posted
Today's Aug 30, 2007 Worldnetdaily.com had a report from Israel of work underway to move some 7000 people from India to Israel. The story, "Lost Tribe of Israel Arrives in Jewish state," says that the Indians are the Bnei Menashe who claim they left Palestine 2,700 years ago. Reportedly they are being converted to Judaism. But in the view of the NT, should Christian missionaries go to Israel and convert them to Christianity?
In backdrop, the unified nation of Yisrael under David and Shlomo came apart in c947 BCE with the death of Shlolmo. Israel divided into the House of Yehudah in the South with Jerusalem and the Temple and the House of Yisrael in the North with eventual Samaria. Yehudah, Binyamin and part of Levi went with the South and the others went with the North (though some of the Northeners moved South to be near the Temple). The North particularly went into sun worship and was expelled from the land by the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE. Yehudah was too in sin and in c554 BCE went into Babylonian captivity but returned 70 years later during the days of Ezra. The Indians claim they are from the Assyrian captivity.
These two Israelite peoples have never reunified. Ezekiel's writings lay out that they will in the future Messianic age. Josephus and other 1st century writers said that the House of Israel was still in exile--actually in Europe and Asia in great numbers. There is no record of the return of Yisrael to the land though some persons of the North became attached to Jerusalem and went into Babylonian exile with the Jews. The House of Israel became known as the lost tribes in secular history.
The importance of this is that YESHUA's great commission was specifically to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel Mt 10:5-6. In His dialogue with the Syro-Phoenician woman, whom He called a "dog," He said once more that He had no commission but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Mt 15:22-28; Lu 7:25-30). Any alleged change of His commissioln could not possibly have occurred after His death in 30CE (Rom 11:2; Heb 9:16-17).
Yet Christendom claims that the commission changed in Mt 28:19 to all nations with use of the Greek ethne. But did it? The Greek ethne is the plural of ethnos. Ethnos in the singular is often used of the Jews in the NT while its plural, with the article "the," is used for the House of Israel. Since YHWH never changes, it is impossible that the commission could have changed after YESHUA's death. Thus, the ethne in Mt 28:19 has to refer to the House of Israel.
There is considerable scholarship that the NT was originally written in Hebrew and translated to Greek at an early time. In early times of the Roman church, she declared a war of sorts against Hebrew writings and destroyed them by the cart fulls. Accordingly, Hebrew texts of NT writings are hard to come by.
Yet one early Jewish text of Matthew did survive in Hebrew. The Jews used it for critique. The earliest copy of it is called the Shem Tob text and it dates to 1380. It is believed to be of Ebionite origin. This text does not use the reference to the nations as in Greek texts. The Ebionites never believed that the Good News was for anyone but Yisrael. Could this Jewish maintained Matthew be more authoritative than the Greek?
YHWH committed His OT Word to the Jews for preservation in Hebrew because: (1) it has been preserved by the Jews in its original language of Hebrew; (2) its overall presence, authentication and guarantee of accuracy in the Dead Sea Scrolls; (3) its frequent use of Hebrew idioms, expressions and figures of speech which only have real meaning in the context of the Hebrew language, mentality, thinking and mind-set; (4) its often presentations of Hebrew poetry which can only be grasped and appreciated in the Hebrew language; (5) the fact that OT names have meaning only in the Hebrew language; (6) the strange reality of Psalms 119 and its linkage to Psalms 19 which go on to conclusively authenticate Hebrew as their language; (7) its 2,500-year record of synagogue liturgy in both Palestine and the Diaspora, using hand prepared Hebrew scrolls, and when necessary, using meturgemen for interpretations (like with the Targums), as was Scripturally authorized (Gen 42:23; Ezra 4:7; Neh 8:6-8; I Cor 12:10-30; 14:5-27); (8) YESHUA, His disciples and the Apostolic Assembly authenticated and endorsed this text because they used it routinely in the regular synagogue worship services which they all attended, as per their custom (Lu 4:16-21; Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14; 15:21; 17:17; 18:4, 11, 19, 26; 19:8: Heb 10:21-25; Jas 2:2-9); (9) YESHUA’s comment about the Hebrew “yod,” which authenticated Hebrew (Matt 5:18); (10) YESHUA’s statement that the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moshe’s seat to teach the Tanakh (Matt 23:1-3); (11) Shaul’s charge that the Jews had the truth about the Torah in Romans 2:17-20; (12) Shaul’s report of YHWH’s commission to the Jews in Romans 3:2; (13) the inaccurate and confused records of chronology in the Samaritan and Septuagint texts; (14) YESHUA’s complete rejection of the idea that the Samaritans worshipped with any knowledge or understanding--this fact alone must condemn both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the related Septuagint (Jo 4:22); (15) Shaul’s charge that the Greeks worshipped in ignorance (Acts 17:16-33); and (16) for other reasons.
Regardless of Mt 28:19, the fact remains that Shaul was specifically commissiolned to go to these people--and he did so as they were scattered in Europe and Asia minor. There were huge Israelite settlements in those areas after the Assyrian captivity ended. The NT Scriptures are precise on this. Yes, even Shaul's letter to the Romans was to Israelites (per Rom 4:1; 9:3-6). Could it be that Rome, founded about the time of the fall of Yisrael to the Assyrians, was established by Israelites fleeing the Assyrians? Certainly, the modern Italians are mainly Hamites from the Sabine settlers and not Romans (who were a Nordic people).
NT references to Greeks are typcially misunderstood by Christians as the word Greek or Jew could refer to people by race, by religion, by nationality, by residence, etc. Thus, there were both Greek Jews as well as House of Israelite Greeks. The above noted Syro-Phoenician woman was of the Greek religion.
Several questions now arrive--like where is the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael today? Is it possible that the Benei Menashe are Israelites? If so, should Christian missionaries immediately dispatch themselves to take the good news to the Indians? Does the forum have any ideas on this?
posted
All very interesting. I find you are far afield on many things, but since my response would tend to reflect a more mainstream view, there's little point in posting at length here. I don't accept your view on translating the impact of the Great Commission any differently than the IC has it. I also don't accept such notions as Romans being Nordic.
As to your final question: I rather doubt the Benei Menashe, but the question is hardly so important to me as it seems to you. The gospel message is all over India, though nothing like enough. I don't have to agree with all the packaging to accept the essence of salvation is being preached and taught there. It's all over the Levant, but Israel is trying to restrict it legally. Naturally, I'd go anywhere on earth -- I'd pack a bag today. It won't matter what resources and legal complications arise; if I had the conviction, I'd seek a way past those things. Life is one big adventure to me. But, I am not called to go.
For me and my house, Jews are just another ethnic group needing Jesus. Their one advantage in the Kingdom -- their ancient Hebraic legacy -- was mostly lost when Alexandrian corruptions became dominant, well before Jesus' birth.
Recipients? The Good News was directed to the Jews first before it went to the Gentiles. But did they receive it? A "remnant", yes. But more Gentiles have been "recipients" of the Good News than Jews. This was prophecied.
In the next few minutes I want to bring some things from the scriptures to bear on this pressing question about the nation of Israel regaining Jerusalem and favor with God.
How often have I heard arguments made from Galations 4 that attempt to prove that God's law is no longer binding upon men. Yet, in the next breath the argument is made that this Israel which rejects the grace of Christ, in favor of being under the law, is highly favored of God and remains the recipient of his special favor by virtue of their natural birth in the flesh. Yet, in Galations 4, Paul clearly states that the Jerusalem on earth is in bondage with her children who are under the law. But the Jerusalem which is in heaven is free, and is the mother of those who accept Jesus by faith. The distinction is made in this way-- "He who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise." (Gal 4:23).
Christ rejected the nation of Israel as his specially favored people. Not because of the crucifixion but because they rejected him. He told the parable about the vineyard and clearly said to them that this meant that "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Mt 21:43). Again, he told them that his presence had departed from their house forever. "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Lu 13:35).
Now everyone in Christ, either Jew or Gentile, is the seed of Abraham. (Gal 3). How can a Gentile become an Israelite? Well, you need to understand the differences between a true Israelite and one which is called Israel after the flesh. The Israel we typically speak of were born in the flesh as Jews. But Jesus told one high-ranking Jew that he needed to be born again. This new birth is not another birth of the flesh but rather is a spiritual birth. We are told by Paul in Galations 3:16 that Christ is the seed of Abraham to which the promise was made. Then in verse 29 he states that we are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise, but only if we be in Christ. The natural lineage was interrupted and the seed continues through Christ--that is, through faith in Jesus.
Once we were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus [we] who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. . . Now therefore [we] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."
So while it is true that "Israel" will receive the promises of God, those whom we call Israel are not really "Israel" according to God. Only those who are born of the spirit by faith in Jesus can be rightly called "Israel". In Matthew 2:15 is quoted Hosiah 11:1 demonstrating clearly that the Apostles interpreted God's Son, Jesus, to be this Israel. Therefore, those born of Jesus by a spiritual new birth are now Israel according to the spirit despite the fact that the world still refers to those born of the flesh as Israel. We can differentiate between them in our speach by using the terms "Israel after the flesh" and "spiritual Israel." They are very different camps. One is in bondage with Jerusalem below, the other is free with Jerusalem above.
(Don't believe there is a Jerusalem in heaven? Is it a spiritual Jerusalem to go with spiritual Israel? John saw it coming down out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Rev 21).)
So when you read the promises to Israel in scripture consider that perhaps you meet the conditions for their fulfilment. Israel after the flesh was certainly forbidden to enter into God's rest because of their unbelief. But believers are even now entering in. (Heb 3-4).
posted
On this, we agree, though I would probably say it differently. All the focus has moved into the spirit realm, and this fallen earth is doomed. Those who belong to her at the coming of the Son are doomed with her. Those of us belonging to Heaven will see whatever indescribable reality God produces in the redemption and renewal of Creation.
posted
The great commission was always to the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael (not the Jews, who are a different people). But there is some backdrop which allows understanding on this point. About the time of the fall of the House of Israel to the Assyrians, many Israelites fled before their conquest. It appears that some of them founded Rome, SE Greece and parts of Asia Minor.
The Dorian Greeks settled SE Greece (to include Corinth) and founded Sparta. II Maccabees 5:9-10 notes the belief that the Jews were kinsmen with the people of Sparta, meaning that the Dorian Greeks were probably of the House of Yisrael. Some writers believe that Troy in Asia Minor was founded by Israelites fleeing the Assyrians. Regardless, Shaul's mission was to the lost tribes and his letters to the groups in Europe and Asia Minor all attest to the fact that he was writing to his kinsmen of the House of Yisrael. His defense before Agrippa discusses this point at length.
Shaul and his colleagues reached their audience in Jewish synagogues. There were essentially three racial/ethnic types of people in the Jewish synagogues. There were some true Jews, descendants from the Babylonian exile; next there were some Amalekite and Kenite pretenders; and last there were huge numbers of House of Yisrael people in the diaspora who were led by The RUACH HA KODESH to convert to Judaism. Shaul reached them in the synagogues. There is no doubt about that reality.
The confusion arises because most Christians generally are not students of the Book and they will not/cannot go back to the original languages and the actual words to see what is truth. It's as if the Word is closed to them and they are not supposed to get it (per Mt 13). A perfect proof of this arises with Kefa's vist to Cornelius. Per the Book, Cornelius was a "God-Fearer," a proselyte to Judaism (Acts 10:2, 22). Per Acts 10:36, Kefa took the Good News to the children of Israel in his visit to Cornelius (see 20th Century NT and v. 4, chap 49 of Ezekiel and YHWH's Judgment for the Good News People at www.ageend.com). Yes, Cornelius was an Israelite of the lost tribes in the process of conversion to Judaism.
Ex 12 lays out who can be circumsized and partake of the Passover with Yisrael. Verse 43 says a nekar (also nokri) can never partake of the Passover ever. Yet, verse 48 says a ger may. To understand the difference between a ger and a nokri/nekar alien, it takes an involved study and much knowledge and understanding from the Book, which Christians in general simply don't have or won't take the time to obtain. But the point is that there are two different classes of people in relation to Yisrael in the Word. One can be converted and the other cannot.
With some study, it is possible for persons to come to an understanding of who these different peoples are. In short, the nekar/nokri people are partly Hamites descending from Ham and his believed marriage to Naamah, a descendant of Cain (and his father); as well as certain others. All of these persons are further addressed in Deut 23:2-8 where YHWH lays out the law for the admission of non-Israelites to the Congregation of Yisrael. The word involved is mamzer (KJV bastard) which refers to certain mixed peoples which the context partially defines. Mamzer is used one other time in the Book at Zech 9:6 where it refers to a mixed people. It is similar to Arab in the Word which means mixed in reference to the Ishmaelites (who are modern Arabs as they recognize their descent from Ishmael).
On entering Canaan land after the Exodus, YHWH ordered all the Canaanites executed--all of them, men, women, children and babies. But humanism entered into Yehoshua's heart and he did not kill them all. He allowed some to remain, which later proved to be a problem for Yisrael. There is one more people which YHWH indicted to be all slain--the Amalekites, yes men, women, children and babies. King Shaul goofed and didn't kill them so YHWH took the kingdom from him and gave it to David.
Amalek was the oldest son of the oldest son of Esau. Esau had married into this fallen line from Ham when he profaned his seedline (Gen 26:34-35; Mal 1:1-3; Heb 12:16)--much like some of the returning Jews would do in Ezra and Nehemiah. Being the oldest son, Amalek inherited the land in the vale South of the Dead Sea which Esau had earlier conquered. He also inherited the intense Edomite hatred for Yisrael (Gen 27:41; Ezek 35:5; and the book of Jasher).
By the time of the Exodus, all the Edomites, but Amalek, had left the vale and moved elsewhere (the Phonenicans were Edomites [they founded various settlements around the Mediterranean Sea] and the great Turkestan empire to the East was from Edom). Amalek was the first nation to attack Israel at the Exodus and this pitted him against YHWH--thus, producing YHWH's perpetual hatred for the Amalekites.
During the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE, these evil Amalekites flooded north and stole many of the lands of Judah. Some reached Jerusalem and even Samaria to the North. They along with the Cushite Samaritans became arch enemies of the returning Jewish Israelites.
So things clicked along until the time of the Maccabees, under Greek rule, when the Jews were able to gain some control over the area. By 100 BCE, a Jewish ruler named John Hyrcanus proceeded to conquer parts of the Amalekite district to the South. He followed the path of Greek philosophy to use the sword to convert the Amalekites to Judiasm. But they were so inheriently evil, that it was all useless. Yet some of them did pretend to be Jews while they were not Jews (yes, Rev 2:9; 3:9).
Being children of the devil (called serpents in the NT), they either absorbed or began the great Jewish banking houses and linked in with the Roman emperor's household in Rome. So a vile Amalekite named Herod gained a kingship over parts of Palestine under Rome (yes, this is the golden rule--he who has the gold rules). The Amalekite Herod was far worse than a later Amalekite Jew named Adolf Schicklgruber (who used the German name Hitler to fool the world).
Under Herod, he took over almost everything in Jerusalem. He chose the priests and took over the Shammai Pharisee definition which ruled Judea and collective Judaism (in contrast to the Galilee which was peopled by Hillel Pharisees). Herod either established or took over a powerful bank at the Temple which was perhaps the world's first international bank (similar to the later Amalekite Rothschild Bank which pretty well calls all the shots in today's western Christian society).
Herod was the leader of a local power group called the Herodians (who were all or almost all Amalekites). Herod and his Herodian followers instituted and ruled not only the bank and money changing operations at the Temple, but also they controlled all the sale of animals and you name it. It was the Herodians who were arch enemies of YEHSUA, and especially after he went to the Temple and three times upset their money and commercial operations.
In the NT conflict YESHUA had with the Jews, the problem was always Pharisees and Scribes from Jerusalam (like in Mt 23). The scribes were the Kenite sons of Kain (I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14) who were linked to the Amalekites (Num 24). Many, most or all of the Shammai Pharisees from Jerusalem were actually Herodian Amalekites. See Mt 23:33-35 for a description of the race of these murderers of all of the righteous from Abel on to YESHUA and on to the Roman church's slaughter of millions and on to the finality of this thing. There is a racial seedline of people responsible for all these murders.
In time, the Herodians ordered YESHUA murdered. And the subservient rulers (including Pilate), who marched to the tune of money, did precisely that very thing. Some of these Amalekites seem to be the persons who later caused problems with the developing Apostolic Assembly. They were the ones that Christians holler about as Judaizers.
It is rather fascinating that per the Torah, these Amalekites could not legally be converted to the Hebrew faith. Yet, John Hyrcanus was interested in numbers (quantity) and not quality (in the same way that Christians believe in numbers instead of quality). This stupidity caused the real Jews much trouble over the years as they were labeled the killers of the Christian "Jesus."
There are some amazing prophecies relating to these evil Amalekites, versus the House of Yisrael. The birthright technically belonged to Esau (it came first to Avraham when he obeyed YHWH's laws-- Gen 26:5). But Esau sold it over a bowl of soup and then Yakov proceeded to have Yitzhak give it to him, along with rule over Esau (Rom 9:12). But in Gen 27:39-40, Yitzhak uttered a remark that in the end of days Esau would break free of Yisrael's control and reverse the rule (see the Amplified Bible translation). In the last 200 years, the Amalekite money power has completely taken over the Christian West and much of the rest of the world.
The book of Obadiah addressed this Edomite seizure of power over Yakov in the age end. Find a nation(s)which is totally subservient to the Amalekite money power and you may have found the House of Yisrael.
Some final words, the modern Arabs are in 12 definitions (per Gen). The Edomites are in 14 age end groupings. They are all in the world today (along with descendants of Keturah) and can be easily known. But what Christendom does not know is that per Shaul the Ishmaelites and Edomites can never be converted to the faith of YESHUA (Rom 9:7-13; Gal 4:22-31; Heb 6:13-18). Yes, the promises, covenant, adoption, glory, etc all belong to Yisrael (Rom 9:4) and to no other. This writer must laugh at all these stupid Christian efforts to flood the Muslim world with missionaries in an alleged attempt to do the impossible--convert those people to the Scriptures. No way Jose/Hose, per both the OT and NT writings.
posted
RDB: Are you saying that those who put their faith in Jesus the Messiah are not "grafted into Israel"? So, in what do you place your confidence? You have the temple records and trace your ancestry to pre-exile Israel?
As for preaching the gospel to the Muslims, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." If He told the disciples to go to Samaria, after the resurrection was he not "changing his commission after his death?"
We aren't to concern ourselves with the outcome. We aren't to choose who gets to hear the message. Our responsibility is to preach to "every creature"... As God said to Ezekiel, those who know the truth are watchmen. Ours is to proclaim God's message. This is important, even if they don't believe, that the disobedient have no excuse.
According to 1 Chronicles 4, there are no more Amalekites, so... ?
It seems to me that you have a lot of history under your belt, yet you have not love (charity). May the Lord deliver you from your bondage to clanging!
Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
No, i don't belong to any group. i meet with no one. i didn't go to seminary or Bible college or even summer Bible school. My beliefs are essentially derived from self study of the Word. i am an independant with no affiliation (although i am an alleged descendant of Roger Williams and my people were Baptists for ages). No, i don't use the word Christian to describe my beliefs. i do support, teach and advocate the NT. Although i would never describe myself as such, i do have "some" respect for Seventh day Sabbath-keepers in general, Messianic Jews, Ultra Orthodox Jews, Christian Identity, and Sacred Name people. Last if the big book you referred to is one i have quoted/cited, then i would note the contributions of various parties with an overall editor. It speaks for itself.
posted
Laurie Ann, per your last post on this, you say: "According to 1 Chronicles 4, there are no more Amalekites, so... ?" i'm afraid you are mistaken on this because I Chron 4 has no such conclusion. Verse 40 mentions the earlier Hamite inhabitants who lived in the vale. They were destroyed by the Esau invasion (cited in verse 41). In verse 42, 500 men of Shimon invaded Seir (east of the Rift) and in verse 43 smote the Amalekites there (who had evidently escaped from Shaul's earlier invasion).
TDOT (v. ix, p. 415-423) defines that smote as a military defeat. But this doesn't mean an annilation of the Amalekites. In WWII, both Japan and Germany were defeated in military invasion and war. But the peoples survived. The same with the Amalekites after the Shimon attack; which by the way was not that big as Shimon only sent 500 men.
Actually, the Amalekites were a huge nomadic people that roamed over the Sinai, the Negev and much of the territory east of the Rift (Gen 14:7; Ex 17:8; Num 13:29; Deut 25:17-19). Those attacked by Shimon were only some small part of the overall tribe.
Anyway, the Scriptures are conclusive that they were not all destroyed c700BCE. They survived and are in the world today for four good reasons.
First, Ex 17:14-16 notes that YHWH will have perpetual war with Amalek from generation to generation. Commentaries agree that YHWH knew that Yisrael would fail to destroy them as ordered. Therefore, they would survive to the ageend.
Second, Deut 25:17-19 and Ps 137:7 lay a commandment on YHWH's people to remember the evil deeds of the Amalekites. This is a Torah commandment which defines sin. Followers of YHWH should be remembering the Amalekites and their evil deeds.
Third, Num 24:20-22 predicts a future ageend destruction of Amalek by the Ayssrians. This has never happened in history. And even this one probably will not be a total 100% destruction.
Last, Ps 83:4-7 describes the famous ageend attack on Yisrael by a confederation of her enemies (which includes the Amalekites). This attack probably comes just after YESHUA returns with His heavenly army to seize Jerusalem and restore the daily sacrifice on Mount Moriah.
posted
Isn't this Asaph a contemporary of David, thus his mention of the Amalekites would not support the Amalekites surviving beyond Hezekiah's time? Would you not include dead people in God's perpetual war in the same way the author of Hebrew could say, "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". Who are the people today that are descended from Amelek?
Do you really use "commentaries say" as equal to scripture which says, "killed the remaining Amalekites? It just seems to me that with the number of annihilations the Israelites attempted, it isn't beyond the scope of possibility that they succeeded.
However, I'll probably leave off this discussion, as it doesn't really help me obey the clear commands of Christ, or help me to love my husband and children, or profit the other hearers in a very meaningful way.
Blessing, all, Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
On 8-30-07, i wrote that the Romans were a Nordic people. EHurst replied that he did not accept such notions as Romans being Nordic.
The truth is that for ages students of truth have known the demographics and racial types of many peoples in ancient kingdoms from paintings, statutes, head and shoulder marble busts, drawings, and numerous other representations. We know exactly what the Romans were and what they looked like. And in recent years, DNA has further defined most or many of the ancient peoples.
The early Romans and Greeks and even the very earliest Egyptians were similar to the Assyrians and Aramaeans. They generally were a very fair, tall people--largely with blond hair.
England's Bridgman Art Library has a painting of the throng of people greeting King Charles II in c1662 on his way to London and his coronation. This painting offered great detail on the English people of that day (which would have also applied to the colonists in Virginia and Plymouth Rock). Any person looking at this ancient painting and comparing it with modern English and Americans would be absolutely amazed at how the demographics of the populations have changed. One might make the case that they are not the same people at all.
Email this page to someone.
