Who is a ? 30 pages. In Romans 2:28, 29 Paul tells us who IS a Jew and who is NOT a Jew. God's answer to this question cannot be obtained by looking at one's genetics, but by the lawful requirements of citizenship in a tribe of Israel. This shows how those who accepted Christ and all others who accept Him as King-Messiah have legally joined the tribe of and are thus "Jews". On the other hand, those who have rejected Him are NOT Jews at all, because they have revolted against the King of Judah and have forfeited their citizenship in Judah.

• Chapter 1: The Two Fig Trees of Judah • Chapter 2: Genealogical and Converted Jews

Chapter 1 The Two Fig Trees of Judah

There are essentially two definitions of the term “Jew.” There is man’s definition, and there is God’s definition. Of course, even Jews today have differences of opinion on how to define a Jew—whether it is a racial, cultural, or a religious term. Some argue that a person is a Jew if their mother is a Jew; others say a person is a Jew if either parent is one. There are also many “secular Jews,” who do not even believe in God, but share a cultural heritage. Religious Jews debate about whether these secular Jews are really Jews or not.

Further, Judaism is divided into three main divisions: Orthodox, Reformed, and Conservative. Many claim that they must be of their denomination to be a true Jew. Such a debate is not much different from Christian denominations, many of whom do not recognize other sects as being true .

Man’s definitions of a “Jew” must be taken seriously, but the real issue before us is how God defines a Jew. The clearest statement in the New Testament on this question is found in Romans 2:28, 29, 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Here Paul tells us pointedly who IS a Jew and who IS NOT a Jew. He does not base his definition upon men’s views, for most men in his day considered a Jew to be one who followed the leaders of the temple in , who had rejected .

Paul’s opinion would have been hotly contested by the temple priests. They defined a Jew in terms of outward circumcision—that is, according to the sign of the Old Covenant that the people had broken and which had been made null and void. Paul knew this, because he had been raised and educated in that viewpoint. So it is particularly significant that Paul rejected this definition of a Jew. He said that a Jew was one who had the circumcision of the heart—the sign of the New Covenant.

Paul did NOT say that a Jew was one with outward circumcision, while a Christian was one with the inward circumcision. Not at all. He said clearly, “he is a Jew who is one inwardly.” To a temple priest, this was rank heresy, of course. It was a genuine difference of opinion. We do not expect such “Jews” then or today to accept Paul’s definition. But Christians who claim to believe the New Testament ought not to disagree with Paul.

We understand that Paul’s definition was based purely upon biblical law—the very law that the temple priests claimed to believe, but which, in fact, they had violated. But before we can understand how the divine law itself defines a biblical Jew, we must again give the background material that Paul had studied. Jeremiah’s Revelation The tribe of Judah consisted of two types of Judahites: good and bad. The good side of Judah was to receive the dominion mandate, while the bad side was to be rejected by God. This picture fully emerges in the prophecies of Jeremiah. The main portrait of these two “trees” is found in Jeremiah 24, which speaks of the nation of Judah being like two baskets of figs. One basket contained very good figs; the other contained very rotten figs that could not be eaten. Jeremiah tells us of these in the first verses of Jeremiah 24,

1 After Nebuchadnezzar king of had carried away captive the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and the officials of Judah with the craftsmen and smiths from Jerusalem and had brought them to Babylon, the Lord showed me: behold, two baskets of figs set before the temple of the Lord! 2 One basket had very good figs, like first-ripe figs; and the other basket had very bad figs, which could not be eaten due to rottenness. God then told the prophet the explanation of this revelation. The nation had long been in rebellion against God, even while hypocritically worshipping in the temple. God had sent prophets to them, but they had refused to listen and even stoned many of them for giving words of correction. So God pronounced a sentence of judgment upon the nation in Jeremiah 7:1-15, saying that He was going to reject Jerusalem even as He had previously rejected .

Shiloh was the place that God forsook in the days of Eli the high priest. On the day that the Philistines captured the , Eli’s daughter-in-law gave birth to a son, who was named Ichabod, “the glory has departed” (1 Sam. 3:22)). God’s presence departed from Shiloh and never returned. The Ark was later taken to Jerusalem, where the glory returned in the days of (2 Chron. 5:13, 14).

Two centuries later, God told the prophet Jeremiah that because the people had turned Solomon’s temple into a den of robbers, He was going to forsake Jerusalem like He had forsaken Shiloh. (This was fulfilled in Ezekiel 10:18 and 11:22, 23.) God then tells Jeremiah in verse 16,

16 As for you, do not pray for this people, and do not lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with Me; for I do not hear you.

Once the sentence of judgment has been rendered in the Divine Court, there can be no reversal of judgment. If Jeremiah had continued to pray or intercede for Judah, he would have shown himself to be in disagreement with God. This did not mean that he could not pray that more individual people be spared in the judgment to come. But he could no longer pray that the nation itself would be spared from destruction, nor could he pray that the glory of God would return to a physical temple in Jerusalem.

With this background, we come to Jeremiah 24, where we see the revelation of God showing the different types of judgment that He would mete toward two kinds of individual Judahites. The basket of good figs were those men of Judah who submitted to the judgment of God and who went to Babylon into captivity. Their judgment was for a good end, because they submitted to the decision of the Divine Court. God said that He would bring them back to the land and “give them a heart to know Me” (24:7).

The basket of bad figs, however, represented those men of Judah who refused to submit to the king of Babylon—that is, they refused to submit to the judgment of God. God said of these bad figs,

8 But like the bad figs which cannot be eaten due to rottenness—indeed, thus says the Lord—so I will abandon Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials, and the remnant of Jerusalem who remain in this land, and the ones who dwell in the land of Egypt. 9 And I will make them a terror and an evil for all the kingdoms of the earth, as a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse in all places where I shall scatter them. 10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence upon them until they are destroyed from the land which I gave to them and to their forefathers.

What a contrast! The fig tree was, of course, the symbol of the nation of Judah. But it is apparent that the two baskets of figs came from two different fig trees. Jesus clearly saw both types of Judahites in His day, for He said in Matt. 7:17-20,

17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.

The good tree brought forth good fruit; the bad tree bore bad fruit. Both are of Judah, but there was a clear division between the people represented by these trees. The good figs were those who submitted to His judgment—the —rather than fight. The bad figs, however, rejected God’s judgment and refused to view Nebuchadnezzar as God’s “servant” (Jer. 27:6). This is clear from a simple reading of Jeremiah 24 through chapter 30.

It is, of course, no surprise that Judah would consist of believers (good figs) and rebellious unbelievers (evil figs). This is really no different from any other nation, for there is not a nation in the world that has all righteous people or all unrighteous people. Every nation is a mixture of good and bad. But in the case of Judah it is a matter of divine separation into two distinct fig trees, because God intended to treat them differently.

He intended to give Judah’s calling—the dominion mandate—to those who produced good fruit, and at the same time He intended to disinherit those who produced bad fruit.

Yes, God had every right to disinherit even full-blooded regardless of their genealogy. In fact, He had already claimed this right many years earlier by disinheriting and giving the dominion mandate to Judah. This detail is hidden in the genealogy of Reuben in 1 Chron. 5:1, 2, which says,

1 Now the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. 2 Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader [nagid, “leader, ruler, prince”], yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.

This is a reference to ’s blessings upon Joseph and Judah in Genesis 49. To Joseph was given the birthright itself, which was the fruitfulness mandate of Genesis 1:28. To Judah was given the dominion mandate that would culminate in the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. A full history of these two mandates is found in my book, The Struggle for the Birthright. Reuben, the oldest son of Jacob-Israel, lost the dominion mandate because he had sexual relations with Bilhah (Gen. 35:22), one of his father’s wives (not Reuben’s mother). Thus, Reuben lost the honor of being an ancestor of Jesus Christ and of having the King of Kings come through his lineage. This honor also bypassed Levi and Simeon, the next oldest sons of , because of their violent, legalistic nature (Gen. 34:30). The dominion mandate went to Judah, the fourth son of Leah.

As the centuries passed, and Judah the man became a tribe and finally a nation of millions, there were believers and unbelievers among them. As Jeremiah’s prophecies tell us, there were “good figs” and “evil figs” in the nation. And so God made a distinction between them, because He never intended to allow the rebellious Judahites to inherit the dominion mandate given to Judah. God will not have unbelieving and rebellious people rule in His Kingdom.

And this is the key to understanding who is a Jew—as God defines a Jew.

After their 70-year captivity in Babylon, 50,000 “good figs” returned to the old land to rebuild the nation. They had some autonomy, but they remained under the authority of the king of Persia for two centuries. Then Alexander the Great conquered Persia, and the Judean nation came under the authority of Greece. In 63 B.C. they came under the authority of Rome, and later Jesus was born under the dominion of the .

Jesus did not attempt to overthrow Rome, nor did He treat the Roman soldiers or governors as His enemies. He recognized that God had put the nation into a series of captivities beginning with Babylon, and He submitted to that divine judgment as a “good fig.” There were others, however, who disagreed and who had the spirit of rebellion.

Jesus taught His disciples, including Simon Zelotes, i.e., “the Zealot” (Luke 6:15) how to submit to divine judgment as a good fig. When Peter wanted to fight, Jesus told him to stop and even healed the Roman soldier’s ear (Luke 22:49-51).

The good figs believed in Him; the bad figs did not. The bad figs were looking for a military Messiah who would rise up in revolt against Rome. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, simply did not meet their expectations. Hence, this is how the good figs became Christian believers, while the evil figs rejected Christ and ultimately revolted openly against Rome. This is why Rome destroyed Jerusalem, as Jesus had prophesied in Matthew 22:1-7. Jesus is the Trunk of the Good Fig Tree Jesus Himself produced good fruit. He was born of a Judahite mother, as proven in the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3. But as the King of Judah, He was more than just a fig branch that was producing good fruit. He was the tree itself. He was the trunk of the tree, to which were attached various branches that bore good fruit. Jesus said as much when He used a slightly different motif of the vine and branches. John 15:1- 6 says,

1 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit. . . 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

It is clear from this that only those who abide in Christ will bear the type of fruit that God is seeking. If one claims to be in Christ, but does not produce these fruits of the Kingdom, he is cut off. And “if anyone does not abide in Me,” Jesus says, “he is thrown away as a branch and dries up.”

Surely He had in mind those Judahites who had rejected Him as Messiah. Only a few days earlier, Jesus had cursed the fig tree, and the disciples had marveled that it had dried up by the following morning. He was saying, then, that the people who produced no fruit—or, as Jeremiah put it, those who produced only bad figs that could not be eaten—would be cut off.

This is precisely what happened. Judah split into two factions, or two “trees.” Those who accepted Jesus as Messiah became the branches of the good fig tree. These were the inheritors of the dominion mandate given to Judah. Of these, Jesus said He would prune them in order that they would bring forth even more fruit.

Those who refused to accept Jesus as Messiah were cut off and are no longer inheritors of the dominion mandate. Jesus clearly said that there is no way that anyone can bear fruit apart from being attached to Christ. Replacement Theology The traditional Church belief was that the “Gentile” Church replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people. As I see it, this is not quite accurate. Past theologians did not really understand the issue from the perspective of biblical law.

The early Church, founded on Jesus Christ and the apostles, was the true Judah “tree” that produced the good figs in the first century application of Jeremiah 24. However, Jesus’ followers were a tiny minority and were not in control of the temple in Jerusalem. When the bad figs rejected Jesus as Messiah, the believers were persecuted and finally expelled from the land. They were excommunicated from Judaism. The good figs lost their identity as “Jews.” That is, the bad figs retained the identification with the tribe or nation of Judah, while the good figs became known in the world as “Christians” (Acts 11:26). But God knew them as true Judah—the followers of the King of Judah, Jesus Christ. They were the good figs that God had expelled from the old land for their good.

The evil figs, however, remained in the old land in their state of rebellion until the nation was destroyed in 70-73 A.D. God gave them forty years in which to repent, but they refused. Finally, God sent His Roman armies to carry out His sentence of judgment, even as Jesus said in His parable in Matthew 22:7,

7 But the king [God] was enraged and sent HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire.

Our point is that a “Gentile Church” did not replace a “Jewish Church.” The earliest Christians were always the good figs of Judah, carrying on the biblical dominion mandate that had been given to Judah. When the King of Judah came, they gave their allegiance to Him and learned from Him how to be a “good fig.” In accepting Him as Messiah, God made a New Covenant with them, as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31, saying,

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

He did NOT make this covenant with a “gentile Church.” He made it with the good figs of the true house of Judah, led by the Prince of that tribe, Jesus Christ. If any non-Jew wants to be saved, he must transfer his citizenship to the house of Judah and swear allegiance to its King, Jesus Christ. He then becomes a convert to the true house of Judah—not a convert to Judaism. Judaism is the religion of the rebellious figs, that says in Luke 19:14, “We do not want this Man to reign over us.” Their fate is given in Jesus’ words in Luke 19:27,

27 But these enemies of Mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in My presence.

This is the fate of Zionism. He has brought representatives of the bad figs back to the old land from virtually every nation in the world in order to judge them for not wanting Jesus Christ to reign over them. What is most astounding is that many Christians have paid their way through contributions to bring them back for this judgment!

Getting back to the group of early Christian Jews (as God defines them), the light of the added many converts to their ranks from nations not of Judah. Some of them were ex-Israelites of the Assyrian dispersion (745-721 B.C.). Others were not. Either way, the non-Judahites were not “natural” branches of this fig tree. Nonetheless, God grafted them into the tree of Judah, so that they could partake of the life of Jesus Christ and bear good fruit. If we think of these converts as branches from an apple tree being grafted on to a fig tree, we can see that each branch would bear its own type of fruit. One need not bear figs to be part of that fig tree of Judah.

As for the unproductive branches of the fig tree, they were pruned, cut off. In fact, by rejecting Jesus, and excommunicating His disciples, they were cutting themselves off the fig tree of Judah! They did not realize that by separating themselves from Jesus, the Root and offspring of (Rev. 22:16), their branch would die.

The bad figs were simply cut off, while the good figs of Judah carried the banner of the Judah Church. There was no replacement here, as classic Church theology has taught in the past. The promises to Abraham were never transferred from one people to another. The promises simply continued through the unbroken line of the good fig tree of Judah. The fact that many non-Judahites have been grafted to that tree does not make it a “Gentile Church.” There may be an abundance of “Gentile” branches on that tree, but the trunk of the tree and its root has always been Jesus, the King of Judah.

When Christians today talk about the early Church as being a “Jewish Church,” they are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, because they do not know the biblical definition of a Jew, they often use this as an excuse to convert to Judaism. In so doing, they join themselves to the evil fig tree. They have forgotten that those who call themselves Jews today (who reject Christ) are in fact not Jews at all—not by God’s definition. Christians cannot become Jews by converting to Judaism. They already are Jews in the sight of God—and have been since the time of Christ. To convert to Judaism is to jump from the basket of good figs to the basket of evil figs.

Let us put it another way. Replacement Theology teaches that the fig tree was rooted out and replaced by an apple tree. This did not happen. The truth is that there were two fig trees, one good and one bad, as portrayed in Jer. 24. Both were of Judah. The bad fig tree was rooted out, and the good fig tree remained to carry on the Kingdom of God upon the earth. The good fig tree did not replace anything, because it was always there.

When “Messianic Jews” today often claim that Christianity is a “Jewish” Church. They point to the fact that the disciples and the earliest believers were from . That is absolutely correct. However, because they do not understand Jeremiah 24, they use this truth to convince Christian believers that they ought to unite with the Zionist Jews—as if we are all from the same fig tree. As a consequence, since Pat Boone converted to Judaism in the 1960’s, it has become fashionable for Christians to follow his example.

The problem with this is that Christian Zionism is a move to engraft the branches of good figs to the bad fig tree, rather than the other way around. That teaching would ultimately bring all Christians into Judaism, rather than bringing Jews to Christ. The fact is, the bad fig tree will NEVER bring forth fruit, for that was the nature of Jesus’ curse in Matt. 21:19, where He said, “No longer shall there EVER be any fruit from you.” The only solution is for the individual branches to be cut off from that dead fig tree and grafted to the only Tree that can give them life—Jesus Christ, the trunk of the good fig tree. As long as conversion to Christ is repugnant to a Jew, he is not a partaker of the dominion mandate of Judah, nor is he of that tribe in the sight of God, as we will prove shortly from Scripture. The Law of Pruning Trees Deuteronomy 29 tells us that there were certain conditions by which individuals and even entire tribes of Israel might be cut off, or pruned from the Kingdom Tree. Deut. 29:18-21 says,

18 Lest there shall be among you a man or a woman, or family OR TRIBE, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; lest there shall be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood. 19 And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will boast, saying, I have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry. 20 The Lord shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven. 21 Then the Lord will single him out for adversity from all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant which are written in this book of the law.

The idea that God might blot out one of the tribes of Israel is not new. There have been many teachers who have suggested this is why the is not mentioned in the listing of the tribes sealed in . While I do not believe that this was the reason for Dan’s omission, that view does show that Bible teachers recognize the possibility that a tribe or a large portion of a tribe might be cut off from the Kingdom.

In fact, we will show that the fig tree bearing bad figs was cut off in this manner and for the reason stated above. The other fig tree bearing good figs was the portion of Judah that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and adopted His attitude of submission to the Roman yoke that God had decreed for Judah. The reason given in Deut. 29:19 is: “he will boast, saying, I have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.” In other words, such a person (or family, or tribe) will think that they are reconciled (at peace) with God, even though their hearts continue to be rebellious and stubborn.

This is a very accurate description of the bad fig tree, both in Jeremiah’s day and in Jesus’ day. They thought that they were doing the will of God by being zealous for their traditions and by performing all the rituals of the temple faithfully. They believed that to be rebellious against Rome was an act of obedience to God. They did not understand the laws of captivity or the laws of tribulation. Jesus did understand, and so he acted much like a friend to the Romans and never challenged their authority or right under God to rule over Judea. The Laws of Sacrifice The priests were most proud of their knowledge of the laws of sacrifice. They knew every detail about sacrificing sheep and oxen, but they did not know the Author of the laws of sacrifice. And so they violated this law in the worst way possible in that final Sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Lev. 17:3-5 says:

3 Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, or a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, 4 and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord before the of the Lord, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people. 5The reason is so that the sons of Israel may bring their SACRIFICES which they were sacrificing in the open field, that they may bring them in to the Lord, at the doorway of the tent of meeting to the priest, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord.

Jesus was the Passover Lamb of God that was sacrificed for the sin of the world. He was crucified “outside the camp” (Lev. 17:3; Heb. 13:13) in order that He might also fulfill the law of the red heifer (Num. 19:3). The priests took Jesus to the top (skull, head) of the Mount of , where David had made his sacrifice (2 Sam. 15:30-32). They even crucified Him on the right day—Passover— and He died at precisely the right hour of the day—the ninth hour—as the law specified (Ex. 12:6). So far, the priests did precisely what the forms of the law commanded.

But the priests failed to apply the blood of that Sacrifice in the lawfully-prescribed manner. Insofar as Jesus was the Passover Lamb, they failed to apply His blood to their lintels (foreheads) and door posts (ears) of their “houses.” Hence, God did not see the blood and “pass over” them (Ex. 12:13). They were not justified by faith in the blood of the Lamb.

Secondly, they did not sprinkle His blood upon the altars of their hearts, for they had no faith in His blood. For these people the sentence of the law applies, as written in Lev. 17:4, “He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people.” In other words, that man shall be pruned from the fig tree of Judah for he has forfeited his legal status as a member of the tribe. Lev. 17:6 says,

6 And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Even as our bodies are the temples of God, so also our hearts are the altar of the Lord. And so Heb. 10:22explains this, saying,

22 Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkledclean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. It was necessary in the plan of God that Jesus Christ be crucified and that He die as a Sacrifice for sin once for all. However, both the people and the priests were required to do something with the blood of every sacrifice. In Jesus’ case, they were required to sprinkle His blood (figuratively) upon the altars of their hearts for their justification. This the majority did not do.

Acts 6:7 tells us that there were many priests who did accept Jesus as the Messiah and came to see Him as the great Sacrifice for sin. Those who did accept Him remained on the Kingdom fig tree that bears good fruit unto God. However, they soon were expelled from the temple along with the others who were scattered abroad by persecution. At that point, the world began to call them Christians to distinguish them from the larger body of people which they called “Jews.” So they lost the name “Jew,” even though in the eyes of God, they were the true Jews. The Old and New Covenants The Church and Judah are the same entity. Although there are non-Judahites who have been grafted into this Judah Church, the Church itself is the legitimate tribe of Judah. The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in Rom. 2:28, 29,

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly [Greek: en phaneros, “in manifestation, or what is apparent”]; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly [Greek: kruptos, “hidden”]; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Here is Paul’s definition of a Jew, and he defines it both negatively and positively. He tells us that there are two groups of people, each laying claim to being a Jew (Judean). The bad figs are “apparent” Jews (The Concordant Version), for they were recognized by men as Jews.

The good figs were the real Jews, though their identity was hidden, or not so well known to the general public. The “apparent” Jews were those who followed the Judaism of the day. The “hidden” Jews were those whose hearts were right with God. The “apparent” Jews laid claim to their tribal status and covenant status with God by means of physical circumcision. The “hidden” Jews laid claim to their tribal status and covenant status with God by means of the heart circumcision.

The Old Covenant was broken and no longer had force in the Divine Court. Those who adhered to the Old Covenant by means of outward circumcision were depending upon an obsolete, conditional Covenant that had been broken and abolished. The only way to have a Covenant relationship with God was through the New Covenant, whose sign was the inner circumcision. Yes, the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8:13 says,

13 When He said, A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

If a Christian thinks that he can enhance his status with God by reverting to the Old Covenant with its outward circumcision, he should know that he is putting his trust in a covenant that is obsolete and carries no force with God. The Tribeship Itself Just because unbelieving Jews were able to retain the name of Judah (usually in its shortened form, “Jew”), this did not mean that they were really Jews at all. From the perspective of the Christians (including Paul) the unbelieving Jews had been cut off from their people and no longer had the right before God to call themselves Jews. Only those Judahites who accepted the Mediator of the New Covenant, the King of Judah, the Custodian of the tribal name, could lawfully claim to be Judahites (i.e., Judeans, or Jews).

The “tribeship” was resident in the prince of the tribe. If a member of a tribe decided to go to another part of the world and establish his own tribe or nation, he could not legally claim to be the legitimate representative of the tribe from which he came. He was, in fact, leaving the tribe and had no right to claim to be the tribe itself.

Likewise, if a man of, say, the tribe of Judah were “cut off from among his people,” or exiled for some major violation of the law, he could not claim to be of the tribe of Judah. He no longer was a citizen of that tribe.

Even so, Jesus was the King of Judah, not only by right of lineage, but also by right of His actions. And thus, the tribal name went with Jesus and those who followed Him. It did not remain with those who revolted against Him and killed Him in order to seize upon His inheritance. It was the majority of the people, led by the chief priests, who were in revolt and who lost their status in the tribe of Judah. But because they had usurped the throne, they were able to convince the world that they were still the “true Jews.” And thus, the name “Jew” has continued to be applied—in the eyes of men—to the bad fig tree that rejected the King of Judah and usurped the throne and the name of Judah.

By the end of the first century, John the Revelator says in Rev. 2:9,

9 I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a of Satan.

He repeats this idea in Rev. 3:9, saying, 9 Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

It is strange that in the past few decades Messianic Judaism has promoted this idea that the true Jews (followers of Jesus, King of Judah) ought to be grafted to the dead fig tree that God cut off nearly 2,000 years ago for its lawlessness. The basic error of Messianic Judaism is that they want to replace the good figs with the bad figs. This is their brand of replacement theology. They call the bad figs “God’s chosen people,” and then attempt to identify with their religious practices as a ploy to induce some of them to accept Christ.

That is like drinking with drunkards in order to induce them to stop drinking.

The apostles would have rolled over in their graves. Never did they attempt to get Christians to return to the old brand of Judaism. In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote entire refuting such an idea. There is no life in the religion of Judaism, for it has rejected—and continues to reject—the only One in whom is Life. One cannot force it to become Christianized by getting more Christians to convert to Judaism. To try to bring Judaism back to life by swarming its ranks with Christians is a fallacy of the first order.

The book of Hebrews was written to show that, as Christians, we have something better than Judaism has to offer. We have a better covenant, a better priesthood, a better temple, and better sacrifices. To revert back to the old rabbinic traditions of Judaism, by which they made void the law of God, is an apostasy for which there is no excuse.

So in conclusion, we see man’s definition of a “Jew” is different from God’s definition. Man defines a Jew as one who submits to the rabbis of Judaism or the priests of Levi who reject Jesus Christ. God defines a Jew as one who submits to Jesus, the King of Judah, who is also the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Chapter 2 Genealogical and Converted Jews

The term “Jew” is a shortened form of Judean or Judahite. The Hebrew term is Yehudi, “of Judah.” The Greek term is Ioudeos, “Judean.” The meaning of this term has changed over the years. The first time the Bible uses the term is found in 2 Kings 16:5, 6, which reads (NASB):

5 Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to wage war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. 6 At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram, and cleared the Judeans [“Jews” in KJV] out of Elath entirely; and the Arameans came to Elath, and have lived there to this day.

In the above passage, the king of Israel had become an ally with the king of Syria (Aram). Together they laid siege to Jerusalem, the capital of the . It was during this time that Syria and Israel drove the Jews (i.e., Judeans) from Elath. The passage shows clearly that Israel and Judah were not the same nation. Some years earlier, after the death of Solomon, the ten tribes of Israel had revolted from the rule of Solomon’s son and had formed their own nation called “Israel.”

Later (745-721 B.C.) the ten tribes of the House of Israel were taken captive by , and they never returned. The prophets spoke much about the House of Israel and its ultimate restoration, but we must keep in mind that they were speaking of the “lost” tribes of Israel, not the nation of Judah (“Jews”). This distinction is extremely important, because many Christians today are told that the Jews are Israel and that the prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel are being fulfilled by the Jews in the Israeli state. This is not the case, regardless of the fact that they call themselves “Israel.”

During the United Kingdom of Israel under , David, and Solomon, Judah was one of the tribes of Israel. The term Yehudi (“Jew”) during those days would have referred to a member of that tribe, most of whom were descendants of the patriarch by that name, Judah, the son of Jacob-Israel. But when the nation was divided, the term came to include the that remained united with Judah. Thus, instead of the term being strictly a tribal name, it now became a national term that included Benjamin as well as the who lived in Judah. The meaning thus broadened, and the prophets of the divided kingdom used the term with that broadened meaning.

After the House of Judah was taken to Babylon (604-586 B.C.), the term Yehudi could no longer be used strictly as a national term, for the nation had been destroyed. Thus, we find in the book of Esther that the term had taken on a more religious meaning. Esther 8:17 says,

17 And in each and every province, and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them. Obviously, those who “became Jews” were not lineal descendants of Judah, the patriarch, nor had they been citizens of the Kingdom of Judah. They were Persians or at least Persian subjects who converted to Judaism at that time. Edom Forcibly Converted to Judaism: 126 B.C. A few centuries later, the Maccabean Jews conquered their neighbors and forced them to either convert to Judaism or to face exile. Most of them chose to convert, and they too became Jews. This occurred primarily around 126 B.C. This is recorded by the first- century Jewish historian, Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, XIII, ix, 1. Here we read:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would be circumcised, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision and the rest of the Jews’ ways of living; at which time therefore, this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”

Josephus was the first-century Jewish historian who initially fought against the Romans in the war that destroyed Jerusalem. He was himself a descendant of the Maccabees. He was well-acquainted with these things when he wrote of these things, because he was writing about his own family history. , 1903 edition, under “Edom,” affirms the Edomite absorption into Jewry, saying,

“Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time (B.C. 163; Ant. Xii, 8 par. 1, 2). They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 B.C.) by whom they were forced to observe Jewish rites and laws (ib. 9, par. 1; xiv. 4, par. 4). They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans ‘Idumea’ (Mark iii. 8; Ptolemy, Geography v. 16). With Antipater began the Idumean dynasty that ruled over Judea till its conquest by the Romans. Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem 20,000 Idumeans, under the leadership of John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the zealots who were besieged in the Temple (Josephus, B.J. iv. 4, par. 5).

“From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate people, though the name ‘Idumea’ still existed (in) the time of Jerome.” The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Dr. Cecil Roth and Dr. Geoffrey Wigoder (1970 edition), says under “Edom,” on page 587,

“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants. During Titus’ siege of Jerusalem, they marched in to reinforce the extreme elements, killing all they suspected of peace tendencies. Thereafter, they ceased to figure in . The name in the Talmud is a synonym for an oppressive government, especially Rome; in the Middle Ages, it was applied to Christian Europe.”

Thus, all historians—including Jewish historians—agree that Edom was absorbed into Jewry and ceased to exist under a separate name after 70 A.D. In fact, they were part of the most radical element in Judaism, the Zealots, whose actions incited Rome to destroy Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. In later years, as we read above, the Jews began to call Rome and Christian Europe by the name of “Edom.” They obviously did not use the term literally, but as “a synonym for an oppressive government.” Even so, they seem to have done this in order to explain the many prophecies in the Old Testament about Edom in the latter days. The prophets treat Edom as being a latter-day enemy. Since the rabbis could not believe that their own nation might one day have to fulfill those prophecies, they spiritualized them and applied them to other people that they considered “enemies.”

The problem is that Edom was forcibly converted to the religion of Judaism and that this did not give them a personal relationship to the God of Israel. It only forced them to conform to the external rituals required of such “converts,” which did nothing to change their hearts. In fact, their tendency toward violence brought most of them into the ranks of the more radical Jews called “Zealots.” These were the terrorists in the first century A.D. They refused to recognize that God had given Judea into the hands of Rome in judgment for their sin. As we will show in our next chapter, these terrorists were defined in Jer. 24 as “evil figs.” God said in Jer. 24:9, 10 that He would destroy them.

The Zealots and Edomites were both violent groups and kindred spirits. They were even willing to kill peace-loving Jews to force their revolutions upon others. Ultimately, their revolt forced Rome into destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

This same spirit of terrorism was revived in the early 1900’s largely through Vladimir Jabotinsky with his violent brand of Zionism. Once again, they were willing to assassinate more peace-loving Jews (and anyone else who stood in their way) to accomplish their purpose.

We showed in the book, The Struggle for the Birthright, that the radical Zionists of the 1940’s terrorized both the Palestinian population as well as the British who were attempting to keep the peace. The terrorist organizations of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir—as recorded in their own biographies—were simply updated forms of Zealot-Edomite terrorism in the first century.

Zionists have a sordid history of killing anyone who proposes peace. For example, as early as 1924, Jacob de Haan, was assassinated by the Haganah, the Jewish agency in Palestine. Another rabbi to be persecuted was Amram Blau. The Jewish writer, G. Neuburger, wrote an article on May 26, 2000, saying,

“Rabbi Amram Blau was imprisoned in Jerusalem, not by the Ottoman authorities, not by the British, and not by the Arabs, but by the Zionists.”

Yitzhak Shamir (i.e., Itzhak Yizernitsky) was responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne on Nov. 6, 1944. Moyne was Britain’s Minister for Middle East Affairs. Gerold Frank’s 1963 book, The Deed, says this on page 35:

“Explaining the nature of individual terrorism, Itzhak Yizernitsky, who as Shamir, the operations commander of the Stern group, planned the death of Moyne, once said: “A man who goes forth to take the life of another whom he does not know must believe one thing only—that by his act he will change the course of history.”

Shamir had sent two young assassins to do “the deed.” On page 36 Frank writes,

“Each made his way by different roads to the same conclusion: that Britain would not give up Palestine unless forced to; that freedom would be won only by fighting for it and that if it was to be won, Jewish zealots patterned after those who twenty centuries ago rose up against the might of Rome must now rise up against the might of Britain.”

Years later, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated in 1994 by the same type of radical Jew. It is plain to see that the spirit of Edom yet operates in Jewry today, particularly in the Likud party, founded by Menachem Begin and currently (2004) headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The reasons for this radical behavior and how this fulfills the biblical prophecies of Edom are set forth in The Struggle for the Birthright.

We must also make it clear that any Jew or any Edomite who genuinely repents and turns to Jesus Christ is a new creature and will not be among those who are destined to fulfill the prophecies of Edom written in , Ezekiel, , Malachi, and elsewhere. In turning to Christ, they receive new identities in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Yet apart from Christ, they will continue to be identified with the first and bound by the sins of their forefathers. Their generational spirit will continue to lead them in the carnal ways of violence and death.

The prophets tell us that the Edomite nation will be destroyed in the end (Obadiah 18). But this does not mean that individual Edomites will all be judged and destroyed. God has provided a way of escape for anyone who comes to Jesus Christ. Such people give up their old identity as Edomites in the flesh and are given a new identity in the Last Adam. This is true of all men, not just Edomites. In the end, there will be no Edomite left on the face of the earth. Some will die in the revolt, fighting Jesus Christ; others will see the truth, repent, and transfer their citizenship from Edom to the Kingdom of God.

Meanwhile, books have been written attempting to prove that Turkey or China or other nations are modern Edom, in an effort to rewrite history and shift the focus from the Zionists to some other nation. Yet even The Jewish Encyclopedia itself (quoted earlier) states the truth in plain language. “The Idumeans [or Edomites]ceased to be a separate people” from the Jews about 125 or 126 B.C.

This is confirmed again by The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41, which says, “Edom is in modern Jewry.”

Edom was absorbed by the Jews and ceased to be a separate people in history. This fact of history is beyond dispute, and no historian has even made the attempt to refute it. It is so well-known to historians that it is incredible how few Christians know this or have incorporated it into their views of Bible prophecy. Only God could have blinded the Church so as to make them lose the entire nation of Edom!

Hence, the Jews—or some branch of them—became the only people remaining to fulfill ’s blessing and the Zionist prophecies of Edom. These will be known by their character, manifested by their Zionistic methods. We would expect Edom’s Zionism to be fulfilled by violence, theft, and bloodshed. In contrast, we would expect the true, godly Zionism of Israel (Joseph) to be fulfilled by peace, righteousness, and justice that would be a blessing to all families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). This is the contrast between the old Jerusalem and the New, between carnal and spiritual, between counterfeit and genuine.

We may conclude, then, that the term “Jew” does not strictly apply to a racial group of people, even if the original stock were descendants of Judah, the patriarch. The meaning of the term came to be applied nationally as a citizen of the nation of Judah, and later to an adherent of the religion of Judaism, including converts from Persia, Edom, and many others over the years.

Today, there are hundreds of thousands of black Jews in New York City, Chicago, and other cities, as well as Japanese Jews who are racial Japanese, Chinese Jews who are racially Chinese, and so on—along with the so-called “white Jews” of Europe. It would be highly improbable that all these Jews came from the same racial stock. Through intermarriage, of course, it is possible that many may have a few genes from Abraham, but they are anything but a “pure race,” as many Christians today mistakenly believe.

The real question posed by this is whether or not a man can become “chosen” by converting to Judaism. Many Christians apparently believe so, because in their desire to attain a higher status with God, they have converted to Judaism. Did this conversion suddenly confer upon them a “chosen” status that they did not already enjoy under Christ? Or did such conversion graft them from the living Christ into a dead tree called Judaism? The Chazars Voluntarily Convert to Judaism: 740 A.D. The Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe have been identified by many Jewish historians as Turkish-Mongolian converts to Judaism in the eighth century. These were not converted forcibly, but their conversion was to a religion that had already rejected Jesus Christ. And so, while their conversion from paganism might be considered to be an improvement in their social life, it did not put them into a covenant relationship with God. The Old Covenant had already been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Heb. 8:13). Thus, the Chazars were grafted to the branch of a dead tree. Perhaps if Christians in those days had manifested the character of Jesus Christ to them, and the power of the Holy Spirit, they might have chosen to convert to Christ.

The entire story of their conversion is told in The Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading, Chazars. It is the first article in Volume IV in the 1903 edition. The article opens with the statement:

“CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia.”

Later in the article, it tells the story of their conversion,

“It was probably about that time that the chaghan of the Chazars and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion. According to A. Harkavy (“Meassef Niddahim,” i.), the conversion took place in 620; according to others, in 740. King Joseph, in his letter to Hasdai ibn Shaprut (about 960), gives the following account of the conversion: “Some centuries ago King Bulan reigned over the Chazars. To him God appeared in a dream and promised him might and glory. Encouraged by this dream, Bulan went by the road of Darian to the country of Ardebil, where he gained great victories [over the Arabs]. The Byzantine emperor and the calif of the Ishmaelites sent to him envoys with presents, and sages to convert him to their respective religions. Bulan invited also wise men of Israel, and proceeded to examine them all. As each of the champions believed his religion to be the best, Bulan separately questioned the Mohammedans and the Christians as to which of the other two religions they considered the better. When both gave preference to that of the Jews, that king perceived that it must be the true religion. He therefore adopted it” (see Harkavy, ‘Soobshchenija o Chazarakh,’ in ‘Yevreiskaya Biblioteka,’ vii, 153).

“This account of the conversion was considered to be of a legendary nature. Harkavy, however (in ‘Bilbasov’ and ‘Yevreiskaya Biblioteka’), proved from Arabic and Slavonian sources that the religious disputation at the Chazarian court is a historical fact.”

The article in The Jewish Encyclopedia is complete with pictures of the Jewish Kingdom of Chazaria (or Khazaria, Gazaria), extending from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea and north to Poland. (See the photo above, taken from the 1903 edition.) The Ashkenazim comprise the majority of “white Jews” today. On the back cover of Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe, 1976 edition, we read:

“This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark Ages became converted to Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan, but evidence indicatesthat the themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry.”

Koestler himself was a Hungarian Jew who became a British citizen after World War II. Some dispute the extent of the Khazar tribe’s conversion to Judaism in terms of population figures, but again The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, under Chazars says,

“. . . it may be assumed that in the ninth century many Chazar heathens became Jews, owing to the religious zeal of King Obadiah. ‘Such a conversion in great masses,’ says Chwolson (ib. p. 58), ‘may have been the reason for the embassy of Christians from the land of the Chazars to the Byzantine emperor Michael. . . The Jewish population between the seventh and ninth centuries, must have been considerable.”

We merely point out what is said by Jewish writers to establish the simple fact that the Jews are not “the purest race in the world,” as many Christians have been taught. The fact is that Judaism includes people of all races, and all of these are commonly called “Jews.” Furthermore, the Israeli state also recognizes people of all races as Jews and has extended to them the right of automatic citizenship.

The Chazar branch of world Jewry is today called the Ashkenazim to distinguish them from the Sephardim, or “Spanish” Jews. The Sephardim are descended primarily from the Jews of Judah and Edom that were expelled from Palestine by the Romans. However, the Ashkenazim come originally from the area of southern Russia, and the bulk of Jewish immigrants to the Israeli state in the past century are Ashkenazim.

Many evangelical Christians today are expecting the nation of Russia to invade the Israeli state. This view of Ezekiel 38 and 39 seemed very plausible during the Cold War of the twentieth century. Prophecy teachers had a heyday, but it all fell apart in the end. Since then, the Soviet Union has not even been successful militarily in its tiny province of Chechnya. Theoretically, they could still throw nuclear missiles at the Israeli state, but Ezekiel describes an invasion involving actual people, not a nuclear strike from afar.

Furthermore, in 2003 the Israelis began to build a partitioning wall to protect themselves against suicide bombers from Palestinian territory. And yet Ezekiel 38:11 says about ,

11 and you will say, I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls, and having no bars or gates. Palestine was an unwalled place prior to the arrival of the Zionists. Only then did it become a land of barred gates and walls—probably the most insecure place on earth. The Jewish state has never been at rest since its inception in 1948, nor does anyone “live securely.” It cannot possibly fit the description of the Jewish state today. In fact, now it is building “the mother of all walls,” the longest wall since the Great Wall of China that was built over 2,000 years ago. Each passing day seems to bring Ezekiel’s prophecies into disrepute—unless, of course, there is a different fulfillment.

Is there a reason why the Russian “Ashkenazi” Jews are named for Ashkenaz, the nephew of Magog (Gen. 10:2, 3)? What if the Chazars—Russian Jews—are actually the physical descendants of Gog and Magog? What if the so-called “Russian invasion of Palestine” was fulfilled by Russian Jewish immigrants, rather than by Russian troops? What if the invasion has already been fulfilled by Zionists coming “to capture spoil and to seize plunder” (Ez. 38:12) by seizing land from the Palestinian people?

In an article published at the World Zionist Organization’s website, we read,

“It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqiih, in fact, wrote, ‘All of the Khazars are Jews.’ Christian of Stavelotwrote in 864 that ‘all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety’.”

In regard to Christian of Stavelot (above), this is a quotation from his Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam, that is, Commentary on the , which he wrote in the year 864, over a century after the Khazars began to convert to Judaism. A more complete quotation is as follows:

“At the present time we know of no nation in the world where Christians do not live. For in the lands of Gog and Magog who are a Hunnish race and call themselves Gazari [i.e., Khazars] there is one tribe, a very belligerent one— Alexander enclosed them and they escaped—and all of them profess the Jewish faith. The Bulgars, however, who are of the same race, are now becoming Christians.”

These last two quotations come from the website of The American Center of Khazar Studies: khazaria.com. They make the point that “Judaism has always welcomed converts like the Khazars into the Jewish fold as equals.” It then lists the passages in the Bible and from the Talmud where converts are welcomed. Then it ends with the statement, “Nevertheless, there are many who distort history to attempt to deny the Jewishness of the Khazars.” We do not dispute the Jewishness of the Khazars insofar as man’s definition of a Jew is concerned. Our dispute, as we will see shortly, is whether a physically circumcised adherent of the Old Covenant is a Jew in the eyes of God, or if a true Jew is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant.

If these Khazars “in the lands of Gog and Magog” had converted to Jesus Christ, they would have given up their old fleshly identity as Gog and Magog for a new identity in Christ. Then we would welcome them into the Kingdom of God as warmly as Judaism has welcomed them into the Jewish fold. But they did not convert to Jesus Christ. Therefore, from a New Covenant perspective, we must conclude that they are still the prophetic Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38 and 39. Conversion to Judaism does not change their fleshly status, nor does it make them “chosen.” If the nation of Kenya or China were to convert to Judaism, that would not give them a God-given right to immigrate to Palestine and displace the Palestinians.

Further, Ezekiel 38:6 says that others would come with Gog and Magog to invade the mountains [land, not people] of Israel:

6 Gomer with all its troops, Beth-togarmah [“House of Togarmah”] from the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you.

Genesis 10 does not list for us the sons of Togarmah, and so they appeared to be lost from history. But then just as suddenly they reappeared in 760 A.D. in a letter written to a prominent Jewish diplomat in Cordova, Spain. Togarmah was the father of the Chazars. According to the letter that King Joseph of the Khazars wrote to Hasdai ibn Shaprut, quoted by Koestler in The Thirteenth Tribe, p. 72,

“Joseph then proceeds to provide a genealogy of his people. Though a fierce Jewish nationalist, proud of wielding the ‘Sceptre of Judah’, he cannot, and does not, claim for them Semitic descent; he traces their ancestry not to , but to ’s third son, Japheth; or more precisely to Japheth’s grandson, Togarma, the ancestor of all Turkish tribes. ‘We have found in the family registers of our fathers,’ Joseph asserts boldly, ‘that Togarma had ten sons, and the names of their offspring are as follows: Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars, Sabir. We are the sons of Khazar, the seventh.’. . .”

Christians ought to take a new look at their theory of the Russian invasion of Israel. If King Joseph’s records were accurate, it would indicate that the Russian Jews are the ones who were to invade Palestine. Did this invasion of Gog and Magog succeed only because they were able to masquerade as Israelites fulfilling Bible prophecy? Such a suggestion may be shocking to those who have been taught never to suggest anything detrimental about Jews. But much of the history of the Chazars has been written by Jewish authors and is available for anyone to read—if people actually do read. But my question is this: If it is so bad to suggest that Zionist Jews from Russia might be the ones actually fulfilling the prophecies of Palestine’s invasion by Gog and Magog, is it not equally bad to suggest the same of the Russian people? Should we hold Russians and Jews to different moral standards? American Christians have bashed Russians for the past century. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed and is incapable of invading the even they wanted to do so, it is time to re-evaluate that entire line of thinking.

And what about the Sephardim, who conquered and absorbed Edom? They are the only ones who can fulfill the end-time prophecies of Edom. If the patriarch Jacob-Israel pretended to be Esau in order to obtain the birthright (Gen. 27), did God then allow Esau-Edom to pretend to be Jacob-Israel to reclaim that birthright in 1948?

Does this explain why the Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah even half a century after they laid claim to Palestine—even though prophecy teachers assured the Church that they would do so within seven years of their declaration of independence (May 14, 1948)? Why do they yet reject Jesus Christ?

Why have the Israeli Jews never been “at rest,” as Ezekiel describes true Israel? They have always claimed to be under siege. They have made the security issue paramount in everything they do. Why are the Israeli Jews building a great wall for their protection, contrary to Ezekiel’s prophecy?

Perhaps the Church has mistakenly identified the Jews as Israel. Perhaps, like Isaac, the Christians have been blinded so that God could rectify the wrong done to Esau many centuries ago. Perhaps it was in the plan of God that Jacob would have to give back the birthright to Esau for a time in order to fulfill Isaac’s prophecy in Gen. 27:40.

It is our contention that the Israeli state, though it is called “Israel,” is not the fulfillment of the regathering of the lost tribes of the house of Israel. Instead, it is a regathering of the bad figs for judgment to fulfill Luke 19:27. Their lack of repentance and refusal to this day to accept Jesus as the Messiah fulfills Jesus’ curse on the fig tree in Matt. 21:19, where He said that no fruit would ever grow on that tree again.

Zionism itself has a triple fulfillment. It fulfills the desire of the bad figs to return to the land where they had been displaced by the Romans in the first century. Second, it fulfills the aspirations of Esau, who desired to inherit that land (Mal. 1:4). Third, it fulfilled the desire of Gog and Magog to rob and plunder the Palestinians, as described in Ezekiel 38:12. The bad figs, Edom, and Gog all converged in Judaism over the centuries in order that all their fleshly aspirations might find their highest expression in a single modern ideology—Zionism. What Should Christians Do? The true servants of God, Jesus’ disciples, the Church, was blinded so that they would support the Zionists, for Isaiah 42:19 says,

19 Who is blind but My servant, or so deaf as My messenger whom I send? Who is so blind as he that is at peace with Me, or so blind as the servant of the Lord?

Even as a deceitful Jacob tricked his blind father, Isaac, into giving him the blessing, so also now has God blinded “Isaac” once again to reverse the blessing. God has blinded His servants in modern times to do justice to Esau. The blindness served to return both the Dominion Mandate and the Fruitfulness Mandate to Esau for a time, so that Esau could bring no charges against God or true Jacob-Israel.

Yes, it was always the divine plan that Esau would serve Jacob. But a man is not crowned except he strive lawfully (2 Tim. 2:5). Jacob did not strive lawfully. He bore a false witness to his father and put a stumblingblock before the blind (Lev. 19:14). He should have let God work it out in His wisdom.

Perhaps Jacob simply did not understand what later knew about the laws of inheritance. God revealed to Moses that the oldest son who is “hated” could not be disinherited without cause (Deut. 21:15-17). God said in Mal. 1:2, 3 that He loved Jacob and hated Esau.” This was not an emotional “hatred” as we think of it. Prov. 13:24 says,

24 He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Hebrews 12:5-11 explains this, saying that God disciplines His children, and if not, then they are illegitimate. This principle was then explained and illustrated in terms of Esau in verses 15-18. It shows that Esau was a hated and “illegitimate” son, one who seems to be a believer, but who was born, as it were, “out of wedlock.” God did not discipline Esau to correct him; but God did discipline Jacob, whom He loved.

God intended to disinherit Esau, but His own law shows that He intended to wait until Esau proved himself to be unworthy of receiving the birthright and the Kingdom. Jacob’s impatience and his ignorance of the law of the hated son motivated him to try to keep God (and Isaac) from making a big “mistake.” So in 1948 God caused the birthright to be returned to Esau. Esau’s violent behavior and continued rejection of Jesus Christ has proven the Zionists to be unworthy of receiving the Kingdom. They are not worthy to rule with the Dominion Mandate of Judah, nor are they worthy to be “manifested sons” (Rom. 8:19) that have the Fruitfulness Mandate of Joseph. The time is now approaching, then, when God will fulfill His word, taking the Kingdom of God from them, in order to give it those who will indeed produce the good fruits of the Kingdom (Matt. 21:43).

What should the Church do? Prepare for the manifestation of the sons of God. Search the Scriptures and pray that all of our eyes will be opened to the truth of the word. When their eyes are opened, it will give the Church a whole new view of Bible prophecy. No longer will they feel it necessary to support violence, theft, and murder, during this present time when the Kingdom of God is being claimed or taken by violence and force (Matt. 11:12). The time has come to support the real Jews, not merely those who say they are Jews (Rev. 3:9). The time has come to support Israel, not its Zionist counterfeit. The time has come to support Jesus Christ—not His enemies who hate Him and do not want Him to reign over them (Luke 19:14; 27).