In Luke 19:1-10 we find the account of Zacchaeus, that Jesus said was a "son of Abraham." The vast majority of scholarly commentary I have looked at conclude that Zacchaeus was a blood line Jew. This conclusion seems based on two lines of evidence, one his name, while Greek is based on a Hebrew word, and two that Zacchaeus was also a "son of Abraham" which indicates he was a Jew by bloodline. And this view point may well be the correct one.
However, can we say if a Greek name has a Hebrew basis, that means the so named person is Jewish by blood. Nope. So this line of evidence is suggestive but not determinative.
And since non-Jews who have a faith like Abraham, that is a faith credited as righteous faith by God, (Romans 4:4-5) are considered to be "sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7) this line of evidence is also not conclusive.
Does the distinction matter? Not in the slightest, as we all, Jew and Gentile, must be born anew to enter the kingdom of God.
The point is that when we evaluate interpretive commentary, we need to ask "Is this the least God could be saying and thus not an expansion (addition) or is this view the minimal compelled by logical necessity?
Speculation is the mother of false doctrine.
However, can we say if a Greek name has a Hebrew basis, that means the so named person is Jewish by blood. Nope. So this line of evidence is suggestive but not determinative.
And since non-Jews who have a faith like Abraham, that is a faith credited as righteous faith by God, (Romans 4:4-5) are considered to be "sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7) this line of evidence is also not conclusive.
Does the distinction matter? Not in the slightest, as we all, Jew and Gentile, must be born anew to enter the kingdom of God.
The point is that when we evaluate interpretive commentary, we need to ask "Is this the least God could be saying and thus not an expansion (addition) or is this view the minimal compelled by logical necessity?
Speculation is the mother of false doctrine.
