A
New Look at Our Origins
Watchman Willie Martin
Archive
From time to time it is
informative to look at writings of people several years in the past.
Such is this one by a so called (sic) Christian Jew; there is no
such thing, for either one is a Jew or he is a Christian, they cannot
be both at the same time. For Yahshua said that we could not serve
two masters.
"No man can serve
two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or
else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve
God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13)
Our Israel people have
been so thoroughly deceived by the Judeo Christian clergy,
trained by Jews in the cemeteries I mean seminaries that we
must repeat the truth so many times in so many different ways that it
will finally catch on and become infused in the minds of our
Christian Israelites; and therefore they will understand the truth as
they see it and not believe all the lies and Jewish fables.
In an article in The
Sunday School Times (March 14, 1954) poses the question in its title:
"Are the Anglo Saxons the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel?"
The writer was a Dr. Jacob Gartenhaus and the information given in
the accompanying editorial note was the he was a Christian Jew who
was president of the International Board of Jewish Missions.
The Sunday School Times
is obviously capitalizing upon the fact that Dr. Gartenhaus was a Jew
(howbeit a Christian), trusting that this in itself would carry
sufficient weight to substantiate his assertions. Yet even the
editorial staff of The Sunday School Times would not at all agree
with the position taken by most Jewish scholars, regardless of their
knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, as to the identification
of the Messiah, whom they still reject. Might not a Jew be equally
mistaken in other Scriptural matters?
Just as Jewry rejected
the King of the Kingdom over two thousand years ago, so today the
Christian Church is rejecting the actuality of a literal Kingdom over
which the King of king is to reign. It is apparent that Dr.
Gartenhaus, upon his conversion to Christianity, has also been
indoctrinated with this unscriptural conception of the Kingdom of
God. Thus, by repudiating the identity of the people of the Kingdom,
he follows a line of false teachings based upon a system of
interpretation of the Bible that incorporates the extreme error of
"spiritualizing" away the truth of its literal statements.
The article by Dr.
Gartenhaus begins with the statement that the position we hold "is
a strange and fanciful theory that the English speaking peoples
are the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel (actually the English
speaking peoples, French, German, and etc., are the descendants of
all thirteen tribes of Israel). It is claimed that the British people
and their colonial off shoots, including the United States of
America, are the descendants of the so called lost ten tribes of
Israel, which were carried away into Assyria and in the course of
time migrated to Europe and settled in England..."
These remarks are
succeeded by a sketchy list of facts taken from our tenants of
belief, compiled with scant regard for accuracy (typical Jewish).
Then Dr. Gartenhaus went on to state:
"From this folk
tale, which has not the slightest historical background, we are asked
to accept that the British people (actually all of the Anglo Saxon,
Germanic, Celtic peoples) are the descendants of the ten lost
tribes."
This is followed by an
expression which is always a "give away" concerning
the lack of careful examination and study of our position on the part
of those who undertake to condemn it. "Briefly," he says,
"we are asked to believe that a great mass of Israelites poured
into the British Isles and immediately took on a new physiognomy,
customs, names, which have no affinity with the ancient Israelites;
all this without a single Scriptural or historical proof. If it can
be proved that all of this is contrary to history and the clear
teachings of God's Word, then the whole theory of Israelism
collapses. This I shall attempt to do in this ‘brief' article."
In the first place, the
many years of painstaking research in historical records and the
Bible by men whose only objective was to learn the truth of God's
Word and gain an understanding of His purposes cannot be reduced to
brief and careless restatement by those who thereby admit they have
given only superficial attention to the subject. Nor can the weight
of factual evidence now available be lightly swept aside by a
loosely composed "brief" article which is the product
of shallow reasoning.
Dr. Gartenhaus finds it
very easy to express his opinion that the fact of the identity of the
Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Celtic peoples with the House of Israel
"has not the slightest historical background" and is
"without a single Scriptural or historical proof." However,
his article reveals at once that he has examined neither the
Scriptural nor the historical evidence which is at hand and which
proves beyond successful refutation that the Anglo Saxon,
Germanic, Celtic peoples are indeed the Israel of God in the world
today. In other words, like almost all Jews he was a liar.
For example, the
assertion that there is no biblical or historical evidence
corroborating Jeremiah's flight from Palestine by way of Egypt to the
Isles in the West is amply dealt with in the study I sent out on Tea
Tephi and Ireland. No opponent of the identity has ever attempted to
answer the Scriptural and historical evidence presented. They are
quick to deny the validity of the facts presented, but they bring
forth no facts which refute the testimony given. They only mouth
things that have no baring on the subject at all.
No accredited
researcher who has patiently delved into the records of history to
trace the westward trek of the House of Israel though central and
southern Europe to the Scandinavian countries and the British Isles
ever made the statement that "a great mass of the Israelites
‘poured' into the British Isles and ‘immediately took on a new
physiognomy, customs, names...'"
On the contrary, the
trek of the Israel tribes occupied from twelve to fourteen centuries.
During this period they dwelt from time to time in various lands,
breaking up into smaller segments which took other names and changed
their customs to suit new environments. Eventually, as the narrative
of any history book dealing with the period will show, they began to
arrive in the British Isles, known only by the new names with which
modern history students are familiar; Angles, Jutes, Frisians, Celts,
Picts, Scots, Gaels, Saxons and others.
Many books have been
written on this phase of the subject alone and the most recent
findings of research are presented in the first ten chapters of the
book entitled Chemivision by Dr. William J. Hale. Also, the end leaf
map in the rear of the book, Primogeneis, is a clear depiction of the
trek of the Israel tribes. The pulse stirring saga of the
travels of the House of Israel after they left their Assyrian
captivity and trekked throughout Asia Minor, Europe and finally to
the "isles of the sea," where they were regathered and
became again one people to fulfill the purpose of God, is summed up
in the graphic statement of the Lord, given through Amos:
"For, lo, I will
command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like
as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon
the earth." (Amos 9:9)
Racial Characteristics
Dr. Gartenhaus raises
the issue of the physiognomy of the people of the House of Israel by
his statement quoted above. We assume the Doctor's intimation is that
all Israelites should look like Jews. But the people of the House of
Israel WERE NOT JEWS as we know Jews to be today; therefore, the
absurd conclusion he reaches and ridicules; that the Israelites
"immediately took on a new physiognomy" is his own, not
ours.
The characteristics of
the racial type we recognize as that of the Jews today were the
result of intermarriages in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. At that
time a mutation of the blood stream occurred when many men of the
Southern Kingdom, or House of Judah, upon their return to Palestine
from Babylon, took wives from among the Hittites and other
Canaanitish people in the land for themselves and their sons, while
their daughters also married Hittite men. This defection from God's
will was strongly condemned and the result of it was the fulfillment
of Isaiah's prophecy:
"The shew of their
countenance doth witness against them." (Isaiah 3:9)
Dr. Gartenhaus makes a
point of the fact that their new names "have no affinity with
the ancient Israelites" and others have also raised the
objection that the modern House of Israel does not speak the language
of their forefathers. However, Isaiah declared:
"For with
stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."
(Isaiah 28:11)
It is shown in Strong's
Concordance that the expression "stammering lips" can refer
to "foreign lips;" that is, speaking in another language.
Therefore, to discover modern Israel using a different language than
that of their forefathers is actually a proof of identity; not
evidence against it.
Many books have been
written which prove that the English language had its origin in the
ancient Hebrew. One such book is The Word The Dictionary That Reveals
The Hebrew Source of English, by Isaac E. Mozeson.
Stressing the fact that
if the Anglo Saxons are modern Israel, they do not demonstrate
it by following the customs of their forefathers, the Doctor again
asserts that this disproves the claimed identity. Yet this complete
forgetfulness of former customs is exactly what Jeremiah predicted
would take place when he addressed a message toward the north,
declaring that backsliding Israel had justified herself more than
treacherous Judah (note, incidentally, the very definite difference
between Israel and Judah). The prophet was told:
"Go and proclaim
these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding
Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon
you for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for
ever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
Note carefully that the
context clearly shows that this message is addressed to the House of
Israel and not to the House of Judah. Jeremiah thus makes a definite
distinction between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, Dr.
Gartenhaus and the editors of The Sunday School times to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The objection most
often raised is also put forward by Dr. Gartenhaus that, because of
the Anglo Saxons do not practice the ancient custom of
circumcision of the flesh, this excludes them from a racial share in
the natural promises to Abraham. The answer to this objection was
fully set forth in the article, "What Saith the Scriptures,"
previously referred to, from which the following is quoted:
"Let us pause here
a moment and consider what the opponents of the identity of the
Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Celtic peoples with the House of Israel
consider to be a major objection. The issue is raised that, because
the Anglo Saxon peoples do not carry out the ritual of
circumcision, they cannot be Israel. These critics are overlooking
the facts of history in the records of Scripture that, while in
exile, the rite of circumcision was not always practiced by God's
people. This was the case with Israel during the years they wondered
in the wilderness, following their exodus from Egypt. The account
states that those who came out of Egypt were circumcised, and goes on
to explain:
"But all the
people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth
out of Egypt, them they had no circumcised. (Joshua 5:5)
"Although the
children of Israel were uncircumcised as they journeyed through the
forty years in the wilderness, they were still God's people. But even
more important is the fact that Moses gave instructions as to the
type of circumcision Israel was to practice in the latter days after
the Lord God turned back their captivity. He said at that time:
"‘THE LORD THY
GOD WILL CIRCUMCISE THINE HEART, AND THE HEART OF THY SEED, TO LOVE
THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THINE HEART, and with all thy soul, that
thou mayest live.' (Deuteronomy 30:6)
"Paul designated
this type of circumcision as the circumcision of those who were
followers of Jesus Christ, stating:
"‘ Circumcision
is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose
praise is not of men, but of God.' (Romans 2:29)
"He further
confirmed this in his Epistle to the Philippians when he said:
"‘ For we are
the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in
Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.' (Philippians 3:3)
"The interesting
fact here is that Moses declared that Christian circumcision would be
in evidence among the seed of Abraham after the Lord turned back
their captivity. Thus, the argument of the opponents that the failure
on the part of the Anglo Saxon peoples to practice circumcision
in the flesh is conclusive evidence that they are not the lineal
descendants of Abraham and Sarah is not a valid reason for denying
that they are the House of Israel in the world today. According to
Moses himself they were to be circumcised of heart in the latter
days."
Following the usual
practice of those who attack the great truths of the identity, Dr.
Gartenhaus parrots what many before him have said, that Richard
Brothers, of limited mental capacity, was the first modern apostle of
this truth. It has been repeatedly shown the fallacy of this
assertion, but it seems to be too much to ask these opponents to act
in a spirit of fair play to the extent of taking into consideration
the facts which have been printed concerning this matter.
The error of this
statement was clearly shown in "How Old Is This Anglo Saxon
Truth?," published in Destiny for March 1939, September 1941 and
November 1949, and other publications of even older dates, the latter
under the title, "Strange Error of the Scholars." Not once
have the opponents undertaken to answer the evidence presented in
these articles. It is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to
repeat charges already answered a hundred or more time while ignoring
the answers. Again referring to the above mentioned material, it
was pointed out in Destiny for February 1954, page 49:
"Dating from the
year 665 A.D., to the year 1634 A.D., over one hundred and fifty
references to the identity of the Anglo Saxon people with
ancient Israel have been discovered."
Richard Brothers was
active at the end of the eighteenth centuries, so he could not have
originated a truth that had already been known long before he was
born. The article remarks:
"All of these
testimonies antedate the period of poor Richard Brothers. It is not
surprising that he, earnest student of the Scriptures that he was,
saw the truth also; the mystery is that students more sane than he
can miss it."
Prejudice is a powerful
influence in preventing the truth from being accepted by those under
its sway. Prejudice and the desire not to be upset in their beliefs,
not the lack of factual evidence and testimony, motivated the Jews of
our Lord's day, leading them to reject Him as their Messiah, and
these two influences may be the greater part of the reason why
Judeo Christian leaders in Christendom today oppose the Gospel
of the Kingdom that proclaims the identity of the people of the
Kingdom as the House of Israel today.
Much is continually
made of the idea that the acceptance of the identity fosters an
inordinate "pride of race." But we wonder whether it is
that they fear this, or that they, subconsciously at least, dare not
acknowledge their origin because they must then accept their
"responsibility" as God's Chosen Servants and witnesses,
with all that this involves.
We are reminded of the
nature of God's quarrel with His people of the House of Israel when
they first went into Assyrian captivity. He said to them then:
"And when you say,
‘We will be like the nations, the races of the land, in serving
wood and stone,' what you have in mind shall not be." (Ezekiel
20:32, Smith & Goodspeed Translation)
They were saying then
that they preferred to be like the other races even to the adoption
of their customs and practices. But god said:
"As I live, saith
the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out
arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you." (Exodus
20:33)
Apparently some are
still reluctant to divorce themselves from thinking they are
non Israelites, but we have God's word for it that He will deal
with this. The Lord states:
"And I will cause
you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the
covenant." (Ezekiel 20:37)
The flat statement that
"the Anglo Saxons are a mixed race" is another wholly
erroneous argument. They are no more "mixed" than were the
original sons of Jacob, with their different mothers. This idea
smacks of racial mongrelization propaganda which is a subversive
endeavor on the part of those leading their influence to it to
frustrate God's plan concerning His people
The Jews, on the other
hand, are a bastard people; which is the result of the mixing of True
Israelites with the other races and peoples of the Earth. Which has
been going on since the beginning of time, even before there were
Israelites. But for clearity lets start with Esau and his Canaanite
wives; Judah and his Canaanite wife; the Israelites who came back
from the Babylonian captivity and their non Israel wives.
Therefore, in all honesty, it must be admitted that some Jews have
Israelite blood in them, but that does not mean they are Israel. For
the Khazars who comprise most of Jewry today are NOT in any way
related to the Israelites by blood or any other means.
The records of the
early Irish Chronicles disprove the claim that the Coronation Stone
which rested in the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abby, until
recently, originated in Scotland. It is a known fact of history that
this Stone came to Scotland from Ireland and sufficient proof of its
antiquity is set forth in the book "The Stone of History,"
in the Documentary Studies, Vol. 1, pages 265 283. This evidence
is ignored by the writer of The Sunday School Times article.
Dr. Gartenhaus bases
his refection of the true origin of this Stone on a microscopic
examination of particles of accumulated dust removed from it when it
was being cleaned, which seemed to identify it with the territory
near Scone in Scotland. We know that the stone did rest for many
hundreds of years in Scotland, having been brought there from
Ireland. The articles of dust gathered from the Stone in the process
of cleaning it could very readily have for their origin the Scottish
location where the Stone had remained for so many centuries.
But there is another
fact completely ignored by the Doctor. There are two iron rings
connected by short chains fastened to both ends of this Stone. What
is the explanation of the fact that these rings are worn very thin as
a result of the Stone being carried for a long time, evidently
swinging on staves run through them? We know such an extensive
journey was never accomplished in Ireland,, Scotland or England where
the Stone has been since Jeremiah landed with Tea Tephi on the shores
of Ireland, bringing this Stone with them. If this Stone is indeed
the Stone of Jacob, then the rings were worn thin during the forty
years it was carried in the wilderness journey from Egypt to the
Promised Land.
Dr. Gartenhaus takes
the position that there is no Scriptural evidence supporting the view
of the distinction between the Northen Kingdom, or House of Israel,
and the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom, or House of Judah. He
says:
"As concerning the
claim that there is a distinction between the two and the House of
Israel , my reply is that there is not a single Scripture supporting
such a view."
Actually to claim there
is no evidence in the Bible of a distinction between the House of
Israel and the remainder of the tribes of Israel, regardless of
whether the name "Judah" or "Israel" was applied
to them, demonstrates either ignorance of the facts or a desire to
falsify the record. It is a well known fact of Biblical history
that, even when united in Palestine, the distinction between the
House of Israel and the rest of Israel was so marked that Biblical
writers have fond it necessary to take this into consideration. There
was not a ruler in all Israel who did not have to take this
distinction into account; otherwise, he would have been confronted
with major political difficulties:
"Following the
death of Saul, the men of Judah came to David and anointed him king
over the House of Judah. Afterward David was informed of what the men
of Jabesh gilead had done in burying Saul and he sent a message
to them, commending them for the kindness they had shown toward their
former king.
"Another, the
captain of Saul's army, took Ish bosheth, Saul's son, and made
him king over eleven tribes (2 Samuel 2:8 10), but the House of
Judah pledged their loyalty to David. This distinction between the
two houses is clearly marked in the Scriptures long before the time
of the division of the Kingdom when the House of Israel revolted from
the rule of the House of David after Rehoboam, Solomon's son, came to
the throne.
"When Saul was
seeking the life of David, the same distinction was made between the
armies of Judah and the armies of Israel. This separation between
Israel and Judah is further emphasized in the record of the length of
David's reign, for the account states that he reigned over the House
of Judah for seven years and six months in Hebron and afterward over
all Israel for thirty three year." (2 Samuel 5:5;
Promagenesis, p. 443)
Even after David became
King of all Israel, he experienced some difficulty in overcoming the
prejudices still existing between the two branches of Israel.
Eventually, King Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, was unable to heal the
breach that led the House of Israel to revolt from his rule.
As an example given by
Dr. Gartenhaus on which he lays much stress in an effort to show that
all twelve tribes (actually 13, which shows that Dr. Gartenhaus never
really studied the scriptures) of Israel returned to Palestine in the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah is the sacrifice offered by the remnant
that returned. The account states:
"Also the children
of those that had been carried away, which were come out of the
captivity, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve
bullocks for all Israel." (Ezra 8:35)
The Doctor assumes
that, because the sacrifice called for a bullock for each one of the
twelve tribes, all twelve tribes must therefore be present. The
Bible, however, does not sustain such a contention, for when only a
part of Israel offered a sacrifice unto the God of Israel, that
sacrifice had to represent every tribe in the offering made even
though all the tribes were not present. This was true in the instance
above quoted, for Ezra states that present at that sacrifice were the
children of those who had been carried away into Babylonian
captivity; therefore there were no "tribes" of the House of
Israel present other than the tribe of Benjamin.
Chapter 2 of Ezra lists
those who returned form Babylon and states in the first verse:
"Now these are the
children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those
which had been carried away, WHOM NEBUCHADNEZZAR THE KING OF BABYLON
HAD CARRIED AWAY UNTO BABYLON, and came again unto Jerusalem and
Judah, every one unto his city."
The House of Israel was
carried away into Assyrian captivity, not by Nebuchadnezzar but by
Shalmanezer, King of Assyria. That there were no tribes from the ten
tribes of the House of Israel in the returning remnant, other than
the tribe of Benjamin, is shown by the statement:
"Now when the
adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the
captivity builded the temple." (Ezra 4:1)
It does not mention
adversaries of Ephraim, Manasseh, Gad or any of the other tribes of
the House of Israel, for none of these tribes were present. It has
been pointed out elsewhere that a few "families" of the
Northern Kingdom of Israel did remain with the Southern Kingdom of
Judah, but this in no way evidenced a "tribal" return of
the House of Israel at that time. As a matter of fact, the article
titled "What Saith the Scriptures?" points out why it was
absolutely impossible for the House of Israel to return to the land
of Palestine.
Dr. Gartenhaus next
makes a sweeping statement that the prophets use the terms "Israel"
and "Judah" interchangeably and that the terms "Jacob,"
"Israel" and "Judah" are used synonymously. Here
is an example of the necessity to "search the Scriptures,"
making a "study" of God's Written Word rather than limiting
oneself to a cursory reading of the Bible.
What the Doctor
overlooks is that the term "Israel" can be applied to all
the "tribes" and to each individual "tribe," for
all were Israelites. However, the qualification of the name "Israel"
by the use of the term "House of" can only be applicable to
the Northern Kingdom. In the House of Israel there is no "tribe"
of Judah. Nevertheless, Judah can be called Israel without the
designation "House of," for Judah is a part of all Israel.
The House of Judah was
made up of the remaining Israel tribes which were not included in the
House of Israel. Bear in mind that any of the tribes of the House of
Israel may be designated as Israel, but no tribe singly can be
designated as the "House of Israel," for that term
signifies the Northern Kingdom as a specific entity. There is not one
instance in the Scriptures where the terms "House of Israel"
and "House of Judah" are used interchangeably.
Here Dr. Gartenhaus'
"case in point" falls to pieces. He quotes 2 Chronicles
19:1 which states that Jehoshaphat was king of Judah; then 2
Chronicles 21:2 which mentions Jehoshaphat as king of Israel. But let
us examine the surrounding verses which form the context of 2
Chronicles 21:2. Just four verses previously, in 2 Chronicles 20:35,
this statement is made:
"And after this
did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of
Israel, who did very wickedly."
Were Ahaziah and
Jehoshaphat both kings of Israel at the same time? Obviously not, or
the above quoted verse makes no sense whatever. What is the correct
explanation? Simply this, that Jehoshaphat was King of Judah, but
because Judah was a part of all Israel, it could be said that he was
an Israelite king. Israel was the all inclusive term; Judah was not.
When studying the Bible
the most essential rule of all is to always consider a verse of
Scripture in its context. To violate this rule is to invite errors in
deduction which may make an accurate understanding of the whole
revelation of the Scriptures impossible. When the term "Israel"
is used alone, the context will show whether the House of Israel is
meant or whether the Biblical writer had Judah as a part of Israel in
mind. As a Bible scholar, Dr. Gartenhaus should be aware of these
simple rules which apply in every case where there is a supposed
interchange of the names "Israel" and "Judah."
Because Dr. Gartenhaus
maintains that there is no Scriptural distinction between the House
of Israel and the House of Judah. Isaiah makes it very clear that
there is such a separation when he addresses a people dwelling in the
"isles." Whether those isles are coastlines or not begs the
question; it is obvious that the people who are to receive the
message are dwelling in a place far removed from where Isaiah was
when he prophesied to them, for he designates them as "ye people
from far:"
"Listen, O isles,
unto me; and hearken ye people from far...Thou art my servant, O
Israel, in which I will be glorified." (Isaiah 49:1, 3)
Here we have a part of
Israel addressed as His servants but dwelling in a distant land
designated as the isles. That these people are not Jews is made clear
by the prophet in his counsel to them:
"Hearken to me, ye
that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the
rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are
digged." (Isaiah 51:1)
The prophet's message
is to a section of Israel who have lost the knowledge of their
identity and are unaware of their origin. Let it be noted, however,
that Isaiah is describing a people who are seeking the Lord and
endeavoring to perform works of righteousness. He is calling upon
them to recognize who their ancestors are, for he continues:
"Look unto Abraham
your father, and unto Sarah that bare you." (Isaiah 51:2)
This is not a message
addressed to the Jews, for they have never forgotten their origin,
nor allowed world to forget either, nor the fact that they "have
Abraham to their father." (Matthew 3:9) Which is true, but at
the same time they are a bastard mixed up people who are the result
of miscegenation. That this portion of Israel addressed as His
servants are not Jews is shown further by Isaiah's contrast of the
blessings that would come upon these servants of the Lord with the
curses that would come upon the Jews.
Let the critic who
insists the Jews represent all of Israel explain how Isaiah the
Prophet, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could make such a
contrast between the servant race and the Jews. But because the Jews
had forsaken the Lord, Isaiah prophetically declared:
"Therefore will I
remember you (the Jews) to the sword, and ye shall bow down to the
slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye
did not hear; but did evil eyes, and did choose that wherein I
delighted to. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants
(Israel) shall eat, but ye (the Jews) shall be hungry: behold, my
servants (Israel) shall drink, but ye (the Jews) shall be ashamed:
Behold, my servants (Israel) shall sing. for joy of heart, but ye
(the Jews) shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation
of spirit. And ye (the Jews) shall leave your name for a curse unto
my chosen (Israel): for the Lord God SHALL SLAY THEE, and call his
servants (Israel) by another name (Christians)." (Isaiah
65:12 15)
There is not a
statement in the Bible showing any more clearly than this the
contrast between the Jews, who rejected Yahshua, and the Anglo Saxon,
Germanic, Celtic peoples, the modern House of Israel in the world
today, who accepted Him as their Redeemer and have been called by a
name other than that of Israel, for they are now known as a Christian
people. Dr. Gartenhaus objects to the identified by name, but here is
definite Scriptural evidence that the name by which modern Israel was
to be called would bear no relationship to that by which their
forefathers were known.
Hosea the Prophet
confirmed the fact that such a change would take place when he said
of latter day Israel:
"And it shall come
to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my
people (as it is being said of the Anglo Saxons, Germanic,
Celtic and kindred peoples today by the Editors of The Sunday School
Times and Dr. Gartenhaus), there it shall be said unto them, Ye are
the sons of the living God (a Christian people)." (Hosea 1:10)
The statement is made
that the prophets made no distinction between the House of Judah and
the House of Israel; "nor in their future destinies," says
the doctor, "which are identical." Yet Jeremiah declared
that God divorced Israel and not Judah, a fact that cannot be highly
set aside if one is to understand the significance of the
"redemption" of Israel (not Judah):
"And I saw, when
for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I
had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her
treacherous sister Judah feared not, and went and played the harlot
also." (Jeremiah 3:8)
If words mean anything
at all, it is certain that Jeremiah makes a distinction here, as he
does frequently throughout his book. So do the rest of the prophets
when the context is taken into consideration. This identification by
context, in order that the people addressed may be properly
established, is mandatory if the term "Israel," as used in
the Scriptures, is to convey the proper meaning.
When the Doctor states
that nowhere in the Bible is there any evidence that the House of
Israel became lost to their origin and identity, Isaiah's call to
them to awaken to the knowledge of their ancestry becomes
meaningless. However, when Yahshua commissioned His disciples to go
"TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Matthew 10:6)
He said this because Judah had not been divorced and sent away, that
mission was not completed in Palestine, but after the death and
resurrection of Yahshua, the disciples did go to the British Isles
and there founded the first Christian Church at Glastonbury. This was
two or three years after the crucifixion. Thus, at the very beginning
of the Christian Era the Gospel was literally taken TO THE LOST SHEEP
OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
The Jews had rejected
Yahshua and refused to accept the Gospel. The Galileans, who were
Benjamintes and therefore a tribe of the House of Israel, accepted
Christianity and from this tribe came all of our Lord's disciples
except one, Judas the Jew, who betrayed Him.
This move on the part
of the disciples to take the Gospel to the Isles fulfilled our Lord's
prediction, for, as a result of His rejection by the Jews, He said to
them:
"The kingdom of
God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:430
Dr. Gartenhaus accuses
us of saying the Jews were disinherited, but it was Yahshua who
pronounced this verdict upon them for their rejection of Him, thus
fulfilling Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 9:26) as it is given in the
alternative translation of the passage in the margin of the King
James Version:
"‘And (the Jews)
they shall be no more his people' or ‘and the prince's (Messiah's )
future people.'"
Dr. Gartenhaus'
controversy is not with us when we state the Jews ceased to be a part
of the chosen people and to possess the Kingdom as a result of their
rejection of Christ as their Messiah. His controversy is with Daniel
the Prophet and with Christ Himself who declared that the Kingdom
would be taken from them and given to a nation that would bring forth
the fruits of that Kingdom (and Christ called the Jews the children
of the devil in John 8:44) justice, equity, peace and righteousness
in administration. As a Christian people that is precisely the
mission of the Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Celtic nations, and would
have been had it not been for the Jews treachery and treason behind
the scenes.
They have not attained
perfection in this, largely because of the failure to awaken to the
knowledge of their identity and to the necessity to restore the
perfect administration of the Law of the Lord. All of this will be
overcome, however, when Christ returns as King to reign over His
Kingdom. We have the more sure word of prophecy that this is a
certainty:
"The Lord God
shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall
reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there
shall be no end." (Luke 1:32 33)
Actually the opposition
is chargeable with the responsibility they must take for retarding
the national spiritual awakening that will come when His people
eventually become aware of these great truths. In the concluding
paragraph of his article, Dr. Gartenhaus makes an observation which
is strangely expressed. He states, "but whether or not the
Anglo Saxons, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtics are the Israelites
is of little significance." Is there an intimation here that the
Doctor is far from sure of the soundness of the position he has
taken?
The Bible makes no
provision for such an indifferent attitude toward the revelation of
the identity of the House of Israel. The Prophet Ezekiel alone
declares the importance of the revealing of the House of Israel to
the world, at which time God will move to sanctify them in the sight
of many nations:
"Then shall they
know that I am the Lord their God, which caused them to be led into
captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own
land, and have left none of them any more there. Neither will I hide
my face any more from them: for I have poured my spirit upon the
house of Israel, saith the Lord God." (Ezekiel 39:28 29)
Yet we have no quarrel
with Dr. Gartenhaus' concluding remarks, for he says:
"The important
question is, Are they with our without Christ? If they are with
Christ, they are a holy nation and as such belong to the royal
priesthood: ‘But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an
holy nation, a peculiar people.' (1 Peter 2:9) If they are without
Christ, they are sinners and lost, as are any others without Christ:
‘For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby
we must be saved.'" (Acts 4:12)
That Salvation is
through Christ is in no way detracts from the essential fact of the
redemption of Israel so that the Kingdom may be established upon the
earth in perfecting. Its righteous rule will remove forever from the
earth poverty, distress, sorrow, sickness; all the direct results of
maladministration. To say that this latter fact is of no significance
is to contradict the statement of Christ (Matthew 6:33_) who said,
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and
all these things shall be added unto you."
The things to be added
are the essential needs of life which will bring peace, well being
and happiness to all the people. Dr. Gartenhaus may consider this to
be an unimportant aspect of the Gospel, but we doubt that those who
are suffering because of the lack of righteousness in administration
will agree with him.
Rather than follow the
dictums of men, we prefer to believe the words of the inspired
writers of the Scriptures that, when the House of Israel is revealed
to the world and to themselves, there will come about such a
spiritual awakening that the knowledge of the goodness of the Lord
and His great works will be recognized not only among His people but
by the nations around the earth as well. This revelation will
establish the validity and accuracy of the Word of God and the
statements of all His prophets, with the electrifying result that
will fulfill Paul's appraisal (Romans 11:15) that the restoration of
Israel will be as life from the dead.
http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/A%20Short%20Look%20at%20Our%20Origins%20%5BA%5D.htm
