Interpreting Gentiles and Ethnos in Relation to Jews

There are places where the English word "Gentile" (and the underlying Greek ethnos) should not be read as a simple technical label for non-Jews, and Romans provides prime examples. The issue is complicated by translation history and by the fact that in Greek there is no separate word for "Jew" in the modern sense, but rather Ioudaios, literally "Judean."

Romans and the Use of Gentile / Ethnos

In Romans 2:9 we read:

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile."

On the surface, this sets "Jew" over against "Gentile." Yet in Greek it is "to the Judean first, and also to the nations" (ethn=e). Ethnically, Jews lived not only in Judea but scattered among the nations. Thus "the nations" here is geographical and national, not necessarily a technical term for non-Jews. It can encompass Jews outside Judea along with non-Jews.

A more pointed case is Romans 9:24:

"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

In the flow of Romans 1–9, the first person plural "we" and "us" consistently refers to Israelites. The "called" in Romans 8–9 are those foreknown, predestined, and elect within Israel:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate dots and whom he did predestinate, them he also called" Romans 8:29-30. "For the children being not yet born dots that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" Romans 9:11.

Within that context, "us, whom he hath called" in Romans 9:24 is Israel. The phrase "not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" again literally reads "not of the Judeans only, but also of the nations." This can naturally be taken as:

• Judeans (those in Judea), and
• Israelites of the dispersion, scattered among the nations.

In that sense, the English "Gentiles" here can indeed be referring to Jews—Jews in the nations. The contrast is not covenant status (circumcised vs. uncircumcised), but location and segment of Israel.

Romans 1:13 adds another helpful text:

"Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles."

If, as argued in some analyses of Romans, the primary Roman audience is Jewish (cf. Romans 2:17: "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law"), then Paul’s statement can be read:

That I might have some fruit among you (Jewish believers in Rome) also, even as among other nations.

Here again ethn=e need not mean exclusively non-Jews; it can denote ministry among Jewish communities in other nations (Corinth, Thessalonica, etc.). The text does not require that his Roman audience be Gentiles in the usual theological sense; the contrast is between Roman Jews and Jews (and others) in other nations.

Ethnos and Jews

The Greek term ethnos fundamentally means "nation" or "people group." It is often used for non-Jewish nations, but it is flexible. Because Judaism itself functions as an ethnicity, ethnos can, in context, include Jews:

• Jews living among the nations,
• Jews designated by locality (Galilee of the nations),
• or national collectives where Jews are a significant or defining population.

A notable example is "Galilee of the Gentiles" in Matthew 4:15, quoting Isaiah. The phrase is based on ethn=e, yet Galilee in the first century was overwhelmingly Jewish, even zealously so. The "of the nations" designation there is geographic and historical, not a statement that the area is religiously Gentile in the sense of being non-Jewish.

Thus, in answer to the second part of the question: yes, there are instances where ethnos, regardless of its English rendering, can encompass Jews. Romans 9:24 is one, and geographical uses like "Galilee of the ethn=e" are another.

Gentiles in the Flesh in Ephesians 2:11

Ephesians 2:11 says:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands."

The phrase "Gentiles in the flesh" is significant. If "Gentiles" always and only meant "uncircumcised non-Jews," the additional qualifier "in the flesh" could seem redundant. The wording suggests:

• A physical, covenantal status: uncircumcised in the body,
• As distinct from later spiritual realities (e.g., the spiritual circumcision associated with the body of Christ).

Paul distinguishes:

"The Circumcision in the flesh made by hands" Ephesians 2:11

from a non-handmade reality for believers. Thus "Gentiles in the flesh" emphasizes their former status as physically outside Israel’s covenant markers. It supports the point that "Gentile" language must be handled carefully; physical, ritual, and spiritual aspects are all in view.

Circumcision and Uncircumcision as Clearer Technical Terms

Where a text intends to make an incontrovertible distinction between Jews and non-Jews in covenant terms, Scripture often uses "circumcision" and "uncircumcision." These terms are irrefutable markers of covenant and non-covenant status.

By contrast, "Gentiles" and ethn=e require contextual examination. Each occurrence should be tested:

• Is this an ethnic / covenant contrast (Jews vs. non-Jews)?
• Is it national / geographic (Judeans vs. Jews and others in the nations)?
• Does it include Jews scattered among the nations?

Consequently, Romans 9:24 is a prime example where the English word "Gentiles" is best read as referring to Jews of the dispersion, and ethnos in such contexts can indeed encompass Jewish people.

questiontransition