|
Author
|
Topic: lost house and gentile priests
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
This captive people are called not only "Jews" but "Israel".
Including Scriptural testimony that the nation of Israel was never "lost" and that the "Jews" are a people composed of the twelve tribes.
In the First Book of Chronicles we have the genealogies of those who returned from Babylonian captivity, and we find therein this entry:
"And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of EPHRAIM, and MANASSEH" (1 Chron.9:3).
This passage at once raises an interesting point in connexion with the so-called "lost tribes". If there were representatives of Ephraim and Manasseh among the returning captives of Judah, these two tribes obviously could not have been "lost". If only one man and his wife in each tribe had returned, they would have been sufficient to continue the line. It is most important, in view of the ideas contained in the "British-Israel" theory, that we should remember that the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh at least need not be looked for outside the limits of the people we now call "Jews". These tribes were evidently never "lost".
However, we must also take into account the evidence of 2 Chronicles fifteen:
"And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him" (2 Chron.15:9).
Here we not only get four tribes mentioned by name, but we are also assured that "out of Israel" there fell to Asa men IN ABUNDANCE. The Hebrew word translated "abundance" is the word "multitude" in Genesis 32:12 and 48:16; Deuteronomy 1:10. Is it possible, then, that these tribes can be lost? Do we lose, when we have abundance?
In the next chapter we read that Baasha, king of Israel, came up against Judah and built Ramah, "to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah" (2 Chron.16:1).
This action by the king of Israel shows how seriously he regarded the continuous loss of his people to the kingdom of Judah. We also find, in chapter nineteen, the king of Judah going through the people "from Beersheba to Ephraim", and "bringing them back to the Lord God of their fathers" (2 Chron.19:4). Again, we read in chapter twenty-three, in connexion with Jehoiada, the high priest:
"And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of aH the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of [srael, and they came to Jerusalem" (2 Chron.23:2).
And again, in chapter thirty:
"And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel" (2 Chron.30:1). "So they established a decree to make proc1amation throughout ALL ISRAEL from Beersheba even to Dan" (2 Chron.30:5). "Divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem" (2 Chron.30:11). "A multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not c1eansed themselves" (2 Chron.30:18).
I do not suggest that this great number of the house of Israel severed all connexion there and then with the ten-tribed kingdom, for we are told that these Israelites returned to their possessions and cities (2 Chron.31:1). Their hearts were certainly now with Judah, but there were many things connected with their inheritance and tribal obligations that needed readjusting before they could follow their hearts and take their place with the people of Judah.
We have now discovered that representatives of nine tribes were gathered under the aegis of the King of Judah-Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, Simeon, Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, and Levi. The more we read, the more difficult it becomes to believe that the ten tribes were ever lost.
Following the chronology given in The Companion Bible, we find that the ten-tribed kingdom was established under Jeroboam in 880 B.C. and carried away into captivity by. Shalmanezer in 611 B.C. This would give a period of 269 years from its inception to its disruption. If, alternatively, we adopt, Ussher's chronology, the period will be reduced to 254 years. We have already seen that, before the captivity, the tribes of Israel "in abundance" went back and joined with Judah, and it therefore follows that, when the ten-tribed kingdom was taken into captivity, representatives in plenty of all Israel must have remained in the land as part of Judah.
In the days of Josiah (531 B.c.-that is eighty years after the captivity of Israel by the Assyrians), we read:
"And when they came to Hilkiah the high priest, they delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites that kept the doors had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim and of ALL THE REMNANT of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin" (2 Chron.34:9).
Here we reach absolute, positive proof, that the ten tribes were never lost. Even though those deported by the Assyrian kings never returned, this does not affect the argument, for the "remnant of Israel" was quite sufficient to perpetuate the seed, and preserve the continuity of the people. The kingdom of Judah went into captivity under Nebuchadnezzar in 496 B.C., which would be 115 years after the end of "Israel" under Shalmanezer. This captivity, however, was limited to seventy years, and at the end of this period the people returned to Jerusalem and the land. Towards the close of this captivity, a recorded prayer of Daniel mentions "Judah" and "all Israel", including those that were "near" and those "afar off".
This captive people are called not only "Jews" but "Israel". Ezra, in his second chapter, gives a list of those who came back to Jerusalem at the end of the seventy years' captivity, and he heads the list with the words: "The number of the men of the people of Israel" (Ezra 2:2). We are given the names of a few who "could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel" (Ezra 2:59-63), and we therefore infer that all the others in the list were able to establish their claim to be members of one or other of the tribes of Israel. At the end of the list we read that "all Israel" dwelt in their cities; and we read again of "Israel" in Ezra 7:10,13, 9:1 and 10:1,5. The kingdom of Judah was taken captive by the same line of kings as had taken captive the ten-tribed kingdom, and any one of the ten tribes was as free to go back as were the members of the tribe of Judah. This we find they did (see Ezra 7:7).
When the returned captives assembled before the rebuilt temple on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius, "twelve he-goats" were offered "for all Israel", "according to the number of the tribes of Israel" (Ezra 6:15-17). From this time onward the title "Jew" became a generic one, and was used without discrimination for .any member of the nation of Israel. It is a fallacy to imagine that it is unscriptural to use the word "Jew" of an Israelite after the return of the captivity. Paul says, "I am verily a man which am a Jew" (Acts 22:3), and yet he also calls himself an "Israelite" (Rom. 11:1). Peter also calls himself "a Jew" (Acts 10:28), in spite of the fact that he was a Galilean (Acts 2:7). The "Jews" who were assembled on the day of Pentecost were addressed by Peter as "Ye men of Israel" and "All the house of Israel" (Acts 2:22,36), while in Acts four we read that "all the people of Israel" were guilty of the death of Christ, not merely Judah (Acts 4:10,27).
To take further examples from the Acts, can we believe that Gamaliel made a mistake in speaking to the "Jews" as "Ye men of Israel" (Acts 5:35), or that Peter was confusing things that differ when he told Cornelius that "the word" was sent "unto the children of Israel", "in the land of the Jews" (Acts 1O:36,39)? When Paul stood up in the synagogue in Acts thirteen, he spoke to the assembly as "men of Israel and ye that fear God", while, according to the record further on in the chapter, those that heard him speak were "Jews" (Acts 13:16, 42). The tribes of Israel were certainly not lost when Paul stood before Agrippa and said:
"Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come" (Acts 26:7).
The word "instantly" could only be used here of actual service; it could not have been used if any of the twelve tribes had been lost.
James also addresses his epistle: "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (Jas. 1:1). Could this letter have been so inscribed if the bulk of the ten tribes had by this time lost their identity? Was this letter returned to James marked "Not Known, Gone Away"?
The suggestion that God would preserve the ten-tribed kingdom after their captivity and bless them centuries later in the guise of Gentiles is quite unscriptural. According to Scripture, the Lord said that He would "destroy the sinful kingdom from off the face of the earth", but would not utterly destroy the "house of Jacob". The remaining members of the twelve tribes, that had not been deported by the Assyrians, were to be "sifted among all nations as corn is sifted in a sieve" (Amos 9:8,9), until the time came for their ultimate restoration-for we read that "all Israel shall be saved".
The northern kingdom, however, was to be destroyed, and not preserved. There was a sufficient number of every tribe left in the kingdom of Judah to ensure the continuity of the whole house of Israel, and, though scattered for a time among the nations, the twelve tribes are to be preserved until the end. Such is the testimony of Scripture. We have not covered a tithe of the whole ground, but what we have seen of what has been revealed in the Word concerning the fate of the house of Israel allows no room for doubt.
To those who believe in the inspiration of Holy Writ, nothing more need be said. I have demonstrated by citations from the Scriptures themselves that the tribes of Israel were never "lost", but that many of Israel returned "in abundance" to Judah after the separation.
In conclusion I should like to add one more quotation this time from Isaiah:
"The Lord of Hosts . . . shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel" (Isa. 8:13,14).
This passage looks forward to the cross and discountenances the idea that only "the Jews" were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. In the Acts Peter speaks of the Lord as "the Stone which was set at nought of you builders" (Acts 4:8-11), and in his epistles quotes Isaiah 8:13,14 (1 Pet. 2:8). It is obvious from this passage that Christ became a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offence" to both houses of Israel, and not merely to the house of Judah.
Not discussing here the various matters that arise out of this subject, but confining this study to one point only. We know from Scripture that all the blessings of Israel are related to the land promised to Abraham; that Israel will be gathered from the lands into which they have been scattered; that Israel will be Lo-ammi for many days, but will return to the Lord and to David their King in the latter days; that Israel shall dwell alone and not be numbered among the peoples. These and many other items of revealed truth are passed over as not essential to this main quest. Having "searched the Scriptures" it is intended by grace we abide by Biblical findings.
"All Israel shall be saved." Before we can come to a Scriptural conclusion as to the import of the statement, found in Romans eleven, we must consider as a whole the section in which it is found, namely Romans 9-11. The structure of Romans 9-11 in its simplest presentation is as follows:
Romans 9-11
A tentative outline
A 9:1-5. Sorrow
Doxology "Over all (panton), God blessed unto the ages" (9 :5).
B 9:6-29. The Remnant saved. Merey on some.
Corrective as to "all Israel" (9:6)
C 9:30-11:10. The Stumbling stone.
The Lord of all that believe
No difference
B 11:11-32. All Israel saved.
Merey on them all.
Corrective as to the Remnant (11:1-5)
A 11:33-35. Song
Doxology: "Of Him, through Him, and to Him are all things (ta panta).
To Him be glory unto the ages" (11:36).
Who are Israel? Abraham had eight sons-Ishmael, by Hagar; Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah, by Keturah; and Isaac, by Sarah. Ishmael was "cast out", for he could not be the heir together with Isaac (Gen. 21:10). Of the sons of Keturah it is written, "Abraham gave them gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son" (Gen. 25:6). But of Isaac we read, "and Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac" (Gen. 25:5). If mere physical descent from Abraham had constituted a claim, then seven other nations descended from these seven other sons might have disputed Israel's rights. The deciding factor was God's sovereign election.
Again, coming close to the problem, the Apostle carries the argument a stage further. The other nations referred to above were descended from different mothers, but the Apostle goes on to show that even sons born to Isaac' by the same mother do not share equal privileges. Esau was the elder, Jacob was the younger, both children of the same mother, yet Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen:
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger" (Rom. 9:11,12).
This is not the only place where a distinction is made between the true seed, and the merely natural seed. For example, when the Lord looked upon Nathanael he said, "Behold, an Israelite indeed" (John 1:47). And again, in John 8, we read:
"They answered and said unto Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. . . . Ye do the deeds of your father. . . . Ye are of your father the Devil" (John 8:39-44).
In the epistle to the Romans itself we have the distinction between the natural and the spiritual seed brought forward:
"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:28,29).
These words are immediately followed by the question:
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?" (Rom. 3:1).
In Galatians four, Ishmael is likened to the unbelieving Jews "born after the flesh", while the true believing Jews are likened to Isaac; and his mother, the freewoman, is likened to Jerusalem that is above, and free. These constitute the "Israel of God" (Gal. 4:21-31, 6:16).
As we study the argument put forward by the Apostle in Romans eleven, an important principle emerges that extends beyond the limits of the people of Israel.
"All Israel" (Rom. 11:26), can only be interpreted aright if the reasoning of Romans nine is adhered to.
"In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Rom. 9:7). "The children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Rom. 9:8).
The following extract from Nedarim f. 31.1 is suggestive:
"Is not Ishmael an alien, and yet of the seed of Abraham? It is written, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. But is not Esau an a1ien, and yet of the seed of Isaac? No. In Isaac, but not all Isaac. "
This brief quotation is sufficient to show that the Apostle's method of argument was familiar to the Jews, and would be easily followed. Israel is not a title that belongs to any one merely because he is a descendant of Abraham, for it is written:
"They are not all Israel, which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the chi1dren of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Rom. 9:6-8).
Here the words "Israel", "seed" and "children" are used with two significations. One speaks of every single descendant, the other of those who are related to promise, counted for the seed, and in Isaac. With these humbling evidences of Divine sovereignty we turn to Romans eleven and read:
"And so all Israel shall be saved . . . as concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11:26-29).
This blessing of Israel takes place under the covenant, and cannot be spiritualized away and applied or interpreted of the church. In the same way "The Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) refers to the elect nation and not to the Gentiles. Several facts stand out in the record of Israel's calling.
1. They have a most glorious future under the blessings of the New Covenant.
2. None of these blessings can be legitimately transferred to the Gentiles or the Church.
3. The title "Israel" and "Jew" is never used of any other than this people.
4. God's faithfulness is called in question if the literal interpretation of these passages is denied.
The attempt to make a distinction between "The Jew" and "Israel" fails in the light of scriptural usage. The title Israel belongs to all the tribes. The term Jew dropped its special reference to Judah, and became the symbol of a religion. From Genesis twelve, where the promise of a seed was made to Abraham, to the last chapter of the Acts, the Jew or Israel dominate the Scriptures and blessing and purpose are related to them. The only portion of Scripture where Israel, as a factor, is absent, is the dispensation of the Mystery, the parenthetical period that intervenes between the blindness of Israel which came upon them in Acts twenty-eight, and the day when their eyes shall be opened and they will look upon Him Whom they pierced.
The first title given to Israel in the Scriptures is found in Exodus 4:22: "Israel is My son, even My firstborn", and the last is found in Isaiah 46:13: "Israel My glory". The earthly ministry of Christ was limited to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:6, 15:24). While others spoke of Christ as "The King of the Jews", the Jews themselves used the title "The King of Israel" (Matt. 27:42, Mark 15:32, John 1:49 and 12:13).
IP: Logged | 
|
|
JohnStevenson
Community Member
Member # 5082
|
posted
Strictly speaking, it might be correct to say that a Jew is a descendant from the tribe of Judah. But language is not quite that uniform. For example, strictly speaking, an American is anyone from either North or South America. But we regularly use the term to speak only of someone from the USA.
As has been pointed out, the term "Jew" came to be used to describe all Israelites. There was good reason for this because there were elements from ALL the tribes to be found in Israel and there were also elements from ALL the tribes that were scattered throughout all the earth.
Luke 2:36 speaks of a woman who was of the tribe of Asher. That is one of the 10 "lost" tribes. Apparently she was not all that lost.
If you look at the earliest use of the word "Jew" in the Bible, you see it in Jeremiah 34:9 where it is used in parallel with a Hebrew. Seems that even back then there was not a hard and fast demarcation between Jew and Hebrew.
--------------------
John Stevenson
http://JohnStevenson.net
Posts: 12 | From: South Florida | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Thunderz7
Advanced Member
Member # 31
|
posted
I believe HFHS is exactly right on this.
Too many have held Israel and Jew to be the same for far too long.
All Jews are Israelites,
all Israelites are not Jews,
It is as simple as;
all Texans are Americans,
all Americans are not Texans.
The U.S. was once divided by civil war,
North and South,
USA & CSA.
Israel was divided,
north and south,
Isreal & Judah
USA was often called Yank,
CSA was often called Reb,
Israel was often called Ephraim,
Judah called Jew.
Every scripture that has been used to try to make the opposite point in this thread, has only made these facts more obvious to me.
T7
Posts: 1113 | From: Northeast Alabama | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
Firstly, Eph 2:11 is grossly misused above, taken clean out of all context.
Next, Christ said, and surely He is to be believed:
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
Act 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel
1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh
The first thing Peter did in his apostleship was to call all the Jews by the name of Israel. Read it. They called each other both Jews and ye men of Israel, i.e., Israel in the flesh:
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly
Act 3:12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel
Act 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel
Act 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israe
IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON LIKE THIS. They understood themselves to be men of Israel. They also understood themselves to be Jews. This occurs accros all tribal boundries by what is being now being judged by non Jews as impossible. I only know what I read them saying about each other then, irregardless of how it was for them centuries before:
Mat 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Christ said to them hear ye oh Israel, He did not change it to hear ye oh Judah:
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
The chief Jew in Jerusalem is called a master of Israel by the Lord Himself:
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel
Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
God came in the flesh to manifest to Israel, was not God able to find them? Did all Israel hear? What is written?
That God came for Israel but they were lost would be nonsensical at best.
It appears that the gentiles wish to uphold the argument that in times past distinctions were made, when in fact, we find no such argument proferred in the NT.
Christ Jesus believed He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and sent His disciples to them, saying go not into the way of the gentiles. Not some of them.
The NT clearly records that all Israel had heard. Not some, not most, not a portion, but all Israel.
The writers clearly wrote to 12 tribes. Not 10. Not 2. Not 3. But 12.
Peter believed all Israel existed.
James believed the same. They wrote to them without issue.
That is what Joesephus believed. That is what Paul believed:
Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews
Act 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
The chief of the Jews did not deny that they were of Israel, for they answered:
Act 28:21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spake any harm of thee.
Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven... Ye men of Judea
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel...Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you
Is it written that we just pick and choose what is pleasing to hear, or that all Scripture is God breathed and profitable? In what way does it say all Scripture is profitable?
If the Lord, and the Holy inspired chosen and sent writers that they knew Hm cannot be believed, then why even bother to read it at all?
I believe all that is written. I believe it is all true to whom it is written and to when and to what purpose. The Lord appearently has the understanding to tell us that all Israel had heard, not that a portion of them heard and others could not be found. Everyone is welcome to believe what they will. I am the judge of no man. I seek the Lord's understanding by that which is written. None of the apostles or Christ seemed to know anything about not being able to find anyone.
There is no indication that vast amounts of Israelites stopped coming to the anual feasts because they were lost. There is on the other hand, every indication that they were dispersed and built synogagues and maintained what became known as Jewish Temple Worship and still called Jews to this day.
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
The 10 northern tribes were never "Jews", but they were Israelites.
The book of Hosea is about the 10 Northern tribes.
Paul makes a reference to them in Romans 9:24
even us whom He calls, not of the "Jews" only, BUT, also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea (speaking of those Ephriamites/Gentiles, NOT Jews)
"I will call them My people, who were NOT My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved." There they shall be called thew sons of the living God."
HFHS is right! All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews.
Ephraim was destined to become a "fullness (melo) of Gentiles.
Gen 48:19
"But (Jacob) refused and said, "I know my son...he (Mannassah) also will become a people and he also will be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a (melo hagoyim) fullness of the nations" (A fullness of the Gentiles to come in)
Ephriam became "LoAmi" (Not a People) and was swallowed up among the nations. They were therefore lost to their Israelite identity (Hosea 1:10, 2:1, 21-23; 8:8, Romans 9:23; Amos 9:9)
In the New Covenant, non-Jewish believers are said to be "Former Gentiles". Once they come to faith in the Messiah of Israel they are no longer heathens, but are instead called to begin walking as Israelites, and are part of that commonwealth. (Eph 2:11, I Thes 4:5 I Peter 2:12)
Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
The Tribes of the Northern Kingdom that were scattered by the Assyrians lost thier knowledge of heritiage, they are not the same as the Jews that were living abroad at the time of Christ
I opened with the fact that I realize that what you say is the common teaching of today.
All I can go by is what the Bible says, what is backed by those who where there.
Do you have any Biblical references that state you understanding is the same as God's understanding?
The Jewish historian Josephus states that Israelite s everywhere are called Jews in the days of the Lord in the flesh.
Isaiha said and Paul quoted that all Israel had heard.
James wrote to the 12 tribes.
Peter wrote to the 12 tribes.
Paul stated clearly that the 12 tribes were instantly serving God night and day.
Jesus Christ, God in the flesh specifically came for the lost tribes of the house of Israel. Specifically said to go and preach to them.
Are they all wrong? If so, we must throw out the entire Bible, as it means none of it is to be trusted.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
All Jews are Israelites; all Israelites are not Jews. The Tribes of the Northern Kingdom that were scattered by the Assyrians lost thier knowledge of heritiage, they are not the same as the Jews that were living abroad at the time of Christ.
It was Jews of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah and some of the Levites that were with them that came back to Jerusalem after the Babylonian Captivity in the days of Cyrus Kiing of Persia and Nehemiah. It was not the people of the Northern Kingdom who had been scattered in Assyria.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
I guess I get hyper typer a play on the word hyper verbal, lol
IP: Logged |
|
|
Miguel
Advanced Member
Member # 47
|
posted
I dont know why but while reading Judges 17 came to mind.
--------------------
Romans 9:11-24
Our Eschatology may vary even our Ecclesiology may be disputed among us but our Soteriology most assume a singularity and exclusivity which in biblical term is known as Quote; "The Narrow Way" and Quote!
Posts: 2792 | From: Stockton,Ca | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Miguel
Advanced Member
Member # 47
|
posted
Boy, that gentile word made you type some more! ![[type]](graemlins/type.gif)
--------------------
Romans 9:11-24
Our Eschatology may vary even our Ecclesiology may be disputed among us but our Soteriology most assume a singularity and exclusivity which in biblical term is known as Quote; "The Narrow Way" and Quote!
Posts: 2792 | From: Stockton,Ca | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
If the tribes were lost when they knew where they were, then what is the true context?
The following extract from Josephus will give some idea of the tribes scattered abroad, and the fact that Paul accurately called those Israelite tribes Jews, here living in Ephesus:
‘I have at my tribunal set these Jews, who are citizens of Rome, and follow the Jewish religious rites, and yet live at Ephesus, free from going into the army, on account of the superstition they are under. This was done before the twelfth of the calends of October, when Lucius Lentelus and Caius Marcellus were consuls ... and my will is, that you take care no one give them any disturbance’ (Ant. xiv. x. 13).
Smith's Bible Dictionary says of the word Jew:
"The term first makes its appearance just before the captivity of the ten tribes. 2Ki_16:6. After the return, the word received a larger application".
Moreover, the Lord calls a Jew by the term Israelite:
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
Joh 1:47
The people call Paul a Jew:
But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
Act 19:34
Paul calls himself a Jew:
But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew...
Act 21:39
Paul calls himself an Israelite:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:1
Obviously Smith's Dictionary is correct, that the word Jew had become synonymous with the word Israelite.
In the Bible we are given words which "the Holy Ghost teacheth".
Every Word of God is pure; and His words, like all His works, are perfect. Perfect in order, perfect in truth, perfect in the use of number, perfect in structure.
"The works of Jehovah are great: sought out of all them that have pleasure therein" (Psa 111:2).
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting
Jam 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia...
1Pe 1:1
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:5
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Act 2:8-11
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.
Act 26:6-7
Paul just told us here, that our twelve tribes are serving, the Jews. Well, where was Paul? He wasn't in Jerusalem, in Judea.
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Isaiah is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Rom 10:18-21
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:6
Did the Lord really send the apostles on a mission that was impossible to complete, impossible because they were lost and could not be found?
Do we find even the remotest statments reflecting any of the following:
Did the apostles come back and say, well, I tried to go forth, but I can't find them? I wrote the letters to the 12 tribes, but where do I send them? Where are the lost tribes of Israel?
Many a preacher today will tell me that I am really an Israelite because of where I live, that I was just lost. They want to help me find myself. They want me to join them in applying all that was written to Israel to myself. They don't realize they are asking me to forsake that which was written for the nations. They don't want me to acknowledge that the church which is His body, revealed only in the prison epistles, is called a full grown male. They want me to be the bride because Israel is the bride. They believe in going to heaven, but place themselves on the earth as king priests, more promises made only to the Hebrew Nation.
The LORD hath called Israel as a woman forsaken.
The wife of thy youth is Israel.
Here is the warning about the wife of thy youth, that is to say, the wife when she was young:
And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:15
Christ is seeking that Godly seed in this verse. Take heed, dont' deal treacherously against the youthful wife of God's. Take heed is very strong in the Hebrew here, having the meaning of being ambitiously violent towards those who forget His Covenant to her, his bride in Rev.
I don't read that Israel was lost, physically. I don't read the church revealed as the mystery and revealed as His body, His body which is connected to the Head which is Christ, is ever ever ever referred to as a female at any time, ever. It simply isn't written.
Am I to believe that Christ really has a female body and a male head which is to marry its own self? This is what those allude when they tell me the tribes are lost, that I am an Israelite, the bride. I wonder if they know that this is what I hear when they tell me that I am both the church His body, the NT bride of the Lamb.
Of course some just say there is no more Israel, that all people everywhere are Israelites. Hmmm.
ok, that's my rant for the evening
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
