Category: Biblical Observations

Paul uses ‘Israel / Israelites’ 13 times in Rom. 9-11 and 7 in the rest of the  Pauline literature (we will look at those below); he does not use the term ‘Israel’ in Romans outside of these 3 chapters, but uses the term ‘Jew’ on numerous occasions, but only once does he use the term ‘Jew’ inside those three chapters. His focus inside these chapters is on ‘Israel / all Israel / restoration of the twelve tribes’; outside the chapters he is diving into the Jew / Greek issue (the world as categorised that he is working within). Those statistics alone should get our attention.

Of the seven references outside of Romans 9-11 when Paul uses the term ‘Israel’, he is referring to historical / ethnic Israel. Only once does he use ’Israel’ to refer to a current entity, the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16), 

As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

‘And (καὶ) upon the Israel of God’ can either be indicating two groups – ‘those who follow this rule’ and ‘the Israel of God’, or the use of the καὶ can be ‘epexegetic’ and thus carrying a clarifying meaning – those who follow this rule who are the Israel of God. We can further contrast this phrase to Paul’s use of ‘Israel according to the flesh’ (1 Cor. 10:18). There ‘Israel’ is clearly a reference to ethnic Israel (τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα); in Galatians his term is τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ. The contrast – if both terms are applied to ethnic Israel simply suggests that ‘not all who are (ethnically) Israel are of God’s Israel’. The reference then is either to that portion within ethnic Israel that has responded to Messiah (the Galatian letter is about how Jew and Greek are included in the Messiah) or he is pushing his view that those who respond in faith (who follow this rule) are descendants of Abraham (whether Jew or Gentile) and thus are the ‘Israel of God’. Regardless he is not advocating two ways to salvation!

Paul never uses the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ synonymously (he maintains the distinction between the terms as other Jewish writers of the ‘second temple’ era do). Outside of Romans 9-11 his normal contrasting language is ‘Jew and Greek’ (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17; 3:1,9; 1 Cor. 1:22, 24; 12:13; Gal. 3:28) or ‘Jew and Gentile’ (Rom. 3:29; 9:24; 1 Cor 1:23; Gal. 2:14-15).

I end this section with the important understanding when coming to Rom. 9-11 with the foundation that ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ are not synonymous terms. ‘All Israel’ cannot mean ‘every Jew’ and has to extend beyond those living in the land.

---

This is the fourth post seeking to follow what I am currently writing. I am about to get into the three chapters of Rom. 9-11, so it is likely to be a little while before there are other posts on this theme.

This is the third post of what I am working on with regard to the phrase in Paul ‘and all Israel will be saved’. This post begins to show the distinction between the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’. They are not synonymous.

---

Israel or Jew

A common response and understanding of the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ is to see them as simply synonymous, such as we read in the following quote,

Generally speaking, the terms Hebrews, Jews, and Israelites all refer to the same people – the nation which sprang from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, a nation promised and chosen by God in the Old Testament (https://www.timberlandchurch.org/articles/is-there-a-difference-between-hebrews-jews-and-israelites#:~:text=Generally%20speaking%2C%20the%20terms%20Hebrews%2C,the%20Old%20Testament%20(Genesis%2012%3A1%2D3).

The work of Jason Staples has shown that the two terms are not simply two descriptions for the one entity and that Paul follows the distinction that writers such as Josephus and Philo make.

Josephus (37-100AD) who wrote the Jewish Antiquites (a history of Israel) referred to Israel/Israelites 188 times in the first 11 volumes but does not use those words outside of those 11 volumes; he uses the term ‘Jew’ only 26 times in the first 10 volumes, but in the remaining 9 volumes he only refers to the term ‘Jew’ (1162 times), never using the term ‘Israel’. If the terms were interchangeable we would expect a much more even spread. Something happened in the history to highlight ‘Israel’ in the earlier period but ‘Jew’ in accounts relating to the later history. It was only ‘Jews’ who returned from the exile in Babylon – Jews being from the southern kingdom of Judah.

When these Jews (Ioudaioi) learned of the king’s piety towards God, and his kindness towards Ezra, they loved [him] most dearly, and many took up their possessions and went to Babylon, desiring to go down to Jerusalem. But all the people of Israel remained in that land. So it came about that only two tribes [Benjamin, a smaller tribe is included, also some from Levi who were distributed in both the northern and southern kingdoms] came to Asia and Europe and are subject to the Romans, but the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates until now and are a countless multitude whose number is impossible to know (Ant. 11:132-133).

Jospehus writing in the Roman era describes the other 10 tribes as being beyond Roman territory. His change of usage indicates that ‘Israel’ (the 10 northern tribes that were taken away in the Assyrian conquest) did not return and he could not use the term ‘Israel’ of returning Jews. Israel was either used to refer to the whole people or the northern tribes; the Iuodaioi (Jews) were the southern kingdom that did return after the Babylonian exile.

The later volumes of Josephus cover the history after the northern kingdom went into their exile (never to return), hence those that remain are referred to as ‘Jews’. Once the Southern kingdom later returns from Babylon the people are only referred to as ‘Jews’ by Josephus; Jews then are a subset of Israel and all Jews together do not constitute Israel – this will become important when we come to Paul’s statement of ‘all Israel will be saved’.

A few paragraphs later Josephus writes,

From the time they went up from Babylon they were called by this name [Ioudaios] after the tribe of Judah. Since the tribe was the prominent one to come from those parts, both the people themselves and the country have taken their name from it (Ant. 11:173).

Jews are those from the tribe of Judah – the southern kingdom. It was the tribe of Judah and Benjamin that went into Babylonian captivity and who returned.

Within the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) and the books that are post-Babylonian exile the term ‘Jew’ only refers to those who were from the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin and some from Levi who were distributed across the northern and southern kingdoms). Philo of Alexandria (20-50AD) likewise uses the term Israel(ite) eighty times in his Greek works, but he never uses it synonymously with Jew, nor does he ever refer to the contemporary people as Israel or Israelites. Like Josephus, he uses Ioudaios to refer to contemporary Jews.

The shift that takes place is the demise of the northern kingdom who are taken into exile by Assyria and eventually are scattered among the nations. That northern kingdom carried the name ‘Israel’ whereas the southern kingdom was termed Judah – the tribes splitting after Solomon dies. Israel could be used as a term describing the whole people (descendents of Jacob/Israel) or of the northern kingdom by itself, but the southern kingdom was never referred to as Israel.

This distinction remains consistent in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is the ‘elders of the Jews’ (Ezra 6:14) who are those who rebuild the Temple and when the Temple is dedicated a sin offering is made for all Israel, twelve male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel (Ezra 6:17). ‘Jews’ have returned from the Babylonian exile, but the remainder of Israel had not, hence the elders were the elders of the Jews. Yet a hope persisted for the restoration of the twelve tribes (Israel / all Israel) such as was articulated by Paul,

And now I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night. It is for this hope, Your Excellency, that I am accused by Jews (Acts 26:6,7).

The prophetic hope was for the twelve tribes, but Paul was accused by Jews! The hope was expressed in different passages but the ‘I will make a new covenant’ passage in Jeremiah is a good summary of the future hope of restoration (emphases added below) of Israel – the fullness of the 12 tribes:

At that time, says the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people… The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of humans and the seed of animals. And just as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring evil, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, says the Lord… The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:1, 27-28, 31-33).

[A sidenote – there was a partial return of the northern kingdom but it was ethnically mixed, being based in Samaria they were known as Samaritans. They are never known as Jews, but did refer to themselves as ‘Samarian Israelites’ or as ‘guardians of the Torah’, thus further making the identification of ‘Jew’ with those of the southern kingdom. They viewed themselves as Israelites (not as Jews) while the majority of Jews viewed them as illegitimate. The debate was not whether they were Jews – that point was agreed on by all: they were not Jews. The debate was whether they were legitimately part of Israel. Thus again we see that even the sum total of all Jews could not be termed ‘all Israel’.]