EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME IV

The Great Commission

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume IV--The Great Commission

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume IV--The Great Commission

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

Part M--The True Recipients of the Good News

46 The Real Commission 6

47 Yisrael in the Diaspora 13

48 The Publicized Great Commission 28

49 The New Testament Writers Wrote 43

50 Shaul In More Detail 57

51 The New Covenant 73

52 Still More on Shaul 85

53 More Relevant Scriptures 92

54 The Scriptures are for Yisrael 106

Part N--YHWH Chose Yisrael

55 A Particular People 122

56 YHWH Selects for His Kingdom 127

57 Numbering the Election 143

58 Qara-Hineni-Berit Hadashah-Hesed 156

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume four of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Sukkot 2005 CE

Chapter 46--The Real Commission

The Backdrop

Before even looking at the commission given YESHUA and the New Testament Apostolic Assembly, it is imperative to take a brief look at a few facts which are crucial to appreciate to ever begin to understand the so-called “Great Commission” that Christians preach and teach so much about.

In the historic past, in the land of Canaan, the nation of Yisrael became divided into two parts--the House of Yisrael and the House of Yehudah. They co-existed together for about 250 years in the form of the Scripturally discussed divided kingdom days in the books of I and II Kings. From the point of their separation, it is incorrect to try to mix these two peoples and nations. There were two of them and they were different.

Another very cogent fact from history is that they both were extremely rebellious and evil. The MOST HIGH became so angry over their wickedness that He took action to impose the national end of both kingdoms. In taking action against Yisrael, He actually went through the process of divorcing her since she was symbolically married to Him in the Old Testament covenant relationship. She became divorced and lost Yisrael.

With Yehudah, He also took action against her by imposing a captivity and servitude for seventy years in which Yehudah was expelled from Canaan land. But He never divorced Yehudah, per se. Thus, YHWH’s covenant with Yehudah continued to the first century CE.

But possibly, with the Jewish involvement in the death of YESHUA, it might be possible to conclude that their role constituted their abolishment of the then OT covenant.

As will be assessed in subsequent chapters, there are references to a coming new or renewed covenant with both the House of Yisrael and the House of Yehudah. This fact alone is sufficient to suggest that both houses lost their covenanted relationship with The ELOHIM by the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.

The histories of both Yehudah and Yisrael and where their modern peoples can be found in the world today will be forthcoming in later chapters herein. There is no need to even begin to cover that theme now. Suffice to say, Yisrael became lost Yisrael or the lost tribes of Yisrael. That fact alone has enormous impact on the real commission granted to YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.

The Work of Yohanan

Turning now to the subject at hand, and it in terms of the New Testament focus, the first clue of a preaching commission surfaces at Elisheva's conception of Yohanan the Baptist. When the news of this child was broke to Zekharyah (the father), the messenger was careful to say that Yohanan's mission was to turn the "children of Yisrael" to The MOST HIGH (Lu 1:16).

Consequently, when Yohanan was born, his father declared that he was to give knowledge of salvation to "his people" (Yisrael--Lu 1: 77). Not long after this event, the world was faced with the real advent of salvation with the birth of The SON OF ADAM.

He was named YESHUA (His proper, given, Hebrew name which means "salvation"), as He was destined to save "His people Yisrael" from their sins (Matt 1: 21). He was The PROMISED DELIVERER of the seed of Avraham (Heb 2:16). From His birth, He also was to be The SHEPHERD, RULER and KING over the people (sheep) of Yisrael (Matt 2:6; 27:42; Mk 15:32; Lu 1:33; 54; John 1:49; 10:2, 11).

In time, This Same DELIVERER YESHUA came into contact with the messenger Yohanan (the Baptist), as Yohanan was baptizing near Bethany (Bethabara) at the Jordan River crossing. There, at this very early time, Yohanan recognized that YESHUA was to “be made manifest and be revealed to Yisrael” (Jo 1:31, per “The Amplified Bible”).

The Commission

The next statement on mission came when The MESSIAH called His twelve disciples together for their formal commission and grant of authority (Matt 10:1-42; Mk 3:14-19; 6:7-11; Lu 9:1-6). The ANOINTED ONE was careful to point out that they were not to go to the collective nations; but rather, only to the "lost sheep of the house of Yisrael" (Matt 10: 5-6).

First, this discussion with the twelve took place in Canaan among at least religious Jews (perhaps mainly from the tribes of Binyamin, Levi and Yehudah, which then lived in the land as the remnant of the former House of Yehudah).

The Lost Sheep of Yisrael

Next, the reader at once must be struck with the familiarity of the wording of this charge, in comparison with Yechezkel's writings of some 600 years earlier where he wrote at length about the then divorced House of Yisrael. Yechezkel spoke of them in the context of being "lost sheep," who will be sought out and gathered by The ELOHIM in a future time period. And then, they will become YAH’s people (Ezek 34:2-16, 30).

Yeshayahu the prophet likewise had some perceptive comments on the reality of “lost” Yisrael. He correctly observed that in a future day of YHWH, lost Yisrael would be gathered from the land of Assyria (Isa 27:12-13--here, the KJV incorrectly translates the Hebrew “ahvad,” meaning lost, to perish). In another instance, Yeshayahu followed up with a similar message (Isa 49:5, 20-22).

The prophet Yirmeyahu also perceived Israelites as “lost sheep” gone astray because of false shepherds (Christian preachers?) who had deceived and misled them (Jer 50:6). In this context, Yirmeyahu additionally saw an eventual future reunification of the children of the Houses of Yehudah and Yisrael (Jer 50:4).

Furthermore, the fact that The MESSIAH singled out the "lost" sheep of the House of Yisrael also may be significant beyond the remarks of the Old Testament prophets because His purpose was specifically to save the "lost" (Matt 18:11). While one often tends to think of the lost in terms of all of so-called humanity, the wording of this commission makes it clear that the issue was the "lost" House of Yisrael.

To the Poor

There are also a couple of references to the effect that YESHUA was anointed "to preach the gospel to the poor" (Lu 4:18, 7:22). Allegorically, the Jews in Jerusalem were rich since they possessed the Temple, the priesthood, the ritual and the center of worship. In allegory, it was the other tribes who were the poor since they did not have the riches of the Jews.

Go To Yisrael!

The SON OF ADAM followed up His commission and charge to the twelve by directing them to go to the cities of Yisrael (Matt 10:23)--obviously, the cities that contained the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael. That the disciples were to go to the tribes of Yisrael (in their cities) is relevant since it was to be their destiny to rule over and judge the twelve tribes of Yisrael.

Please note, too, that in going to Israelite cities, the disciples incidentally and unavoidably would come into some contact on occasion with "ger" aliens residing there, who automatically by law (Ex 12:48-49, to be discussed later) could become full fledged members of the Congregation of Yisrael upon conversion.

Following His appointment of the twelve, The ANOINTED ONE next addressed 70 others whom He commanded to go forth and preach (Lu 10: 1-20). However, this dialogue, as recorded by Luke, does not seem to specify exactly who the 70 were to preach to geographically.

The fact that the parties were in the Middle East and that the 70 did go out and return soon with a report on what they had done in that immediate geographical area (of Galilee and Judaea) would suggest that the 70 probably went to Israelite persons in the Palestine area at that time.

Eric V. Snow, Revisited

The previously quoted Eric V. Snow assessed this great commission question and concluded that “it’s patently absurd to read Jesus’ statement Matt. 10:5 as anything more than a one-time temporary command” and “how absurd it is to assume the disciples’ mission described in Matt. 10 involved permanently binding commands” (“Is Christianity a Fraud? Round Two,” p. 38).

Any person wanting to believe and accept this Snow nonsense probably should not waste any time in Scriptural study. All they would need to do is to be good dumb sheep and go and listen to their Christian pastor teach them some lies and rebellion.

Nevertheless, Snow’s remark is presented herein for consideration. In later presentations, his conclusions will be shown to be utterly inconsistent and in conflict with an abundance of material from throughout the New Testament which conclusively proves that Matthew 10:5 was not a one time aberration. It was a permanent command of profound importance!

Did He Change?

Despite The MESSIAH's goal in presenting the Good News of His coming kingdom to Yisrael only, it is worth noting that the Scriptures describe a couple of events that surfaced which would have given Him some latitude to expand His mission to all kinds of non-Israelite peoples, if that was His purpose and objective.

In the first instance, He met the previously described Samaritan woman at Yakov's well (John 4:7-28).

And while one might not be absolutely certain of the racial makeup of all of the Samaritans in the first century (whether nokri/nekar or ger strangers eligible for conversion to Yisrael, as will be later discussed), one can be sure that they were not all or generally not Israelites (according to the Scriptures, as established in commentary elsewhere herein).

In YESHUA's conversation with the woman, mention was made of the water that gives life (salvation--verse 14). She then proceeded to ask Him for this water of salvation (verse 15). Yet, there is nothing in the dialogue to suggest that He offered salvation to her or that she would ever receive it.

The Syro-Phoenician Woman

The second situation arose when The MESSIAH encountered the Syro-Phoenician woman whose young daughter had a bad spirit (Matt 15:22-28; Mk 7:25-30). She besought Him to come and cast the demon out.

Thereupon, He clearly referred to her as a “dog” and told her that He had been sent only to "the lost sheep of the house of Yisrael" (Matt 15:24). She pleaded that even the dogs (she correctly noted that her status was as a dog, as Arthur Briggs of Naples, ID once pointed out to me) could eat of the crumbs from the master's table (Matt 15:27).

With no change or deviation whatsoever in His mission and purpose, He appreciated her faith and made an exception by granting her request (Matt 15:28). Incidentally, on this key reference in Matthew 15:24, Richard Francis Weymouth, in his "The New Testament in Modern Speech," translates this verse with YESHUA as saying "I have no commission except to the lost sheep of the house of Yisrael."

Of course, this message gets right to the point and leaves little room for doubt or speculation about "why" The MESSIAH came as He did.

Before leaving this mention of certain humanoids (this word will be defined and described in a later chapter herein) being called “dogs” in the Scriptures, it would be well to look at still some more texts on this theme. In Revelation 22:15, the writer Yohanan puts dogs into named classes of sinners--along with liars, murderers, idolaters, etc.

Unquestionably, the dogs and sinners cited here have to be humans/humanoids. There is just no other way! The point in this reference is that these dogs and sinners will not have access to the tree of life or to the gates of New Jerusalem (Rev 22:14-15), at least in the dispensation then underway. Will they ever have or be eligible for salvation in a future age? The reader can draw his/her own conclusion on this matter.

The NT’s Syro-Phoenician woman was linked to the Greek kunarion (a small, house dog) in contrast to the kuon (wild street dogs), used elsewhere in the NT (“Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 53).

The distinction may be unimportant beyond showing the woman’s humility and disciplined nature versus other racial dogs. Both types are dogs. But one is house tamed and trained, while the other one runs wild in the streets.

In the Hebrew Tanakh, the word “keleb” (translated as dog into English) was often used allegorically for specific humans/humanoids. Certainly, David placed certain non-Israelite humanoids in the category of bad or evil dogs (I Sam 25:22; Ps 22:16, 20; 59:6). The prophet Yeshayahu also placed particular peoples into the category of being dumb and greedy dogs (Isa 56:10-11). These texts will be addressed in later chapters.

An Israelite Woman?

This initial rebuff and refusal by The ANOINTED ONE to even address the needs of the just discussed Syro-Phoenician woman is perhaps relevant also to consider because the Scriptures bring out another situation where a woman, likewise in need, came into contact with Him in a way which was to alter her future forever.

It happened one Sabbath when YESHUA was teaching in a synagogue and she was present, crippled for 18 years by an evil spirit. He saw her in her pitiful, pathetic and hurting condition (Lu 13:10-12). With obvious mercy and compassion, He elected to immediately set her free of the infirmity (Lu 13:12-13).

This act, by The SON OF ADAM on the Sabbath day, met with some strong dissatisfaction and hard feelings from some of the people present. Thereupon, His response noted that she was a "daughter of Avraham," and should be freed even on the Sabbath (Lu 13:16).

YESHUA Obeyed the Law

Many Christians know so little about this event in the Scriptures that they erroneously presume that The MESSIAH purposely violated YHWH's mitzwot regarding the Sabbath, as stated in the Hebrew Tanakh. Of course, if He did, He would have immediately become a sinner (I Jo 3:4), and could never have later qualified as a "spotless" sacrifice for the sins of others.

If He would have violated even one mitzwah from YHWH's Word, and regardless of how little and of no importance heathen Christians may suppose it to be, He, Himself, would need a savior along with all of the other people living throughout history. We can be absolutely assured that He never violated any of YHWH's mitzwot on any subject, to include the Sabbath. He obeyed them all!

But in this context, He did disobey some of the traditions of the elders as He did on other occasions (Matt 15:2-6; Mk 7:5-13). In His day, these works of men were transmitted orally from generation to generation; and were, hence, called the "Oral Law."

In later times, these so-called oral laws were codified and reduced to writings in the forms of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud (as will be described and elaborated upon in more detail in subsequent chapters).

She Must Have Been An Israelite

Vividly, this on-going Sabbath meeting was at a synagogue of the Jews. And since the crippled woman was worshipping in this synagogue on the Sabbath day, and since YESHUA addressed her needs, one can be fairly confident that, in addition to being a descendant of Avraham, she surely was an Israelite racially.

When a modern observer looks at this healing of a daughter of Avraham and (evidently) Yakov, a question can surface over why The SON OF ADAM would willingly display care, concern and mercy over her plight--all the time that in a seemingly similar situation, involving the Syro-Phoenician woman, He initially said "no."

Certainly, by Christendom's (wrong) standards and concepts of truth, justice and righteousness, one would conclude that SALVATION was practicing "gross racial discrimination" toward the foreigner--who He, Himself, even called a "dog," as noted above (Matt 15:26).

YHWH Makes His Own Choices

Paradoxically, and contrary to Churchianity's false ideas of humanism, the truth is quite poignant and cannot be dismissed. His commission was to the House of Yisrael and not to every and all kinds and classes of humans/humanoids and regardless of how one may wish to feel about this event or to judge Him and His work.

Now, if Christians don’t like this assertion, then they should read Moshe's words about YHWH specifically choosing the people He wants to show loyalty and loving kindness to (Ex 33:19). Shaul echoed this same classic statement (Rom 9:15) and went on further to reflect that The POTTER certainly has power and authority over the clay to do as He wishes whether any of us like it or not (Rom 9:21-23).

No Question Over Who!

Consequently, there can be doubt or grounds to argue over the issue of "who" is under discussion in the so-called Gospels.

Clearly, the recipients of the Good News were and are to be the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael (which really consisted of most of all of the thirteen tribes, including some from Yehudah, as will be discussed at length later in this paper) who had long since been removed from the Palestine area when YESHUA spoke.

By then, the lost tribes of Yisrael were seemingly to the North in Asia, Asia Minor and/or Europe (evidently to even include Rome--per Rom 4:1; 9:3-6). And surely, we must allow that The SON OF ADAM knew what he was talking about.

The MESSIAH was not stupid, but certainly knew the differences between the Houses of Yehudah and Yisrael--after all, He was The AUTHOR of the Old Testament. He assuredly knew which one was "lost" (publicly unrecognized and unknown as to identity).

Chapter 47--Yisrael in the Diaspora

To The Greeks?

Just like modern peoples today ponder about YESHUA's real mission, the Jews in His day likewise had questions when they wondered if "He would go unto the dispersed among the Greeks, to teach the Greeks" (John 7:35--the “King James Version” incorrectly translates the object to Gentiles, rather than to Greeks).

Some readers of this text by the beloved Yohanan may wish to believe that the concern here was over preaching to racial or ethnic Greeks. But this reasoning may not be the truth at all. In fact, and on this, the key word in the text is "dispersed" which is from the Greek "diaspora."

The "New Jewish Encyclopedia," edited by David Bridger, notes that the word Diaspora is a "Greek term meaning ‘scattering,' generally referring to the dispersion of the Israelite peoples outside Yisrael." In the Hebrew, the word is “galut” and it does technically refer to Israelites in the generic sense and not just singularly to some portion of them (like the Jews).

As a matter of information, this word “Diaspora” has been a common word of description by the Jews to describe their plight of exile from Palestine for the last 2,000 years. In fact, even today, Jews in the state of Israel speak of Jews outside Palestine by use of that same precise definition. Thus, there are Jews in the state of Israel, and Jews outside Palestine today in the Diaspora.

At Least Three Major Scatterings

Actually, from the land of Canaan, Yisrael by the first century CE had faced at least three “major” scatterings or dispersions, as amply described and discussed in the Scriptures and in history (Ezek 11:17; 34:5-6, 11-13; Jo 11:52).

These scatterings or dispersals from Canaan land will be addressed and described in some detail in later chapters herein. Suffice to say, there were huge numbers of Israelites away from and outside the land of Palestine in the first century CE. Actually, it has been possible to say this same thing for long centuries, both before and after the first century CE.

Around 700 BCE, the House of Yisrael and even part of the House of Yehudah were scattered first to Asia and later to Europe and were "lost" in terms of their identity as Israelites, as will be hereafter described (Isa 28:11; 42:16-19; 62:2; 65:15; Jer 3:8; Rom 11:25).

Subsequently, by 554 BCE or so, the remaining Jews in the House of Yehudah were scattered abroad. Finally, in 70 CE, the surviving Jews in Palestine also were deported and scattered by the Romans, following the Roman conquest of Jerusalem.

Other Dispersions As Well

Aside from these three highly visible and significant scatterings from Canaan land, there are some allusions, evidence and clouded references which might likewise lead a student of the Book to believe that there were several other dispersions of Israelites into foreign countries over the years.

This likely condition of several scatterings is plainly suggested when one looks at the situation in Canaan land, as the different armies came against it in stages over many, many years--which allowed numerous Israelites to escape abroad before they were killed or captured by the invading armies.

Beyond these obvious scatterings of Israelites from Canaan land, because of the intelligence and mental capabilities of different individuals to perceive the danger and threat of an invading army, there seems to be a number of other Scriptural references which would allow that various Israelites just up and left the land and/or the collective nation(s) on their own for any number of different reasons.

Some students of the Word have even been suspicious that some Israelites may have broken off from their national congregation, starting as early as the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings. Similar beliefs have surfaced in connection with the time of the later Judges.

Scholarly arguments have been advanced that some part of the Southern portion of the tribe of Dan (where Samson lived in the area adjacent to the Philistines) packed up and left Yisrael at a very early time.

There is also even more evidence that part of Dan in the North left Canaan very early (to be described at some length in a later chapter) and on and on in terms of Israelite removals from the land.

The May-Jun 1998 “America’s Promise Newsletter” quoted the “Dictionary of Christ & The Gospel” (v. 1, p. 692) as saying that “Large numbers of Israelites had been carried away captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians... But a much larger dispersion was due to voluntary emigration.” This assessment is assuredly the truth.

Possibly Significant Numbers Involved

The prophetic future of Yisrael was always couched in the context that the people of Yisrael would become, over time, a vast host of personnel that are essentially innumerable to count in the practical sense. One sees this reality from the very beginnings of the promises to Avraham when The ELOHIM told him of the many nations and peoples which would come from his body.

In particular, YHWH told him that his descendants would be as the stars in the heavens which are quite profound and extensive (Gen 15:5; 22:17). In another statement of the promise, the seedline of Avraham, Yitzhak and Yakov Yisrael was alluded to as being like or comparable to the sand of the seashore (Gen 22:17; Jer 33:22; Hos 1:10; Rom 9:27).

The importance of this promise surfaces in at least three profound aspects. First, this promise was unconditional in terms of the descendants of Avraham. It was given to Avraham (later given to Yitzhak and Yakov--per Gen 26:4; Ex 32:13) on the basis of his obedience of The MOST HIGH’s laws. Nothing further had to be done by any of Avraham’s descendants for this promise to become fulfilled.

Secondly, the issue was always of the physical seedline of Avraham with no possible reference or implication of “spiritual” children. Manifestly, the promise was about the physical descendants of Avraham. A future chapter in this production will discuss this condition in some detail.

Not only was the scattering of Yisrael substantial in the Diaspora, but even the scattering of just the Jews was enormous in its own right.

Using various historical records, the previously cited Emil Schurer said that there were numerous Jews in the Diaspora in the first century CE (“A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. ii, division 2, p. 220-229). He put over one million in Egypt alone.

Not Fulfilled in Canaan!

Finally, the Israelite descendants of Avraham never reached the fantastic vastness and sheer numbers encompassed in this Avrahamic promise in the land of Canaan, nor have the Jews ever began to fulfill that promise. Actually, the Jews have never numbered more than several million in their entire recorded history.

So the ultimate fulfillment of this wonderful and unconditional promise to Avraham must be sought for in the subsequent history of the House of Yisrael, after she left Canaan for the Diaspora. In other words, that promise has to have a fulfillment and the Scriptural and historical records reflect that it must have that fulfillment in the context of the lost House of Yisrael.

While Yisrael never really began to reach those numbers demanded in the Avrahamic promise in Canaan land, they were extremely fruitful, as is very clear from the various census and numbering efforts outlined in YHWH’s Word.

Specific Census Records

The first year of the Exodus, the fighting men of Yisrael (age 20 and over) were numbered at 603,550 (Num 1:46). This growth alone is quite significant in view of the fact that just 70 Israelite males went initially to Egypt less than 300 years earlier in the days of Yosef and Yakov Yisrael (Gen 46:26). This number is quite relevant for a lot of reasons which will be analyzed in a later chapter.

In the plains of Moab, some forty years following the Exodus (and just before Yisrael was to enter the land under Yehoshua), another census was taken which put the number of men age 20 and over at 601,730 (Num 26:51). So there was not much of a change in the population in the wilderness wanderings.

Of course, in a normal forty years span of time, it would seem highly likely that a given population would have increased appreciably (which apparently did not happen with Yisrael in the wilderness). Perhaps the rigors of nomadic, wilderness living may have accounted for the slight decline.

Furthermore, there were some catastrophic losses of people--like during Korah’s rebellion (totaling 14,700--Num 16:49) and over the fornication with the Moabite women (totaling 24,000--Num 25:9).

And as just noted above in this section, it might be possible that some few Israelite clans and groups did leave the congregation of Yisrael during her sojourn in the wilderness and migrate to other lands. Thus, all types of explanations exist to explain why Yisrael did not increase in the wilderness wanderings.

Entering Canaan

Regardless, Yisrael entered the land with 601,730 fighting men. To get some perspective of the total population, these numbers would obviously have to be doubled to take in all of the males in the population (by adding in the infirm and male children under age 20). Another doubling would be required to account for the females.

Conservatively speaking, the number of fighting men over 20 is probably about 25% of the total population. Consequently, the total population would have been around 2.4 million on entering the land (and this would have been a conservative reckoning because some scholars have argued for even a higher figure).

The next important census was taken by David some 450 years later (made at the instigation of Satan). This one put the number of fighting men at 470,000 in Yehudah and 1.1 million in the Northern tribes--less Levi and Binyamin, who were not included (I Chron 21:5-6).

II Samuel 24:9 and 15 offer another count on this census as 800,000 in Yisrael and 500,000 in Yehudah with some 70,000 being slain a few days later. It is unclear how many of these slain came from Yehudah as opposed to Yisrael. But it is possible that 30,000 came from Yehudah which would leave the 470,000 as mentioned in I Chronicles.

In attempting to reconcile the difference, the “Soncino Books of the Bible” (Chronicles, p. 115) notes that the wording in the two texts is somewhat different. Possibly, the text in Chronicles is all inclusive with the qualification of those that drew the sword while Shmuel’s report is limited with the reference to valiant men.

Again, conservatively speaking, one could justify a belief that greater Yisrael probably numbered something over 6 million people (4.4 million in the North and less than 2 million in the South) at the time of this census (around 1000 BCE).

But even by this time, under David, there was a presence of reasons suggesting that already some Israelites may have migrated from the land, as noted above.

Numbering the Deportations

Actually, it appears virtually impossible to get some perspective on the numbers of House of Yisrael persons who died from the war, famine and other conditions which existed in the North during the decline and fall of that nation to the Assyrians in their four invasions. Assuredly, many did perish in those deprivations.

However, in regards to the Assyrian captivity, there was one record made in secular history by the Assyrians which put the number of captives at the fall of Samaria at 27,290 (per the Khorsabad annals, “Old Testament Times,” p. 230, by R. K. Harrison). But this 27,290 did not represent the totality of the conquest and enslavement by the Assyrians (against Samaria).

In “Lost Israelite Identity” (p. 18-19, 39), Yair Davidy explains this 27,290 remark by Sargon as being that the Assyrians took this number of Israelites for their own military purposes (either to serve as soldiers or field workers supporting the Assyrian army). As Sargon noted, the rest of the Israelite captives were settled in Assyria.

Certainly, the Assyrians took huge quantities of Israelites in their several invasions of Canaan. So it’s a little hard to be sure of what the total numbers were. In the Assyrian campaigns against Yehudah, Sennacherib claimed some 200,000 captives alone (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 19). Obviously, more captives came from the Northern kingdom.

By the first century CE, Jewish historian and priest Josephus asserted that by that time the far away House of Yisrael peoples were “an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers” (“Antiquities of the Jews,” book XI, chapter 5, verse 2).

In other words, Josephus was effectively saying that the House of Yisrael peoples had become quite large and virtually innumerable by his day. Regardless, the available evidence is such that will allow some significant Israelite removals from the land, besides the actual enslavements by the Assyrians.

Obviously, the House of Yisrael peoples have become numerous over time to comply with The ELOHIM’s promise to Avraham of his descendants being like the stars in heaven.

Jewish Removals

II Kings 24:14 gives the Babylonian captivity of Jerusalem as 10,000 men. Yet, Yirmeyahu gives the captivity from the House of Yehudah at 4,600 from the three deportations, which must be men only (Jer 52:30).

An article by Ernestine Young in the Apr 2002 “Kingdom Digest” (p. 47) adds these two figures together and arrives at a total of 14,600 men/males, which seems likely.

Also, it seems plausible that numbers of people voluntarily left Judea on their own during the several years that Yehudah was in conflict with the Babylonians. Many of these people probably also went to Babylon; or at least, to some place under Babylonian control (since Babylon effectively ruled the civilized world at that time).

In the 70 years or so of Jewish captivity, this 14,600, or however more that could have gone to Babylon, apparently grew to the 42,360 (evidently men)--as was outlined in the Jewish return from Babylon (discussed earlier) during the time of Ezra, Nechemyah and the others (Ezra 2:1, 64-65).

In 70-73 CE, at the fall of the Second Temple and Masada to the Romans, the Jewish population in Palestine had grown considerably because Josephus estimated that some 1.1 million Jews had died in the Roman wars--not counting the numbers which were enslaved (per an article on “The Real Diaspora,” by J. S. Brooks, in the Feb 1997 “New Beginnings,” p. 4).

The Jan-Mar 2002 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 4) had a quotation from an article on “population” in “Encyclopaedia Judaica” which reported upon a census conducted by the Roman Emperor Claudius in 48 CE. It found 6,944,000 Jews in the Roman Empire that year.

Some Tentative Conclusions

From this just outlined statistical data, some worthwhile conclusions can be inferred. First, the Israelites were typically quite proliferate, growing rapidly in population numbers and regardless of what their status might have been at a given point in time.

Secondly, the huge numbers of people in the land (certainly, at the time of David’s census) in comparison with the smaller quantities of people in the various exiles and enslavements by the Assyrians and the Babylonians would suggest that indeed vast numbers of Israelites did escape the pending invasions or otherwise left the land to go to other geographical areas.

Like prophecy says, Yisrael would expand in all directions (to be proven later herein).

Thirdly, it is quite manifest that “most” of the vast numbers of Israelite peoples (certainly, from the House of Yisrael generally and even from the House of Yehudah to some extent) never returned to Palestine in Second Temple days. That return of 42,360 persons (identified as being from the Babylonian captivity) was a very small part of the total number of Israelites out in the Diaspora.

Incidentally, on this question of the Israelite return from the scatterings, John McClintock and James Strong, in their “Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature” (v. II, p. 111), conclude essentially the same thing in saying that “The great mass of the Israelite race nevertheless remained in the lands to which they had been scattered.”

Dr Alfred M. Lilienthal, the Jewish scholar and author quoted earlier, concluded that “Twelve tribes started in Canaan about thirty-five centuries ago; and not only that ten of them disappeared--more than half of the members of the remaining two tribes never returned from their ‘exile’ in Babylon” (“What Price Israel,” p. 215-216).

Many Israelites Did Not Return

Thus, while some of these Babylonian dispersed Jews (to include a few persons from the other tribes who had moved to the Jerusalem area in the 10th to the 8th centuries BCE, after the division of the kingdom) did return to Galilee and Judaea under Ezra and Nechemyah, as just noted, many did not. So, in the Diaspora, there were Israelite Jews who were recognized and known as Israelites and Jews.

But also, there were vast numbers of House of Yisrael Israelites, from most of the earlier deportations and removals, who were not known or even readily thought of as being of Yisrael. One should remember that on leaving Canaan land, Yisrael was to be called by a new name (Isa 62:2; 65:15; Hos 10:9). It is essentially these unrecognized Israelites who were truly the "lost" sheep of the House of Yisrael.

However, in both cases, the recognized and unrecognized Israelites were abroad in other lands--with other citizenships, residences, nationalities and often even other religions and languages (at least, in terms of the House of Yisrael). Students of truth may recall that the Apostle Shaul was both a Jew and a Roman (Acts 22:27).

Proof of This Distinction In Other Scriptures

Actually, this distinction between racial identifications and residency/nationality identifications was brought out substantially earlier in the Scriptures when the status of Moshe was revealed in the book of Exodus (when Moshe drew water from a well for the daughters of Reuel, a priest of Midian).

While Moshe could be correctly called an “Egyptian,” because of his former geographical residence and/or nationality (Ex 2:19), he also was very clearly an Israelite of the tribe of Levi from a racial or ethnic perspective (Ex 2:1-10).

The Scriptures (Ezra, Nehemiah, etc) imply and suggest certainly that numbers of racial and religious Jews had residences and sometimes citizenships in Babylonian and Medeo Persian lands from the exile and on forward. Thus, many were both Babylonians and Israelites/Jews and Persians and Israelites/Jews.

Of course, this double status continued from Alexander’s conquests of the East on to Roman times.

Therefore, this dual representation and identification surfaced in Acts early on in the initial baptism of The RUACH HA KODESH on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:5-10). Please note that these Jews and proselytes (which will be later assessed) mentioned were also Galileans, Parthians, Medes, Elamites and Romans as well.

The Language Distinctions

Beyond the nationality and citizenship identifications, one must not lose sight of the language factor. As is described elsewhere herein, the word “Semite” is to be properly associated with languages, like Hebrew, as spoken by numbers of peoples in the Middle East in OT days, while the word Shemite represents racial descendants of the man Shem.

Consequently, in the dispersion, much or all of the House of Yisrael peoples remained Shemites. But with the loss of the Hebrew language and/or any other Semitic languages, they could not properly be called Semites.

Israelites Known as Greeks in Other Lands

Surely, in the first century CE, many Israelites were in the Diaspora in Greek lands, living as Greek residents and nationals (the Dorian Greeks, which settled Southeast Greece in the 8th century BCE, were thought to be Israelites from the House of Yisrael, as will be discussed in later chapters. The same may be true with the settlers of ancient Troy in Northwest Asia Minor in the 14th-13th centuries BCE).

Evidently, in John 7:35, the Jews were wondering if YESHUA would go to these Israelites abroad (obviously, many of them were living as Greeks).

In John 11:52, a similar situation came up when the high priest referred to the gathering together of the children of The ELOHIM then in the Diaspora. This coming regathering of Yisrael (including both the House of Yehudah and the House of Yisrael) was thoroughly mentioned by the OT prophets (as will be covered in later chapters).

In addition to Greek citizenship, residency and/or nationality, it should be noted also that there was the Greek religion and its polytheistic gods. In terms of personal identification, Mark 7:26 notes that the racial Syro-Phoenician woman, previously discussed, was actually a Greek in religion. Clearly, many Israelites in the Diaspora were Greeks in religion.

Dr Cyrus Gordon

Perhaps here is the place where reference should be made to a statement this writer once heard on an audio tape by Dr Cyrus Gordon from the Fifth National Conference on the "Foundations of Our Faith," previously mentioned, held at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma on October 9-12, 1991.

The value of this statement probably gains considerable credence when one focuses in on the background of Dr Gordon. Cyrus Gordon was a Jew who was born in 1908 and spent portions of his long life in archeological work in the Middle East--at one time a contemporary and colleague of the imminent savants William F. Albright and Ken Darby.

In addition, Dr Gordon was a proficient scholar in Hebrew and certain other Semitic languages--which served him appropriately in his numerous writings (over 600 professional publications, including some 20 books) and his respected tenures as a professor of Hebrew and Assyriology at several recognized universities.

But more importantly, Dr Gordon was an early leader in directing attention to the need for Christians to have some perspective of the Hebrew language and the Jewish religion and culture--particularly, of Second Temple times.

Today, here in the early 21st century, many of the scholars and leaders active in this marvelous field of study (of the language, religion and culture of Second Temple Judaism) were once either students of Cyrus Gordon or were motivated directly by him and his work of over 60 years.

Certainly, the student of truth must realize and appreciate the fact that the existing social and religious culture and environment of YESHUA, all of the disciples, the Apostolic Assembly and the entire New Testament was Second Temple Judaism (which Gordon has advocated and taught over his productive life).

In this intriguing talk at ORU, by this extraordinary man, mention was made of the Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt in the second century BCE and especially during the age of the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament to the Greek to produce the Septuagint (or at least, some part of it--ed). At one point in time, the professor made a remark which affords much light on the topic at hand.

Greek Jews!

On this, Gordon referred to the Jews of Alexandria as "Greeks" and spoke of them in that context in terms of their alleged need for the Septuagint (which was translated by Jewish and/or Christian scholars).

Subsequent to this fantastic statement, Cyrus Gordon went on to qualify his remarks slightly for his audience when he explained that those Jews in Egypt were correctly Greeks--culturally.

The essence of this report is that in a conversation with others, a Jewish savant (of some station and language authority) referred to other Jews as "Greeks" and never batted an eye or showed any hesitancy in his comments.

Obviously, the very thing Gordon had done is something which anyone could do, simply because the word involved can be used for a person for any good reason--such as philosophy, religion, culture, residency, citizenship and a lot of other things as well, besides just ethnic or racial considerations.

Incidentally, Dr Emil Schurer, previously quoted, mentioned that in the Diaspora, a cultured Jew was not only a Jew, but a Greek as well in language, education and habits (“A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. ii, division 2, p. 281). It is reasonable that anyone could refer to one of these Jews as a Greek.

Acts 9:29

Actually, one can find the exact same situation in the Scriptures. For example, in Acts 9:29, Luke wrote about a dialogue with some “Grecians.” “The American Standard Version Translation” and others correctly render that word as “Grecian Jews” (per “The New Testament From 26 Translations”).

Undoubtedly, many of the people of the lost tribes of Yisrael were Greeks in religion in the first century--just as they still are today (since Christendom theologically is a Greek religion for all purposes). Consequently, a reference to a "Greek" could be to a Greek racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally, nationally or by citizenship.

Who Is A Jew?

The Apostle Shaul, mentioned above as a Jew and Roman, was more precisely an Israelite racially (Rom 11:1), a Jew religiously (Gal 2:15) and a Roman by citizenship (Acts 22:27). His status covered the gauntlet in definitions. The linkage of the word “Jew” to the Jewish religion is a most important feature of this present discussion.

Although the term “Jew” would theoretically be derived from racial factors (from Yehudah), it carried a largely national connotation in its earliest use. For example, the writer of II Kings used its plural form Yehudim (Jews) to describe the people of the House of Yehudah in their war with Syria (II Kg 16:6).

After the Babylonian exile, the Jewish religion developed and the former racial and/or nationalistic definitions became a single definition relating to this group of people in Palestine.

As will be shown in subsequent chapters, this Jewish religion was opened up to numbers of non-racial Jews who converted and became religious Jews. Hence, the word Jew largely lost any relevance in terms of race.

Also, in late Second Temple days, and particularly during the Roman rule, a governing geographical district was formed called Judea. Its people were correctly called Judeans (generally Jews in English translations). The result has been that confusion can arise whenever the term Jew comes up.

Essentially a Religious Definition

As will be later established, the term “Jew” was generally a religious definition in the first century CE. Even today, the religious definition holds prominence, although some people try to argue that it has racial overtures since a Jewish mother has Jewish children in contemporary Judaism.

But even here, it is quite manifest that the term really is one of religion. A Jewish mother may have children who are born as Jews. But if she abandons Judaism and converts to another religion, say Christianity, she is no longer a Jew. She is a Christian. Thereafter, her children are apparently born as Christians and not as Jews.

Like Jewish parents, who produce Jewish children, Christian parents produce Christian children in the generic sense. While several Christian Churches require a quick Christian christening or baptism ceremony for a new born infant, they are either born Christians (and particularly so when the parents raise them that way) or they quickly become Christians with the christening and/or baptism.

Ultimately, religion is the point of definition for even modern Jews. Any Jew who abandons Judaism to convert to any other faith (certainly the Christian and Muslim faiths) is no longer a Jew. He immediately becomes a Christian or whatever else in terms of the new faith. Consequently, religion becomes the factor of identification.

A former Jew, now a Christian, cannot immigrate to the Israeli state under its law of return open to all Jews. This issue was settled in a case that went before the Israeli Supreme Court which ruled that an apostate from Judaism (like to Christianity) was no longer a Jew eligible for Israeli citizenship under the law of return (“Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 366).

The reason is because the former Jew is no longer a Jew. Accordingly, this definition reality will be elaborated upon somewhat more extensively in later comments.

The Issue Here

The essence of the above presentation is one of the most important subjects to comprehend in order to ever begin to understand and grasp the subject of identity (which is covered in this publication).

Inevitably, the very mention of the word Jew or Greek makes most persons immediately think of race. And this is a very bad conclusion (though in the beginning there were racial overtures attached to each word).

In the table of nations, in Genesis 10, there was a descendant of Japheth (Yefet in the Hebrew) named Yavan in Hebrew (anglicized as Javan at Gen 10:2. 4). In the Tanakh, these people of Yavan are called bene Ha-Yavanim in Hebrew (Joel 3:6). These persons of Yavan eventually settled in Southeast Europe in a territory which today is called Greece and Macedonia.

In their own language (which surfaced presumably at the tower of Babel incident in Gen 11:1-9), they believed that they descended from a god called Hellen. Thus, they called their national homeland Hellas. In English, modern Americans call this land Greece.

In this land of Yavan, the people of Yavanim were known in their own language as Hellenes and Hellenists. In English, they are called Greeks or Grecians. Of course, the language of these persons from Babel on was certainly the Hellenes or Greek language.

At a very early time, in ancient Yavan, the people adopted polytheistic sun worship as their national religion. This Grecian sun worship became the basis of their culture and civilization--which was known as Hellenism.

Originally, these Hellenes were apparently a very homogenous people. From paintings, statutes, etc, it is quite manifest that they racially were a blond, blue-eyed, fair people (much as was true in Rome and even in Egypt). Today, modern people would probably classify all of these ancient nations as being Nordic (in essence, the same type of people as found in Scandinavia).

With the arrival of Alexander the Great, and his world conquest, the racial and genetic fiber of the Greek people began to change.

Like other world rulers, the Greeks brought in slaves from all over the world and eventually freed them. Thereupon, they began a process of integration, miscegenation and amalgamation. Over the centuries, the once Nordic Greeks turned into the modern, dark, swarthy Greeks.

Of course, with Alexander’s armies all over the civilized world, Greek people found themselves as residents in other far away lands--like Syria, Egypt and Palestine. For some time, these Greeks retained some semblance of racial and national identification with their homeland of Greece. But with the passing years, miscegenation, new generations, etc, this identifying link was lost.

The Greek Religion Survived

However, the situation with the Greek sun worship religion was far more successful than the racial aspects of the Greek nation. The polytheistic Greek religion spread from Greece and infected other peoples all around the world. Even by the time of the Roman Empire, much of the civilized world’s religion was Greek polytheism.

In the Scriptures, persons in Greece or outside of Greece, who were of this Greek sun worship religion, were also known as Hellenists or Greeks. As commented upon in previous remarks, the racial Syro-Phoenician woman was actually a Greek in religion (a Hellenis or female Greek, at Mark 7:26).

As noted above, and as will be discussed in later chapters herein, there is also a cultural aspect of identification. Usually, it is more closely associated with religion. But sometimes, it would be fair to describe it separately. Thus, there was the Greek culture (Hellenism) which many Jews and others adopted. By the way, the Greek culture still prevails in the Christian West, as will be illustrated in subsequent chapters.

The point here is that there once was an original Greek race or racial group of people who spoke the Greek language, practiced the Greek culture, worshipped the Greek, polytheistic gods and lived in a land territory called Greece.

But these people and their culture and religion were spread abroad to other peoples in other lands. In terms of their own land, they allowed in many diverse racial and ethnic groups which they proceeded to miscegenate and amalgamate with.

For purposes of identification, all of these persons in Greece were called and could be called Greeks in the context of their language, religion, culture, nationality (citizenship) or homeland residence. The primary definition (which once existed, but was lost over the years) was the racial definition of a pure Greek. Were there any racial Greeks in existence 2,000 years ago? Possibly, they were all gone--just as is true today.

Incidentally, the Greek religion was the most salient of all factors that once identified the ancient Greeks. The Greek religion spread throughout the Roman Empire and has persisted into modern times, as will be addressed in subsequent chapters.

The Jewish Situation

This background on the Greeks explains what happened with the Jews. There were some original people who descended from Yehudah. They were known in Hebrew as Yehudim (Yehudi in the singular). They occupied a territory in Southern Palestine which was called Yehudah. With the division of Yisrael (upon the death of Shlomo), the resulting nation was known in Hebrew as Beit (House) Yehudah.

In English, translators have anglicized Yehudah as Judah and the word Jew was attached to a Yehudi (Jews for the plural of Yehudim). Though there once were some racial people called Yehudim, that definition came to refer to not only them, but their national government (Beit Yehudah, which included some people of Levi and Binyamin) and their geographic homeland (in Southern Palestine).

With the Jewish exile to Babylon, things were to change. True, there was a remnant of these people who came back to Southern Palestine (around Jerusalem) and established a land territory called Judea. But over the years, people of other nationalities and races settled in this same territory (like the Amalekites, to be later addressed). They, too, came to be called Yehudim (Jews in English).

There was, of course, the historic language of the Jews (which was known as Hebrew) and which continued. And there were also the historic Hebrew religion and culture. In NT days, people who followed this religion and/or culture were known as Yehudim or Jews. In time, this religion of the Jews became known as Judaism and the culture became identified as the Jewish culture.

In the Greek language, these Yehudim were known as Ioudaios. This was a term which could be used for any of the people in the Judean territorial province (which could be ascertained usually from the context of the NT reference and especially so in the book of John, discussed elsewhere herein) or it could refer to the religion or culture of the people outside of Judea.

Thus, the people of Galilee were Galileans geographically. But they could be of the Yehudi or Greek religions or cultures (as just shown). Presumably, even some Samaritans might have lived in Galilee with their own religion and culture. Out in the Diaspora, there were people of the Yehudi religion and culture, who had Greek citizenship or lived in Greek lands (like Shaul the apostle).

Just as Jews could convert and change to other religions, the same reality applies to people of other religions. People of any worldly faith can and do periodically change their religious identifications to other religions. It happens all of the time.

The Bottom Line

The point here is that the words Greek or Jew (or even Roman, Egyptian, American and so forth) have lost all semblance of relevance as far as racial definitions. All of these societies once had a people who were generally racially homogeneous. But over the years, all of them (including the US) allowed in huge numbers of other racial peoples and proceeded to integrate, mix, miscegenate and amalgamate with them.

Despite the loss of any relevance of these identifying terms for race, the words still have pertinence for other definitions--certainly geographical land areas (like Greece and Judea of 2,000 years ago), language and by all means, religion and culture. In fact, today, the Greek and Jewish religions both still survive (although there is another identifying word for the Greek religion, to be covered in a later chapter).

In the main, in New Testament days, the words Yehudi/Yehudim (Jew or Jews) meant either people living in the geographical area of Judea (which was determinable by the context of its use) or the persons of the Jewish religion or culture, wherever they lived. Just as is true today, there was some effort to hold onto the Jewish identification reference, even if a racial or ethnic Jew abandoned Judaism.

People like the Roosevelts, Karl Marx and the recent Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, demonstrate this reality. The Roosevelts were once Jews, but left Judaism for Christianity. The same is true with William Cohen. He once was a Jew. But now, he is a Christian.

Karl Marx was supposedly born a Jew, but was converted to Christianity as a small child by his father. On reaching adulthood, he became a professed atheist. Not only was Karl Marx a supposed atheist, but he passionately hated Judaism above all else. Presumably, he did not hate the Jewish people with equal passion.

Technically, it would be incorrect to call any of these persons “Jews,” although there is the obvious linkage of the presence of some DNA and genes which tie some modern peoples back to certain earlier ancestor lines (which may or may not have called themselves Yehudim/Jews). This condition will be discussed in subsequent chapters herein which focus upon the Jews in some detail.

Chapter 48--The Publicized Great Commission

Is This A Change?

The so-called "great commission of taking the Gospel to all nations" (in the KJV at Matt 28:19; Mk 13:10; Lu 24:47) was a part of The MESSIAH's final instructions to the disciples.

Of course, it has been principally these Scriptural references which Christians regularly seize upon to justify their worldwide evangelistic campaigns supposedly to convert all of the heathen in the world.

First, there is some question about whether this reference is even in the book of at least Matthew (and perhaps the other books as well). The previously quoted Hebrew text of Matthew from Shem Tob ben Isaac ben Shaprut does not contain the words “people of all the nations (“Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended,” p. 42).

Reportedly, the early Ebionites (to be defined in a later chapter), who may have used an early Hebrew text of Matthew, rejected a belief in the conversion of “people of all the nations” (ibid, p. 42).

If the words in question were not in the early Hebrew edition of Matthew, there is some possibility that they were not present elsewhere in the NT. Maybe, they are a product of the editing done by Marcion or some other early Christian editor (as described previously herein).

An Analysis

In these texts, in the so-called Gospels, assuming that they are valid and represent truth and not the work of Marcion or some other early Christian editor, the word "nations" is from the Greek "ethne" which links to the Greek "ethnos," singular and neuter case, (ethne--nominative and accusative plural, ethnesi--dative plural, and ethnon--genitive plural, per “The Analytical Greek Lexicon”).

At this juncture, some so-called Christian "experts" will jump up and down in ecstasy and enthusiastically declare that The MESSIAH has changed the definition of "who" it was to receive the Good News.

Whereas, sometime earlier, YESHUA had expressly limited His commission to the House of Yisrael, these supposed "authorities" now insist on believing that later on, His message was changed to go to every and all kinds and classes of humans/humanoids across the globe.

Despite this prevalent Christian thinking, did He make a change here?

Since a person’s will or testament is valid and established at death and cannot be changed after his death (Heb 9:16-17, as discussed earlier), one has to stop and ponder here how it is that YESHUA would attempt to change His last testament after He had died and made it effective. Surely, if He wanted to change it, why didn’t He do it before He died?

Earlier, in this study, an array of Scriptural laws, edicts and words were cited which should conclusively establish that The HIGHEST does "not" change or advocate change and that He is immutable.

Romans 11:29 was mentioned; which, in context, says that YHWH's "gifts and His call are irrevocable--He never withdraws them once they are given, and He does not change His mind about those to whom He sends His call" (Rom 11:29, “Amplified Translation”).

Again--Two Different Deities?

Moreover, here, one may bring to mind the earlier quotation of some remarks by YESHUA that His doctrines, teachings and words were not His Own; but rather, were from "He" Who sent Him (Jo 7:16; 14:24).

Now, for those persons who are polytheistic and believe in two or more "gods," which they allegedly serve, these comments could suggest a conspiracy of confusion and change.

Is it plausible that these two supposedly different persons (as perceived by polytheistic believers) jointly could work to stupidly contradict themselves without offering some explanations to avoid the pitfalls of outright chaos and confusion by their disciples? Well logically, no way!

Incidentally, in mentioning these texts, this writer does not wish to convey the idea that there are, in fact, two or more separate and different deities, as theorized by Christendom. While the Scriptural citations are certainly true, there perhaps could be a different interpretation (which was broached previously in this study) than what one may initially suppose--at least, in terms of believing in two, three or more deities.

The Greek Ethnos

Since The ELOHIM obviously didn't "change," let's delve into this issue of the "great commission" more carefully. Strong's very popular and widely distributed "Greek Dictionary of the New Testament" defines the Greek ethnos as "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; spec a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by impl. pagan):--Gentile, heathen, nation, people."

The comprehensive "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," edited by Gerhard Kittel, traces "ethnos" to the Hebrew Old Testament "goy," which is the main Hebrew term for people. In reference to the Greek New Testament, this source points out that "ethnos" probably comes from "ethos" and means "mass or host or multitude bound by the same manners, customs or other distinctive features."

Applied to men, Kittel points out that ethnos "gives us the sense of people; but it can also be used of animals in the sense of 'herd' or of insects in the sense of 'swarm.'" Obviously, by this definition, ethnos wouldn't even have to relate to people at all, per se.

Other dictionaries likewise have interesting views. "The Analytical Greek Lexicon" notes that ethnos means "a multitude, a company, a nation,..." Thayer's "Greek-English Lexicon" defines the word as "a multitude associated or living together; a company, troop, swarm, a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genue, the human race, race, nation,..."

Also, "A Greek-English Lexicon" by Arndt and Gingrich, allows for "nation, people, heathen, pagans, Gentiles."

Additionally, the Greek ethnos is linked to the English ethnic(s) since the two terms are related as many dictionaries so allow. All of these definitions, and especially Strong's, clearly allow for the non-Jewish lost tribes of Yisrael, as specified in the original commission.

In one more related definition, “Webster's Unabridged English Dictionary” notes that "ethno" is from the Greek ethnos and means "(1) race, people, cultural group and (2) characteristic of or believed by a people, race or group."

This definition by Webster’s is most interesting. Because therein, the findings are addressing not only the physical aspects of a people, but also such intangibles as their culture, thoughts, beliefs and so forth. This condition can be far reaching.

E. T. Tennyson

E. T. Tennyson, in his book “The Time of the End,” says that “It is from this Greek word ETHNOS that we get the word ethnic for ethnic groups, and almost all today are familiar with this term. Webster defines ethnic (ETHNOS) as races, groups, or tribes of a nation discriminated on the basis of common traits or customs.”

Tennyson goes on-- “All ethnic or ETHNOS groups in the United States are citizens of this nation and they are ethnic or ETHNOS only because of their different traits and customs. The Chinese, for example, are not ethnic or ETHNOS when they are citizens of China, but when they become citizens of the United States they become ethnic or ETHNOS to the United States because they are citizens of the nation but with different traits and customs from the nation.”

“The Time of the End” then proceeds on to conclude that the people of the scattered, lost tribes of Israel were “legally citizens of the nation of Israel,” but had “adopted the traits and customs of other nations.” In that sense, they were “ethnic groups or ethnos tribes.”

Certainly, these comments by E. T. Tennyson cannot be ignored or passed over lightly. It is very possible that he has hit the nail on the head with his inceptive analysis. As a minimum, this logic must be broached and considered in any discussion of the Greek “ethnos.”

By the way, Messianic Jewish writer Dr Rick Chaimberlin also takes the position that the Greek ethne means more accurately-- “ethnic group” (Jul-Sep 2001 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 21).

Thomas Jones, Revisited

In a previous chapter, mention was briefly made to “The Elect: Who Are They?” by Thomas Jones. In that work, the author briefly discussed the presentations of the word(s) nation/nations in the King James translation of the Greek New Testament.

Jones argues that of the 37 occurrences of nation/nations in the KJV text, some 26 of them have the article “the” in the Greek text. He contends that presence of the article links the reference specifically to the lost ten tribes of Israel. Without the article, the word involved could be to nation/nations in the broad sense.

Again, as was true with Tennyson’s reflections, these conclusions by Jones cannot be ignored or passed over lightly.

It is very plausible that in Second Temple days, the Hebrew ha goyim (meaning the same thing, the nations, and to be discussed shortly) specifically referred to the lost tribes of Yisrael while just the Hebrew word goyim meant other nations in general in the mind and mentality of the Jews then living in Palestine.

The writer of this publication has reviewed many (not all) of the uses of the Greek ethnos (both singular and plural usages) in the Greek New Testament in an effort to verify whether the presence of the article “the” identifies the subject as lost Yisrael or not. As Jones suggests, there is some compelling evidence making this connection.

However, one interesting text does surface where the article does not appear in the Greek text (at Acts 9:15). But yet, the verse plainly does refer to the lost House of Yisrael. No explanation on this item will be presented at this time. Later, this verse will be analyzed and discussed at length in another section of this study.

In connection with the three NT texts under discussion on the so-called “great commission” (Matt 28:19: Mk 13:10; Lu 24:47), it is useful to note that in the Greek text, all three of these statements appear with the article (the). Therefore, based on Jones’ conclusions, this charge concerns only the lost House of Yisrael.

The Hebrew Goy

While the focus of this study is on the New Testament and its Good News message (to the ethnos, ethne, ethnesi or ethnon), it would be well to pause here briefly to examine the Hebrew goy (plural, goyim) as related to the Greek ethnos. Various Hebrew lexicons give meanings for "goy" --which do, of course, compare with "ethnos," as just mentioned above and as Gerhard Kittel noted earlier in this chapter.

For example, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," by Benjamin Davidson, in defining the word, notes that the Hebrew "goy" is "prop. a body of men, hence a people, nation..." Also, "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament," by Brown, Driver and Briggs, allows for "nation, people." But this source then goes on to also suggest "community" as a meaning.

Gesenius' "Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures" defines "goy" as "(l) a people, prop. a confluence of men... (Prop. it would seem body, corpus, a body politic, or whole people;...) The word is general, and used of the nations at large, but also (which should not have been doubted by some interpreters) of the Israelites,..."

"The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament," edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, traces the Hebrew "goy" to the West Semitic "gayum" which means "people;...group, (work) gang." This authoritative source quotes the Mari documents where the word has been translated as tribe and sometimes territory.

Botterweck and Ringgren then go on to say that while the meaning of "goy" as people is assured fully, "it remains unclear to what extent the principle of identification is based on political, territorial, or gentilic considerations, and whether some element of social status is implied."

At this point, it is quite evident that the Hebrew goy (plural--goyim) is a complex word which can be difficult to translate into English. This fact alone opens the door to incorrect translations on occasion; which did happen, as we will later see after a few more comments on the Greek ethnos.

Ethnos Is Hard To Translate

In English translations, the Greek word ethnos normally is translated as Gentile, heathen, nation or people, as Strong's notes. But some of these uses, like Gentile (which some "religious" persons automatically assume to be non-Israelites), probably are very poor or even incorrect for the Greek ethnos, as will shortly be seen. The term ethnos can create confusion.

As a minimum, ethnos is probably a very broad expression which, like goy, is frequently hard to translate. More often, the word must be determined from the context. Clearly, English words like race, tribe, multitude, nation, people, etc. can open up all kinds of possibilities.

Interestingly, and in fact, a check of the usages of ethnos in the New Testament reveals that the Jews (one tribe and/or one nation) were called ethnos (singular) at Luke 7:5; 23:2; John 11:48-52; 18:35; and Acts 10:22; 24:2,10,17; 26:4; 28:19. In regards to the reality of this truth, many Greek savants will not argue it.

A good example of this very thing is brought out by W. E. Vine in his "New Testament Dictionary" where he acknowledges that ethnos "is used in the singular of the Jews." Since this fact is not in dispute, one may wonder why these same scholars do not express some concern over the theory that ethnos (in its plural forms) refers only to non-Israelite nations.

Likewise, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the early nation of Yisrael and the later divided Houses of Yisrael and Yehudah were all each and individually referred to as goy (singular) at numerous times as various lexicons and concordances allow. Again, there is no contention on this assertion.

Galilee of the Ethnon

Also, at Matthew 4:13-15, the lands of Zebulun (Zevulun in the Hebrew) and Naphtali (Naftali in the Hebrew), two tribes of the House of Yisrael, are called the Galilee of the ethnon (genitive plural case of ethnos, but perhaps wrongly translated as Gentiles in the KJV). This text links to Isaiah 9:1--where the Hebrew has it as Galilee of the goyim (in the plural), which clearly does refer to Israelite tribes or nations in this context.

Some so-called Bible "authorities" would try to argue that the Hebrew goyim, in the plural (and the Greek ethne, ethnesi and ethnon in the plural), never can refer to the peoples of Yisrael in any sense. These so-called "experts" should look carefully at Genesis 35:11; 48:19; Ezekiel 2:3; 35:10, and 37:22 where the tribes and nations of Yisrael categorically are called goyim (plural).

Of course, Isaiah 9:1 and Matthew 4:13-15 are also clear enough that Zevulun and Naftali (tribes of Yisrael) are both goyim and ethnon. By the way--Gesenius; Harris, Archer & Waltke; Botterweck & Ringgren; and other Hebrew lexicographers state that goyim (plural) can refer to the peoples and nations of Yisrael.

On this, some explanation is now due. Before the division of Yisrael under Rehoboam (Rechavam in the Hebrew), the united kingdom was goy (singular). But after the split, the divided nations and tribes of Yisrael were goyim (plural) and will remain goyim until they are reunited in the future (Ezek 37:22).

Both Goy And Goyim In Yisrael

In addition, there is another aspect of this problem over defining goyim, as well as ethne, ethnesi and ethnon.

Many people erroneously "assume" that the Jews (historically, as well as today) constitute the 12/13 tribes of Yisrael--despite YHWH's pledge that Yakov Yisrael would in time produce a goy (singular nation) and a company of goyim (plural nations) through the two tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 35:11; 48:19).

Of course, from the early days of the promises, the Scriptures were quite precise in stating that Avraham would become the father of many “goyim” (Gen 17:4-6) and that Sarah would be the mother of “goyim” (Gen 17:16). In time, it was noted that Rebekah was to be the mother of two “goyim” (Gen 25:23).

The promises to Yehudah (the Jews) and the other tribes (Gen 49; Deut 33) were that each of them were to become separate nations likewise (collectively goyim). Moreover, opponents of truth can never comprehend that in the strict racial or ethnic sense, the (true) Jews (Hebrew Yehudim) were only descendants of Yehudah and historically were actually one tribe (goy-singular).

Even when Binyamin was allied with the Yehudim in the House of Yehudah, the one resulting nation was still goy (singular). And after the Babylonian exile, the returning Jews (still one people, one nation, and largely one tribe) remained goy and ethnos (singular).

The Jews Were Never Ephraim or the House of Yisrael

Evidently, the Jews (singularly) were never goyim (unless from the perspective that as the House of Yehudah, they were made up of the three tribes of Yehudah, Binyamin and Levi), although Ephraim was destined to be goyim, as YHWH so states. It patently is obvious that Yehudah (the Jews) and Ephraim are distinctly different tribes and peoples.

Furthermore, the Jews living in Canaan after the Assyrian conquests were not and never could be a part of the "lost" House of Yisrael referred to by YESHUA in His commission to the twelve, as has been noted previously.

Significantly, the word “Jews” (Yehudim) first appears at II Kings 16:6; and there, it refers to descendants of Yehudah or the people of the House of Yehudah.

Thereafter, in the Tanakh, the word “Jews” is used in reference to the tribe of Yehudah or the House of Yehudah (although a few individuals of the other tribes did move to the territory of Yehudah to live and be assimilated during the divided kingdom, as will be covered later herein--I Kg 12:17, 23; I Chron 9:3; II Chron 10:17; 11:3, 13-17; 15:9; 16:1; 30:6, 10-18; 31:1, 6; 34:9).

The Scriptures are abundantly clear that the divided houses, nations and tribes of Yisrael were, are and will be goyim, ethne, ethnesi and ethnon (plural forms) until they are reunited into one sheepfold in the future (Ezek 34:23; 37:19). There can be no mistaking of this point.

Goyim And Ethnos (Plural) Are Used In A Religious Sense

Earlier, reference was made to the "Foundations of Our Faith" conference at ORU in October 1991. At that meeting, Dr Ken Hanson (quoted earlier herein) of ORU gave a talk on "The God-Fearers," in which he noted that in contrast to monotheistic Judaism, all of the contemporary worldly religions of Second Temple days were polytheistic.

Hanson next observed that the Jews of those Second Temple times customarily applied the term "goyim" to the peoples of those pagan, polytheistic religions in general. As Hanson outlined it, there is certainly doubt that the first century CE Jews would have given the subject of race or ethnicity any particular considerations at all in contrast to their views on religion.

Therefore, in this context, it is patently obvious that to the Jewish mind of the first century CE, the word "goyim" (and its related Greek translations) was used in a religious vein to refer to persons of non-Jewish religions, of whatever race or ethnic background. Certainly, this fact impacts grossly upon the subject at hand, as will be shown shortly.

Interestingly, on this point, Thayer’s “Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament” reflects that ethne (plural of ethnos) means “foreign nation, not worshipping the true God; pagans, gentiles,...and very often; in plain contradistinction to the Jews: Ro iii 29; ix 24; Gal ii 8, etc.” Obviously, Jews here surely refers to Jews by religion, as has been amply established.

Thayer also observes that Shaul also uses ethne “even of Gentile Christians: Ro xi 13; xv 27; xvi 4; Gal ii 12.” While the word Christians here may be argued (because of its source, based upon comments to be made later in this study), the issue remains that ethne is linked to “non-Jewish” peoples.

Even Strong’s definition of ethnos, discussed earlier, offers the same idea in saying that it means a non-Jewish tribe, usually by implication, meaning pagan.

Assuredly, religion has to be the usual theme of ethnos or goy in the Scriptures. In this sense, the NT uses of these words suggest that they (in their singular or plural forms) connect to the lost tribes of Yisrael in a religious vein.

It would also be appropriate here to also note the remarks of Isaiah 61:9, in linkage with the “Testament of Moses” and the work of that writer and of the Jews generally to connect the words goy/goyim/Gentiles to the lost tribes of the House of Yisrael.

As Yeshayahu noted, Yisrael would be found in or among the Gentiles. Clearly, in Jewish eyes in New Testament times, the Hebrew words goy and/or goyim were descriptive of the lost tribes of Yisrael certainly in a religious sense and possibly in a national vein as well. Second Temple Jews certainly understood them and their meanings.

A final note on this line surfaces in an article on “Gentiles” from the “Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” (v. 4, p. 533), which affirms that “Gentiles are persons who are non-Jews by birth and religion. The essential distinction between Jew and Gentile is, however, not one of nationality or race, but of religious belief and moral standards. A convert to the Jewish faith is not regarded as in any sense a Gentile.”

This same Jewish source additionally asserts that “goyim, nations, came to mean the pagan world.” There is no way to miss what that writer had in mind. He was focusing on the theme of religion and assuredly nothing else.

Surely, any thinking Jew would relegate the status of the lost tribes of Yisrael to the same as any other “pagan” nation or people out in the world. Therefore, it was and still is today correct to Scripturally refer to the lost tribes of Yisrael as goyim and/or ethne-ethnon (or also technically Gentiles, despite confusion over that word in Christendom).

Greek Loipos and Apallotrioo

Turning back now to the New Testament, since this is the theme of this work, ethnesi and ethne were used on two occasions (Rom 1:13; Eph 4:17) in connection with the Greek "loipos" (which is translated as "other;" but more correctly means "the rest or remaining")--to read "other Gentiles" (in the KJV).

But the context of Ephesians 4:17 is clear that the word loipos is a reference to other Israelites in difference to the Jews. The correct translation there would have to be "the rest or remaining (Israelite) tribes" and not other Gentiles as the KJV has it.

Additionally, in Ephesians 2:11-12, Shaul is very explicit in using ethne for the non-Jewish "lost" tribes of Yisrael in saying that the very elect of the apostolic age were once "ethne" (poorly translated as Gentiles by the KJV) in the flesh and "apallotrioo" (incorrectly translated as alien by the KJV).

Young's "Analytical Concordance" says that apallotrioo means "to alienate." Richard Weymouth's New Testament translates it as "estranged from" and Ronald Knox's New Testament gives it as "outlaws from."

The point being, the very elect subjects under discussion were formerly a part of the Commonwealth of Yisrael, but had become separated, estranged or alienated from Yisrael.

Thus, ethne in Ephesians 2:11-12 has to refer to the non-Jewish lost tribes of Yisrael then in the Diaspora. There is no other plausible explanation for this text. So ethnos (singular or plural), which means a “tribe(s),” can and often does mean for sure a tribe(s) of Israelites, as Strong's definition allows and as the contextual uses of the word(s) demonstrate.

Shimon (Called Simeon in the KJV)

There is a third piece of evidence making it abundantly clear that ethnos (singular or plural) can and often does refer to a tribe or tribes of Israelites. This one surfaces when Shimon, a just and righteous man, goes to the Temple to behold The Baby YESHUA (Lu 2:25-35).

In describing this visit, the writer Luke is careful to say that, in context, Shimon was in a state of anticipation and expectancy in looking forward to the "Consolation of Yisrael" (Lu 2:25). On this, please note that this visit occurred when The MESSIAH was a small child and long before He uttered His commission to the twelve under discussion.

Of course, in YESHUA, Shimon saw SALVATION (Lu 2:30) in the vein of Him being "A LIGHT to lighten the Gentiles (ethnon) and (Greek "kai") the glory of" The ELOHIM's people Yisrael (Lu 2:32).

More on the Greek Kai

There are at least two or more significant points worth mentioning in these observations. First, the English word "and" between the two phrases (in Luke 2:30) is from the Greek "kai" (which has been cited in former chapters).

While it is true that, in context, the connective "and" could translate kai, it is also true that kai can be translated often as "even" or "that is to say" or “namely,” as if the second phrase is an enhancement, enlargement or restatement of the first phrase (per Bullinger's “Companion Bible,” Strong's “Greek Dictionary,” Thayer’s “Greek English Lexicon” and other Greek lexicons).

Because of The ANOINTED ONE's statement of His commission, there is every reason to believe that "kai" (in Lu 2:32) more correctly means that YESHUA was A LIGHT to lighten the ethnon "even" or "that is to say" or "to be" the glory of Yisrael. Certainly here, kai is linking ethnon to the people of Yisrael. This fact seems crystal clear.

Another case of “kai” being used as “even” or “that is to say” surfaces at Acts 4:27 where the killing of YESHUA is attributed to Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles (ethnesi) and (kai) the people of Yisrael. Positively here, the ethnesi have to be “namely” the people of Yisrael.

Why? Well, because Acts 2:36 in context appears to clearly link the House of Yisrael to the murder of YESHUA. Kefa was the speaker in both instances. Obviously, Acts 4:27 cannot contradict Acts 2:36. Thus, the ethnesi at Acts 4:27 must be “even” or “namely” the people of Yisrael.

Back to Shimon

For a second issue on this text (Luke 2:30-32), please note that Shimon is addressing The Child YESHUA perhaps as many as 30 years before He would grow up and utter His famous commission about the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael. Hence, at this very early time, the Scriptures are recognizing that the recipients of the Good News will be Israelites who will be known as ethnon (goyim in Hebrew).

No Change In Mission!

Wherefore, when The MESSIAH restated His purpose to the disciples, just before He left them (Matt 28:19; Mk 13:10; Lu 24:47), He was not bringing up a change in their mission since His use of the Greek ethnos (in its plural forms) was nothing new in connection with His mission.

For sure, the concept of His message going to the "ethnon" Israelites was something that was already known all the way back in time to when YESHUA was A Small Child. As this idea was not new and since it had been around for at least 30 years by the time of Matthew 28, there is no way one can believe that the use of ethnos (in its plural shapes) can constitute a change in the commission.

The bottom line on this sub-topic is plain. Very soon, in the earthly life of The MESSIAH, the Greek ethnon is used for Israelites within the purview of YESHUA's mission. Thus, it was no big deal or a change when ethnos (in its plural presentations) is used in later years. Clearly, the Scriptures are consistent and are not in a state of confusion on this topic.

Consequently, any attempt to relate ethnos (in its plural forms) exclusively to non-Israelites (as most translators do with the confused "Gentiles") would have to be wrong. Thus, there is just no way that ethnos, ethne, ethnesi or ethnon should normally be translated as Gentile or Gentiles, as various English translations show.

But it also does appear that at least on occasion, ethnos (in its plural forms) was used for non-Israelites (as at Matt 10:5; Acts 13:19) where the article “the” does not appear in the Greek texts, as discussed by Thomas Jones.

Too, there are several other verses involving ethnos (singular) in the possible vein of all or some grouping of collective nations and peoples (including both Israelite and non-Israelite), as at Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6 and variously others. In citing these texts from Revelation, it must be noted that they are not all precisely the same in every detail in the Greek text (for whatever reason).

In general, in these apocalyptic lines, the meaning may be clearer than just the plural forms of ethnos because Yohanan seemingly wrote about every (Greek pas), kindred (Greek phule), and tongue (Greek glossa), and people (Greek laos) and nation (Greek ethnos).

So, in Revelation, the context seems to allow that in some instances (but not in all instances) a multitude of every and all (or all in a particular class) peoples and nations might seemingly be involved (and in a future context at least when written). In this regard, please note here that the Greek has several other words to mean nations and peoples generally.

For example, the phrase quoted above from Revelation often uses the Greek "pas laos" (perhaps with a broader meaning than just Yisrael) in conjunction with ethnos (not in the plural, but in the singular and without the article) to seemingly cover all or all peoples and nations in a particular classification (maybe Israelites and non-Israelites).

Though it is possible that the above texts from Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 allow for something beyond just Israelites, it does seem likely that Adamites only apply in the two texts for several good reasons which will be discussed below and in later chapters herein (though Rev 5:9 probably concerns Israelites essentially, as will be later covered).

Here, in Revelation, Adamites mean a people greater than Israelites and yet more limited than all humans/humanoids (to be broached below and in some detail in later chapters). Hence, it is likely that Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 only address the collective Adamite kind and not all created humans/humanoids (as might possibly be implied in Revelation 11:9, 13:7, 14:6).

Dan Gayman of the Church of Israel of Schell City, MO teaches that phule in Revelation addresses the Israelite people of the same racial stock who largely had been scattered abroad in the times of Israelite exile from Canaan. The “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (v. ix, p. 245-250) is clear that phule involves a clan or group (like the Israelites) bound together by common descent or blood relationship.

This view has it that the every tongue, people and nation has to be addressed in the context of the tribes of Yisrael, as suggested by the Greek phule. Of course, the relationship idea would also allow phule to address Adamites in the collective sense. As a minimum, the idea of every class of humans/humanoids in Rev 5:9 and 7:9 seems to be in conflict with other texts which will be covered in later comments on this theme.

The Greek Ktisis/Ktisma

Moreover, there is another important reason suggesting that some of those Revelation passages might refer to Adamites only in a general sense. This one surfaces because there is another interesting Greek word used in the NT which seemingly does refer to all kinds of humans/humanoids, besides just Adamites (again, this reality will be broached in some detail in subsequent chapters).

Here, reference is being made to the Greek “ktisis/ktisma” which are often translated as “creature” and mean “a making” or “thing made” (per Young’s “Analytical Concordance”). Ktisis is used at Mark 16:15 in the preaching of the Good News to every “creature.” Other texts at Romans 1:25, II Corinthians 5:17, Colossians 1:23, and Hebrews 4:13 suggest that this word can apply to all created humans/humanoids.

The book of Revelation additionally seems to use ktisma several times in the context of every human/humanoid creature made, as at Revelation 6:13 and 8:9. In these references, ktisis/ktisma appear to convey a broad meaning of “every” human creation, to perhaps include both Adamites and non-Adamites.

With these possible uses of ktisis/ktisma for all humans/humanoids, one would have to stop and wonder if the words every “pas, phule, glossa, laos and ethnos” might therefore have a more restrictive meaning like every “Adamite.” Some constructive research might disclose YHWH’s real intent on this question.

It is furthermore useful to note that while every “pas, phule, glossa, laos and ethnos” would have, at least in a future period, some saved persons (in a resurrected sense in Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 and not in the vein of immortal souls, as usually believed in Christendom), it does not necessarily prove that the ktisis/ktisma address saved ones in any and every situation.

However, the basic thesis of this study survives intact, irrespective of how the reader might wish to read and interpret the various texts just cited. The point remains that the linkage of ethnos (in its plural forms) to the tribes of Yisrael in the New Testament is definitely established.

Both Ethnos And Goy Are Vague

At this instant, it is apparent that the meaning of ethnos (and its plural forms) can be vague and not necessarily clear without a careful study of the context. Frequently, the words clearly refer to the tribes of Yisrael. But on some occasions, they seem to link to non-Israelites.

Plus, on this, please remember that both ethnos and goy (singular or plural) can refer to aspects of a population other than just race and ethnic dimensions. Hence, by these terms, the subject could well be a people from a philosophical, religious, cultural, territorial, nationalistic, etc perspective.

This fact attains a high level of significance when one calls to mind the previously cited comments by Dr Ken Hanson of ORU on the common practice of the Jews of Second Temple days to refer to all pagan, polytheistic worshippers as goyim irrespective of race or ethnic considerations. Surely, this religious dimension was the setting for the entire Apostolic Assembly age.

Therefore, without the definitions as used in Revelation, the word ethnos (or its plural shapes) used alone raises questions and concern, and particularly so in connection with dispensing the Good News to all kinds and created orders of peoples, contrary to YESHUA's original commission.

In fact, since ethne, ethnesi and ethnon often does refer to the tribes of Yisrael, why wouldn't one at first and logically suppose that this is the intent at Matthew 28:19, Mark 13:10 and Luke 24:47, and especially in view of Shimon's earlier remark linking the ethnon to Yisrael (Lu 2:32)?

Without equivocation and based upon the just quoted remarks by Dr Ken Hanson at the Tulsa meeting, it becomes almost certain that the Hebrew word goyim (Greek ethne, ethnesi and ethnon) was in the mental thinking of all of the leading New Testament personalities, including YESHUA, Himself, in any reference to persons of the House of Yisrael in the context of them being people of the heathen, polytheistic religions in contrast to monotheistic Judaism.

Ethnos (Plural) Does Refer to the Lost Tribes of Yisrael

Naturally, this thinking later on translated into the words and writings of the disciples recorded for posterity. By the way, it would be well to pause here and mention that just as the world has been plagued with polytheistic beliefs, Christians have continued the same nonsense with their theories about a so-called trinity (as discussed previously). Hence, these pagan beliefs are still around today.

In effect, in Second Temple days, the New Testament usages of goyim and/or its Greek forms was often being applied to the "lost" tribes of Yisrael from the religious viewpoint that they were non-Jews living in the world of heathen religions. Actually, this has to be the meaning of those texts because the Scriptures are consistent and do not contradict each other.

Furthermore, as one more side point on this reality, it should be noted that whereas the peoples of the House of Yisrael were in the Diaspora in the first century CE, largely practicing the pagan religions, they are still in the same situation today to invoke a coming time of trial on them, as envisioned by the prophet Yechezkel (Ezek 4-7).

Incidentally, their test comes upon them just as they complete a "marked off" period of 390 years of sin (Ezek 4:5). This situation is discussed at some length throughout this publication.

In the earlier presentation on the Israelites living abroad (from Palestine) in the Diaspora and referred to as Greeks, the point was made that these people could be Greeks because of religion or because of culture, nationality, residency or possibly even citizenship. The same is true with the Hebrew goy(im) and Greek ethnos.

The conclusion on this is manifest. In clear and certain words not subject to question or confusion, The MESSIAH had already specified that the Good News was to go to the "lost" tribes of Yisrael (Matt 10:1-42; Lu 9:1-6). Why would He later have contradicted His Own words without offering some clarification or comment?

Mattityahu, Mark and Luke plainly knew what the original commission was. They were not dumb. How can anyone suppose that these writers would come along in later texts to use the vague, ambiguous and uncertain ethnos (in its plural forms), all alone and without explanation, to completely change and alter what had already been said.

Surely, if Matthew 28:19, Mark 13:10 and Luke 24:47 were to include all kinds and created orders of humans/humanoids, why wasn't words also used (as in Revelation) or some other interpretation presented to show that YESHUA's charge to the disciples was, in fact, being changed to a brand new definition.

The only conclusion that a student of Truth can come to in the texts where ethnos (and its plural presentations) are used alone and without qualification or clarification is that the words normally identify the tribes of Yisrael in whole or in part, as with the Jews.

What a tragedy it is that English translators so often use the confusing "Gentiles," rather than the more literally correct "tribes" to translate the terms.

In fact, because of the confusion over the words' meanings, one could make a pretty good argument to transliterate ethnos (singular or plural types); instead of even attempting a translation.

Chapter 49--The New Testament Writers Wrote

To The World?

Another and different statement of the alleged "great commission" appears at Mark 16:15 where the KJV gives the sense of taking the Good News to all the "world." This same idea appears at Matthew 26:13 and Mark 14:9 where the woman's anointing of YESHUA was to be remembered when the Good News was preached in the "whole world."

In these uses, the "whole world" is from the Greek "kosmos." As the "Analytical Greek Lexicon" and others indicate, kosmos refers to the physical planet, world or even the material universe. Manifestly, kosmos addresses the physical and material earth and not people, per se.

The issue here is geography, as is proven from Matthew 24:14, where mention was made that the message was to be preached as a witness to the whole world (Greek "oikoumene," which means "habitable earth or land" per Young's "Analytical Concordance").

A similar idea is found in Acts 1:8 where the Word is to go to the uttermost (the extreme or last) parts of the earth (from the Greek “ge,” meaning the earth or land, per Young’s “Analytical Concordance.” Ge is similar to and apparently used to translate the Hebrew “erets”). Again, the issue is geography.

Therefore, in telling the disciples to go out into the kosmos (and/or to the ge or oikoumene), The MESSIAH was instructing the disciples on "where" to go to fulfill their mission to the lost House of Yisrael.

And where were the Israelites back then as well as today? In the Diaspora, Israelites have been literally throughout most or all of the inhabited, civilized world (certainly, in the age end, Israelites are found all over the world, as will be proven in subsequent chapters herein).

The Wedding Feast

The next record in the first four New Testament books worth mentioning appears at Matthew 22:1-14 where the call goes out to the bidden guests for the wedding feast. But they make light of it so the king turns to others. At a first reading, some may incorrectly speculate that all of Yisrael initially received the call and rejected it; hence, allowing YESHUA to turn to non-Israelites.

However, this is not necessarily what that parable is saying at all. Instead, the New Testament repeatedly teaches and communicates over and over again that of necessity the Good News had to go to the Jews (the recognized Israelites) first for a good reason whether we can understand it or not.

Only after the Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora had received and largely rejected the message did the apostles focus their attention on the unrecognized Israelites of the "lost" tribes (the original commission), who were then living in the Diaspora with other religions, nationalities, citizenships, etc.

The context of this story about the wedding festival actually commenced in Matthew 21:43, which suggested the omission of the Jews in YESHUA's stated commission. In this situation in Matthew 21:43, The MESSIAH was clearly addressing the Jews to whom He was talking. The other people alluded to in the parable at hand have to be the lost tribes of Yisrael if the Scriptures are to be consistent.

Some NT Words

The next account, in the so-called Gospel writings worth mentioning, is at John 10:16 when YESHUA referred to other sheep not of this fold. Some readers may wish to try to interpret this "other" as being non-Israelites. But please notice the context.

Regarding this aspect, the other sheep are to become "one flock" with the Jews (who were being addressed) under one Shepherd. Here, this statement is a positive reference to Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:19 where certain Jews and the lost tribes of Yisrael will one day (still in the future) be united into one sheepfold under YHWH YESHUA.

Actually, this same situation surfaces again very quickly in John 11:51-52 (noted earlier) when Caiaphas made a prediction about YESHUA's death for the Jews and the gathering together into "one" of the children of The MOST HIGH scattered (Greek "diaskorpizo") abroad.

This text by Yohanan absolutely refers to the ultimate reunification of the Jews (recognized Israelites) with the lost tribes (unrecognized Israelites in the Diaspora) into one sheepfold under The SHEPHERD YESHUA, as prophesied centuries earlier by both Yeshayahu (Isa 49:6) and Yechezkel (Ezek 34:23; 37:19).

As a matter of fact, the book of Acts and subsequent New Testament writings are abundantly filled with reports of the Good News going out to all of the sheep of Yisrael--both to the Jews first and to the lost tribes of Yisrael later.

The Apostle Shaul personally preached to the Jews first on many different occasions (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1-2, 10, 17; 18:4; 19:8; 28:17; Rom 1:16; 2:9-10). Only after the Jews largely rejected his words did Shaul turn to the people of the lost tribes (the so-called Gentiles).

Did the House of Yisrael Israelites Help Kill YESHUA?

No wonder that very early in Acts Luke wrote that "therefore, let all the house of Israel know" (Acts 2:36). This exact reference also suggests that the House of Yisrael had a hand somehow in the death of YESHUA (as will be discussed in some detail in future sections of this study).

Was this statement made because of the fact The MESSIAH had been sent to die for them (the executing soldiers); or for all of Adam, including them in the broader sense? Or perhaps the Roman soldiers, involved in YESHUA’s death, included individuals from the House of Yisrael (this reality would be most extraordinary and far reaching in scope and meaning).

At this place, it would be well to mention that beyond the soldiers, there are, additionally, good reasons to believe that Pontius Pilate himself was an Israelite from the lost tribes of Yisrael.

His father was an officer in the Roman Army and tradition has it that Pilate was born at Fortingall, Scotland (per Oct 1995, “New Beginnings”). To this day, the Royal Scot Regiment of the British Army bears the nickname “Pontius Pilate’s Bodyguard.”

Luke 5:32

There are several other references in the first New Testament books which next deserve some comment. First, Luke 5:32 reflects that YESHUA came to call "sinners to repentance." Some might wish to try to read into that line a meaning that the thrust of His work was to all sinners of all races and kinds.

But the condemnation of sin legally exists only in the context of YHWH's Torah (Rom 5:13; I John 3:4) and the Torah was given solely to Yisrael (Acts 7:53; Rom 9:4). Since it was not bestowed on non-Israelites (Rom 2:14), the sinners in Luke 5:32 have to be Israelites.

Acts 5:30-31

As a follow-up on the question of sinners needing repentance, as outlined by Luke (5:32), The Great KING of Yisrael (Matt 27:42; Mk 15:32; Lu 1:33; Jo 1:49) came to grant specifically “repentance unto Yisrael” (Acts 5:30-31). Here, please understand that this same repentance comes only to the elect, called out ones (obviously Israelites, per Acts 5:30) as a free gift of grace (Acts 11:18; II Tim 2:25).

Yes, it is true that this repentance is something which these individuals do not muster and produce on their own. It is something given free as an unmerited gift. A future chapter in this work will study this idea in some detail.

In this context, in Acts 5:30-31, Kefa spoke to the elders and people of Yisrael (Acts 4:8, 10; 7:42) and subsequently pointed out that YESHUA's purpose was to give "repentance and forgiveness of sin to Yisrael" (Acts 5:31). Kefa surely knew and understood what he was talking about. After all, he was present at the initial presentation of the commission by YESHUA.

Kefa's Charge

When YESHUA's work was about finished in 30 CE, He singled out Kefa for a restatement of what Kefa was supposed to do. The MESSIAH specifically charged him to "feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17) with no mention, suggestion or allusion of any change or new direction in terms of Kefa’s earlier commission.

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing in this text to alter Kefa's previous commission as a part of the twelve. In fact, since YESHUA was The SHEPHERD of Yisrael (Matt 2:6), one can surmise that Kefa was to feed (teach) the sheep of Yisrael.

Cornelius

Now, what about the Roman Centurion Cornelius whom Kefa dealt with (Acts 10:1-48). Is there any reason at all to suppose that Cornelius wasn't an Israelite (maybe, an unrecognized one from one of the lost tribes)?

Admittedly, Cornelius was a Roman. But so what--so was Shaul a Roman (just as Moshe was an Egyptian). The fact that this Centurion was a Roman really proves nothing in terms of what his racial and/or ethnic origin could be.

While some people may not realize it, but the truth is that even the city of Rome itself must have had some number of Israelites as residents (House of Yisrael Israelites, according to the flesh) because Shaul wrote his letter to the believers at Rome in the context of them being fleshly descendants of Avraham (Rom 4:1; 9:3-6). Assuredly, they were Israelites.

Not only were these Romans addressed by Shaul in the context that they were obvious Israelites, but more precisely, they had to have been Israelites of the lost tribes of the House of Yisrael. This fact is proven when Shaul outlined his commission to carry the Good News to the ethnos (in its plural forms) which certainly included the called out ones of Rome to whom he was writing his epistle (Rom 1:1; 5:7; 11:13).

This linkage of the Romans to Israelites of the lost tribes deserves a few more comments. In legend, Rome was founded by Romulus in c735 BCE. This was just about the time of the fall of the House of Yisrael tribes to the Assyrians. Is it plausible that some of these Israelites escaped Canaan to come to Rome and establish it?

This writer believes that it is highly possible that Rome was founded by Israelites, during the Assyrian conquests in the Middle East. Sometime, starting with the decline of Rome in the first century CE, many of these surviving Israelites moved on to the West to establish new House of Yisrael nations.

However, some perhaps did stay in Rome for the next 500 years while she declined and effectively died out as a world power. The fall of Rome is described in other comments herein and needs not be repeated at this time.

Suffice to say, the release of the slaves and the integration and miscegenation with them, coupled with other immigration into the area and assimilation with the Italian Sabines (of Hamitic stock), all contributed to the fall of Rome. The people surviving in Rome and in Italy in the last 1,500 years are a far different people racially and ethnically than the early Romans.

The Centurion--An Israelite

Maybe, the Centurion involved with Kefa was a fleshly uncircumcised Israelite from Rome. Furthermore, the centurion could easily have also been a Briton (unrecognized Israelite) because the British Isles supplied many soldiers to the Roman army.

And if the Centurion was of the House of Yisrael from Rome, Britain or some other place, this fact alone could furthermore be pertinent because it might help to establish that some of the Roman soldiers participating in the execution of YESHUA were actually persons of the "lost" tribes of Yisrael, as suggested by Luke (Acts 2:36; 4:27) and as mentioned above.

Although the evidence otherwise is quite profound and most convincing, one must allow, too, that Cornelius could moreover have been a prospective ger convert to the Apostolic Assembly faith which would have been perfectly proper and compatible with Kefa's commission.

Linked to Judaism

Additionally, on this question of the status of Cornelius, some students of the Word have even went so far as to suggest that the Centurion was, in fact, a convert to Judaism (possibly a Hasidic Pharisee); or as a minimum, a proselyte to Judaism (at least, in belief and practice, though formal conversion and circumcision may not have occurred) because of his personal description, as penned by Luke (Acts 10:2, 22).

The “Expositors Greek Testament” (v. II, p. 250-251) notes for Acts 10:2 that Cornelius was “a God-fearing proselyte... In Acts, this class of proselytes are always so described... All the incidents of the story seem to point to the fact that Cornelius had come into relations with the synagogue, and had learned the name and the fear of the God of Israel.”

Here, it is well to observe that many, if not all, of the Apostolic age converts to YESHUA were connected in some fashion to Judaism. In most all of these instances, the apostles clearly preached to both the religious Jews and non-Jew Israelites in attendance at the Jewish synagogues.

These non-Jews must have been there to learn about the Torah (law) and Judaism with a possible view of eventually completing the conversion process to Judaism.

At the previously discussed Foundations of Our Faith Conference at ORU in 1991, Dr Ken Hanson suggests that these persons constituted a body of non-Jews who were generally observant of the Torah, but had not been circumcised or had not completed formal conversion.

It appears that they were a group of goyim who were taking the first stand on commencing the process to Judaism by at least adopting the teachings of righteousness. While some of them would go on to become circumcised proselytes, many would go through life without a change in their status.

Therefore, there were ELOHIM fearers like Cornelius and those individuals at Antioch (Acts 13:16, 26) and Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16:14, per “Lamsa’s Translation from the Peshitta”). This pool of persons, worshipping at the synagogues, provided a large segment of the eventual believers in YESHUA.

Yes, Cornelius Was An Israelite

If the Scriptures are consistent, one can be sure that the Centurion was indeed an Israelite (racially or at least a legitimate ger in the process of conversion) because, at Acts 10:36, Luke carefully noted that the Word was sent to the "children of Israel" in the context of Kefa's visit to Cornelius (on this, see the “Twentieth Century New Testament” translation which gives "God has sent his message to the Israelite people").

It is quite clear that the message had gone to Yisrael in the person of Cornelius. And because of this precise little remark in Acts 10:36, it is most evident that Cornelius was truly a racial "Israelite" of the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael.

Furthermore, on this conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10:45, the KJV poorly translates ethne as Gentiles where the giving of the spiritual baptism to the ethne (unrecognized Israelites of the lost tribes) is being contrasted to its receipt by those of the circumcision (Jews).

One final fact on Cornelius’ conversion surfaced when Luke wrote that in this situation, repentance had been granted to the Gentiles (ethnesi--Acts 11:18). As noted earlier, in this section, Luke, the writer of Acts, repeatedly asserted that repentance was for Yisrael. Since Cornelius was, indeed, an Israelite, the ethnesi in this verse has to be referring to Israelites.

An Earlier Centurion Incident

Actually, Kefa’s encounter with the Roman Centurion was not the first NT contact with such a person. During The ANOINTED ONE’s personal ministry, He, too, came into contact with an interesting Centurion in Capernaum (Matt 8:5-13; Lu 7:1-10).

This first incident with a Centurion is interesting because it demonstrates a manifest difference in the way The MESSIAH reacted to this “non-Jewish” Centurion, as opposed to the nokri/nekar Syro-Phoenician woman, discussed previously.

This Centurion approached YESHUA and was not repelled or rejected (YESHUA’s acceptance of him means that he was indeed an Israelite of the lost House of Yisrael; because otherwise, YESHUA’s commission to the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael would have turned The MESSIAH away from him, as happened with the Syro-Phoenician woman).

Clearly, this Centurion was an Israelite--just like the Centurion was in the book of Acts. Moreover here, it is pertinent to recognize that this Centurion was a man who had some extensive contact and respect for Judaism (Lu 7:4-5). It’s not hard at all to allow that this man could have been an ELOHIM fearer or a prospective Jewish proselyte, as was suggested for the one in Acts.

In any case, the Centurion’s servant was sick of the palsy and he came to YESHUA, seeking the healing of his servant. Rather than reject him, as The MESSIAH surely would have done (if he was not an Israelite of the lost tribes), He was receptive to this Centurion.

Though the Centurion recognized and appreciated YESHUA’s power to heal and heal simply on His Word (which could be spoken at a distance without the necessity of The SON OF ADAM even going to the physical abode of the servant), YESHUA could have chosen to go into the house where the servant was sick, as was His normal NT practice.

Yet, He healed the man’s servant at a distance without entering the house. The just mentioned Dr Ken Hanson’s talk at ORU suggested that the Centurion was unclean (for not being circumcised), and that YESHUA precisely did the healing at a distance so that He would not have to enter the house of the unclean Centurion or servant.

In this context, it would make sense that Kefa later would be hesitant about going to the house of the apparently uncircumcised Cornelius. But it is very clear that in each of the two cases of the Centurions, they both were persons of the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael (who were the objects of YESHUA’s commission).

Acts 10:28

Moreover, please note that at Acts 10:28, the Greek "allophulos" (meaning another tribe--per Young's "Analytical Concordance") is used for nation or race. Plainly, allophulos allows for another tribe of Israelites, as well as perhaps other peoples of other racial and/or ethnic configurations.

These remarks in Acts 10:28 are interesting also because they bring out the fact that the first century CE Jews (surely the religious Jews--Pharisees) were very exclusive and would have nothing whatsoever to do with uncircumcised peoples.

Obviously, since the divorced House of Yisrael included uncircumcised persons (Eph 2:11), the Jews would have felt the same way towards them, irrespective of their racial and genetic relationships (if they were even aware of them).

In reality, it is probable that huge numbers of House of Yisrael peoples were out in the Diaspora and the typical Jew in Palestine would not have had the foggiest notion of who many of those individuals were (racially or ethnically).

The same thing is true today. Most informed Jews (especially Orthodox) are well aware that the lost House of Yisrael has never returned to Canaan. She still exists somewhere out in the Diaspora. Many Jews are very informed about the reality of the lost House of Yisrael. It’s just that they just don’t know where Yisrael is today. Numbers of them have no concept at all about the modern identifications of the lost tribes.

Separation Over Circumcision

Of course, the idea involved in separation (or segregation--see Lev 20:26; I Kg 8:53) is one of achieving the desirable state of (the Hebrew) "kodesh," which means to be separate and obtaining separation (segregation). English translations incorrectly translate this word as "holy," as a matter of information.

Naturally, the basis for the separation among the Jews in those days was assuredly over circumcision and not necessarily over race, as discussed earlier. In a later presentation in this work, mention will be focused on the Pharisees of Judaism.

In particular, the Pharisees were noted for their exclusiveness and separation from others. In fact, during and after the Babylonian exile, the importance of race in conversion to truth seems to have been set aside and ignored by Jews repeatedly, as they undertook efforts to convert and proselyte huge numbers of non-Israelite peoples to Judaism.

One can see this reality particularly in the work of John Hyrcanus to force Judaism on much of the entire population of Edom, as will be described in a later chapter herein.

Clearly, in Acts 10:28, Kefa was well aware of this division between circumcised Jews and others, and in the context that Cornelius evidently was not a circumcised Jew. Hence, the reality of Cornelius' true status evidently would not have affected the issue of separation, regardless of what his racial ancestry was.

Probably, it was irrelevant to the Jews that Cornelius was racially of Yisrael, Yehudah or whatever. What mattered to them was that he apparently was uncircumcised (religiously); and thus, an unclean individual which necessitated separation (segregation) in their eyes.

The Wall of Partition

Monte Judah, in the May 2001 “Yavoh” (p. 1), presented a commentary on Ephesians 2:10-15--with a focus upon the middle wall of partition between the uncircumcised goyim and the circumcised Jews. Ephesians 2:11, from this passage, was just cited by this writer above in the reality of a great gulf or separation between the Jews and their racial kinsmen--the uncircumcised House of Yisrael goyim.

The reality of the situation at the Second Temple was noted by Judah. He pointed out that there was a wall of separation at the Temple which separated the interior courts of Yisrael (accessible by circumcised Jews) from the uncircumcised goyim (Gentiles in the KJV and most English translations). It was in place between the Beautiful Gate and the Court of the Women.

Judah made the point that Moshe never prescribed or outlined that wall of separation in the Torah. Yet, the religious Jews managing the Temple built it. It was built to be a barrier to keep the goyim out of the Temple. In other words, only circumcised, religious Jews could enter the Temple and take advantage of the sacrificial and offering systems for the atonement of sin.

Monte Judah went on to make the case that this wall was never intended by The ELOHIM and that The MESSIAH came to take it down and make both Jews and goyim one in YESHUA.

Although some of Judah’s remarks are well made, there is a little more to this subject. As demonstrated throughout this publication, the reference to the goyim typically refers to the scattered House of Yisrael Israelites out in the Diaspora. So, what happened is that the Jews had erected this barrier between themselves and their racial brethren in the scattered House of Yisrael.

Obviously, in the Jewish mentality, there was a great gulf or separation between themselves (the Jews) and the goyim--despite the fact that the racial brethren of the Jews in the lost House of Yisrael were out in the Diaspora and accepted as being heathen--just as was true with the rest of the pagan peoples.

So yes, YESHUA came to tear down and abolish this middle wall of separation between the two peoples. This reality is one of the key features and teachings of the entire NT. It was the message of The MESSIAH, and indeed, the entire Apostolic Assembly. Certainly, Shaul knew and understood the need, as he outlined it in his letter to the Ephesians.

More On Kefa

Before departing this subject of Jewish separatism, the reader may recall another situation involving Kefa when he chose to separate himself from new, non-Jewish converts to the faith (Gal 2:11-12). This event upset Shaul somewhat since he wrote and told about it.

Shaul, of course, criticized Kefa sharply for his actions. In truth, the Jews, as just noted, were so religiously proud that they looked upon the uncircumcised, other peoples, seemingly to include their own racial and ethnic brethren of even the House of Yisrael, as unclean and on a low level.

In fact, some in this status and certainly those of the nokri/nekar racial makeup (as will be described in some detail in a future chapter) were called “dogs.” Yes, even The MESSIAH referred to certain people in the context of them being "dogs," as noted earlier (Mk 7:27-28). Consequently, there was a tremendous barrier or gulf between the Jews and other peoples, whether Israelites or not.

Since Kefa knew and understood the original commission and his own charge, he subsequently wrote his first epistle to the "elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (I Pet 1:1).

The elect exiles in the Diaspora are and have always been Israelites. There is just no way that Kefa could be addressing any other peoples. In fact, in I Peter 2:9-12, he calls these persons "an elect race." The elect race is Yisrael (Isa 45:4; 65:9, 22).

Shaul Once More

Turning once more to Shaul the Apostle, it's worth noting that he was specifically chosen to carry the Good News to the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael in the Diaspora. Many times over, this fact is stated where the KJV poorly translates the Greek ethne, ethnesi or ethnon to Gentiles.

For example, at Acts 9:15, the KJV mentions Shaul's commission to "the gentiles (ethnon), and kings, and the children of Israel." The first “and” in this sentence is from the Greek “kai,” which has been previously discussed in this study.

The reader may recall that “kai” can mean “even” or “that is to say” in the context of an enhancement, enlargement or restatement of the immediately preceding statement. Consequently, Shaul’s commission was correctly to the ethnon, that is to say the kings and the children (sons) of Yisrael. By making this correction in the translation, truth becomes quite manifest.

Otherwise, to the Galatians, Shaul stated that he was commissioned to go to the “ethnesi” (Gal 1:15-16)--obviously, those ethnesi of the lost House of Yisrael.

Later, it will be shown that these very Galatians were themselves Israelite descendants of the lost House of Yisrael (in “The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,” p. 304, Bart D. Ehrman says that the Northern part of Galatia was inhabited by Celts, which will be an important issue discussed in a later chapter herein).

Moreover, in this same letter, the apostle went on to reflect that he was specifically chosen to preach the Good News to the uncircumcision (Gal 2:7). Again, the uncircumcision in this situation has to be referring to the lost tribes of Yisrael who were certainly uncircumcised in their cutoff state of divorcement from YHWH.

Thus, in accordance with his mission and the pattern established earlier, Shaul preached first to the Jews.

And as they largely rejected the message (evidently, because they were not to be its recipients), he turned to the ethne, ethnesi and ethnon (lost tribes of Yisrael) then in the Diaspora--many of whom were obviously Greeks, nationally or religiously (Acts 13:5; 14:1-2, 27; 15:5-7; 16:13; 17:1-4, 12; 18:4, 19; 19:10; 20:21; 21:19; etc).

Over and over again in Shaul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc, the same theme is repeated--to the Jew (circumcision) first and then next to the ethne, ethnesi and ethnon (uncircumcised, lost tribes of Yisrael). This message is unmistakable in the New Testament.

Acts 13

Although recorded by Luke, there is another very important remark by Shaul on this topic. This one is at Acts 13:26 where the KJV has Shaul as saying: "Men and brethren, children of the stock of Avraham and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent."

There are several features about this writing that deserve some analysis before trying to jump to any conclusions as to it's meaning. For this text, one can find some earlier parallelism in Acts 13:16 where Shaul says, "Men of Israel and ye that fear God" (KJV).

The whole context of this communication started at Acts 13:14 when Shaul entered a Jewish synagogue for worship on the Sabbath and was invited to speak (Acts 13:15). Verse 16 commenced Shaul's discourse which went on to run through verse 43.

Acts 13:43 interestingly noted that in this particular synagogue, Shaul was addressing some Jews who were racial descendants of Avraham, plus some persons who were ELOHIM fearers and religious proselytes (evidently legitimate House of Yisrael converts).

It was only to these Israelites present in the synagogue (both those racially from Avraham and the converts among them) that Shaul's remarks were directed. No one else was present or involved in that dialogue. There can be no confusion on this unmistakable condition.

Consequently, it is apparent that the "whosoever among you" in verse 26 must be connecting to the converts to Judaism present with the traditional Jews in that synagogue and to no other persons. The point being is that Shaul was taking the Good News first to the recognized Jews, as he apparently done throughout much of his preaching career.

Later, he turned to the non-Jewish peoples of Yisrael--obviously, also living in Antioch (verses 44-48). By the way, Richard Francis Weymouth, in his "The New Testament in Modern Speech," translates Acts 13:26 as "Brethren, descendants of the family of Avraham, to us has the word of this salvation been sent."

Could anyone possibly believe that the Apostle Shaul was wrong in saying that to us (descendants of Avraham) has this salvation been sent and not to all kinds and orders of humans/humanoids, as Christendom alleges.

Romans 9:6

In writing to the Romans, Shaul offered a little statement about his commission which, at a first glance, would seem to be a paradox of sorts when he wrote that “all those who are from Israel, these are not Israel” (Rom 9:6).

In this context, the apostle was writing about his racial kinsmen (Rom 9:3). He clearly was recognizing that while “all” of them (his racial kinsmen) were descended from Yakov Yisrael, they were “not” all known as Yisrael or as Israelites.

Again, Shaul was calling to mind the then existing situation regarding the lost tribes of Yisrael which had lost the true Hebrew religion and their own “identity” respecting their true ancestry and heritage. This confused reality surfaced as a result of YHWH’s divorce of the House of Yisrael, as has amply been described in this paper.

Romans 9:20-21

Shaul’s perception in tying the Romans of his epistle to the ancient House of Yisrael was also brought out adamantly in Romans 9:20-21, when he observed that The POTTER certainly has power over the clay to make vessels of honor or dishonor as The POTTER sees fit. Of course, this message was seemingly for the House of Yisrael and to precisely no one else.

Persons familiar with the Word will at once recognize this statement as being a quotation from the prophet Yirmeyahu who said precisely the same thing (Jer 18:2-6).

As Yirmeyahu put it, the clay in his communication was the House of Yisrael (Jer 18:6). Yeshayahu, too, had a few choice words on the same subject in the obvious context of Yisrael (Isa 45:4-9, 11).

Romans 9:25-26

Furthermore, the fact that Shaul knew the message was to go also to the unrecognized descendants of Avraham in the lost tribes of Yisrael is demonstrated in Romans 9:25-26, when he wrote that those who were not YHWH's people will be called YHWH's people and sons of The Living ELOHIM.

As Shaul was aware, he was quoting from the prophet Hosea (2:23) whose prophesy was specifically designed for the (lost) House of Yisrael. Even Kefa was to draw this same analogy (I Pet 2:9-10). Both of these apostles certainly understood what was involved on this theme.

Hosea Enters the Arena

Probably, this is good place to bring up the subject of Israel’s divorce, to be described in some detail later herein. Therein, the point must be made that after the divorce, the resulting children of Yisrael were born illegitimately and out of wedlock through the House of Israel’s fornication with the heathen nations.

In allegory, this is precisely what happened to the prophet Hosea, his adulterous wife and their illegitimate children.

This man Hosea evidently was a citizen and resident of the House of Yisrael. In the eyes of Jewish scholars, he was identified with Beerah of Reuven (I Chron 5:6), but most Christians link him to the tribe of Issachar (Yissakhar in the Hebrew)--per Herbert Lockyer (in “All The Men Of The Bible”). But what is more important about Hosea is the fact that he was specifically a prophet to or for the House of Yisrael.

Some scholars and students of the Word have appropriately named Hosea “The Prophet of a Sorrowful Heart” because he suffered and underwent wrongs, trouble and sorrow in his life that paralleled the sins and unfaithfulness that the House of Yisrael demonstrated against The HIGHEST (per Herbert Lockyer). In other words, Hosea experienced the wickedness and adultery of Yisrael in his own flesh and life.

Gomer

In his commission, The SUPREME commanded Hosea to go and marry a woman named Gomer, which he did. In time, Gomer conceived and eventually brought forth three children: Jezreel, Loruhamah and Loammi. All three of these children were to have enormous prophetic significance to the House of Yisrael. So the student of truth might wish to go to the book of Hosea and read about them (Hos 1:2-10).

Jezreel means YHWH will sow and refers to the end of the ancient House of Yisrael kingdom and the scattering of her people. Loruhamah means not beloved or not receiving mercy which refers to the fact that the House of Yisrael peoples would no longer receive YHWH’s mercy. Finally, Loammi means not my people which is what the House of Yisrael peoples became.

Please note the enormous prophetic significance of Gomer’s infidelity and her production of these three specifically named children, in the context of the House of Yisrael and her coming trial in the time of Yakov’s Trouble, as broached elsewhere here in this study in discussions on the curses in the law and the punishment outlined in the book of Ezekiel.

Though this bleak judgment was put upon the House of Yisrael and her peoples, The MOST HIGH went on to acknowledge the great promise to Avraham that these Israelites would become as the sand of the seaside, along with a pungent little remark about their eventual future in the day of Jezreel (Hos 1:10-11).

Hosea fully felt the pain and agony of being married to a woman who abandoned him for adultery and fornication--because it appears that at least the last two and perhaps all three of these children born to Gomer were born illegitimately from Gomer’s harlotry and unfaithfulness (Hos 2:4, as some scholars suggest).

Despite Gomer’s history of sin, it is well to recognize that Hosea eventually paid redemption money (fifteen pieces of silver and some barley) to receive her back which was prophetic of what YHWH would eventually do in the future age end with the adulterous, lost House of Yisrael (Hos 3:1-2).

What a fantastic message by Hosea, as quoted by Shaul, to the elect of the New Testament Assembly. Consequently, the House of Yisrael (the fornicating wife) will be taken back by YHWH; and more importantly, her children of fornication, who were not YHWH’s children or people, will ultimately be called the sons (and daughters) of The MOST HIGH YHWH.

Isaac Troki

Incidentally, these remarks by Shaul in Romans 9:25-26 to interpret Hosea 2:23 have been used by Jews over the years to discredit Christians (who ignorantly attempt to argue that Shaul, directly, and Hosea, indirectly, were referring to “Gentile” non-Israelites--when, in fact, both writers were writing to true, blood-line Israelites of the House of Yisrael).

Early Jewish scholar, Isaac Troki, a Karaite, who lived from 1533-1594 CE, wrote a textual criticism of the New Testament and a defense of Judaism which has been preserved to our time as the “Faith Strengthened.” Troki correctly perceived that the Christian Church “interprets” those words of Shaul in the context of Gentile non-Israelites.

However, the writer Troki went off in the wrong direction from truth when he also went along with uninformed Christians and accused Shaul of referring to (non-Israelite) Gentiles. He even charged that Shaul acted in ignorance or intentional perversion in quoting from Hosea (2:23); when, in fact, the Old Testament was clearly addressing Israelites (Hos 1:1-10).

The essence of all this is that ignorant and uninformed Christians do not understand Romans 9:25-26 and its application to true Yisrael. Accordingly, Jewish scholars, like Troki, also misunderstood Shaul’s words. But at least, the Jews are able to correctly comprehend that the prophet Hosea’s remarks were focused on Israelites and not on pagan, non-Israelite Christians.

Chapter 50--Shaul in More Detail

Romans 11:11-26

The Apostle Shaul also wrote another very fitting report on the subject of salvation for Yisrael at Romans 11:11-26, where he outlined the grafting in of these ethne, ethnesi and ethnon as "a wild olive shoot into a good olive tree." In the Book, Yisrael, possibly in her unified sense, is the olive tree (Ps 52:8; 128:3; Jer 11:16; Hos 14:6).

Please notice that the wild shoots are 100%, complete olive shoots--though they have turned and/or have become wild after having departed from the good olive tree. The grafting in process merely brings them back to the original good olive tree stem and roots, so that "all Israel can be saved," as the apostle said (Rom 11:26).

Elsewhere, there is some amazing proof which makes it conclusive that these "wild olive shoots" are, in fact, from the "lost" House of Yisrael clearly and directly as a result of YHWH’s divorce.

And interestingly, as now will be seen, these Israelites became "wild olives," evidently just about the time, or shortly thereafter, that they were deported from Canaan by the Assyrians to become "lost" to secular history.

The “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 577) suggests that the wild olive shoot or shrub (which are unproductive) grows up from “the drupe or from slips cut from below the grafted branches, and the shoots which spring up around the trunk” and that these worthless wild shoots can be grafted onto a good olive tree to become productive.

It is very probable that this description by Davis applies precisely to the divorced House of Yisrael, although there is one more interesting feature about the wild olives. This one was brought out by Wallace Delph, in his paper on “Bible Trees” (p. 6). Delph says that a good olive tree can revert to a wild olive if neglected and not cultivated.

Yeshayahu on the Wild Olive

On this theme, the prophet Yeshayahu had a most pungent remark about a wild olive in the context of a fallen Yisrael (surely, the fallen House of Yisrael). He said that The ELOHIM will plant this wild olive and certain other trees in the wilderness so that men may see that the hand of YHWH was involved in the planting (Isa 41:19-20, per the "Amplified Bible").

Unequivocally, this was to be a future planting and would evidently require a "wilderness land" beyond Canaan land--which probably had just been vacated by the Israelites from the Assyrian deportations, when Yeshayahu wrote his remarks.

II Esdras

This is a good place, by the way, to mention the remarks of the writer of II Esdras, to be addressed later herein. He made a reference to a movement by the lost tribes of Yisrael to a “further country where never mankind (Adam-kind) dwelt” (II Esdras 13:39-45). Could this comment link in some fashion to Yeshayahu’s wilderness land for the wild olive?

The point of all this is that the olive or the potential olive of the House of Yisrael had become "wild" and would be moved and planted in a new wilderness land by The MOST HIGH. Other texts in the Word say the same thing, as a matter of information.

The Pruned Off Natural Branches

Otherwise, the Word communicates that some of the natural, olive branches were broken or pruned off by YHWH in order for the wild, olive shoots to be grafted into the good stem and root system. Please understand that in YHWH’s wisdom and choice, He pruned off some of the good, natural branches in order to allow the wild shoots to be grafted into the good root structure.

The Apostle Shaul conveys the image (which is certainly the truth) that the cut off branches are the Jews--more exactly, "good" Jews, as to race and religion and not necessarily all Jews, as will be soon shown (Rom 11:23-24).

Now, an important point emerges from Shaul’s remarks to the Romans. He effectively teaches that not only must the wild shoots be grafted into the good olive tree, but that these cut off, natural branches have to also be grafted back to the tree from where they were cut off (Rom 11:24).

The good Jews (both racially and religiously) were cut off from Second Temple Judaism (which will be addressed in some detail in subsequent chapters). Since that was their root system and structure, is it factual then that Second Temple Judaism was the same root structure which the wild olive must likewise be grafted into? This question will also be addressed in later chapters herein.

Israelite Blindness

Furthermore, in Romans, chapter 11, Shaul wrote another fitting remark on the just discussed olive tree, which provides more proof of his linkage of the Good News to the lost tribes of Yisrael.

At Romans 11:25-26, the apostle noted that temporary blindness had come to a part or portion of Yisrael (the true Jews) until the full number of the ingathering of the ethnon (correctly the lost tribes of Yisrael) has come in, so that "all Israel" will be saved (Rom 11:26).

Clearly, the salvation of "all Israel," as outlined by Shaul, has to include the ethnon mentioned in context along with the blinded portion of (recognized) Yisrael at Romans 11:25-26. Absolutely, the ethnon in that text has to refer to Israelites who are a part of the definition of "all Israel." There is no other way to interpret this remark.

Galatians 3:28-29

Another relevant text by Shaul on salvation is at Galatians 3:28-29 where he stated that "there is neither Jew nor Greek... If you be MESSIAH's, then are you Avraham's seed (reckoned through Yitzhak--Gen 21:12) and heir according to the promise." Of course, this has been one of Shaul's writings also quoted most often by Churchianity in her quest to justify her worldly evangelism to all humans/humanoids.

Upon analysis, this Christian theory is blatantly wrong, along with her other ideas so far examined. For certain, Shaul directly linked the concept of being in The MESSIAH to Avraham's seed (Gal 3:29; 4:22-31). And anyway one might try to slice it, a man's seed line is a fleshly descent issue and cannot possibly involve any other options.

This fact of tying the promises to Avraham’s fleshly seedline likewise surfaced in the Torah’s findings that Avraham was to become the human father of many nations/goyim (Gen 17:4-6). At this place, the Hebrew goyim (which the New Testament connects to the Greek ethne/ethnon) certainly referred to Avraham’s physical descendants and not to every human kind on planet earth.

So, in Galatians, it is most appropriate to go back and look at the entire context (Gal 3:1-29). As Shaul so wisely reflected, the issue of the heirs of the promises directly links to persons under YHWH’s Torah (Gal 3:13, 17-19, 23). And who and what people have been and are under YAH’s Torah? Why Yisrael, of course!

By the way, this check of Galatians, chapter 3, similarly hurls at us the reality that the “people of faith” are, in fact, the children of Avraham (Gal 3:8-9). After all, the whole presentation concerned persons who had been under The MOST HIGH’s Torah. Again, Yisrael is the only nation that is so qualified. No other people meets this test.

Previous commentary herein mentioned the ties that Galatia in Asia Minor had with the ancient Celts (who had an Israelite origin, as is discussed elsewhere herein). Finally, questions in Asia Minor must recognize the influence of the Troy settlement and the possibility that it involved Israelites (as discussed elsewhere herein).

Colossians 3:11

Moreover, the same New Testament reference to "neither Jew nor Greek" was also used by Shaul in his letter to the Colossians where he wrote that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free," but The MESSIAH is all and in all (Col 3:11).

Obviously, these references to a Jew or Greek in both Galatians and Colossians could be referring to religion or nationality and not race at all. Or because of the evidence for the presence of many racial Israelites in Asia Minor, maybe the issue is race.

But perhaps religion was the focus here--as is discussed elsewhere in this study, and because of another use by Shaul of a reference to "Jews or Greeks." In this other instance, to the Corinthians, Shaul wrote that "we are all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized..." (I Cor 12:13).

Corinthian Israelites

Here, to the Corinthians (I Cor 12:13), Shaul was surely referring to himself as a part of the "we"--which for him certainly must connect to his use of the word "Jews." Of course, the apostle, racially, was not a Jew since he, correctly, was a Binyaminite (Acts 13:21; Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5).

Yet, from the religious perspective, Shaul plainly was a Jew (I Cor 9:20; Gal 2:15). Thus, Shaul's reference to himself in I Corinthians 12:13 as a Jew has to be from the religious viewpoint. With this background, Shaul's usages elsewhere of the phrase "Jews or/nor Greeks" most probably also focused on the religious issue and not to racial Jews and Greeks at all.

But alternatively, assuming the issue is race and if both Jews (Israelites) and Greeks are ger descendants of Adam, then they both will ultimately face the likely matter of salvation in the coming (still) future reconciliation of the Adam kind, as mentioned in prior comments and to be discussed in later chapters (Rom 11:32; I Cor 15:22). Too, the Dorian Greek settlement of SE Greece seems to have involved racial Israelites, as discussed elsewhere herein).

While some allowance is being given here to the religious aspects of the Corinthian believers, it should be pointed out that there is one key text which unquestionably makes it plain that the Corinth congregation was essentially or totally fleshly Israelites.

Our Fathers

This proof of an Israelite linkage arises in an interesting little remark by Shaul when he wrote to these Corinthians and mentioned the Israelites in the Exodus from Egypt as being "our fathers;" or more correctly, "our forefathers," as some translations have it (I Cor 10:1).

The Greek word involved in this text is "pateres," which means "ancestors" (“Young's Analytical Concordance," p. 336). This word was frequently used in reference to the fleshly ancestors of the Israelites in various New Testament writings and conversations. Miryam spoke of "our ancestors" at an early time in her conversation with her relative Elisheva (Lu 1:55).

This whole situation at Corinth seems to be rather significant in view of the fact that the Apostolic Assembly at Rome was assuredly made up of fleshly Israelites, as has been previously discussed herein (Rom 4:1; 9:3-6).

A question can now surface to make a student of truth wonder about the racial makeup of all of the other, true, New Testament, Apostolic Assembly congregations as well. Logically, were they not all composed largely of fleshly Israelites who had converted or were in the process of conversion (surely to Judaism) from their former Greek religions?

For a real revelation on this expression, the student of truth should take a few minutes and review the use of pateres and its cognates in the Greek NT (i.e. “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 336). In many instances, the NT uses the pronoun “our” in connection with pateres in contrast to a number of situations which read “your fathers.”

The value of such an analysis demonstrates that the apostles typically referred to Avraham, Yitzhak, Yakov and/or other Israelite ancestors as “our father/fathers” in discussions with the NT election (House of Yisrael peoples). Yet, there are other cases where the pronoun “your” is used with father/fathers to denote persons other than fellow Israelites.

A study of those latter cases suggests that the audience being addressed were not “fellow Israelites,” but were persons of other racial and ethnic classifications. A later chapter will focus on the Kenites and Amalekites and the fact that some such persons (who were correctly Judeans) pretended to be Shammai Pharisees in first century CE Palestine. Tragically, the KJV calls these Judeans--Jews, which they were not!

On occasion, The MESSIAH addressed these Judean aliens and used “your fathers” (Lu 6:23-26). Sometimes, the speaker would actually switch the pronoun from our to your for the two different peoples being addressed in one presentation, as in the situation with Stephen, to be later discussed (Acts 7:11-52).

More on Colossian Israelites

Still also, there is another aspect of the remark in Colossians (3:11) and the use of the words "Barbarian and Scythian." Some students of the Word are acutely aware of some very definite ties between the Scythians and other so-called barbarians with the lost tribes of Yisrael (“Bible Research Handbook,” v. 2, p. 572.9353).

In fact, many students of ancient history would even argue that the Scythians and certain barbarians were, in truth, Israelites. Whole books have been written on the Scythians and their eventual migration across Europe and their probable linkage to the lost tribes of the House of Yisrael (as will be further discussed in later chapters herein). Hence, the Colossians were likely Israelites as well.

Therefore, it might well be that Shaul's remarks were about "lost" Israelites--thought to be (in his mind) uncircumcised barbarians and Scythians with the Greek religion (thus, not to genetic Greeks at all). By the way, if the Good News by chance did go to some racial or ethnic Greeks in apostolic times, it would have been perfectly legal by YHWH's law as long as they were racial gerim, as mentioned before (Ex 12:48-49).

Actually, there is evidence available in John 12:20 indicating the mention of apparent Greek converts to Judaism who were worshipping in Jerusalem during YESHUA's final Passover. Earlier, in this paper, Acts 13:43 was highlighted which also referred to the conversion of likely Israelites of the Greek religion (or even possibly gerim Greeks) to Judaism.

Surely, the converted, circumcised ger has the same offer of the promises (in the context of conversion) as any bloodline Israelite. At least, Moshe said so (Ex 12:48-49). Therefore, one must not get all excited if in certain situations, the Good News did go to some ger non-Israelites.

But irrespective of how one might try to interpret Galatians 3:28-29 and Colossians 3:11, the matter has little or nothing to do with the basic theme of who generally was destined to receive the Good News in the historical context of the first century or even subsequently.

The Promises

Before leaving the topic of the promises in Galatians, Shaul elsewhere very clearly wrote (Rom 9:3-21) that the children of the promises are indeed the children of the seed (genetically--verse 8) and are categorically his brethren and kinsmen "according to the flesh" (verse 3).

Shaul argued (in verses 6-7) that Avraham had sired (children) who were not Israelites (from Ishmael, Esau and Keturah) and who did not receive the promises.

Clearly, the promises were to and for the line of Yitzhak and Yakov (Rom 9:7, 10-12) who were Israelites and kinsmen in the flesh of the Binyaminite Shaul (Rom 9:3-4). So descendants of Avraham's flesh from Ishmael and Esau (or the children of Keturah) are not the children of The ELOHIM or of the promises (verse 8), but only "those from Isaac-Jacob" (verse 8), as Shaul so pungently declares.

In this communication, the apostle was categorically contending that non-Israelites (except of course, legal ger converts) were not "children of the promises." Consequently, Shaul's comments in Galatians 3:28-29 about the promises logically must be directed at non-Jewish Israelites of the lost tribes in the Diaspora with Greek religions or nationalities.

On this same theme, it is well to recognize that in Galatians, Shaul also had some relevant words on the promises for his readers (Gal 4:22-31). In this environment, the children of the promises were affirmatively of the fleshly seed of Avraham, Yitzhak and Yakov (Gal 3:29; 4:23, 28, 31).

Actually, the correct seedline of Avraham Scripturally was established, reckoned or called with Yitzhak (Gen 21:12), in contrast to Ishmael and the eight sons of Keturah; despite their physical descent from Avraham.

In an article on “The Coming Kingdom,” in the June 1997 “New Beginnings” (p. 1), the conclusion was that to no other people were promises made (as discussed in the NT), as were those made to the twelve tribes of Yisrael.

Along with the promises, there is the whole issue of adoption which concerns racial Israelites (and legitimate "ger" alien converts), since Shaul wrote that to them belong the adoption (Rom 9:4). And is not this adoption related in some way to the grafting in of the wild olive shoot to a good olive tree (Rom 11:11-26)?

Why is there a need for adoption or grafting in? Could the fact that the House of Yisrael was divorced, put away and cut off from The HIGHEST for sin have anything to do with it? Assuredly, the truth is that this adoption event is quite profound and absolutely contrary to what false Christianity has supposed for centuries.

The Adoption

Much of Churchianity supposes that the peoples of Cain, Canaan, Ham, Japheth, India, Arabia, Turkey, China, Black Africa, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Britain, the United States and on and on are all being adopted into the family of Avraham through YESHUA's death at this time; so that they all can share in the promises made to Avraham.

Christendom theorizes that every human living can now, all of a sudden, become a seed or child of Avraham by the adoption process. Naturally, this unscriptural "theory" has provided much of the impulse which has pushed, prodded and propelled false Christianity on and on in her quest for more and more money, members, proselytes, numbers and so forth.

Thus, it is interesting and perhaps relevant here that Christendom persists in believing that all supposed "human beings" are being adopted unto Avraham (and Yisrael); despite the fact that both Moshe and Shaul said that numbers of nokri/nekar, mamzer and nothos peoples can never legally be Israelites and/or be adopted as sons of The HIGHEST under any condition, as will be discussed later on in this study (Ex 12:45, 48; Deut 23:2-8; Heb 12:8).

Therefore, any assessment of this Christian thinking on adoption should alert an observer that something, besides cheese, smells here. Of course, this reasoning about the adoption of all classes of humanoids to Yisrael is absolutely stupid and contrary to what the Scriptures plainly say, as Shaul also proved in his elaborate discussion of this issue in Romans.

Shaul On Adoption

Please note that Shaul sets the stage in Romans 8 for his powerful dissertation on adoption (in Romans 9). He opened his subject by making it clear that The ELOHIM acts through the process of election in choosing those destined to salvation and this election is certainly in the context of a thing called in English "predestination" (Rom 8:28-33; Eph 1:4-5).

In this same initial discussion, the apostle communicated the fact that these elected persons become the heirs and sons of The MOST HIGH (Rom 8:14-21).

And most significantly, these elected persons become the sons of The HIGHEST through the process of adoption (Rom 8:15; Eph 1:5). Consequently, the issue is one of adoption into the family of The ELOHIM and not the family of Avraham at all, per se.

The Adoption Is For Lost Israelites

The surfacing of this concept of “adoption” is significant for a lot of good reasons.

As heretofore established, Christianity, in her state of ignorance, confusion and misinformation, has erroneously concluded that the “adoption” exercise pertains to non-Israelite Christians so that they might become descendants of Avraham and be eligible to receive the promises by some strange and mysterious method. Of course, this nonsense is patently absent in the Book.

Importantly, the Scriptures are quite precise in declaring that not only do the promises apply to fleshly Israelites, but the whole subject of adoption pertains to them as well and to exactly no one else (Rom 9:4). This is a most profound conclusion because it underlies the entire New Testament.

Once one realizes that the adoption process pertains solely to Israelites, then a host of other related Scriptures all of a sudden have meaning. For example, various prophets referred to Israelites as The ELOHIM's sons (Ex 4:22; Isa 45:11; Hos 11:1) and Hosea also expressly wrote of the cut off (lost) Israelites in the context of them eventually becoming sons of The HIGHEST (Hos 1:10).

Why Adoption Is Necessary

At this juncture, it would be well to look more carefully at this whole topic of adoption from the perspective of “why” it was and is necessary for Israelites of the lost tribes to be adopted into the family of The HIGHEST.

Please understand that under the terms of the Sinai Covenant, YHWH married Yisrael. She became His wife and was to be the mother of His children. Of course, He was Ha AV (The FATHER in English) of those legitimately born children in the theocracy. Thus, the Book repeatedly refers to the children of Yisrael as being the sons and daughters of The MOST HIGH (Isa 43:6).

But then, over time, the House of Yisrael proceeded to rebel against her Husband, The SOVEREIGN, and commit whoredoms with the heathen nations. She became an adulteress and subject to the demands of YAH’s divorce law (Deut 24:1-4).

The prophet Hosea typified this whole situation in his marriage to Gomer who, in time, turned to adultery. In her whoredoms, Gomer certainly bore the illegitimate children Loruhamah and Loammi, as mentioned earlier (Hos 1:6-9; 2:1-5). In allegory, this was an outline of the exact environment which precipitated YHWH’s divorce from Yisrael.

The Divorce

Later discussions will address YHWH’s famous divorce of the House of Yisrael and the fact that Israel’s subsequent children were born by fornication and out of wedlock (Isa 1:2; Hos 2:2-4; 5:3-7). The point is that those sons and daughters were not and never could be or would be the descendants and legal heirs of YHWH--unless and until some profound things were to occur and change that condition.

Now, one can readily appreciate what all The MAN YHWH YESHUA did when He came and died, so that reconciliation could come to these lost Israelites. As Shaul, so pungently put it, YHWH will “adopt” these illegitimate children born illegally to the harlot Yisrael while she was in her state of adultery and divorcement (Rom 8:1-9:4).

Yes, in a coming time, those illegitimate children will become YHWH’s legal sons and daughters (II Cor 6:18). Please note that it will be YHWH Who adopts these children and not Avraham (as Christians incorrectly believe and teach). They will never become spiritual sons and daughters of Avraham (as Christendom argues).

As might be anticipated, the Apostle Shaul also discussed YHWH’s adoption of lost Israelites as sons in some of his other epistles beyond Romans and Corinthians (i.e. Gal 4:4-5; Eph 1:4-5). In all of his letters, Shaul consistently wrote to Israelites (goyim) in the vein that they were not “true” sons (since they were illegitimate). However, they would become sons of YAH through (predestined) adoption (Eph 1:5).

Oh what absolutely incredible love! How many men, in human flesh, would dare adopt as their own heirs, the illegitimate children born from adultery of their harlot, divorced wives. For sure, not many, if any.

Incidentally, in Shaul’s several remarks on adoption in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, his letters used the Greek word “huiothesia” for the English adoption. Young’s “Analytical Concordance” says that huiothesia means “placing as a son.” Truly, the process places a non-son in the position of a “true” son.

Obviously, this was the setting and environment for The MESSIAH's famous Sermon on the Mount where His audience (his disciples, to be later discussed) was assuredly Israelites in the flesh and followers of YESHUA (Matt 5:1-7:29). Therein, YESHUA spoke of those Israelites as being "children" of The MOST HIGH (Matt 5:45), as were others later alluded to by Yohanan (Jo 1:12; 3:10) and by Shaul (Rom 9:26; Phil 2:15).

To recap this point, the process of adoption (which Shaul described in his writings) is one whereby the elect Israelites, in a cut off, illegitimate state from YHWH, are adopted by Him as His heirs and children. Of course, Shaul was merely repeating and reciting previously established elements of truth from the Hebrew Tanakh when he wrote those words.