The original name for some of the people we now call "Jews" was Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" first appears in Genesis 14:13, and literally means "an Eberite, a descendant of Eber." Another name was Israelites, which literally means "a descendant of Israel," referring to Jacob who had his name changed to Israel by God. Yet another name is Judaites, which literally means, "a descendant of Judah."
After the death of King Solomon, when the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms, the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south (1 Kings 12; 2 Chronicles 10), anyone from the kingdom of Judah, regardless of their tribe of descent, was referred to as a Judaite.
To set the record straight, Abraham was neither an Israelite, nor a Judaite. Furthermore, all Eberites are neither Israelites nor Judaites; and all Israelites are not Judaites. In fact, all "Jews" are not even Israelites or Eberites. How can I say this? Because people from every ethnicity and colour have converted to Judaism. Ergo, contrary to the erroneous and heretical notes in the 1967 Scofield Reference/Study Bible, all "Jews" are not the natural descendants of Abraham. Such an ignorant statement is void of all intelligence and reality. That is like saying that all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin Luther.
Today, a "Jew" is predominantly an adherent of Judaism. This is proven by the fact that any person (African, Indian, Asian, etc.) who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism is considered a "Jew." In fact, most of the talk about who is a Jew centers around "conversion." For example, if a woman born to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, raised in a Reform congregation and understanding herself to be completely Jewish, if she wants to marry a Conservative Jewish man, she would have to "convert" for her children to be considered Jewish by Conservative standards. It is a mish-mash of muddled nonsense. There are also those who do not adhere to Judaism who are referred to as Jews, which, technically, should be nominal Jews (by name only). After all, in every religion there exist nominal individuals who claim to belong to it, but whose lives and behaviour do not reflect it (e.g., nominal Christians, nominal Muslims, nominal Hindus, nominal Buddhists, etc). Modern Jewry has become as clear as mud. They have so many ways with which to identify "Jews," whereas in Scripture there were only two (and typically only one): being a descendant of or belonging to the tribe of Judah, or belonging to the kingdom of Judah.
Contrary to God's Scriptures, and every other ethnicity on the planet, modern Jews erroneously attempt to trace their lineage through the mother. This is likely due to the fact that when the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes exiled from the land (2 Kings 17), when their women were married off to other men, it effectively ended their bloodlines.
Lineage is always traced through the man; not the woman. Everyone knows that the seed originates with the man. Ergo, the father determines what the children are (save for religious preference, as you are not born a religion). For centuries, a great number of people have been falsely labeled as "Jews" who are not Jews. In fact, according to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, many of the people ethnically calling themselves "Jews" are not real Jews and do not belong to Israel. According to Romans 11:17-24, only those who believe and trust in the Lord Jesus as their Saviour (the remnant) are true Jews belonging to the true Israel—Jesus. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel was frequently referred to as a vine. In John 15, Jesus says, "I am the true vine." Make the connection.
Imagine a Muslim man marrying a Jewish woman. Uh oh! What is the child? According to Muslims, the child is a Muslim. According to Jews, the child is a Jew. This is like a piece of buttered bread being tied to the back of a cat and being dropped from a height. How will it land? Buttered bread apparently always lands butter side down, and cats always land on their feet. What if a Jewish man marries a Muslim woman, then what would the child be? Apparently nothing, since neither has lineage claims on the child. Here proves that a Jew is predominantly an adherent of Judaism: if a non-Jewish man marries a Jewish woman and they have a child who is not raised as Jewish and embraces a different faith, how does this child become a "Jew"? If they forsake the religion they embraced, are they automatically considered a Jew because of the mother (which is false lineage)? Or does the child have to convert to Judaism? A conversion to Judaism makes one an adherent to Judaism. Ergo, the most accurate definition of a Jew is one who adheres to Judaism. But I digress.
The fact is, there are a great number of people today calling themselves "Jews" who are not Jews in the least (save perhaps by being an adherent to Judaism). If you traced these people's lineage back, you would find that a great many of them are not, and have never been, Jews; but they have been falsely raised to believe that they are, erroneously tracing their lineage through the mother rather than through the father. This false lineage is obliterated when one pays attention to the Old Testament. It is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"; not "the God of Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah." The lineage of Judaite to Israelite to Eberite is through the man; not the woman. It is patriarchy, not matriarchy.
In Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (a passage that Jews are dishonest with, attempting to claim it teaches matriarchal descent), in expressing the prohibition against inter-faith marriage (not inter-racial marriage), God says, "you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons" (v. 3). Why? "For they [their sons and daughters] will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods" (v. 4). The "they" literally means "he," but the prior verse lets you know that it works both ways. If you put the emphasis on the "he," as Jews do, then they should logically understand it to be so because lineage is traced through the father.
Another verse Jews erroneously attempt to use in support of matriarchal descent is Leviticus 24:10, which speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man. This passage is identifying their nationality, their ethnicity. It says nothing about the adherence to Judaism (which did not exist at the time—find a single reference in the Old Testament to "Judaism"). Who says that this Egyptian man did not become a full-fledged citizen of Israel by circumcision? Abraham was told that "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised" (Gen. 17:13), and Moses was told, "But if a stranger sojourns with you and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land" (Ex. 12:48). Circumcision was a sign and seal of being entered into covenant with God, where God says the person who is not circumcised "has broken My covenant" (Gen. 17:14).
[Allow me a little rabbit trail here for clarification purposes. There are some Credo Baptists who deny circumcision as being a sign and seal of being in covenant with God and attempt to argue that circumcision merely identified you with Israel. Sorry, but that argument is false. Let me re-state it: Abraham was not an Israelite. Only those who are descendants of Jacob are Israelites. God made it extremely clear when He said that the person who is not circumcised "has broken My covenant" (Gen. 17:14).]
Jews also falsely claim that King David's Jewish status is determined by his mother. No, it is not. It is determined by his father. Read any of the genealogies in Scripture and you will see that the lineage is traced through the father. Even Jesus' lineage is traced through the males. The non-Jewish women who are part of Jesus' ancestry, whether they converted or not, do not affect His Jewish lineage because it is traced through the fathers.
Jews tend to contradict themselves, saying that "status as a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe; it is simply a matter of who your parents are," and yet continuously talking about conversion. Like I said, most of the talk surrounding the status of a Jew has to do with conversion to Judaism, which is what you believe. Maybe they should amend their statement to say that "status as a Jew does not always have to do with what you believe."
There are at least three types of Judaism: Orthodox Judaism, which prefers that all Jews acknowledge the obligation to observe the unchanging law; Conservative Judaism, which prefers that all Jews acknowledge the right to change the law; and Reform Judaism, which prefers that all Jews acknowledge the right to pick and choose what to observe. Jews say that "the Torah is the heart of Judaism," but they also say that "the Talmud is the life of Judaism." The Talmud carries on the traditions of the elders that the Pharisees held to in Jesus' day, for which He condemned them: "they teach as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9), "neglect the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8), and "reject the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition" (Matt: 15:3). If they bothered to pay attention to the Scriptures, as Jesus pointed out to them, the Scriptures speak of Him.
The Talmud is the most significant collection of the Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah. There are two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean if they just say "the Talmud" without specifying which one. The Mishnah is an early written compilation of Jewish oral tradition, the basis of the Talmud. The Gemara are commentaries on the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara together are the Talmud. There are two Torahs: the Written Torah, known as the Tanakh (an acrostic for Torah [The Law], Nevi'im [The Prophets], and Ketuvim [The Writings]), and the Oral Torah, which are Jewish teachings explaining and elaborating on the Written Torah, handed down orally until the 2nd century A.D., when they began to be written down in what became the Talmud. The most prominent Jewish sources of our day admit:
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." —Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
"Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered." —Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein
"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." —Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
As you can see, determination of who and what is a Jew is extremely convoluted. There is a grave amount of error surrounding this determination. When Scripture talks about those who "say they are Jews and are not" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), it makes you wonder what exactly it means. Commentaries differ on their understanding. Hopefully this helps to clear up some of the confusion, especially that created by Zionists and Dispensationalists who attempt to claim that "all Jews are the natural descendants of Abraham," an argument that is completely illogical. Biblically, there were only two ways to determine a "Jew": (1) being a descendant of or belonging to the tribe of Judah; or (2) belonging to the kingdom of Judah. Also, biblically, and prior to 1948, "Israel" was defined as a particular man (Jacob), and as a particular tribe (the descendants of Jacob).
By the way, the term "Messianic Jew" is an oxymoron. A Jew who trusts and believes in the Lord Jesus as their Saviour becomes a Christian; a Christ-one, or Christ follower. Would you call a Muslim who comes to Jesus a "Messianic Muslim" or an "Isa Muslim"? Today, "Jew" predominantly refers to an adherent of Judaism. It is confusing when attempted to be used otherwise. As I said, the entire use of "Jew" has become convoluted. As even Jews acknowledge, "Jew" is not a race, an ethnicity, a culture, or even a nation. To use it in this manner is extremely erroneous.
ADDENDUM:
We have already established that, biblically, there were two ways to determine who was and was not a "Jew": (1) being a descendant of, or belonging to the tribe of, Judah; or (2) belonging to the southern kingdom of Judah (from the tribes of Benjamin or Judah). Save for when Israel was divided into two kingdoms, if you were of the tribe of Benjamin, you could not call yourself a Judaite; you were a Benjamite. Everyone who calls themselves an ethnic "Jew" today, are they claiming to belong to the southern kingdom of Judah (from either the tribes of Benjamin or Judah)? If they belong to some other tribe, then they are no "Jews" and should stop calling themselves such; unless the use of the term absolutely means they are an adherent to the religion of Judaism.