am i isreal or judah?

[Guest]

Why are people always so quick to reply without really looking into things? You mean to tell me you can't figure out that "Ephrathite" means someone of Ephraim? Because the very same word is translated as "Ephraimite" in Judges 12:5 in the KJV as well as the NASB.

Look up the Hebrew word if you don't believe me. It's Strong's #673. Here are the definitions:

Ephrathite = "ashiness: fruitfulness"

1. an inhabitant or descendant of Ephraim
2. an inhabitant of Bethlehem

And why do you think the inhabitants of Bethlehem were called "Ephrathites"? Because they were of Ephraim! The place was called "Bethlehem-Ephratah" meaning Bethlehem of Ephraim, as well as "Bethlehem-Judah" meaning Bethlehem of Judah. People from the tribes of Judah and Ephraim were living in the same town, and David's father Jesse was descended from both.

Damon

[Guest]

I've been considering how to properly and kindly respond to your rather harsh post. I believe you are in error. At home I have a resource which shows how the context defines these words that appear to be identical, but this is not immediately available to me right now. However, observing how you have answered Steve and others in the past, it won't matter anyway. Carry on, I'll just watch - or go watch something else.

-larry

[Guest]

btw, it was called Ephrath before Ephraim was born.

[Guest]

btw, it was called Ephrath before Ephraim was born.

Ah, that's where this issue is.

Sorry, I got upset when it seemed like you were picking on a minor point and relegating the whole of the rest of what I said to oblivion.

Do you know why the place was named "Ephratah" or "Ephrath" before Ephraim was born?

Let me go back to the passage in Genesis 35:16-20:

"Then they [Jacob's family] moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to have labor pains and had great difficulty. And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, 'Don't be afraid, for you have another son.' As she breathed her last - for she was dying - she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamin. So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). Over her tomb Jacob set up a pillar, and to this day that pillar marks Rachel's tomb."

First of all, Rachel named Joseph, saying, "God will add to me (yet) another son." (Gen. 30:24) Benjamin was the promised second son. Because she died of her labor pains, she was going to name him "Ben-oni" meaning "son of (my) sorrow." But instead, Jacob named him "Benjamin" meaning "son of (my) right hand."

The place at the right hand of the host was traditionally the place of honor at the dinner table. What Jacob was saying was that even though Benjamin had been born last, he had the place of honor among his brothers.

One very interesting characteristic of Benjamin is that his territory in the land of Israel was right in between the territory of Ephraim and the territory of Judah. He was more closely related to Ephraim, but when the United Kingdom of Israel was divided, Benjamin remained with Judah. Like the house of David, Benjamin had ties to both Ephraim and Judah!

Ephrath, "the fruitful place," was so named because it was physically a place of abundance. It had woods and fields (Ps. 132:6), as well as sheep (1 Sam. 16:4, 11, 17:15) and a well (2 Sam. 23:15-16). It was also spiritually a place of abundance (Ruth 4:11-12; Mic. 2).

Now comes my point. In Micah 5:2-3 the prophet Micah drew a very clear parallel between Rachel's difficult labor near Bethlehem and the end-time Great Tribulation and subsequent regathering of Israel. Not Judah - Israel!

Why Israel?

Because Joseph, Benjamin's brother and the leader of the northern Kingdom of Israel, was the one that went away from God and needed to be regathered (Jer. 31:15-20). So "Ephrath" literally symbolizes the "fruit" of the descendants of Israel - compare Hosea 1-2.

That's the spiritual part of it. Physically, Bethlehem was right on the border between Benjamin and Judah. Although Bethlehem technically belonged to Judah, Jerusalem, just north of Bethlehem, technically beloned to Benjamin even though King David ruled from there. The territory of Benjamin wasn't all that wide, either, and right on the other side was Ephraim.

Bethlehem was also a place that the tribe of Ephraim physically preferred to live. Ephraim preferred a "closed-in" or "womb" like, wooded area, whereas Judah preferred open fields. They moved there after the fact - after the town had already been named. They weren't simply drawn there physically, though. It was ultimately a spiritual purpose that brought them there, because the town of Bethlehem spiritually represented the gathering place of Ephraim/Joseph.

Now does that make sense?

Damon

[Guest]

Sorry, I got upset when it seemed like you were picking on a minor point and relegating the whole of the rest of what I said to oblivion.

That's pretty much it. I think it's time for me to sign off.

-larry

[Guest]

Well, well, well. It looks like I've succumbed to the bait. I thought you were asking a question for the sake of gaining answers, and you were just baiting a trap to rant and rave about your own point of view. Well, two can play that game, but ultimately I'll have to leave you and your delusions to the Lord.

Right. Neither one will fall through God's hands, figuratively speaking.

It would have to be "figuratively speaking" because if His main concern was ETHNIC Israel, then He let them slip quite literally out of His hands as ancient Israel is no more and tribal distinctions have long ceased.

Even IF they were not assimilated into the nations the burden of proof is upon them to prove an unbroken, faithful pedigree back to Abraham.

No it's not. It's the job of a priest who stands up "with Urim and Thummim." (Neh. 7:65) Such a one will be able to discern who is from what tribe, even if they're of mixed ancestry.

Wrong! Tell me, Damien, where are Israel's priests? Where is the Urim and Thummin? Where is the breastplate of the high priest? Who is the high priest? Knowing the number of ancestors that have passed through 20 centuries of unbelief I am quite willing to state unequivocably that not even God could still discern what tribe a modern Jew MIGHT have descended from! Add to all this your total disregard (and their's) for the fact that they broke the covenant/law by intermarrying in the first place. Would the Urim and Thummin excuse hundreds and thousands of years of unfaithfulness? And how is the lineage of the priests supposed to be resurrected/verified apart from the Urim and Thummin? There is a reason that modern Jews have rabbis instead of priests, Damon...

Read Genesis 49. Here, we have a passage identifying specific tribes who exist in the "last days".

Josephus himself wrote, "wherefore, there are but two tribes in Judea. The ten tribes are beyond Euphrates [a euphemism for in Parthia] and are an immense multitude, not to be measured nor counted." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter V, Section 2)

In other words, Josephus is citing this as evidence for the eventual literal fulfillment of Hosea 1-2!

The problem with your interpretation of Gen 49 is that you misunderstand what is meant by "the last days." It is not the last days of time or the earth, but the last days of Israel as a unique people in covenant with God.

I don't deny that Josephus considered the Jews who were still living in Babylon as part of the children of Israel. They were the Diaspora. However, even they ceased to exist as a SEPARATE, IDENTIFIABLE people group. And I don't interpret the Scriptures based on what apostates have to say. People that are not in covenant with God cannot speak authoritatively on His Word.

You have the authoritative guarantee of the apostles who said that the prophecy of Amos 9 is fulfilled in the gentiles coming to faith in Christ in Acts 15:15-17 and yet you reject the Word of God in order to keep your own traditions.

"...The original passage in Amos speaks about the restoration of the people of Israel to the land, the rebuilding to the ruined cities, and the permanent replanting of the people in the land. When James quotes the passage, he is trying to show that the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church is the fulfilment of the prophecies of Amos.

Well, it isn't all of the fulfillment.

And you base that assumption on what?

Jesus Himself said that He came for "the lost sheep of the House of Israel." (Mat. 10:5-6, 15:22-24)

Quite right, BUT the "house" or family of Israel was still around at that time although a vast majority had been and were being assimilated into the nations against the strict commands of God. Covenant-breakers do not enter into the Kingdom, Damon (see Rom 1:31; Rom 2:23-25; Deut 7:9-11).

Jesus came the first time to spiritually regather His people Israel.

Yes, but WHO are the people of God, "Israel", according to the New Covenant? And what LAND were the patriarchs looking forward to - a physical or a spiritual place?

(Heb 11:13-16) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {14} For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a Country. {15} And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. {16} But now they desire A Better Country, that is, an Heavenly Country: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a City.

So I don't have to assume a future fulfillment without support from the New Testament. Jesus Himself made it clear that there must be one, in order for what He was saying to make sense.

But that is exactly what you are assuming because the promises of the Old Covenant are fulfilled in and by the New Covenant, which is the Gospel/Good News.

Furthermore, I can see that you really don't understand why the House of David was mentioned in Amos 9, either, or how it applied in Acts 15:16. What line was David from? According to what's commonly understood, David was descended from Judah. Jesus was descended from David, who was descended from Judah (Heb. 7:14). But did you know that Jesus was ALSO descended from Joseph? According to 1 Samuel 17:12, David's father was "an Ephraimite". Ephraim was one of the two sons of the patriarch Joseph.

Have you ever seen a pedigree chart, Damon? The Text is not saying that Jesse was descended from 2 different tribes. It is saying that he was a descendant of Judah who was from Bethlehem. Oh the scrip-torture one will resort to to prove their unbiblical notions.

The word used in 1 Sam 17:12 is H673 and means "an Ephrathite OR an Ephraimite" and is a PATRIAL (that is a word that has to do with WHERE a person is from/born) and the Text qualifies what is mean by Ephrathite when it says "Bethlehemjudah". Plus we have Jesse's pedigree to tell us who he is descended from and Ephraim is nowhere mentioned. The word used in Judges 12:5 is H669 and does have reference to Joseph's son, Ephraim. Both H673 and H669 are derivitives of H672 which means "fruitfulness." In the one occurence it is in reference to a place - Bethlehem, in the other it is a reference to a person - Ephraim. Neither occurences of the word have anything to do with Jesse except that he is from one place and distantly related to the other (1st cousins, 8 generations removed). Do we want to take all of the words that are derivatives of H672 and suppose some more spurious connections?

Spock on Star Trek was the "logical" Vulcan for a reason: Jews are more rational than emotional! (You knew Leonard Nimoy was Jewish, right? His split-fingered Vulcan salute comes from the way the rabbis traditionally perform the Aaronic benediction in Num. 6:23-26.)

More Jewish nonsense. The Bible says nothing about that split-finger sort of salute. It is on some Jewish stuff (www.cohen-levi.org), but they have a lot of crazy symbolism without any Biblical connection. (You've really bought into a lot of junk, haven't you, Damon?) So what if Leonard Nimoy is a Jew by religion, that doesn't make him a Jew by ethnicity - i.e. a descendant of Abraham. Try asking a Jew sometime which tribe they descend from and see what kind of reaction you get. The Bible said that the children of Israel were to inherit the land based on what tribe they were from, ergo modern Jews should have to prove what tribe they're from in order to know and be allowed to settle on the inheritance of their "fathers".

But you don't have to take my word for it. Just wait and see.

I'm holding my breath. No, Damon, what you should do is take God's Word for it - particulary His most recent revelation in the person of His Son and in the writings of those His Son has authorized to speak on His behalf, interpreting the promises of the Old Covenant.

However, the main problem with your theories is this: the Old Covenant is just that, "old", it is obsolete. It has been abrogated. It will never rise again and abrogate the New Covenant. There are only two options: 1) either all of those promises were fulfilled and are being fulfilled through the New Covenant or 2) God broke His promises to the patriarchs. Either way, there will be no resurrection of the Old Covenant to the place of supremacy in the plan of God.

Just tell me, WHO is God making a New Covenant with, according to this passage? WHO does the passage say the New Covenant is with?

Israel and Judah, the people of God, as represented by One Man, Jesus, the Messiah. It is Jesus and Jesus alone who inaugurated the New Covenant by His Blood. He is the descendant of Israel through Judah. He is their representative. He is the Lion of the tribe of which we Christians are now a part. He is "The Prince of Power" in Isa 49:3. Remember, "Israel" wasn't Jacob's REAL name, it was a SYMBOLIC name given to him (and by extension to his descendants) by the Lord. It is the Lord who determines who or who is not part of Israel and on what basis. You need to study the New Covenant to discover who that is and on what basis He does that.

Here's a link to get you started: The True Israel of God by L.R. Shelton, Jr. of Mount Zion Ministries.

I can only pray that God will bless you and the eyes of your understanding may be enlightened (Eph 1:17-20).

[Guest]

Well, well, well. It looks like I've succumbed to the bait. I thought you were asking a question for the sake of gaining answers, and you were just baiting a trap to rant and rave about your own point of view.

No, I was asking a question to get you guys to think about something that didn't make sense concerning your position. Jesus used the same tactic.

Well, two can play that game, but ultimately I'll have to leave you and your delusions to the Lord.

You know, Psalmist was right to get upset at me. Instead of asking him whether he had looked into the issue any more than just a cursory reading of the passage in 1 Samuel 17:12, I made the assumption that he hadn't. Even though I had a pretty reasonable shot at being right, I was wrong to make that assumption and get upset without finding out first.

I decided not to answer Psalmist, though, because he was taking the passive-agressive route out of the argument. He was also mistaken in his belief that I got unjustly upset with Sean and with Steve Gregg. I did have justification for those times.

Are you going to heap wrong upon wrong, though? Is that your solution to an argument? If you think you have all the answers, fine, but being arrogant about it is one sure-fire way to make sure people don't listen to you.

Right. Neither one will fall through God's hands, figuratively speaking.

It would have to be "figuratively speaking" because if His main concern was ETHNIC Israel, then He let them slip quite literally out of His hands as ancient Israel is no more and tribal distinctions have long ceased.

I'm going to make this as clear as I can. Blow it off if you want, but this is why I'll never agree with you. If God made what seemed like a rock-solid promise to national, ethnic Israel, then later on explained that He really meant a totally different group of people, then national, ethnic Israel would have a really good reason to not trust God to keep His promises. If that's all God ever intended from the get-go, then He should have said it that way. Otherwise, Israel would have the grounds to claim that God misled them by omission.

Since I think that God is more responsible with His promises, I refuse to believe that God only intended these promises for spiritual Israel. No amount of explanation or Scriptural interpretation will convince me otherwise.

No it's not. It's the job of a priest who stands up "with Urim and Thummim." (Neh. 7:65) Such a one will be able to discern who is from what tribe, even if they're of mixed ancestry.

Wrong! Tell me, Damien, where are Israel's priests? Where is the Urim and Thummin? Where is the breastplate of the high priest? Who is the high priest?

Damien, huh? I can see that you have no interest in continuing a reasonable discussion. I'm big enough to see when I've sinned against someone, but something tells me you won't ever apologize to me for that remark.

Would you care to prove me wrong?

As for Israel's ethnic priests, they still exist, waiting to be purified. The Urim and Thummim and the breastplate are in safe keeping until it's time for them to be revealed.

The problem with your interpretation of Gen 49 is that you misunderstand what is meant by "the last days." It is not the last days of time or the earth, but the last days of Israel as a unique people in covenant with God.

Nope, you're the one who's misunderstanding it, sorry. The "last days" didn't begin until Jesus' ministry. (Heb. 1:1-2 et. al)

You don't even know why they're called the "last days" do you?

I don't deny that Josephus considered the Jews who were still living in Babylon as part of the children of Israel. They were the Diaspora. However, even they ceased to exist as a SEPARATE, IDENTIFIABLE people group.

No they didn't. History even records where they went. You're assuming without proof.

Jesus Himself said that He came for "the lost sheep of the House of Israel." (Mat. 10:5-6, 15:22-24)

Quite right, BUT the "house" or family of Israel was still around at that time although a vast majority had been and were being assimilated into the nations against the strict commands of God. Covenant-breakers do not enter into the Kingdom, Damon (see Rom 1:31; Rom 2:23-25; Deut 7:9-11).

Of course they don't! That's what Isaiah 29:22-24 is all about! The PHYSICAL descendants of Jacob finally getting it right and being restored to God!!

I don't expect you to ever hear me, though. Your pride that you have all of the answers makes you unteachable.

Bye...

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,

You write with a distinct tone of condesension. This would be tolerable if you peppered your comments with wit. However, your posts are nearly devoid of humor, and thus I find them grating.

a1

[Guest]

How do you expect me to respond when I'm treated this way?

Damon
PS. I'm not being condescending. I'm extremely well-studied and hence I expect what I write to be treated with some modicum of respect instead of being insulting. I'd do the same, and have done so with Steve Gregg.

[Guest]

If you think you have all the answers, fine, but being arrogant about it is one sure-fire way to make sure people don't listen to you.

If you won't hear the Word of God and the plain explanation of the apostle James (who was the Lord's brother!) then why would I suppose that you'd listen to me?!? I'd have to be deluded...

I'm going to make this as clear as I can. Blow it off if you want, but this is why I'll never agree with you. If God made what seemed like a rock-solid promise to national, ethnic Israel, then later on explained that He really meant a totally different group of people, then national, ethnic Israel would have a really good reason to not trust God to keep His promises. If that's all God ever intended from the get-go, then He should have said it that way. Otherwise, Israel would have the grounds to claim that God misled them by omission.

Well, if they want to argue with God then that is their prerogative. Frankly, this was what the apostles had to address in the first century and what they do address - viz, who is Israel? That's why I suggested the article that I did. It looks at all those verses. Another good resource would be "The Church is Israel Now" by Chuck Provan.

Since I think that God is more responsible with His promises, I refuse to believe that God only intended these promises for spiritual Israel. No amount of explanation or Scriptural interpretation will convince me otherwise.

Your idol. Your loss. God is more than merely what you "think" about Him. He is as He has revealed Himself. If you don't like God as He has revealed Himself then the god you worship is an idol of your own making and if you don't bow your understanding to both Him and His Word then you are the one who will suffer for it, not God.

Damien, huh? I can see that you have no interest in continuing a reasonable discussion. I'm big enough to see when I've sinned against someone, but something tells me you won't ever apologize to me for that remark.

Oh, are Damon and Damien not derivatives of the same root word meaning "to tame"? Why are you so upset? Didn't you use the same argumentation about David being a descendant of Ephraim!!!

Would you care to prove me wrong?

That's what I've been working on.

As for Israel's ethnic priests, they still exist, waiting to be purified. The Urim and Thummim and the breastplate are in safe keeping until it's time for them to be revealed.

And I suppose you and the Jews are the only ones with this secret knowledge, eh?

The problem with your interpretation of Gen 49 is that you misunderstand what is meant by "the last days." It is not the last days of time or the earth, but the last days of Israel as a unique people in covenant with God.

Nope, you're the one who's misunderstanding it, sorry. The "last days" didn't begin until Jesus' ministry. (Heb. 1:1-2 et. al)

Look! We agree on something. The last days BEGAN with Jesus' ministry. They ENDED with the destruction of the last vestiges of the Old Covenant with it's temple, sacrifices, priestly caste, etc.

Of course they don't! That's what Isaiah 29:22-24 is all about! The PHYSICAL descendants of Jacob finally getting it right and being restored to God!!

Really? And how is that, in their unbelief? You've already presupposed an awful lot to have PHYSICAL descendants of Jacob still running around...