form of a national religion; but an earlier stage of progress of the faith, it was contrasted with Greek as implying an outward covenant with GOD (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10; Col 3:11, etc.) which was correlative of Hellenist (HELLENISTS), and marked a division of language subsisting within the entire body, and at the same time less expressive than Israelite, which brought with special clearness the privileges and hopes of the children of Jacob. (II Cor 11:22; John 1:47; etc.)” Whereas, this definition is somewhat lengthy, it is very informative as to the true meaning of the term “Jew”. The first sentence states that it was “properly given to a member of the Kingdom of Judea”. This confirms the statement given above in the Universal Standard Encyclopedia, that the “English word \’Jew\’ is from the Latin Judaeus, meaning an INHABITANT OF JUDEA”. This is all that the term “Jew” meant at the time of Jesus Christ and when the subsequent New Testament was written. It also states that the term “Jew” came into existence after the “separation of the Ten Tribes”. It is used first in II Kings 16:6 shortly before the captivity of the Ten Tribes. As you can see, it was never given to the Ten Tribes of Israelites. It was given to “all members of the new state” (Kingdom of Judah-Judea). We see, too, that the term “Jew” as an antonym for the term “Christianity”, and the Apostle John used it almost entirely to designate the enemies of Christ. It says too, that the majority of those returning from Babylon were of the tribe of JUDAH. The Ten Tribes, which were taken into Assyrian Captivity and never returned to the Promised Land, never were called Jews because, as we see above, the name was first used for the tribe of Judah shortly before the Ten Tribes were taken captive. The Ten Tribes are always referred to in the Bible as the “Children of Israel”, the “Israelites”, “Jacob’s Children”, “Hebrews”, or the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”; but again, never are they called “Jews”. DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE By: John L. McKenzie, Society of Joseph McMillian Press, 1965 “JEW: A resident of Judea – – The term Jew, used by the Apostle Paul to designate Christians who were Jews by birth — Galatians 2:13-15.” Folks, now we add an entirely new ingredient to the term “Jew”, The Apostle Paul, who is credited with writing most of the New Testament, used the term “Jew” when referring to Christians who were “Jews” by birth. Please note that if they were “Jew by birth” they were undoubtedly Hebrews from the tribe of Judah or Benjamin. The Hebrews were given “ears to hear”, and the proselyted “Jews” were not. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN CHRIST THEN, NOR DO THEY BELIEVE IN HIM NOW. THEY WERE, THEN AND NOW, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, THE “ENEMIES OF CHRIST”. (See chapter by this title.) [And by this word-trickery, folks, this is how Jesus suddenly becomes “a Jew,” even though there never was any such thing as a “Jewish carpenter.”!!! – Eli] Therefore, we learn that many of the people referred to as “Jews”, especially in Paul’s writings, were Christians. Now, however, since the term “Jew” carries a religious meaning almost entirely, when a “Jew” is converted to Christianity he is no longer a Jew. He is simply a Christian! It would be wrong to refer to him as a Christian Hebrew, or a Hebrew Christian since we certainly have shown by now that the term “Jew” is practically meaningless. SECULAR AND BIBLICAL DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM, “JEW” We are recapping, for your perusal, the definitions given thus far of the term “Jew”. We are certain that you may be, as most are, as confused as we are as to the exact meaning of the word. And that hereinafter you must wonder how a preacher can continue to make statements such as, “The Jews did this” or “the Jews did that”, without wondering just who he is taking about! Were they early Christians? Were they members of the Tribe of Judah? Were they simply residents of Judah (Judea)? Were they converted Moabites or converted Roman soldiers? Ask him whom he is referring to. If he states that he is referring to the Hebrews — the Chosen; then ask him how he can make this statement when the term “Jew” used in the Bible is an English word translated from the Latin word “Judaeus”, which meant residents of Judea. We have learned thus far the following definitions of the term, “Jew”: 1. Used as Christians who were “Jews” by birth, but converted; 2. A member of the tribe of Judah; 3. A descendant of the Hebrew people; 4. A member of either the tribe of Judah, or the tribe of Benjamin; 5. An adherent to the religion of Judaism; 6. Anyone living in Judea; 7. Anyone regarded to have descended from the “Ancient Hebrews”; 8. An inhabitant of the State of Judah; 9. A convert to Judaism; 10. A person who is an extortionate usurer; 11. A driver of hard bargains; 12. One whose religion is “Jewish”; 13. A person belonging to a continuation, through descent or conversion, of the ancient Jewish people. Yes, I would say that the term “Jew” is rather fluid, wouldn’t you? However, this is not the complete story. We have seen what the various reference books have given as a definition of the term “Jew”, and we certainly all know the “religious establishment” considers them to be the ancient Hebrews, the Children of Israel, the Chosen race of GOD, chosen from the “foundations of the earth” to be “GOD’s glory”, His witnesses to the other nations (people) for all times. It is appropriate at this time to consider what the Jews think about themselves. In other words, what do they consider a “Jew” to be? In so doing, we will find that there are several definitions to be added to the already confusing list above! In our downtown library, I found a set of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA or a history of the Jews. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA “JEW: (Hebrew-Yehudi) 12 “Semantics. The word “Jew” passed into the English Language from the Greek (Ioudiaos) by way of the Latin \’Judaeus\’, and is found in early English (from about the year 1000) in a variety of forms: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw. Iew which developed into “Jew”, therefore, is ultimately traced to the Hebrew Yehudi, a term which originally applied to members of the tribe of Judah, the patriarch, Jacob. The term was also used for those who dwelt in the area of the tribe of Judah and thus later during the seven years that David reigned in Hebron, his territory was called the Kingdom of Judah (II Sam 5:5). Later still, with the split of the kingdom during the reign of Rehoboam, the Northern Kingdom was called Israel and the Southern was called Judah, although it also encompassed the territory of the tribe of Benjamin (I Kings 12:16-21). From that time on, the term “Yehudi” applied to all residents of the Southern Kingdom, irrespective of their tribal status. After the destruction of Israel (Ten Tribes into Assyrian Captivity) only Judah remained, and the term “Yehudi”, or “Jew”, then lost its specific connection with the Southern Kingdom. This is strikingly illustrated in Esther 2:5, 5:13, where Mordecai, although belonging to the tribe of Benjamin is called Yehudi. This term was also utilized at that time for the Jewish religion since it is related that after Haman’s downfall, many from among the people of the land converted to Judaism (mityahadim, Esther 8:17). The term “Jew” connoted by this time a religious, political, and national entity, without differentiation between these categories. “Jew”, however, was mainly used outside the land of Israel (not Israel — Judea) by Jews and non-Jews and in languages other than Hebrew. Thus Nehemiah, who was an official at the Persian court, refers to “Jews” in his personal “diary”, and the Book of Esther (see above) was almost certainly written by someone close to court circles. From the Persian and Aramaic the word passed into Greek and from there into Latin. However, while the name “Jew” became common usage outside the land of Israel, Judea {Author’s inclusion: Judea was never called Israel in the Bible. This is the writer taking license–by doing so, a “resident” of “Israel” becomes an Israelite.} the Hebrew-speaking Jews within the land were particular to call themselves “Israel” (Yisrael: “Israelites”).” [It seems that this was a deliberate reaction parallel to the general intensification of ancient religious and literary values and aimed at strengthening the identification with the nation’s early history.] “Thus Ezra, as opposed to Nehemiah, uses the name Israel throughout and even in the Aramaic letter given to him by the Persian king. From that period on, the name \’Israel\’ is used in Hebrew (Jewish) literature: in the Hebrew (Jewish) books of the Apocrypha (Judith { These are all non-Biblical, non-Hebrew, Jewish events of A.D. origin. Judea was never called Israel in the Bible.}Tobit, I Maccabees, etc.); in the Judean Desert Scrolls; in the Mishna and the Hebrew (Jewish) parts of the Talmud; and on the coins of the 70 C.E. revolt and of that of Bar Kikhba (‘the redemption of Israel\’; ‘the freedom of Israel\’). Exceptions such as \’Prince of the Jews\’ on the copper column erected on Mt. Zion in honor of Simeon the Maccabee (I14:47, also 37 and 40) and \’Group of the \’Jews\’\’ on the coins of his son Hohanan, are to be explained by the political designation, Judea, by which the gentile world knew the limited territory of the Jewish State. When, indeed, that territory was enlarged the name \’Land of Israel’ {This term not used in the Bible} came once more into use. This difference in usage is strikingly illustrated in the Gospels: the Jews are recorded as having referred (mockingly) to Jesus as \’King of Israel\’, whereas the Roman, Pilate, and his soldiers refer to Him — both verbally and in writing — as \’King of the Jews\’ (Mark 15:32, 2, 9, 18, 26). For Christians, the word \’Judaeus\’ was conflated with the name of the villain of the gospel story, Judas Iscariot, who was considered the typical Jew. Judas was linked with the devil (Luke 33:3), and the result was an evil triangle of the devil-Jew-Judas. This relationship helped to establish the pejorative meaning of the word \’Jew\’ in popular usage. The noun could mean \’extortionate usurer, driver of hard bargains\’, to overreach. “Many attempts to root out these derogatory meanings by having the dictionary definitions revised have been made in the United States, England, and Europe; but have, however, met with little success, {This statement is incorrect. As we have seen in the evolution of the term “Jew”, they have been very successful in substituting the words “Hebrew” and “Israel” for the term, “Jew”.} since the problem is not one of ill-will on the part of the lexicographers, but rather of semantics and popular usage. [Yeah, right!! Blame it on the peons to “misunderstand” the Jews!!!– Eli] “In order to avoid the unwelcome associations and connotations of the word, Jews began in the 19th century to call themselves HEBREWS AND ISRAELITES (e.tg., Alliance Israelites Universelle, founded 1860). Nevertheless, these new names quickly took on the same pejorative associations as \’Jew\’, as scores of 19th century novels testify. “Recently there has been a gradual change in the usage of the word. The brutal murder of a great part of the Jewish people during the Holocaust {Many believe that this is why the “Holocaust” has been continually in the news for the past forty-five years.} has limited subsequent degrading usage of the term. Since the conclusion of the war, anti-Semitism is under legal scrutiny in many countries, and this covers the use of \’Jew\’ in the pejorative sense, along with “Yid”, “Sheeny”, “Ikey” and the like. (Y.M.G./Ed.)” Folks, you need to study this definition of the term “Jew”. In it, you will find all of the ingredients necessary to straighten your mind out on just who the Jews are. In so doing, you will come to the obvious conclusion that, based upon the above, the Jews cannot possibly be the Hebrews, the Children of Israel, the Chosen of the Bible. Of course, this definition includes all of the traditional definitions of the term “Jew” which have been previously given. By now you should be able to see that the term “Jew” was first given to members of the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). This, of course, is racial. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s seeds are racial. They were Hebrews, the Children of Israel, the Chosen! Then we found that by the time of Jesus Christ, the term “Jew” was given to anyone living in the country of Judea (formerly the Kingdom of Judah). Then we learned that the term was given to anyone who embraced Judaism, the “religion of the Jews”. This is the definition preferred by contemporary reference books, and the Jews themselves. This revelation alone, should convince most skeptics, or misinformed persons that a religion which embraces Menachem Begin, Elizabeth Taylor, and Sammy Davis Jr., cannot possibly be substituted for the Biblical term “Seed” (posterity). But this is not all. We also found that the English word, “Jew” is a translation of the Latin word, “Judaeus” which meant absolutely nothing but a resident of Judea. Not Isaac’s sons, nor Jacob’s sons (Israel), just simply residents of Judah (Judea). There are two court cases in Israel, which further strengthens the religious definition of the term, “Jew”. The following is found in Encyclopedia Judaica. “In 1968, a lieutenant commander in the Israeli Navy, Benjamin Shalit requested that his two children born of a non-Jewish mother be registered on their identity cards as Jews. When the Ministry of the Interior refused to accede to this request, Shalit petitioned the Supreme Court to order the Ministry to show cause why they should not so register the children. THE SUPREME COURT, SITTING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY IN A COMPLEMENT OF NINE JUDGES, . . . decided (on January 23, 1970; case No. H.C. 58/68) by a majority of five to four that the registrar had no right to question a statement made in good faith by the applicant but was duty bound to register what he was told . . . The decision raised a strong public protest and the law was subsequently changed to accept only those born of Jewish mothers or converted.” Thus, within twenty-four hours after the decision in favor of Commander Shalit, the orthodox Jewish political party forced the court to rescind its decision and revert to the status quo (i.e. no definite decision on what constitutes a “Jew”). Also in the Judaica, we find the following statement: “. . . The Supreme Court (of Israel) in the case of Oswald Rufeisen, a born Jew who converted to Catholicism and joined the Carmelite order that although in the opinion of the court the appellant might be a Jew halakically, for the purpose of the Law of Return he could not be so considered . . .” The Halakic definition of a “Jew” is thus: “A child born of Jewish parents or a convert to Judaism are considered Jews . . .” However, “A child born of a non-Jewish mother must therefore undergo ritual conversion, (religious) even though his father is Jewish”. [Remember how, right after 9/11, the Jews in the media were telling us “now we are all Jews” because now we Americans “know” how the Jews feel when they are attacked! What hypocrisy!! – Eli] In the book, Hebrew Christianity a chapter entitled “A Matter of Definitions”, relates the following: “As a consequence of the interest aroused by the Shalit case, a public opinion poll was held on the question. Fifteen hundred Jewish families were canvassed with the following results: “12% declared that a Jew is a person whose father or mother is Jewish or who has a Jewish spouse. “23% claimed that a Jew is a person who considers himself a Jew. “19% held that a man born to a Jewish mother or who converts to Judaism is a Jew. “13% said a Jew is one who lives in Israel or who identifies with the Jewish state. “13% stated that a Jew is one who observes the Jewish religious practices. “11% answered that a Jew is one who is raised and educated as a Jew. “9% said they could not define it. “These results were recorded in the Jerusalem Post of November 25, 1968. More could be said and other examples could be given to show the confusion in the Jewish world over definitions. But these should suffice to show that there is no uniformity or objective standard for defining Jewishness; virtually all definitions are subjective.” To this we will say Amen and Amen! [Cheesh! And I thought only we Christians were confused about the meaning of the word ‘Jew’!!! I guess the only practical definition of a Jew is one who says he is Jew. – Eli] Folks, we have now seen a comprehensive view of the evolution of the term “Jew”, which has been recorded in reputable sources. Some say that the word is English and that it was not in existence prior to the tenth century A.D., others state the seventeenth century! We do know, however, that it did not appear in the original King James Bible. We know, according to these reputable sources, that it is a translation of the Latin word “Judaeus” which meant “an inhabitant of the country of Judea”. We know, too, that an “inhabitant” can be white, black, brown, yellow, or red. Therefore, it has absolutely no racial significance at all! We learned that many of these “inhabitants” of Judea embraced Judaism, the “religion of the Jews”, and that after the Diaspora (dispersion of the Jews) the term, “Jew” was broadened to include “anyone whose religion was Judaism”. From the above-mentioned Supreme Court cases in Israel, we know that the religious definition is still upheld as it has been for the past 2000 years. That is why any person, regardless of race, who is converted to Judaism, is considered a “Jew”. It is this ambiguousness, which was brought about by the departure from the Biblical teaching of the “Chosen” race that has caused a dilemma even in the minds of the Jewish people themselves. As reliable as reference books are, however, they cannot speak for JEHOVAH-GOD. GOD’s word, the Holy Bible, speaks for Him. Did He, then, pick an “everlasting seed”, or an everlasting religion for His glory here on earth? Here is His answer: Yet now hear, O Jacob my [GOD] servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, . . . I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. (Isaiah 44) After Jacob’s sons (Jacobson) produced the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who subsequently went down to Egypt, stayed there over four centuries, came out of captivity to wander in the Wilderness, finally took the “Promised Land” and then were ruled by the Judges and three kings; we find King Solomon talking to the LORD in a prayer: And thy servant [is] in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. (1 Kings 3:8) The Chosen, were of Jacob’s seed who “were formed in the womb” by JEHOVAH-GOD. They were the “Elect”, and the select! This seed, according to JEHOVAH-GOD, would be “His people, and He would be their GOD”, forever. They are bound together by an everlasting covenant by JEHOVAH-GOD. They are to be GOD’s “Witnesses”, and His “Glory” among the other nations of the earth. Now, does this sound to you to be the people who “Descended, or were thought to have descended from the ancient Hebrews”? Or “anyone who lived in the country of Judea”? Or “a person who has been converted to Judaism”? Or “a person whose mother was Jewish”? Or “a person born of Jewish parents”? You be the judge. The facts are before you. “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6) [The bulk of this article and other good CI stuff can be found at . My question to all of you folks is this: “Why do the Jews reject the Messiah and the New Testament accounts of His Sonship? What have they got against Him? Could it be that we in Christian Identity are telling the truth that they are not His people? – Eli] |