Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

  1. #21

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    Finding the Lost Sheep


  2. #22

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    Finding the Lost Sheep of Israel


  3. #23

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    Anglo Israel "Identifying God's Chosen" (Documentary)


  4. #24

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    Identity Crisis - Pastor Peter J. Peters


  5. #25

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    A Message to White Christians - Pastor Peter J. Peters


  6. #26

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    King David of Israel - What did he look like?


  7. #27

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    Jesus Appearance...

    Revelation 1:14-16
    14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

    15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

    16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

  8. #28

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    What Does "Adoption" Really Mean?

    by Arnold Kennedy

    The commonly accepted doctrine about Jews and Gentiles provides a basis for the popular thought that non-Israelites can be adopted into Israel. In the Old Testament it is claimed that strangers who became circumcised, kept the Passover and Law of Moses and became as Israel. On the surface this looks to be a reasonable case and appears to fit together in a unified view. However, these views are contested; the intention is to show: 1) That adoption refers to the adoption of sons out of the Children of Israel, 'sons' being huios and 'children' being teknon. 2) That strangers in the Old Testament may often refer to Israelites who were resident among the nations, living apart from the main body of Israel. There are different words for "strangers" in both Testaments, some being foreigners and some being Israelites. (Also included would be other white Adamites. Charles Weisman has said that if an Israelite marries a non-Israel Adamite, the offspring will be Israelites. I think this is confirmed by the fact that if they went to war against such a people, and saw a woman they fancied, they could take her to wife; other races being excluded from that provision by "Thou shalt not commit 'adultery'—to pollute with an admixture, to adulterate.")

    The Word "Adoption"

    The word translated poorly as "adoption" is huiothesia and it occurs only five times in the New Testament. It is not found in the gospels although the proper meaning or principle is there. Before we examine the five Scriptures, and the context in which they are used, it is better to first look at the word huiothesia itself. Lexicons do not agree precisely on the meaning of the word. Typically, they give meanings such as, adoption as a son, but this is a vague compromise. Vine states huiothesia is a composite word consisting of Huios = a son and Thesis—a placing, or setting. Hence it means, the placing of a son or the placing of sons. From Bullinger's comments: Adoption = sonship. An adopted child may partake of all the privileges of the family, yet is not begotten and born in the family. But the subject of this verse are begotten of the Spirit (John 3:6) and are, therefore, sons of God by spiritual generation. It is therefore a real sonship-spirit that enables them to cry 'Abba Father.'

    Once we can penetrate the religious explanation, we find Bullinger is close to the Bible's truth. The Israelites, who were the subject of John 3:6, contain spirit from their conception. They are born with the potential as "children" to be "sons" of God. However, in their dispersed or cast-off state, due to their disobedience and disbelief, they are not acceptable as sons of God. They are still to be "placed" as sons of God and this happens when they prove themselves to be worthy—just as Abraham did—by demonstrating their belief. Until that time they are known merely as children of God.

    Jesus made it crystal clear to Nicodemus that anyone not born of this "spiritual generation" cannot acquire it later in life: John 3:5 "Except a man be born [begotten] again [from above], he cannot [is not able] to see [perceive] the Kingdom of God .... Jesus used anothen [from above] not deuteros [a second time], as Nicodemus did. This is why Jesus said that which is begotten of spirit IS spirit and that which is begotten of flesh IS flesh. Jesus is telling us there are two orders of human beings—those that are of the spirit and those that are of the flesh—spirit beings and natural beings. The spirit-carrying being contains the spirit from conception. The natural or non-carrying being does not contain the spirit at conception and can never acquire it.

    The word huiothesia is never used to mean make anyone a son. It is to place a son. Each son who is placed already exists as a son. The Greek does not suggest making anyone a son and some lexicons point this out—Strong G5206 also gives the placing of a son. Following this up in Thayer we find: "That relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites, in preference to all other nations ... that blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven ...." The word appears in five verses where we should read placing of a son rather than "adoption" and so let us look at the five verses where the word is used.

    The First Adoption Verse

    Rom 8:15 "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption (placing of a son), whereby we cry, Abba, father."

    It is this indwelling spirit which enables those who are begotten from above to cry [krazo] "Abba [Heb.] Father." Dr. Bullinger comments: "Abba that is, Father. It is said that slaves were never allowed to use the word Abba. Strictly, therefore, it can be employed only by those who have received the gift of the Divine nature." Paul continues: verse 16, The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

    We must clearly recognize to whom this book of Romans is written. It was to those who had the Law Covenant. This is why it was necessary to understand that Paul was writing to Israelites only. Only then can we understand what Paul goes on to say in the next verse, verse 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ .... There is no "Jesus" in this verse. It is further pointed out: As xristos [christos] is in the genitive case, it means 'of' or 'belonging to' an anointed. There is no sound reason why the AV should alter this to 'with Christ.' Surely He cannot be regarded as a joint-heir to these promises.

    Consequently, verse 17 is better translated: If we are children then we are heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs belonging to an anointed people. The "joint" heirs refers to all of Israel, that is, the circumcised and the uncircumcised (of heart) who constitute the two parts of the one anointed people.

    The Second Adoption Verse

    Rom 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation (ktisis) groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption (placing as sons), to wit, the redemption of our body."

    In this verse we can see an explanation of what adoption is, namely the redemption of our body. It only remains to establish if this redemption is available to all and sundry. There is no way huiothesia refers to the popular concept of presently bringing non-Israelites into Israel.

    Kitsis refers to the whole Israel nation or the whole creation that is groaning waiting for the placing as sons. This is confirmed in Isaiah 43:1 where we read, But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel. Ktisis (creation) in the whole creation does not mean all races, but means those of the two sections of God's race who are waiting (together) for the placing of Sons—"and not only they" refers to the Uncircumcision or Dispersion, and "but ourselves also" refers to the Israelites of the Circumcision in Judea.

    The Third Adoption Verse

    Rom 9:3,4 "For I would wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh; who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption (placing as sons), and the glory, and the covenants, the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.

    If they are Israelites, then they do NOT include other than Israelites. This must be a difficult passage for those who want to insist on maintaining the traditional teaching that anyone of any seed can become an Israelite. The kinsmen according to the flesh and brethren [from the womb] are straight statements. So is, "Who ARE Israelites."

    To whom was this covenant made? The giving of the Law that pertained to Israel was given by the disposition of messengers (Acts 7:53). The new covenant was made with the same Israel that had the old covenant. Under "disposition" (diatheke), Thayer gives: "As the new and far more excellent bond of friendship which God, in Messiah's time would enter into with the people of Israel." Many lexicons also limit this to Israel, as does the context. To whom was the giving of the Law? This law-giving was to Israel alone (Ps. 147:19-20). To whom are the promises? These were the promises to Israel alone, as children of the Fathers. To whom is the service? Again, this Levitical Law was exclusive to Israel.

    In connection with the last point, see Rom 9:3 and Thayer's comments about "service" or latreia—"The service, or worship of God according to the requirements of Levitical law." The verse itself states who ARE Israelites. So, if they are Israelites only who are placed as sons, where is the scope for saying such placement could possibly refer to non-Israelites? To find any statement, anywhere in Scripture, saying that these things pertain to non-Israelites, is impossible. So, the placing as sons is not for everyone of every race and God sets the limits. Exod. 33:19—"... and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. Rom. 9:18—"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

    God is always sovereign! God is gracious to those that He chooses! Hence this third adoption verse should read, "WHO ARE ISRAELITES, TO WHOM BELONGS THE PLACING OF SONS." This can never refer to a church made up from all races. The subject refers always to the redemption and restoration of Israel [Jacob]. There are no references to other than the re-gathering of Israel. The remnant is always the remnant of Israel, who ARE Israelites. There is no record of any remnant or others outside of Israel.

    The Fourth Adoption Verse

    Galatians 4:5 "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption (placing) of sons."

    The annoying thing with the AV handling of this verse is that it adds "of sons" in this instance but not in the others. This is a very straightforward statement as to whom the Son of God came to redeem. It was those who were under the law [Israel only]. These also are the only ones who can receive the adoption (or placing) of sons. These are the we in the verse. Never is there a proposition in Scripture that others should be redeemed, or needed to be redeemed.

    Strong G1805 exagorazo (redeem) to buy up, that is, ransom; fig. to rescue from loss [improve opportunity] ... redeem ... [to buy out ek as of purchasing a slave to free him].

    Thayer exagorazo (redeem) By pay-ment of a price to recover from the power of another ... metaphoric of Christ freeing the elect from the dominion of the Mosaic law at the price of his vicarious death ... to buy up for one's self, for one's own use.

    It was Israel who was to be bought back by the Redeemer of Israel. The "receive" in this verse contains the prefix apo which makes "receive" mean to receive back again what is due. Therefore these are Israelites who are being re-instated to their former position with God. To receive back again therefore cannot include any who did not originally have this position; it cannot mean non-Israel.

    Galatians 3:24 tells us that the child is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father. But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law. There is a progression from childhood to sonship in this chapter. This sonship is fully realised at the time of manifestation of the sons of God. 'Children of God' is not a title, but 'Sons of God' is a title. Romans 8:18-23 gives the connection with "adoption": verse 18, ... the glory which shall be revealed in us. v. 19 ... the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God ... v. 20 ... hope .... v. 21 ... shall be ... v. 23 ... waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body.

    The time of the manifestation of the sons of God is an important subject. 1 Jn. 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."

    It is pointed out that one does not become a man without first having been a child. The child is under the schoolmaster. The child is the man earlier in time. He is still the same person. HE IS STILL OF THE SAME RACE AND BLOOD-LINE! Today we are taught that anyone of any race can become a son. This is based on the presumption that every person of every race was given the Law of Moses and that all races are the same because, "they all came from Adam." This is manifestly not true!

    The Fifth Adoption Verse

    Eph. 1:5 "Having predestinated as unto the adoption (placing as sons) of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

    Strong G4309 proorizo (predestinate)—to limit in advance or to determine before.

    Thayer: proorizo (predestinate)—To predetermine, decide beforehand, to forordain, to appoint beforehand.

    That there might be any limit in advance on who can become sons might find sentimental objections among sentimental Christians who think that whosoever has no limits. According to the good pleasure of His will might also find sentimental objections, but God is still sovereign and selective, and He is as unchanging as ever. The "good pleasure" (eudokia) is given as: Strong G2107 Satisfaction, delight, purpose etc. Thayer, Delight, pleasure, satisfaction. God does choose according to His purpose! For thelema [His Will], we find: Strong G2307 is a determination ... desire ... will ... pleasure. Thayer: What one wishes or has determined shall be done ... of what God wishes to have done by us. The "us" in the verse is selective and not everyone of every race. Talking of God's selection, the Apostle Paul also asks this question, How is anyone able to argue with God?

    How Can Any Argue with God?

    Rom 9:20-22, Nay but, O man, who art thou who repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it. Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

    Arguing with God is impossible. The we in this book of Romans is those to whom it is written. The relationship of this peculiar people, in particular, to the Law, is an issue in the books of Romans and Galatians. For this reason the argument Paul makes does not apply to all peoples but is limited to the two sections of God's people, Israel.

    Can any really argue with God about His selection and limiting in advance? Paul goes on to tell of the vessels afore prepared unto glory. This is referring to Israelites only in the Book of Life. God determined long ago that it would not be everyone of every race. No, in context, it is to Jews and Greeks [the Israelites in Judea and the Israelites in Dispersion]. Paul again goes on to associate the "Greeks" with those to whom Hosea prophesied, namely the House of Israel.

    What Is the Teaching about Adoption?

    In all five occurences of the word adoption in the New Testament, each is associated with Israel. At this point some might say, So what? Israel is spiritualised in the New Testament. If Israel was not spiritualised when the Apostle Paul wrote his epistles, when was this change made? Again, this is one of the reasons why this point had to be covered in an earlier chapter to show that the common view is not valid. The thrust of Scripture is that the change is within the Israel people who now may receive sonship—that is, be re-instated and placed as Sons of God. It is not a change of non-Israelites into Israelites, but of those sons of Jacob who become worthy to have such a title. 1 John 3:2 tells us that we are now the Sons of God and that when Jesus reappears we shall be like Him.

    Who Are These Sons?

    In the New Testament there are two Greek words translated as "son" or "sons." These words are not interchangeable. The Lexicons give enlarged coverage to these two words, so that the main points only can be presented here.

    1. TEKNON [Strong G5043] This is translated in the KJV as child 77 times, daughter 1 time and son 21 times, and means a child. Vine states: "In contrast to huios, son [see below], it gives prominence to the fact of birth, whereas huios stresses the dignity and character of the relationship." Acts 13:33 ... Thou art My son [huios] ....

    All Israelites are teknon [children] of God but not all Israelites will be called huios [sons] of God. The word huios is used in a way that involves the character, orderliness and discipline of a particular group. From Thayer's compilation we find: "Offspring, children, a male child, a son ... the name transferred to that intimate and reciprocal relationship formed between men by the bonds of love, friendship, trust, just as between parents and children ... in affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers, teachers and the like employ: my child ... in the NT, pupils or disciples are called children of their teachers, because the latter by their instruction nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their characters ... children of God: in the OT of "the people of Israel" as especially dear to God, in the NT, in Paul's writings, all who are led by the Spirit of God and thus closely related to God" ....

    The religious tone of the comment almost buries the truth! When were the Children of Israel ever downgraded to the status of being mere "dear" to God! But despite this bias, it seems they still cannot get away from the basic fact the Children of Israel were in a different relationship with God in comparison with all other races.

    2. HUIOS [Strong G5207] This word occurs 380 times, and is translated mainly as "son," or "child." It does denote kinship [Note this well!]

    Thayer: A son; rarely used for the young of animals; generally used of the offspring of men ... in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of anyone ... used to describe those who are born again ... and hereafter in the blessedness and glory of life eternal will openly wear this dignity of the sons of God.

    Vine: Primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent. [John 9:18-20 and Gal 4:30].

    Although Thayer's comments reflect those of the church, the special nature of those who are begotten from above [not born again] is nevertheless present. This goes to show how vigilant we have to be when we read the lexicons and other such references—they all have their built-in religious beliefs that colour their discussions. Let us look at some of the verses where huios is found:

    Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Rom. 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Gal. 4:5 ... that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son: and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 2 Cor. 6:18 ... ye shall be my sons and daughters .... Heb, 2:10 ... in bringing many sons unto glory ....

    The important thing to establish is the origin of these sons of God. What is clear is that they come from a state of servanthood under the Law. From there they come to a state where they can be placed in sonship. That they do not originate from those who were never under the Law is clear. There is no possible way adoption can relate to the adoption of non-Israelites into Israel.

    There is another point in Greek which might help understanding of this subject. If we consider Galatians 4:5 again, that we might receive the adoption of Sons, the word apo-lambano (receive) is a compound word. The prefix apo has the force of back again. These particular people must be receiving something back which they had possessed at some previous time. Hosea, prophesying to Israel, nails this: Hosea 1:10 "... and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them [that is, Israel] ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." In this verse My People and Sons are different terms.

    He Came Unto His Own

    John 1:11-12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God ....

    Once again, we need to determine the origin of the Sons of God. They are from among His own. Jesus came to His own possessions but those in control of these possessions [... the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat ...] did not receive Him as the owner [see Matt. 21:38]. On the other hand, the common people there heard Him gladly and recognised His authority. Their belief enabled them to become the Sons of God once again. The rulers who questioned His authority are to be cast out. As many [that is, of Israel] as are led by the Spirit, they are the Sons of God (Rom. 8:14). This is the qualification. It is from this verse that the verses containing the word "adoption" follow on. We dare not change this context!

  9. #29

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    Galatians and Israel Exclusive

    by Arnold Kennedy

    Although Identity believers are convinced of the basic concepts of identity, that is:
    That Jesus came to save "His people" from their sins.
    That Jesus says He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
    The Law and the Word was given as a covenant to Israel only.
    That Israel in the New Testament is still the same people they were in the Old Testament.
    That the so-called Gentiles in Romans and Galatians could only be Israelites.
    That "The Jews" of the New Testament are not Israelites, that is, they are not Judahites.

    ... they still have areas, particularly in the book of Galatians, where they tend to get tossed about by every wind of doctrine, especially in regard to the words Greeks, together with the difference between Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus. To say that the words are always interchangeable is a presumption. Churches allow the presumption, even if it is an error, as we shall see.

    In two critical verses, Galatians 3:16 and Gal 3:29, the word, christos, is used. The word simply means "anointed." The concordances erroneously present things like, Christ, The Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. This is saying that "christ" is a surname of Jesus. This stays in people's minds as if it were the truth, because we have been taught to think that way from usage. This is far from right. When we see the expression "Jesus Christ" it is hard to imagine why the Apostle Paul chose to leave Iesou [Jesus] out in some passages whereas he chose to put in others, without having some reason for doing so. In both Gal 3:16 and Gal 3:29 the word Iesou (Jesus) is not there:

    3:16 but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.

    3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    In these two critical verses we have something else which is anointed! What can it be? What is the subject? Is it not the seed of Abraham, in their generations, according to the original promise? Hence Gal. 3:16 reads and to thy seed which is anointed and Gal. 3:29 reads and if ye be an anointed (people) then ye are Abraham's seed. The churches try to spiritualize the matter of Abraham's seed. We will look at this first.

    Can the Promises Made to Abraham's Seed Be Spiritualised?

    This is a major issue! That is, are people of every race who are "converted" now the seed of Abraham? Is Jesus the epitome of the whole group? Churches say this as if Jesus had a seed in fact! Answers in the affirmative are the foundation of the traditional teachings. They have become the standard teachings since the Reformation. In essence they teach a generalisation that God does not [and did not] exhibit His Sovereign nature and make choices on a national or racial basis. That this is clear in the Old Testament is partially accepted by them, but any suggestion that God has not changed in the New Testament is rejected absolutely.

    Historically, Rome brought in the teaching that she was the one true church and that anyone of any race could be converted into the church by acceptance of that church's dogmas, sacraments and traditions. The Roman church taught that she was Israel. Anyone who was not of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church was stated to be a Gentile. This concept has carried into Protestantism from Bible translations based on the Latin Vulgate. Instead of meaning a non-Roman, "gentile" has come to mean a non-Israelite. This was the concept that Martin Luther had, as did some of the reformers. The word "gentile" has been a problem ever since. The present view held by the churches has its origin with the Roman Mother of Harlots and is not in Scripture.

    Translators render ethnos (nations) in different ways. They do likewise with the word hellen (Greek). Both hellen and ethnos are translated as "gentile" when it suits the translators, in order to perpetuate the Roman doctrine. Presumably it was considered that because the Greeks were not of the Jewish nation, they were not considered to be Israelites. In the Old Testament, we find promises that are made to Abraham which carry through to Abraham's seed, through Isaac. That is, they are made to the people of Israel. The question that arises is, If the promises were made to Jesus, as being that promised 'seed' of Gal. 3:16, does this mean that Jesus is Israel? The teaching that Jesus was the promised seed of Gal. 3:16 is seen to be false, when the verse is carefully translated, directly from the Greek

    Now to Abraham and to the seed of him, the promises were spoken. He says not, And to the seeds as of many, but as of one, and to the seed of thee which is anointed. Gal. 3:29 supports this translation and a careful translation gives:

    But if you are belonging to an anointed [people], then you are of the seed belonging to Abraham, and heirs according to promise.

    Note well that it is "you", not Jesus who is Abraham's seed. "You" here is emphatic and plural.

    In the AV verses we find interesting words like, Abraham and his seed, promises, as of one, Christ and heirs according to the promise. Each of these phrases in the Greek presents a different picture from what is presented by the churches. In Scripture, Jesus is, amongst other things:
    1. The Redeemer of Israel
    2. The Saviour of Israel
    3. The King of Israel

    If the seed of Jesus is now spiritual Israel, then Jesus would have to be His own redeemer. But in fact, Jesus has no "seed."

    Who Are These "Heirs according to the Promise?

    The latter part of verse 29 tells us a lot more, and it helps us to understand more about the but as of one in verse 16, the word kleronomos (heir) means a sharer by lot or getting by apportionment [Strong G2818] and Thayer confirms, one who receives by lot. The promise is epaggelia [Strong G1860] and means a divine assurance or pledge. What was the pledge God made? To whom was it made? To whom was it later confirmed? To find out and to be certain, we must consider the original covenant.

    Who Is the Seed to Whom the Original Covenants Were Made?

    Addressing Abraham, God says, And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee (Gen. 17:1).

    Here we have to note some important things. If Jesus is the one seed, then all generations between Abraham and Jesus have been dis-inherited from the covenant! If we say that this promise was made only to Abraham and to "Christ," then it could not have been also confirmed to Isaac and Jacob and their descendants. But it was in fact confirmed to Isaac and Jacob; thus it includes those living between Abraham and Jesus and to Jacob's descendants after the time of Jesus.

    Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Rom. 15:8).

    Scripture says the promises were made to The Fathers and not "Jesus Christ." We are not told that Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Himself, are we? So, the fulfilment must be taken the way it is stated in Scripture. It is fulfilled in the seed of the Fathers. Looking again at the AV version of Galatians 3:16, now unto Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ, we can see by this statement that there is a limitation of the promise to just one party, namely "the fathers." Being of Israel, Jesus would be of that party. Here we have to ask a very simple question, and that is, if "christ" (an anointed) means "Jesus Christ" would this not mean, that as Jesus was called 'God with us', He would be making a covenant with Himself?

    What purpose would there be for God to make a covenant with Himself? Sincere seekers are misled by this translation which puts a capital 'C' in christ, because it tries to say that the seed of Abraham is now the seed of Jesus. There is no in their generations when taken this way. The divine pledge of Genesis 17:7 was made to Abraham and would not be valid if it was not for all generations, or in their generations. In their generations is plural! Yes? Jesus is singular! Yes? Therefore the interpretation of and thy seed which is Christ, must be wrong. That the usual interpretation is quite unacceptable can be concluded without great depth of Greek study. R. K. Phillips in his What Saith the Scriptures reads the Greek text of Gal. 3 this way:

    Verse 26 For ye are all Sons of God through faith, in an anointed [people] of [belonging to] Jesus [christo is representing a noun in this phrase].

    Verse 29 And, if ye belong to an anointed [people] then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise.

    Now before anybody rises up in wrath and indignation, let me agree at once that 'Iesou' is the same for the dative form as for the genitive form, so 'en christo Iesou' has two possible translations: 1) In an anointed [one] Jesus, which simply means Jesus Christ. 2) In an anointed [people] of [belonging to] Jesus.

    Then Mr. Phillips asks what excuse there might be for not translating the word Christo/s/ou, pointing out that a transliterated word means nothing in another language. He also points out that checking this with a concordance will only repeat the error of the translators.

    Note: When we consider Gal. 3:26 and 29, christos is used as the dative and genitive cases respectively. The dative must be used after the preposition en in verse 26 (in an anointed). In verse 29 it occurs as the genitive, of, or belonging to an anointed.

    If we want to keep on choosing a translation which is not in context to prove a point then we must be making a mistake. This is trying to make the verse fit the theory! One of the reasons why the latter translation is not acceptable was given by a Greek "expert" as being, because the Gentiles are not Israelites. But, as the so-called Gentiles that the Apostle Paul addressed in Scripture were outcast Israelites, then the latter translation must be right in this context. It is understandable why the first translation is accepted almost universally. Firstly, it is because of the misuse of "gentile," and secondly because the word christos has been transliterated to always mean 'Jesus Christ,' by translators from early times and this is the problem.

    "As of One" and "The Anointed Seed"

    Gal. 3:16, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    This expression, as of one in this verse is commonly taken as as of ONE, inferring Jesus is the ONE. This is the historical interpretation and most commentaries and lexicons comment from this basis. Many will make comments like, a unique use of the singular [Vine] or will admit that this tends to be at variance with the genius of the original languages.

    Vine: "The children of the promise are counted for the 'seed' points firstly to Isaac's birth .... The 'children of the promise' indicates that the seed are indeed plural." From the many meanings of heis (one), it is possible to regard either Jesus or Isaac as being the "one" seed of Gal. 3:16. Abraham had six sons apart from Isaac and these are who this verse refers to as the many. But the seed as of one refers to Abraham (and Sarah)'s seed which was IN Isaac (Gen. 21:12), that is, Jacob and his descendants. Romans 9:7 confirms that Isaac is the 'one seed'—But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. This shows the fulfilment of Genesis 21:12 as being in Isaac's seed. Then the Scripture continues on to say that Isaac is the one or the "one seed."

    Rom. 9:10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; So the one here is Isaac, and not Jesus. If we accept the meaning that it is the seed of Abraham through Isaac which is anointed, does Scripture make better sense? Do both Testaments then agree? Do they not then witness together?

    "In Christ" or "In Jesus"

    The churches today use the expression in Jesus when at times they should use in christ or vice-versa. This is not just splitting hairs. The Bible expression in christ may be a far cry from in Jesus. The expression in Jesus comes from the doctrine that is in question here. In Jesus, covers up the meaning of in christ (in an anointed), the latter sometimes having to do with a certain anointed people. These people can be found through both Testaments. They are that way from conception. But being born that way (in christ (in an anointed people)) does not make them in Jesus under the New Testament.

    When we consider that Iesou (Jesus) occurs 683 times and the word christos (christ) only 300 times, why should we treat them as being interchangeable? The text joins them together when they should be joined together. The Apostle Paul sometimes joined them together and sometimes he did not. He must have had a reason. God must have had a reason. But the churches think of both words as always having the same meaning, despite the variety of combinations and grammar in which the words are used.

    Let us consider an example to show the point. 2 Cor. 6:15—"... what concord hath Christ with Belial? ..." Young's Concordance points out that 'Belial' should not be regarded as a proper name and Belial simply means a worthless person. In the Old Testament, Belial categorises a particular type of person. In this context we can either assert Jesus has some association with Belial-type people or we can translate it properly as what concord hath an anointed (person) with Belial (worthless person). This is in keeping with the context of the chapter, which contrasts several other classes of things with each other. Notice that each class is of the same type:
    1. Righteous with unrighteous (two classes of behaviour)
    2. Light with darkness (two components of visible spectrum)
    3. Believer with an infidel (two types of spiritual attitude)
    4. Temple of God with idols (two attitudes)

    Therefore we can go contrary to the other instances and compare "christ" (taken as a specific person) with Belial (a category of person) or we can compare an anointed person (a type of person) with Belial (a type of person).

    Heb 11:26, (Moses) esteeming the reproach of christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt .... What did Moses know at that time about Jesus if Jesus was Christ in this context? Jesus had not then been born. His name shall be called Jesus, but He was not so named at the time of Moses. What Moses did know about in his day was the anointed people! To deny this is to show an impossible bias to believe a lie. Strong words. They need to be! Moses esteemed the reproach of an anointed people greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. The account of Moses' life bears this out—the fact that he identified with the Israelites, after having been raised in Pharaoh's household, and slew the Egyptian, and suffered by having to run for his life, rather than live on in the palace and become Pharaoh in due course.

    To become absolutely clear about the use of the word christos, it is necessary to determine if this was the name God gave to His Son, or if it was a title given Him by men. It can be demonstrated that the word is sometimes a common noun in the New Testament and that it is sometimes a proper noun or title.

    The Mediator

    Gal. 3:19-20, Wherefore serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

    God had made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, in their generations, which was not displaced through the Law. The law was added because of transgressions, until the seed arrived to whom the promise had been made in the will (verses 19, 29). This seed still has to be Abraham's seed, in their generations for the promise made to Abraham to remain valid. Now, this mediator must be in the middle of two parties. He cannot be one of the parties, can He? 1 Tim. 2:5 tells us that there is one mediator between God and man. Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, "all" being all of those who were being bought back. This is Israel alone! If God is one as we are told, could the Law be directly opposed to the promise? The mediator of the New Testament God made with Israel, was the man Jesus Anointed. The mediation was with the same people who broke the Old Testament. The heirs are still the same people. The next chapter of Galatians confirms them as being those who were under the Law. This is Israel ALONE! The Law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Jesus who fulfilled the added law (of sacrifice) by making the ultimate sacrifice and thereby doing away with the added law. There is no scope at all to include any other peoples.

    Whatever one believes about this matter is mostly influenced by what is taken to be the meaning of the word "gentile." The wording of the translations are in line with the beliefs of the translators and it is this that creates the difficulties in understanding. Some scholars even say that they translate the way they do because they say the word "gentile" must apply to all non-Israelites. Why ever must it so apply? This is the preconception most Christians have. The word essentially refers to Israelites who were at that time scattered throughout the nations of the known world and especially the nations of the former Greek empire. When we accept who the Gentiles are, then it is no longer necessary to bend it is written to fit the popular belief. Then we find harmony between the promise and their New Testament fulfilment. It is interesting to note that while Paul mentioned several times about going to the "gentiles" there is no record of him ever having gone to non-Israelites!

    "Neither Jew nor Greek

    Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. If we apply what we have learnt about christos to this passage, we find it reads: for ye are all one in an anointed [people]. This is parallel with:

    1 Cor. 12:13 For by spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles (Hellen—Greeks), whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit.

    In saying that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks, it must be noted that the terms are national rather than racial. Both are of one descent from Israel, as Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:29). All Israelites, whether Judean or Greek speaking, whether male or female, or whether slaves or masters, are accepted. These two verses say the same thing and the interesting thing here is again in the translations. In both verses "Greeks" and "Gentiles" are the same word Hellen in the Greek text. Even the NIV translates Hellen as "Gentiles" in the book of Romans more than once because this suits the doctrine of the translators, but they are willing to translate the same word as "Greeks" in Corinthians. How dare they do this? Hellen is not even remotely like ethnos.

    In Galatians 3:28 there is something in common between the "Jews" and the "Greeks" that links them together. In Gal. 3:16 and 3:29 we found it is the anointing (christos) and in 1 Cor. 12:13 it is one spirit. The common linking factor is "anointing" and "spirit." Please do not dismiss this subject of the anointed race. Tradition has avoided it to accommodate their form of "Jews and Gentiles" doctrine.

    Now, when we go back, it can be seen how this all ties up. As we have seen before, the two parties are: 1) Israelites in Judea—The Circumcision, 2) Israelites of the Dispersion—The Uncircumcision—or the dispersed among the Greeks. The New Testament re-unites the Judean Israelites and the Dispersion into One Body by Calvary. The whole of Israel is the one body. The expression "dispersion" is what we find in John 7:35 where the Pharisees said, Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles [more correctly translated, the dispersion among the Greeks].

    In Ephesians 2:11-22 it is no different. The Dispersion had become (were) as strangers but through the same Spirit, with which they were anointed they were able to be reconciled unto God in one body by "the cross," or stake. In one body there is no difference between the Israelite Judeans and the Dispersion.

    Eph. 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit, unto the Father. The 'both' are the two groups (Judean and Dispersed Israelites), or two parts of the one body, having access by the one Spirit. Then there is also the presentation in Ephesians where we find, The Commonwealth of Israel.

    Eph. 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope (because of your cast off state), and without God in the world (order) ....

    The commonwealth, [according to reference 4174 in Thayer's Lexicon], is spoken of as the theocratic or divine commonwealth. The people being addressed by Paul were not currently subject under this divine administration. When they submitted to this administration, they became one with those who were already subject, so then there was no difference. Paul confirms this in Romans 10:12 where he declares, For there is no dfference between the Jew (Judean) and the Greek (Dispersion), for the Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [In context "all" is all of the 'Jews' and 'Greeks' meaning all of the Israelite Judeans and the Dispersion]. The word difference is used as of musical instruments being in tune [Thayer 1293]. Before someone jumps up and down to say that Ephesians 2:12 says these "gentiles" were without Christ and therefore could not have been anointed from physical birth, it must be pointed out that there are two different withouts in the verse.

    Eph. 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.

    The first is choris [Strong G5565] which means "separately" or "by itself." These "Gentile Israelites" were on their own apart and separate from the Israelites in Judea but they still had the anointing that came with their birth.

    The second "without" is athoes and means "God-less" [Strong G112], but they were still Israelites, although they were God-less, in this sense. With this understanding, the whole Bible does not conflict any more in this area. The promises made to the Fathers are fulfilled and in us their children and in their generations and not in some mythical non-Israelite Gentiles or Church that has no 'children' or 'generations.' So we can see that in no way could non-Israelites be genetic children of the Fathers.

    Who Are the Greeks?

    John 7:35 Whither shall he go that we shall not find him? will he go to the dispersed among the Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks], and teach the Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks]?

    The dispersed among the Greeks (John 7:35) is a telling expression. Who would they be talking about as being the dispersed? Historically and Biblically, it cannot be any but the House of Israel and the bulk of the House of Judah. That this is so accords with prophecy. Hence as we shall see, "Greeks" is used as a synonym throughout the New Testament for the Dispersion located amongst the nations of the former Greek empire. To talk about non-Jews being scattered among non-Jews would be silly and meaningless.

    In this verse we have another instance of Hellen as "gentile" instead of "Greek." If we were to take the meaning of "gentiles" as belonging to other nations referring to Israelites scattered among other nations, this would be acceptable. This mistranslation is also found in the following places where it is rendered as "gentiles." [Note: By 'Judean' we mean 'Israelites of Judea' exclusive of other races from Judea].

    Rom. 2:10 To the Jew [Judean] first, and also to the Gentile [Hellen: Greek].

    Rom. 3:9 ... for we have proved both Jews and Gentiles [Judeans and Hellen: Greeks], that they are all under sin.

    1 Cor. 10:32 Give no offense, neither to the Jews [Judeans], nor to the Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks], nor to the church [assembly of called-out ones] of God.

    1 Cor. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles [Judeans or Hellen: Greeks] ....

    Now what do these mistranslations do to all that is commonly taught? The mistranslations disguise who is being addressed each time Hellen is used as opposed to ethnos. They disguise that they are Israelites of the Dispersion. We are told a Syrophenician woman was a Greek by nationality (Mark 7:26). But she was an Israelite by race. Genos has to do with kin, family, stock, or a particular people. Mark is telling us of two things, her birth place and her racial origin as being a Greek. That Jesus did not at that time immediately speak to her was because He had not yet been rejected by the Judean side of Israel. This does not say that this woman was not an Israelite. This only shows again that there were two parts of Israel. This woman called Jesus Son of David and she came to ask Jesus for something. The word used for "asked" is aiteo which is used indicating familiarity or of being on an equal footing with the person of whom the request is being made. That the Judeans thought of the Dispersion as "dogs" is well known. She is described as kunarion, or a little dog, but these ate from the table of their masters! Jesus told her that her faith was great. She knew from the Word of God that THE Nations of Israel would be blessed and she came for her blessing. Jesus said that He did this for this saying which she said. There was a reason for Him to say this. Yet, today we are taught that she is an example of a non-Israelite "Gentile" obtaining a healing from Jesus!

    In the Book of Romans

    ... we find that the corrected translation of Hellen as "Greeks" rather than "gentiles" gives a whole new direction. Both "Judeans and the Dispersion" are parts of the one body. There is a common connection with the Law which was given only to Israel (Ps. 147:19-20) as a whole. Paul tells of the work of the Law written on their hearts. This is a fulfilment of prophecy given only to and about Israel (Jer. 31:31), under the new covenant. At that time only one part [the Judean side] of the whole race of Israel was acknowledging the Law. The other side of Israel was called the Uncircumcision because they were not acknoweledging the Law. But both parts are concluded under sin. Throughout this Book of Romans there is much reference to the Law. The Book is written to those who were under the Law (Rom. 3:19), that is, to Israel. The book is not addressed to other races.

    In 1 Corinthians

    ... 12:13, mentioned above, is another place where Hellen is translated as "Gentile" instead of "Greeks." The section begins with a definition in the first verse as to who these "Greeks" were: ... how that our fathers ... all passed through the sea ... were all baptized unto Moses .... (l Cor. 10:1). This could not be said of any non-Israelite race. This whole passage tells they were Israelites. It tells of their early history!

    For by one spirit are we baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks] .... (1 Cor. 12:13). That is, whether from Judea or from the Dispersion. This is what has been shown earlier where the common factor connecting these two peoples was the One Spirit and the Anointing. But, why does the Apostle Paul not use the word ethnos which is often also translated as "gentile"? Why does Paul specify hellen (or Greek) when it comes to important doctrine? Could this be in order that there might be no mistake about his meaning? Is it that there might be no mistake about who he is isolating? Paul was writing to his 'brethren'—fellow Israelites scattered in Asia and nearby areas, as opposed to the former nations of Israel as they were known in the Old Testament.

    In All the New Testament

    ... we must register that the word Hellen (Greeks) and its variations are used thirty-five times. This is a lot of times! There is never one proposition that the word might mean someone who is not an Israelite. The translators seem to have thought that this should have been so because they at times switch the translation to "gentiles," which they thought might suggest non-Israelites. There is no explanation ever presented to support the view that "Greeks" means all the "non-Jewish" races.

    From history we find just where the body of the Dispersion was at that time following the captivities in Assyria and Babylon. They were about parts of the old Greek empire—in Northern Greece and Asia Minor. It is not unreasonable then that they should be called "Greeks," because this is where they were found. We can also see this from where the Apostle Paul travelled; this is the area where they were. It does not say that they were Greeks by race or that they were non-Israelites. The concordances suggest that they were "Greek speaking."

    Comment: The Apostle Paul came from the city of Tarsus in Cilicia; this made him one of the "Greeks." He was a Hebrew by birth, a Benjaminite by tribe, and a Roman by citizenship. And he was a "Jew" (Judean) because he was brought up in Judea and a Pharisee, trained in Judaism. [Never forget these dual meanings of "Jew"!] A national term does not determine racial origin in itself. Can anyone be justified in continuing to say that race and birthplace are always the same to prove a doctrine? Yet, this is what we hear as common teaching!

    Children of Promise

    Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. This passage is an allegory (verse 24) and a comparison of the relationships between those who are under the Law and those of them who have become partakers of the promise under the New Testament. The Law is the issue all the way through. The issue is not Israelites and non-Israelites, because the non-Israelites have never had the Law-covenant in the first place. In verse 5 we are told Jesus came to redeem them who were under the Law that WE might receive the adoption (placing) of (as) sons. There is never a suggestion about any who were not "brethren" being redeemed or of receiving the adoption. They all have to be brothers or "brethren" of the same race. They are all adelphos or kinsmen from the same womb. Some will not like this definition so, let us consider some lexicon and dictionary sources.

    The Word 'Brethren'

    Thayer: From the same womb ... a brother ... any blood relation or kinsmen ... having the same ancestor ... belonging to the same people ... a fellow-man ... one having descended from the same father.

    Vine: Adelphos denotes a brother or near kinsmen. In the plural, a community based on identity of origin of life.

    Davidson: Adelphos [A plus delphus the womb] a brother, a near kinsmen relative; one of the same nation or nature.

    Bullinger: Adelphos = brother, or gen, near kinsmen, then in the plural, a community based on identity of origin.

    This word is translated over 100 times as brother, for example, Peter and James his brother (Matt. 4:18); James and John, his brother (Matt. 17:1). When we read this word, brethren, as used in all the epistles, we can now see exactly what the word means. They are not spiritual brethren! They are kinsmen. They are all Israelites! In no way can they be fellow-believers from all non-kinsman races. We will be looking at this again. These are the ones who are told to look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged, look unto Abraham your father, and Sarah that bare you.... (Isaiah 51:1-2). This limits the scope to those who came from Abraham and Sarah.

    Isaac ... Hearing Faith ... and Freeborn Sons

    All that will be said here is that again we have, in Gal. 4;29, what was mentioned earlier about born of the Spirit. This is the allegorical equivalent of the anointed people being conceived containing that spirit. Those people could remain under the Law, or come under Grace. They are the same people who began under the Law (Gal. 3:3). They were able to subject themselves either to the works of the Law or to the hearing faith (Gal. 3:5) and to become righteous through hearing, believing and doing what God asked, as Abraham did. They were never justified just because they were born Israelites. The term "freeborn sons" that some use is used to suggest that somehow this can refer to other than Israelites.

    Acts 13:39 And by him (i.e., Jesus) all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses.

    The Apostle Paul was talking again about the fulfilment of the promises that had been made to the fathers OF ISRAEL, as those people who had been given the Law of Moses. Law and grace are an issue to Israel only. The Edomite leaders of the Judean nation thought that physical birth gave them the right status with God when they protested that Abraham was their father, but Jesus made it clear to them they were not Abraham's children. In John 8:37 we can see that there is a difference between Abraham's seed and Abraham's children. Jesus said to them, ye cannot hear my words. Likewise Ishmael who was born after the flesh could not (and cannot) "hear." He is cast out. The linear descendants through Isaac could still be fools and be slow of heart to believe. They could be deceived or be bewitched. The truth is to be obeyed. Jesus had been evidently set forth crucified among you. Paul was specific as to who he was addressing. It is these Israelites who have to choose, not other races.

    James 2:21-22 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his sons upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made petfect? NOTE: in this section in the book of James about faith and works, the our in Abraham OUR father is written unto Twelve Tribes (James 1:1). Be fair here. Where is it declared that this is written to anyone else? He begat US with the word of Truth (James 1:18). Where is it written that He begets any other than Israelites by the Word of Truth?

    In Thee Shall All Nations Be Blessed

    Gal 3:7-9 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture foreseeing that God would justin, the heathen through faith, preached (proclaimed) before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

    This verse together with the verses below, are favoured by universalists because they seem to present a universal gospel for all races. "Nations" is sometimes translated emotively as "Heathen" to try to add weight to the universal argument. To understand any passage of Scripture it is necessary to look at it as a whole by going back to the prophecy behind it to see what it is fulfilling.

    To Abraham: Gen. 12:2-3 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and will curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Gen. 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? Gen. 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou host obeyed my voice.

    To Isaac: Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath that I sware unto Abraham thy father.

    To Jacob: Gen 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

    To Israel: Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

    Here are six important verses which are used to support the doctrine of universal racial salvation. Indeed, they do appear to give valid support on the surface. But do they actually say what the religious translators make them say? Is this the problem here?

    The "Families of the Earth" Being Blessed in Abraham

    The major source of error in these blessing passages is what we mean by certain words. We have different words translated as earth and the ground, countries and the land, as also occurs with the words translated nations, families and kindreds. Although an extensive technical Hebrew language exposition is beyond the scope of this article, there are things that need to be pointed out.

    Originally Abraham was told to go from his father's house unto an eretz that God would show him. If eretz here is the whole earth, then Abraham must have gone to another planet! Abraham was told all the 'Earth' which thou seest, I will give thee. He was told to arise and walk through the earth. Did he walk across the whole globe? So we have to ask if this 'earth' is the whole earth or the promised land. It is not all the eretz of all the races on earth. Abraham was told to get himself out of his present earth and to go to THE earth. There are many references which give confirmation of the meaning. THE earth does not mean the whole globe, but rather that portion belonging to the particular area or person under consideration. Contrary to popular presentation, we must note that in Genesis 12:3, the 'them' in I will bless them is plural, whereas the 'him' in I will curse him is singular. The Hebrew allows for two possible translations of be blessed, namely:

    may be blessed in, or by, association with thee, and

    may bless themselves [as the RV footnote says].

    Some awkward questions could be posed here if it was to be taken that all nations had the meaning of 'every race on earth.'
    1. If those who curse Abraham are cursed, how could those so cursed be part of all nations which were to be blessed?
    2. Were the Egyptians blessed or cursed through Israel's presence during their captivity and also in the Exodus?
    3. When the Children of Israel went into the Promised Land, they were told to exterminate all the Canaanite nations. Was that an unusual way of blessing the Canaanites? After all, they were supposed to be a part of all nations. Likewise Amalek was to be exterminated.
    4. In Deut. 23:6, God commanded Israel that they should not seek the peace or prosperity of the Ammonites and the Moabites right up to the end of the age. Ezra 9:12 indicates similar treatment of the non-Israelites in the land. This is hardly a blessing on those nations, is it?
    5. When the House of Judah was in captivity in Babylon, is there any evidence of Israel being a blessing to Babylon?
    6. When the House of Judah was in captivity in Assyria, did this make the Assyrians blossom?
    7. In prophecy why are all the forecasts concerning non-Israel nations always detailing them as being servants to Israel, and for them to perish if they refuse this destiny? This is so right up to the end of the age.
    8. The promise to Abraham was to "ALL" nations without exceptions. "All" cannot include those who are cursed and those God says that He hates. Hence "all" means all the nations of Israel.

    Throughout Scripture, Israel was to dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations (Numbers 23:9). Prophecy sustains this to the end. Dan. 7:27 And the kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve him.

    Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Zech 14:16-17 And it shall come to pass, that everyone that is left of all the nations which came up against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

    Israel and Judah were scattered among all nations, but are these other nations to be blessed? Jeremiah does not agree.

    Jer 30:11 ... though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet I will not make a full end of thee .... Jeremiah repeats this in Jer. 46:28, addressing this to Jacob. In all these Scriptures we can see the unique place of Israel among the other nations. This continues after Jesus returns and Israel reigns with God over the other nations. Finally there will be no more death. What a blessing!

    The Promise and "Thy Seed" in the New Testament

    Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Only Israelites are being addressed here! We can find references in Scripture to the families (plural) of Israel. "Kindreds" is patriai which all lexicons give as kindreds from one ancestor. The Hebrew mishpachah supports 'family' 288 times and it is used of the subdivisions of Israel. The Tribes became national identities but were of one racial group from one ancestor. Israel is still an exclusive race existing as families or nations. It is unto these Jesus was sent.

    Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning every one of you from his iniquities. In context, you still is the Israelites being addressed.

    As we said, without continual recourse to the Old Testament origins, it is impossible to rightly interpret passages in the New Testament. Only by going back can we know what all nations means and only then find a doctrine that is 100% consistent. Galatians 3:8 can no longer be allowed as an "out" for those preaching universal racial salvation. When we take Scripture as originally written in the Hebrew and Greek, we find that conflicts disappear. We can understand that an exclusive Israel in the Old Testament remains an exclusive Istael in the New Testament. The promises are ever fulfilled in us their children and never in others. They are fulfilled in brethren of the same kin. The blessings of the Patriarchs [as given by Jacob in Gen. 48 and by Moses in Deut. 33] for the last days still apply separately to each of that same group of peoples, who are being specified. These are the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. In Gen. 49 Jacob gives his prophecy about what will befall each individual Tribe of Israel, in the last days. These are limited, specific to definite. We cannot find prophecy for the application of the blessings given by the patriarchs as being applicable to all other races. This is why all nations is commonly taken wrongly today as meaning every race on earth. The statement of Romans 4:11, a father of them that believe is only in the context of Israel.

    For the last days, Jacob gave his blessings to his children one by one (Gen. 49). The blessings were to his seed only. They were not to other seeds. The New Testament is still made only with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Heb 8:8). The word children in Gal. 3:7 [the children of Abraham] is huios which denotes kinship or physical offspring. [Note: The word is also used of animals, so it cannot refer to spiritual offspring in the way commonly taken!]

    How can the Patriarchal blessings apply to all races? If they were all the same, what would be the point of separation? And, if they are for the "last days," why not accept this as a reality, rather than saying that some singular multi-racial church that has nothing to do with these Twelve Tribes is the recipient of these blessings? As has been pointed out, translators show that they believe in their translations. For instance, in Gal. 3:8 the words translated heathen and nations are identical. The translation as heathen gives an entirely different connotation to the verse. The nations whom God would justify by belief were not heathen, but were of Israel. The proof of this is that this is the fulfilment of the prophecy made by the Patriarchs. This is confirmed—by him are you justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses .... These justified people must have first been under the Law of Moses, so they could only be Israelites. Most of this book of Galatians is written relating Law and Grace to the one people. The whole argument might be summed up by questioning whether or not they were going to remain under the schoolmaster or whether they were going to believe God as Abraham did. What they were to believe was that Jesus had redeemed Israel and that Jesus was the Son of God.

    Ultimately, that which is reserved for Israel, namely redemption, salvation, resurrection to eternal life, belongs only to Israel. It is their inheritance from Abraham, according to the promise made by God to the fathers of Israel.

  10. #30

    Re: True Israel, Migrations, Etc.

    THE MARKS OF ISRAEL
    By - COL. GORDON "JACK" MOHR
    For Christ and Country


    How strange it is, that with all the definite and positive assurances in the Word of God as to Israel's continuance forever as a Nation, there has never been any continued or persistent effort on the part of genuine Bible believers to find them. That they have been content to let them fade away and vanish into nothingness is surely a deep reproach on all true Christians.

    There is, however, one probable explanation. It was GOD'S WILL AND PURPOSE TO HIDE THEM. While the Jews (some of whom are only a part of the Rouse of Judah) occupied the stage, and even called themselves "Israel", God could work unhindered with and in "Lost Israel", till he had finished his predetermined work, and without them knowing they were the people of the Book. Only as Israel's time of punishment had run out, with the whole of God's purposes at the point of complete fulfillment, was the identity of Israel to become known.

    However, it is a matter of inspired record that God placed "marks" on His people Israel. During the Christian dispensation, Lost Israel was to possess these marks of identification. So then, if we can discover the nations and people with Israel's marks, we have found the people whom God chose to serve Him to be a channel of blessing to all mankind. The God-given marks are very many, and while the following list is not exhaustive, they constitute a chain of evidence utterly impossible to ignore.

    One race, and one race alone, has all these marks. Nations within this race may have only a portion of them, but the race as a whole has them all. With a few exceptions, Joseph (the birthright nation) was the recipient of them all. By inheritance, his two sons, Ephraim (Great Britain) and Manasseh (U.S.A.) will be found possessing them all.

    While Israelites remain in other countries, America is the home of millions of all the thirteen tribes (one out of many) and thus is representative of the whole House of Jacob. We are bound by Israel's responsibilities; fulfilling Israel's destiny. The MARKS are on us everywhere; in our NAME; in our SABBATH; in our INSTITUTIONS; in our PHILANTHROPY; in our COMMERCE; in our WEALTH; in our MINES; in our AGRICULTURE; in our CHURCHES; in our MISSIONARY ENTERPRISES; in our ARMED FORCES; in our POSSESSION OF THE BIBLE: - all BIRTHMARKS, which neither time, nor the ages, nor even our sin can wipe out.

    1. Israel to be great and mighty nation. Gen. 12:2; 18:18; Deut. 4:7,8.

    2. Israel to have multitudinous seed. Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 22:17; 24:60; 26:4, 24; 28:3, 14; 32:12; 49:22; Isa. 10:22; Hos. 1:10; Zech. 10:7,8.

    3. Israel to spread abroad to the West, East, North and South. Gen. 28:14; Isa. 42:5, 6.

    4. Israel to have a new home. 2nd Sam. 7:10; 1st Chron. 17:9.

    5. Israel's home to be north-west of Palestine. Isa. 49:12; Jer. 3:18.

    6. Israel to live in islands and coasts of the earth. Isa. 41:1; 49:1-3; 51:5; Jer. 31:7-10.

    7. Israel to become a company of nations. Gen. 17:4-6, 15,16; 35:11; 48:19; Eph. 2:12.

    8. Israel to have a Davidic King (a perpetual monarchy within Israel). 2nd Sam. 7:13,19; 1st Chron. 22:10; 2nd Chron. 13:5; Psa. 89:20, 37; Eze. 37:24; Jer. 33:17, 21, 26.

    9. Israel to colonize and spread abroad. Gen. 28:14; 49:22; Deut. 32:8; 33:17; Psa. 2:8; Isa. 26:15; 27:6; 54:2; Zech. 10:8,9.

    10. Israel to colonize the desolate place of the earth. Isa. 35:1; 43:19, 20; 49:8; 54:3; 58:11, 12.

    11. Israel to lose a colony, then expand, demanding more room. Isa. 49:19, 20.

    12. Israel to have all the land needed. Deut. 32:8.

    13. Israel to be the first among the nations. Gen. 27:29; 28:13; Jer. 31:7.

    14. Israel to continue as a nation forever. 2nd Sam. 7:16, 24, 29; 1st Chron. 17:22-27; Jer. 31:35-37.

    15. Israel's home to be invincible to outside forces. 2nd Sam. 7:10; Isa. 41:11-14.

    16. Israel to be undefeatable - defended by God. Num. 24:8, 9; Isa. 15-17; Micah 5:8, 9.

    17. Israel to be God's instrument in destroying evil. Jer. 51:20; 51:19-24; Dan. 2:34, 35.

    18. Israel to have a land of great mineral wealth. Gen. 49:25, 26; Deut. 8:9; 33:15-19.

    19. Israel to have a land of great agricultural wealth. Gen. 27:28; Deut. 8:7, 9; 28:11; 33:13, 14, 28.

    20. Israel to be rich by trading. Isa. 60:5-11; 61:6.

    21. Israel to be envied and feared by all nations. Deut. 2:25; 4:8; 28:10; Isa. 43:4; 60:10, 12; Micah 7:16, 17; Jer. 33:9.

    22. Israel to lend to other nations, borrowing of none. Deut. 15:6; 28.12.

    23. Israel to have a new name. Isa. 62:2; 65:15; Hos. 2:17.

    24. Israel to have a new language. Isa. 28:11 (The Bible, by means of which God speaks now to Israel, is English not Hebrew).

    25. Israel to possess the gates of his enemies. Gen. 22:17.

    26. Israel to find the aborigines diminishing before them. Deut. 33:17; Isa. 60:12.

    27. Israel to have control of the seas. Deut. 33:19; Num. 24:7; Psa. 89:25; Isa. 60:5 (F. Fenton translates this last, "when rolls up to you all the wealth of the sea". That could not be unless Israel controlled it).

    28. Israel to have a new religion (New Covenant.) Heb. 8:10-13; 9:17; Matt. 10:5-7; Luke 1:77; 2:32; 22:20; John 11:49-52; Gal. 3:13.

    29. Israel to lose all trace of her lineage. Isa. 42:16-19; Hos. 1:9, 10; 2:6; Rom. 11:25.

    30. Israel to keep Sabbath forever (one day in seven set aside). Ex. 31:13, 16, 17; Isa. 58:13, 14.

    31. Israel to be called the sons of God (i.e., accept Christianity). Hos. 1:10-11.

    32. Israel to be a people saved by the Lord. Deut. 33:27-29; Isa. 41:8-14; 43:1-8;44:1-3;49:25, 26; 52:1-12; 55:3-10, 13; Jer. 46:27, 28; Eze. 34:10-16; Hos. 2:23; 13:9-14; 14:4, 6.

    33. Israel to be the custodians of the Oracles (Scriptures) of God. Psa. 147:19, 21; Isa. 59-21.

    34. Israel to carry the Gospel to all the world. Gen. 28:14; Isa. 43:10-12 (witnesses), 21; Micah 5:7.

    35. Israel to be kind to the poor and set slaves free. Deut. 15:7, 11; Psa. 72:4; Isa. 42:7; 49:9; 58:6.

    36. Israel to be the heir of the world. Rom. 4:13.

    37. Israel to be God's Glory. Isa. 46:13; 49:3; 60:1, 2.

    38. Israel to possess God's Holy Spirit as well as His Word. Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Hagg. 2:5.

    39. Israel to be God's Heritage, formed by God, forever. Deut. 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 2nd Sam. 7:23; 1st Kings 8:51, 53; Isa. 43:21; 54:5-10; Hos. 2:19, 23; Joel 2:27; Micah 7:14 -18.

    40. Israel is the nation appointed to bring glory to God. Isa. 41:8-16; 43:10, 21; 44:23; 49:3.

    "YE SEED OF ISRAEL'S CHOSEN RACE,
    YE RANSOMED OF THE FALL,
    HAIL HIM WHO SAVES YOU BY HIS GRACE,
    AND CROWN HIM LORD OF ALL."
    The End

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •