Jews

In the 18th century, the word ‘Jew’ was first introduced in new translations of the King James bible (the 1611 and subsequent editions did not contain the word ‘jew’), the Rheims’s bible, and others. The redactors referred only to its use as ‘a resident of the kingdom of Judah’ regardless of tribe, race, or religion. Today, Jews can be interpreted to mean: (1) descendants of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, (2) people of the ancient southern kingdom of Judah, or (3) people who practice the religion, lifestyles, and traditions of Judaism but may or may not be Jewish by birth. It has become customary to use the word Jew to refer to all the descendants of Jacob, but this is a mistake. It should be limited to those of the kingdom of Judah or, more especially today, those of the tribe of Judah and his associates. Jews cannot be thought of as a race, for among them are many races—Caucasian, Negro, Oriental.

While their common origin is undisputed, mixed multitudes did accompany them from Egypt: concubines were taken from conquered nations, the Jews intermarried, neighboring tribesmen amalgamated with them, conversions were made. It is clear that the family strain has been much diluted and the tribe very diluted with a mix of nationalities, cultures, political, and economic backgrounds.

Today the word ‘jew’ appears to have been hijacked by a race of Turkish Edomites, called Khazars, who created a corrupt, man-made religion of the Talmud while under Babylonian captivity that is today called Judaism. These ‘jew’ imposters were the masterminds of the creation of the state of Israel and behind the hoax of Rothschild Zionism.

“Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country … unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great. …” (Gen. 12:1–2.)

With this command and promised blessing, Abraham became the progenitor of a numerous people, the Hebrews. The etymology is thought by some to be heber (other side), suggesting a people from the other side of the Euphrates, the area of Abraham’s origin (Ur of the Chaldees).

Thus, the descendants of this great patriarch might be designated as Hebrew: Ishmael, the son of Abraham’s wife Hagar, and Midian, the son of Abraham’s wife Keturah, the progeny of both being frequent antagonists of the posterity of another son, Isaac, the divinely promised child of Abraham’s aged wife Sarah. Many of the peoples now greatly disturbed over the present country of Israel may be descendants of Abraham, whether Jew or Arab, and thus all Hebrew.

The promised blessing, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), has generally been projected through the family of Isaac. The Old Testament is largely a history dealing with this family, mentioning the others only as Israel came in contact with them.

Isaac was also the father of two nations, the progeny of his twin sons, Esau and Jacob. The former became a “son of the desert,” sold his birthright to Jacob, took wives from among the Canaanites, and became the father of the Edomites. Esau’s family, along with those of Ishmael and Midian, is also identified with those usually opposing “Israel,” though also Hebrew.

Jacob preserved the blessing of Abraham through his posterity. He became the father of twelve nations (tribes). During a stay of some twenty years among relatives in Haran, he married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, daughters of his uncle Laban, as well as their two hand-maidens, Zilpah and Bilhah.

Jacob’s name was changed to Israel as a symbol of his experience with God. It was declared that “as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” (Gen. 32:18.) Israel became the national name of the twelve tribes collectively and was applied to the descendants of all Jacob’s sons until Solomon’s kingdom of Israel was divided into Israel (northern kingdom) and Judah (southern kingdom). Judah was the name of the leading tribe in the southern kingdom, but there were other tribes represented.

Within the boundaries of the kingdom of Judah were Benjamin, Levi, and other tribesmen, many of whom moved into Judah from Israel for religious and other reasons (political, economic, marriage).

Much earlier Ruth, the Moabite, forsook her own people and identified with Judah, declaring to her mother-in-law, Naomi, “… thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” (Ruth 1:16.) Ruth eventually married Boaz, of the tribe of Judah, who was a kinsman of her husband. They became the progenitors of David and of Jesus. This conversion experience given in the scriptures was undoubtedly an ongoing process by which many came into Judah’s fold. Converts were accepted and treated as born Jews.

Palestine had been divided among the tribes of Israel after they returned from their 400-year sojourn in Egypt. Each tribe received a land inheritance with the exception of Levi, whose people became the hereditary priests. Joseph received a double land inheritance through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who became heads of tribes, thus showing that Joseph was the recipient of the birthright as the firstborn son of Rachel. (Reuben, Jacob’s eldest son by Leah, forfeited the birthright through improper conduct.)

Generically, all the descendants of Abraham—Ishmael, Isaac, and Midian, and their progeny—are Hebrews. However, the name Israel only pertains to the descendants of Jacob, son of Isaac. His posterity are therefore Israelites and also Hebrews.

After the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V, and his successor, Sargon II, defeated Israel (721 B.C.), few Israelites were left in Israel; so for the past 2,600 years the term Israel has generally been used in reference to Jews. The inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah were not all generic Jews (blood descendants of Judah) but citizens of the kingdom of Judah. Then as now, to many Israel is a people; to others it is a place or state; and to still others it is an idea, concept, or ideal.

There has been a decreasing use of the term Hebrew in reference to the Jew, even though the words Jew, Israelite, and Hebrew are used almost synonymously. One author, speaking of the conditions at the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, writes: “So profound was the change in national status that historians referring to the people who survived the fall of Jerusalem in 586 [B.C.E.] drop the name Hebrew and speak of them henceforward as Jews.” (John B. Noss, Man’s Religions, 3rd ed. [New York: Macmillan, 1963], p. 536.)

In order to differentiate the terms, we need to emphasize the fact that while Judah’s progeny are at the same time Jews (descendants of Judah), Israelites (descendants of Jacob), and Hebrews (descendants of Abraham), all Hebrews are not Israelites.

What is a Jew? This is a problem the state of Israel is also attempting to resolve. In the a native-born Israeli, Lt. Commander Benjamin Shalit, married to a gentile, registered his son, Oren, as “Nationality”—Jewish, “Religion”—none. The registration was amended by the clerk to “Nationality”—blank, “Religion”—blank. The case was taken through the courts by the father in order to establish the child’s nationality, and after two years (January 1970) the High Court ruled by a five to four decision in favor of the son, declaring that nationality and religion are matters of subjective feeling in Israel.

This was contrary to a long-established rabbinic code (Halakah), which declares that no one possesses Jewish identity unless born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism according to the stringent procedures prescribed by the Orthodox. On March 10 of the same year the court was overruled by the Knesset (legislature) by a vote of fifty-one to fourteen, and the Halakah definition (that no one possesses Jewish identity unless born of a Jewish mother) became the law.

Thus the state of Israel determined by legislation the identity of a Jew, an action that is deplored by many but one that prevented the dissolution of a coalition government.

Among a people where the “deed” is thought to be a reflection of one’s theology, it appears that the culture of the community rather than the synagogue determines what a Jew is. Morris Adler, long-time rabbi with Congregation Shaarey Zedek in Southfield, Michigan, suggested that no people worry so much about their identity as do the Jews. The explanations the rabbi makes are as meaningful to the non-Jew as to the Jew for clarifying many misconceptions.

Judaism has never developed an official statement indicating what a person must believe to be considered a Jew. Many profound affirmations are implicit in the Jewish tradition, but they have never been established as dogma, nor is there a central cohesion of what is to be accepted as a Jew. To classify the Jewish people by race, nation, or religion would distort reality, though religious, cultural, and ethnic overtones cannot be ignored.

Jews cannot be thought of as a race, for among them are many races—Caucasian, Negro, Oriental. While their common origin is undisputed, mixed multitudes did accompany them from Egypt: concubines were taken from conquered nations, the Jews intermarried, neighboring tribesmen amalgamated with them, conversions were made. It is clear that the family strain has been much diluted.

To say there is a Jewish type is also not valid, for Jews generally resemble the native majority population of the lands of their residence more closely than they do the Jews of other lands. Such features as body shapes, complexion, and eye pigmentation are as varied among Jews at large as among other peoples. The indeterminable racial traits they seem to possess result from marrying among themselves. These traits have been referred to as “deep-rooted ancestral memory” and “ethnic kinship.”

Judaism is often thought of as a nationalism and the Jewish people as a nation. Because of an apparent loyalty of Jews to each other everywhere, the possessing of shared traits usually associated with national concepts (language, history, culture, literature, aspiration), and a traditional isolationism, they have frequently been thought of as a third race within a state. However, historic Judaism has never been exclusively either a religion or a nation but in many respects has usually comprehended both.

Even with a state of Israel now existing, to which all Jews have been invited, millions of Jews pledge their loyalty to the countries in which they now have citizenship, not thinking of themselves other than as loyal Englishmen, Americans, and so forth. There are others quite antagonistic to the Israel that has now been established, suggesting that its destruction would bring a realization that the Jews constitute only a religious and not a national group. Some feel that both religion and nationalism represent parochial loyalties that must be repudiated if men are to live together in peace.

Does a Jew espouse a religion? Religion has been the vitalizing force that has kept Judaism intact and is now probably central to the Jewish culture; yet there are other forms of group awareness that make it possible for nonreligious Jews to remain in the fold. Large numbers of self-professing Jews label themselves atheists. In the Israel nation of today, religion would have to be variously described for it to appear as a religious state.

If believing in God and in the coming of the Messiah is what is meant by being religious, then the average citizen might be considered nonreligious. But if being religious means promoting the great destiny of Israel and developing a messianic people then the Jews of Israel are a dedicated, religious people.

Gathering from many countries, they have a common faith in a Jewish redemption of the land of their inheritance; they have revived the ancient Hebrew language, and efforts are being made to reestablish their ancient civilization in a modern setting.

Orthodox Jews believe that God was completely revealed at Sinai and that his law is unalterable for all times. A Jew’s supreme duty is to live by it.

Reform Jews, sometimes called Liberal or Progressive, accept progressive revelation; thus the Bible and Talmud are not binding, making it possible to interpret tradition and rabbinical law in present circumstances—relevant to the generation being served and stressing only the spiritual aspects.

The Conservative, also designated Traditional or Historical, represents a search for the middle road between the old and the new. There is an effort to conserve as much of the tradition as possible. “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”

The Reconstructionist sees Judaism as an evolving religious civilization made up of all the elements involved in people’s lives. He feels that it is necessary to unitedly promote the reconstruction of the Jewish religious civilization, which requires interpreting God in terms of universal human (Jewish) experiences.

The Talmud represents the written record of an oral tradition. It became the basis for many rabbinic legal codes and customs, most importantly for the Mishneh Torah and for the Shulchan Aruch. Orthodox and, to a lesser extent, Conservative Judaism accepts the Talmud as authoritative, while Samaritan, Karaite, Reconstructionist, and Reform Judaism do not. This section briefly outlines past and current movements and their view of the Talmud’s role.

What is a Jew? A Jew may be a person tracing his progenitors back to Abraham through Judah, Jacob, and Isaac. He may be an individual who has converted to the Jewish faith, thus identifying himself with a “people whose task on earth is to search for God and, by force of example, spread faith.”

Judaism is not a race or a unique ethnic group, although there are racial traits indicating an ethnic kinship. A Jew may be an individual citizen in a country under the rule of Jews, as was Jerusalem and Judah, and as Israel now is; yet he may choose to espouse neither its culture nor its religion.

A Jew may apostatize from the Jewish religion yet remain a Jew, for he was born of Jewish parents and had a Jewish education.

A Jew may be a Zionist fanatically working, fighting, promoting a political entity for himself and his posterity, with no thought of accepting a belief in God or attending the synagogue. He may consider himself a loyal Jew, reading and teaching the Bible as a record of the experiences of his people. He may observe in his home certain Jewish holidays and traditional rites as a part of his cultural heritage and as symbols of Jewish national history, without thinking of himself as believing in God.

A Jew may be an individual completely dedicated to a belief in God and study of the Law. To him Torah is a book, a law. To others, Torah is a way of life that blesses all men: understanding the anguish of an enslaved people; Abraham’s compassion for the innocent of Sodom; the great awakening, making possible the creation of a state encompassing a promised land. Or Torah may be the Jew’s greatest gift to humanity —Jesus Christ, Savior of all mankind.

Origin of the Word ‘Jew’

“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a “Jew” or to call a contemporary Jew an “Israelite” or a “Hebrew.” The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all,” The Jewish Almanac (1980)

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a “Jew,” moreover, that he was  “King of the Jews.” Thus, by inference, that the “Jews” were the “Chosen People” of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ’s Mission and Passion no such people existed called “Jews” nor indeed did the word “Jew.” In short: Jesus was NOT a “Jew” nor was he “King of the Jews” as we interpret the word today. He was the promised Messiah, the King of Kings, and a descendant of Judah. The chosen people are Christians.

In the New Testament, the name Israel refers to the people of God, not usually in a nationalistic sense but designating those who are, or will be, gathered to Jesus Christ by obeying the word of God (e.g., Matt. 10:6-7; Luke 24:21; John 1:31, 49; Acts 2:22, 36). It also refers to Christ’s kingdom (Matt. 27:42; Mark 15:32), into which Gentiles will be grafted as if into an olive tree (Rom. 11:17-21). Two passages in Galatians clearly equate Israel with the early Christian church (Gal. 3:27-29;6:15-16), and the connection is also affirmed by Jesus’ statement that his apostles will judge the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).

In fact, Jesus is referred as a “Jew” for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first  English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word “Jew” is quit clear. Although “Jew” is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word “Jew” is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin “Iudaeus” found in St. Jerome’s Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word “Ioudaios.” The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word “Jew” found in the Latin word “Iudaeus” but also its current use in the English language.  Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin “Iudaeus” to the English “Jew” the evolution of these English forms is: “Gyu,” “Giu,” “Iu,” “Iuu,” “Iuw,” “Ieuu,” “Ieuy,” “Iwe,” “Iow,” “Iewe,” “Ieue,” “Iue,” “Ive,” “Iew,” and then, finally, the 18th century, “Jew.” Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for “Jews” is: “Giwis,” “Giws,” “Gyues,” “Gywes,” “Giwes,” “Geus,” “Iuys,” “Iows,” “Iouis,” “Iews,” and then, finally, in the 18th century, “Jews.”

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word  word “Jew.” Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word “Jew” did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word “Jew” did NOT appear. That is, the word “Jew” first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word “Jew” to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word “Jew.” For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word “Jew” and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek “Ioudaios” and the Latin “Iudaeus.” Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word “Jew” since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word “Jew” was not only stabilized by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek “Ioudaios” to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for “Judaeans.” Thus: “Ioudaia” in Greek is, in English, “Judaea” ( or “Judea”) while “Ioudaios” in Greek is, in English, “Judaeans” (or “Judeans”) Moreover, when the word “Jew” was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote “Judaeans” (or “Judeans”). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judaea during the time of Christ’s Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word “Jew” is never regarded as a synonym for “Judaean” (or “Judean”) nor is “Judaean” regarded as a synonym for “Jew.” The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

This is its “secondary meaning” that has been carefully nurtured among the English speaking peoples of the world by a secret power intent upon exploiting its ancient power of association. This so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” has been assiduously cultivated during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word “Jew.” It has succeeded to such a degree, that now most people in the English-speaking world can not comprehend the true nature of the word “Jew,” its literal sense, and do not regard a “Jew” as a “Judaean.” That is, understand the correct and only meaning of the word known to the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. In short: the word “Jew” in modern usage is a misrepresentation. The etymology of the word “Jew,” first used in the revised 18th century English language editions of the New Testament, is uncomplicated: the original Greek word “Ioudaios” was derived from the Aramaic “Jehudhai,” which referred to Judaeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judaea, and not as a reference to members of the tribe of Judah. That is, the modern English word “Jew” is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by Babylonian conquerors for the enslaved Judaeans without any due regard to the race or religion of the captives. This indiscriminate use of the word “Jew” to refer to the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judaea is the application of an incorrect, modern colloquial idiom without regard or recognition of the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.

“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be.” (Gen. 49:10)

The meaning of the word “Jew” in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view. In the Bible the word “Jew” is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a “Jew” and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one  who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, “Jews” and “Jewry” in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom “Jews” are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons were to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of Bible Covenants but especially the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until “Shiloh,” came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus’ lineage was established in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the sceptre from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.

At the time of Christ’s Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the “Chosen People”; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David’s Kingdom (its dismemberment first by Babylonians and then by Assyrian’s) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great and their return and restoration of the Temple, the population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belonged to the tribe of Judah and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee …. Pharisaism  … the man-made religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centred, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).

Judaism is neither the doctrine of Judah, nor of Christ, rather it is the doctrine of the Pharisees of old, an evil doctrine they brought back from their Babylonian captivity. It does not follow the truth of the Bible, neither of the Old Testament nor of the New. Its central tenets are found in the Talmud, a book full of worldly traditions, lies, and superstitions.

“The Babylonian Talmud is based on the mystical religious practices of the Babylonians which were assimilated by the Judahite Rabbis during their Babylonian captivity around 600 B.C. The Rabbis then used these occult traditions in place of the word of God,” wrote Edward Hendrie in Solving the Mystery of Babylon the Great.

“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in JEWRY, because the JEWS sought to kill Him.”(John 7:1)

Here, the English word “Jewry” was translated from the Greek word “Ioudaia“, which denoted the land of Judaea. This was acknowledged by modern redactors who chose not to use the word “Jewry” but the correct translation “Judaea.” For example, in the New American Standard Bible:

“And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him.”(John 7:1)

Thus, Christ  was unwilling to walk in Judaea – Jewry – because the Jews – the Judaeans – were seeking to kill Him. That is: Judaea = Jewry and Jews = Judaeans. A Jew is properly a Judaean and Jewry properly Judaea.

A modern misconception is that “the Jews” are direct descendants of Jacob and so the people of Israel, the true, biblical Israelites. However, by the time of Jesus, because of wars, enslavement, migrations and miscegenation, a Jew may or may not have descended from Jacob. He could have been descended from a number of patriarchs, especially Esau, since Edomites were then dominant in the racial mix. However, although a disparate racial mix the Jews by this time all recognised Pharisaism as their personal and state religion and NOT the Law of Moses. And so, a point of uttermost importance: someone who is called a “Jew” in the Bible is not necessarily a member of the tribe of Judah, a true Israelite, or even a Semite nor are they an essential part of the Yahweh’s Chosen People, a follower of Moses and the prophets. In the Bible, a Jew is simply a resident of Judaea …. he is simply a Judaean … with or without the special status arising from blood of the Covenant People. Yet, this fact of historical identity has been subverted by a secret force whose aim is to use the ancient yet special status of the true biblical Covenant People, the true Chosen People of Yahweh, for their own very dark designs. That is why this incredibly well organised and well-financed secret force created a  “secondary meaning” for the new word “Jew,” which is not the understanding intended by the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. That is, most of those who today call themselves Jews and arrogate the special status as God’s Chosen People and all its privileges by claiming to be direct descendants of the tribes of Israel and of David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Millions claim this yet few of them are “Jews” in the proper sense as they are not “Judaeans” or residents of Judaea. That is: the so-called modern day Jews -the Modern Tribe of Jews– are not “the Jews” of the Bible. In other words, the Modern Tribe of Jews claiming the territory in Palestine that was Once the Holy Land are not the biblical Jews, they are not the true biblical Covenant People: they are not “returning” to their “Promised Land” because they were never there in the first place …

Continued on next page…