Would a Christian considered a Jew?

[Dave-W]

Gospel of Jesus should be used as a filter to find out how much of Paul complements the words of the Lord.

Not good. Your statement flies in the face of Acts 15 and 21; and the book of Galatians.

Paul spent time in the Arabian desert and received a LOT of new revelation concerning how the Gentiles were to be grafted into Israel. There is NOTHING in the gospels that covers this because as Our Lord Himself said, He was NOT CALLED to the gentiles. There is also not much in the other epistles on this either, as the other apostles were to the Jews; Paul alone was an apostle to the gentiles.

So - do you believe that Paul had a revelation that Peter, James and the others did NOT have? (at least at first) Acts 15, 21, and Galatians 1-2 tell us that Paul received this revelation and eventually the other apostles were in agreement with it - but only to the Gentile believers and NOT the Jews who believed.

Gal 2.1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

 

[Righttruth]

Not good. Your statement flies in the face of Acts 15 and 21; and the book of Galatians.

Paul spent time in the Arabian desert and received a LOT of new revelation concerning how the Gentiles were to be grafted into Israel. There is NOTHING in the gospels that covers this because as Our Lord Himself said, He was NOT CALLED to the gentiles. There is also not much in the other epistles on this either, as the other apostles were to the Jews; Paul alone was an apostle to the gentiles.

Much of it are self-claims. Luke was a rank outsider, like, Paul. Luke stands better because he wrote the Gospel admitting the sources from others. Paul was called to witness to both Gentiles and Jews, but he took an easy shortcut when he faced lots of opposition to his claims from Jews who knew God far better than Gentiles.

So - do you believe that Paul had a revelation that Peter, James and the others did NOT have? (at least at first) Acts 15, 21, and Galatians 1-2 tell us that Paul received this revelation and eventually the other apostles were in agreement with it - but only to the Gentile believers and NOT the Jews who believed.

Not in all. In fact, James letter opposes Paul's theology of 'faith only'.

Gal 2.1

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

One sided and self-arguments hold no water for a proof.

 

[Dave-W]

aul was called to witness to both Gentiles and Jews, but he took an easy shortcut when he faced lots of opposition to his claims from Jews who knew God far better than Gentiles.

Sorry. Paul never wimped out and took the "easy shortcut" on anything.

Not in all. In fact, James letter opposes Paul's theology of 'faith only'.

No - your understanding of James is in opposition to your understanding of Paul; both of which I submit may be erroneous (or just incomplete)

One sided and self-arguments hold no water for a proof.

OK - that means that you are throwing out much of the NT scriptures. Is this not what Peter wrote about?

2 Pet 3.15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

Did you catch that? Peter calls Paul's letters "Scripture;" thus putting them on the same footing as the entire OT and the gospels.

You deny scripture at your own risk.

 

[Righttruth]

Sorry. Paul never wimped out and took the "easy shortcut" on anything.

Then why did he confine to only Gentiles when Jesus asked to share with Jews also?

No - your understanding of James is in opposition to your understanding of Paul; both of which I submit may be erroneous (or just incomplete)

Then you admit both James and Paul's were incomplete?

OK - that means that you are throwing out much of the NT scriptures. Is this not what Peter wrote about?

2 Pet 3.15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
Did you catch that? Peter calls Paul's letters "Scripture;" thus putting them on the same footing as the entire OT and the gospels.

2 Peter's authorship is disputed. Nevertheless, by the same logic one can prove Paul's letters are not scripture. We have enough information on our salvation in our gospel books complemented by letters of chosen apostles, Peter and John. James and Jude make up for the Jerusalem Church. There is no limit to the imagination of Paul, a rank outsider.

 

[Dave-W]

Then why did he confine to only Gentiles when Jesus asked to share with Jews also?

To whom did Jesus say that? The 11, which did NOT include Paul.

In Paul's conversion, God from Heaven told Ananias "... he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;" Acts 9.15

And if you read the account of his travels - his pattern was to start in the synagogues until they kicked him out.

As to the Acts 15 decision applying ONLY to Gentiles; remember the initial question in verse 1: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

All the Jewish believers were already circumcised. Circ was (still is) the final step in formal conversion to Judaism. Jews do not need to convert to Judaism.

Which means the decision made applied to Gentiles. Nothing said about Jews. That comes in chapter 21.

 

[Righttruth]

To whom did Jesus say that? The 11, which did NOT include Paul.

In Paul's conversion, God from Heaven told Ananias "... he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;" Acts 9.15

It was clear what was the intention of Jesus for Paul that included Jews.

And if you read the account of his travels - his pattern was to start in the synagogues until they kicked him out.

That cannot be excuse for a disciple to avoid them altogether.

As to the Acts 15 decision applying ONLY to Gentiles; remember the initial question in verse 1: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

It was not required for Gentiles as decided in Acts 15. It is the question of spirit of the Law with no external rituals adding anything to it.

All the Jewish believers were already circumcised. Circ was (still is) the final step in formal conversion to Judaism. Jews do not need to convert to Judaism.

What is difference between Jew and Judaism?

Which means the decision made applied to Gentiles. Nothing said about Jews. That comes in chapter 21.

Acts 21 shows the act of Paul as advised by Jerusalem Church to save his skin. It was obvious that Paul agreed to that considering the context.

 

[Dave-W]

That cannot be excuse for a disciple to avoid them altogether.

Did you read what i wrote? He started in the synagogues. How is that " avoid[ing] them altogether?"

What is difference between Jew and Judaism?

I do not have the space or time to explain in detail. Besides it would go way off topic to do so.

Suffice it to say the 2 are indissolubly linked together.

Acts 21 shows the act of Paul as advised by Jerusalem Church to save his skin. It was obvious that Paul agreed to that considering the context.

No. Not at all. Paul never did ANYTHING to "save his skin." If Paul had an issue that New Covenant Believing Jews were to follow the Law, he would have spoken up in James' face. He had no problem doing that to Peter. And everyone there knew about it. But he did not. If you read the section on Nazirite vows, you will find that Paul himself had taken one long before coming to Jerusalem. (Acts 18.18) But had to cut his hair early, probably due to coming into contact with a dead body. But he had to finish the "vow" in the Temple, and that involved animal sacrifice.

Acts 18:18 Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow.

Num 6.9 ‘But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his dedicated head of hair, then he shall shave his head on the day when he becomes clean; he shall shave it on the seventh day. 10 Then on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the doorway of the tent of meeting. 11 The priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him concerning his sin because of the dead person. And that same day he shall consecrate his head,

So how is that "saving his skin?" The temple service was already in motion. Note verse 24 of Acts 21:

24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

Is that lost on you? Paul was asked to make a declaration BY ACTION that He kept the Law. He made that declaration. Are you saying he was lying?

 

[Righttruth]

Did you read what i wrote? He started in the synagogues. How is that " avoid[ing] them altogether?"

Yes, he started with synagogues, but who asked him to decide on this:

Acts 13
46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

Acts 18
6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

No. Not at all. Paul never did ANYTHING to "save his skin." If Paul had an issue that New Covenant Believing Jews were to follow the Law, he would have spoken up in James' face. He had no problem doing that to Peter. And everyone there knew about it. But he did not. If you read the section on Nazirite vows, you will find that Paul himself had taken one long before coming to Jerusalem. (Acts 18.18) But had to cut his hair early, probably due to coming into contact with a dead body. But he had to finish the "vow" in the Temple, and that involved animal sacrifice. Acts 18:18 Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow.

A spiritual new life in Jesus will not lean on old ritualistic observations. Of course, the transformed new life is not instantaneous, it develops as the knowledge in truth increases. Obviously, it will be the case with all new believers, and chosen apostles and Paul were no exception to this. There was no question of Gentiles of going through the rituals of Judaism for salvation since Jesus fulfilled the letter of the Law and negated all rituals in view of worshiping God in spirit.

Galatians 6
15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

So how is that "saving his skin?" The temple service was already in motion. Note verse 24 of Acts 21:
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
Is that lost on you? Paul was asked to make a declaration BY ACTION that He kept the Law. He made that declaration. Are you saying he was lying?

All these things were advised by the Jerusalem Church to prevent this:

27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him,
28 crying out, "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."
29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.
30 Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.
31 While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion.
32 At once he took along some soldiers and centurions and ran down to them; and when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
33 Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; and he began asking who he was and what he had done.
34 But among the crowd some were shouting one thing and some another, and when he could not find out the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks.
35 When he got to the stairs, he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob;
36 for the multitude of the people kept following them, shouting, "Away with him!"

Yet, it didn't work.

So, Paul being crafty and an opportunist lies that he is still a Jew:

39 But Paul said, "I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people."

But preached this:

Romans 7
6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

1 Corinthians 5
7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.
8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

 

[Dave-W]

So, Paul being crafty and an opportunist lies that he is still a Jew:

RT - I submit you have an awfully bad opinion of Paul.

There was no lie. He WAS still a Jew. And still a Pharisee:

Acts 23:6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

And after he got to Rome he claimed to keep the Law and not just the Law, but the oral tradition as well:

Acts 28.17 After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

That phrase. "customs of our fathers," referred to the Oral Tradition eventually recorded in the Mishnah and Talmuds.

So either Paul meant what he said, or he lied time upon time upon time.
Why would a known liar get his letters in the bible at all, let alone comprise the bulk of the New Testament?

 

[Righttruth]

RT - I submit you have an awfully bad opinion of Paul.

I don't totally reject Paul. I consider him to be a saint and a disciple. Nevertheless, he was troubled by boastfulness according to his own admission. He appeared to have sported superiority complex since he was scholar in comparison to semi-literate apostles. That led to the tendency of dominating them. Many deserted him, perhaps, even Luke at a later stage. Apostleship was his own claim since there cannot be division in apostleship and number cannot exceed more than twelve.

There was no lie. He WAS still a Jew. And still a Pharisee:

Acts 23:6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

You find lot of converts from other religions, such as, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. They cannot claim that they still belong to their former religion. If so they are fake converts.

And after he got to Rome he claimed to keep the Law and not just the Law, but the oral tradition as well:

Acts 28.17 After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

That phrase. "customs of our fathers," referred to the Oral Tradition eventually recorded in the Mishnah and Talmuds.

So either Paul meant what he said, or he lied time upon time upon time.

He meant what he said as an opportunist. His strategy was to win people by hook or by crook. That is not Gospel. He had never heard of Jesus in His ministry, so no way he could understand the sublime teaching of the Master.

Why would a known liar get his letters in the bible at all, let alone comprise the bulk of the New Testament?

That is because lots of convenient concepts can be evolved using his candy-coated epistles. Protestants love him using piece-wise verses of his. Satan was there too in the Garden of Eden. I read all writings. But only the Holy Spirit reminds of the preaching of Jesus. People love the rhetoric based on Paul's exhibition of scholarship which may not truly represent the preaching of Jesus. So one need to filter out Paul and take only what complements of the words of Jesus.

 

[Dave-W]

You find lot of converts from other religions, such as, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. They cannot claim that they still belong to their former religion. If so they are fake converts.

And there is the problem. What later came to be called "Christianity" was NOT another religion. It was the next step in normal Judaism.

So Paul was not really a "convert;" and a Jew today who comes to faith in Messiah is not a convert either.

 

[Righttruth]

And there is the problem. What later came to be called "Christianity" was NOT another religion. It was the next step in normal Judaism.

Yes, it is not a religion. It is a sublime spiritual way that sets you free from the rigors of rituals. It was earlier called 'the way'.

So Paul was not really a "convert;" and a Jew today who comes to faith in Messiah is not a covert either.

Some do object the use of the title 'Messianic Jew'. What if people called themselves as 'Hindu Christian', 'Buddhist Christian', 'Islam Christian', etc.

We are believers in Christ, not in religion.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes, it is not a religion.

Actually; Christianity is a religion - it is the gentile expression of Messianic Judaism.

If you say it is NOT a religion I submit you are using the WRONG definition of religion. Miriam Webster defines it this way:

* the belief in a god or in a group of gods
* an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods


Do we (as Christians) not worship a God?
Do we not have an organized system of beliefs?

IF you can honestly NOT answer "yes," then perhaps you do NOT have a religion.

The definition that means only dead ritual is NOT the proper definition.

Some do object the use of the title 'Messianic Jew'. What if people called themselves as 'Hindu Christian', 'Buddhist Christian', 'Islam Christian', etc.

Hindus, Buddhists, islamists, etc. worship OTHER gods not found in the Bible. Christinanity is just the next step in Judaism. It is no different than the change from the Abrahamic religion to the Mosaic covenant religion. God did not wipe the slate and start over. Christianity is built FIRMLY on the Abrahamic and Mosaic expressions of the Biblical faith. They are all one and the same.

 

[Righttruth]

Actually; Christianity is a religion - it is the gentile expression of Messianic Judaism.

If you say it is NOT a religion I submit you are using the WRONG definition of religion. Miriam Webster defines it this way:

* the belief in a god or in a group of gods
* an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods


Do we (as Christians) not worship a God?
Do we not have an organized system of beliefs?

IF you can honestly NOT answer "yes," then perhaps you do NOT have a religion. The definition that means only dead ritual is NOT the proper definition.

In a secular sense, yes Christianity is also a religion like Judaism. As I understand, Torah is Moses' writings based on God's directive and 'Talmud' led to a religion. All religions miss out the essence of the teaching of its leaders with the passing of time. Many rituals and traditions get evolved that have no bearing on the original teachings. People love and support such rituals and traditions rather than the words of God.

Hindus, Buddhists, islamists, etc. worship OTHER gods not found in the Bible. Christinanity is just the next step in Judaism. It is no different than the change from the Abrahamic religion to the Mosaic covenant religion. God did not wipe the slate and start over. Christianity is built FIRMLY on the Abrahamic and Mosaic expressions of the Biblical faith. They are all one and the same.

Converted Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims no long worship their previous gods. Messianic Jews worship God and honor the Son. That is different from Jews. Yes, the same book with added pages giving spiritual expressions to the OT. Therefore the letter of the Law with its rituals are done away with spiritual observance of the OT. The letter of the Law is the foundation on which spiritual structure is built. So we don't dig back the foundation nor damage it.
Romans 2
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

2 Corinthians 3
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Would it not be fair to say, God's chosen people were the Jews, now they are anyone who believers in Christ, therefore we are the chosen people of God, just like the Jews were/are?

 

[twin1954]

Would it not be fair to say, God's chosen people were the Jews, now they are anyone who believers in Christ, therefore we are the chosen people of God, just like the Jews were/are?

Not all of the nation of the Jews were actually the chosen of God but those among them who looked to the Promised Savior. David would be an example of one them.

Paul explains this in Romans;

(Rom 2:28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

(Rom 2:29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.



(Rom 11:1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

(Rom 11:2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

(Rom 11:3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

(Rom 11:4) But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

(Rom 11:5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

(Rom 11:6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

(Rom 11:7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

(Rom 11:8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

(Rom 11:9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

(Rom 11:10) Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

(Rom 11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

(Rom 11:12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

(Rom 11:13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

(Rom 11:14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Would it not be fair to say, God's chosen people were the Jews, now they are anyone who believers in Christ, therefore we are the chosen people of God, just like the Jews were/are?

no.

 

[Dave-W]

Would it not be fair to say, God's chosen people were the Jews, now they are anyone who believers in Christ, therefore we are the chosen people of God, just like the Jews were/are?

Not really. That is an error called "replacement theology."

Go back and read Rom 11 again. "the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," or "without repentance," (v 29) which means the Jews STILL are "chosen." But because we gentiles have been grafted in, (v 17) we get to participate in that choosing.

 

[twin1954]

Not really. That is an error called "replacement theology."

Go back and read Rom 11 again. "the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable," or "without repentance," (v 29) which means the Jews STILL are "chosen." But because we gentiles have been grafted in, (v 17) we get to participate in that choosing.

The church didn't replace Israel it always existed among the nation of Israel. Paul makes it pretty clear in the passages that I quoted above. There was always a remnant according to the election of grace that existed among the stiffnecked and rebellious people who never actually served God called Israel.