JOSEPH'S BIRTHRIGHT AND JUDAH'S SCEPTRE - #5

 Joseph's Birthright #5

Not all Israelites are Jews

JUDAH'S SCEPTRE AND JOSEPH'S BIRTHRIGHT

by Allen (1917)

CHAPTER V.

     After the division which occurred among the seed of Abraham

in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, and before the two kingdoms

had settled down to steady going, there arose several

contingencies which we must understand, before we can

intelligently follow their history any farther.

     By consulting the eleventh chapter of Second Chronicles we

find a brief recapitulation of the history of the revolt of the

Ten Tribes, to which are added further details as to the result,

a list of the cities which were built by Rehoboam for the defense

of the kingdom of Judah, and the following:

"And he fortified the strongholds, and put captains in them, and

stores of victuals, and of oil and wine. And in every several

city he put shields and spears, and made them exceeding strong,

having Judah and Benjamin on his side. And the priests and the

Levites that were in all Israel (i. e., the territory of country

occupied by the ten-tribed kingdom) resorted to him out of all

their coasts. For the Levites left their suburbs and their

possessions, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam 

and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office

unto the Lord: And he ordained him priests for the high places,

and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. And

after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their  hearts 

to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem,  to sacrifice 

unto the Lord God of their fathers. So they strengthened the 

kingdom oś Judah, and made Rehoboam,  the son of Solomon, 

strong." 2 Chron.11:11-17.

     These statements make it clear that, after Jeroboam, the

king of Israel, had set up those golden calves, and made priests

of the lowest of the people, he would not allow the Levites, whom

the Lord had made the priestly tribe of the race, execute any

priestly offices, or to conduct any services unto the Lord God of

their fathers; and for this reason they returned to Rehoboam, who

already, as is affirmed, had the tribes of Judah and Benjamin on

his side. Thus the kingdom of Judah, for a while at least, was

composed of three tribes, in addition to those scattered families

out of all the rest of the tribes who would not forsake the

worship of the God of Israel, and who would not worship the

calves which Jeroboam had set up, but those people evidently lost

their tribal relations and were assimilated into one of the three

tribes of which the kingdom of Judah was composed, for in all 

the history and prophecy which concerns the three-tribed kingdom,

there are no tribal names used, save only those of Judah, Benjamin 

and Levi.

     Before we carry the history of these two kingdoms any

farther, or leave the A B C of this matter, we deem it important

to place before our readers an array of Scripture texts, in which

both houses, kingdoms, nations, or families of Abraham's

posterity, through the Isaac-Jacob line, are spoken of in the

same passage in such a way that the most simple minded cannot

fail to see that two distinct peoples are being considered.

We cannot, however, at this juncture, give the relative place of

these Scriptures, as regards the history, past, present and

future, of these people under consideration. We place these

Scriptures before you, only to show, at present, that ever after

the division of the people into two commonwealths, in the days 

of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, they were recognized in scriptural 

history and prophecy as two kingdoms or nations.

     For instance, take the following - "Behold the days come,

saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which I have

promised unto the house of Israel, and to the house of Judah."

Jer. 33:14. Here the Lord has promised to perform a certain, 

"good thing" for "The house of Israel;" but he has just as assuredly

promised to perform that same certain "good thing" for the house

of Judah, as well as for Israel, for the house of Judah is not

included in the house of Israel, and vice versa.

     Take another, as follows: "And I will cause the captivity of

Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them

as at the first." Jer. 33:7. Here it is a question not only of

"the captivity of Judah," but also "the captivity of Israel."

Neither is it a question only of the return of the captivity of

Judah, for there is promised also in the same sentence the return

of the captivity of Israel, i. e., a people who are not included

with "Judah."

     Again, "For lo! the days come, saith the Lord, that I will

bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith

the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave

to their fathers, and they shall possess it. And these are the

words that the Lord spake concerning Israel and concerning

Judah." Jer.30:3,4. Here is something that concerns Judah; but 

it also concerns Israel; and the people whom it concerns are "my

people Israel and Judah." So, if Judah, the Jews, are the people

of the Lord, then the Lord has a people besides the Jews whom 

he calls Israel, and who are not counted among the Jews.

     Still another: "For the children of Israel, and the children

of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth." 

Jer. 32:30. You see that while speaking of the evildoing of his

people, it was not sufficient for the Lord to speak of the

children of Israel only, but the children of Judah must also be

included, in order to embrace all who are under consideration.

In Jer.13:11, we have indisputable proofs of the two houses,

since the broadest generic terms possible are used. Here it is:

"For as a girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused

to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house

of Judah, saith the Lord; that they might be unto me for a

people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory; but

they would not hear." This statement gives us to understand that

"the whole house of Judah" are not all of the Lord's people, and

that "the whole house of Israel" are not all of the Lord's

people; but that it takes "the whole house of Israel" together

with "the whole house of Judah" to make all of his chosen people.

It also proves that there is a people called "the whole house of

Israel" of which "the whole house of Judah" is regarded as

neither part nor parcel. True, they are brethren, because they

all are of the seed of Jacob. As such, they are Jacobites,--or,

since Jacob's name was changed to Israel his descendants may 

all be called Israelites. But it is a fact that the seed of Jacob

have been divided, by the will, the decree, and the direct

intervention of God, into two kingdoms, or nations, one of 

which, when politically considered, is called "the whole house 

of Israel," "the children of Israel," "the house of Israel," "all

Israel," and "Israel"; while the other nation is called "the

whole house of Judah," "the house of Judah," "the children 

of Judah," "all Judah," and "Judah," or "the Jews."

     The name Jew is derived from, or rather is a corruption of,

the name of Judah (Singular Ju-dah, or Jew-dah; plural, Jud-ahs,

or Jew-dahs; possessive, Ju-dah's, or Jew-dah's; contracted, Jew,

Jews and Jew's). Hence it is that the names Jew and Jews are

applied only to the people who composed the kingdom of Judah.

Also it was their land only which was designated as "Judah" and

"all Judah," and which finally became known as "Judea" and

"Jewry," "all Judea" and "ALL JEWRY."

     Indeed, long before the division took place, Moses, while

prophesying unto the seed of Jacob, cried out, "Hear, Lord, the

voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people." This can mean

nothing else, except that Judah was to be separated from his

people, and finally, if that prayer is ever answered, was to be

brought back to them.

     But let us continue our array of texts in which both houses

are mentioned, almost in the same breath. "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, but went and played the

harlot also." Jer.3:8.

     Here Israel and Judah are not the same; They are only

sisters, both in shame.

     "And the Lord said unto me, That backsliding Israel hath

justified herself more than treacherous Judah." Jer. 3:11.

     Here Israel, in idolatry the adulterous, is justified more

than Judah, the treacherous: although God had said, "Though 

thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend." Hosea 4:15.

And he also said, "I will no more have mercy upon the house of

Israel [that I should altogether pardon them - Margin]. But I

will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them 

by the Lord their God." Hosea 1:6,7.

     The name, "Jerusalem" is often used to designate the Jewish

people because it was their chief city. When Jesus wept over the

city and cried out "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how oft would I

have gathered you as a hen gathereth her brood under her wing,

but ye would not!" he did not mean the streets and buildings of

the city, but the people; and not only the people dwelling within

the walls, but the nation as well. For it was not only the Jewish

capital - but it was their metropolis, their commercial center,

their citadel, their royal city, their sanctuary and in every way

the representative city of their nation.

     This being true, we may expect that the name of the capital

city of the ten-tribed kingdom would be used as a representative

name and applied to that nation. Also, since the name of Judah

was given as a national name for the Jewish people, because of

the fact that it was one of the royal sons from the tribe of

Judah who led the revolt when she became a separate nation, and

the fact that her kings were of Judah's line, thus making the

tribe of Judah the representative tribe, so we might expect the

same thing with reference to the ten-tribed kingdom. Jeroboam

reigned over Israel in Shechem twenty-two years, and was

succeeded by Nadab, his son, who reigned two years. After this,

Baasha conspired against him, killed him, and reigned in his

stead; but he moved the capital to Tirzah, where he reigned for

twenty-four years, and was followed by his son, Elah, who reigned

in that city two years. Then he was conspired against by Zimri,

who reigned only seven days, until he in turn was conspired

against and died by burning the king's house down over his own

head. Then Omri, who had conspired against Zimri and succeeded

him to the throne, bought a hill from Shemar, on which he built

the city of Samaria, which became the permanent capital of the

kingdom of Israel. Hance the name of the chief city of Israel,

Samaria, is often used, when referring to Israel, in the same

representative way that Jerusalem is, in the case of the Jews.

For an example take the following: "Thy Calf, O Samaria, hath

cast thee off; mine anger is kindled against them: how long will

it be ere they attain to innocency? For from Israel was it also:

the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the Calf of Sa-

maria shall be broken in pieces."  Hosea 8:5,6. Of course, the

calf herein referred to is the calf worship instituted by

Jeroboam, who caused Israel to sin, and since the calves were

made by the workmen of Israel, they were not God. So we see 

that Samaria stands for Israel, whose capital it is, and whose own

workmen had made the calf which they themselves worshiped.

But this nation has another name which stands for the whole, as

well as that of Israel and Samaria. Look ye ! "When I would have

healed Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered, and

the wickedness of Samaria: for they commit falsehood." Hosea 7:1.

Thus we see that the name of Ephraim is used as a representative

name for the northern kingdom, just as the name of Judah is used

for the southern kingdom, and that the names Israel, Ephraim and

Samaria are used as names of the ten-tribed kingdom in

contradistinction to those of the three-tribed kingdom, which are

Judah, Jerusalem, and the Jews.

     On the very day on which Moses died, while he was

reiterating and enlarging upon the prophecies which Jacob had

given at the time of his death, he made a prophecy concerning the

pre-eminence of Ephraim in Joseph-Israel, as follows: "Let the

blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the

head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is

like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns 

of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the 

ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim,

and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

     With the name of Ephraim standing at the head of one of the

two nations of Jacob, and the name of Judah at the head of the

other, we can easily understand such expressions as the

following: "O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what

shall I do unto thee? For your goodness is as a morning cloud,

and as the early dew it goeth away." Hosea 6:4.

     Since both Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, and Ephraim, the

second son of Joseph, had been dead for nearly one thousand 

years prior to the writing of these Scriptures which we have just

given, we must know that these are national names, used to

represent the national conditions of the two nations which are

addressed.

     So, also, is the following: "Therefore will I be unto Ephraim 

as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness. When Ephraim 

saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim to 

the Assyrian, and sent to King Jared; yet he could not heal you of 

your wound. For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young 

lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away, and none 

shall rescue them. I will go and return to my place, until they 

acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction 

they will seek me early." Hosea 5:12-I5.

     Before proceeding further with the history of these two

kingdoms, there is one other point which must be settled once 

for all. This is that the people of God whom he distinctively calls

"Israel," the heads of which are the birthright holders, unto

whom was given that national name - it coming to them with 

the birthright at the time of the transfer of that inheritance--are

not Jews, that the Holy Spirit has never, either in Biblical

history or prophecy, called them Jews, and that they have never

been called Jews except by uninformed historians and by

unscriptural teachers of the Word of God.

     Understand us: we do not say that the Jews are not

Israelites; they belong to the posterity of Jacob, who was called

Israel; hence they are all Israelites. But the great bulk of

Israelites are not the Jews, just as the great bulk of Americans

are not Californians, and yet all Californians are Americans;

also, as in writing the history of America we must of necessity

write the history of California, because California is a part of

America; but we could write a history of California without

writing a history of America.

     So, in writing the history of Israel we must needs write the

history of the Jews, but we could write the history of the Jews

and not write the history of Israel. Or, in other words, in

writing the history of the many nations we must write the history

of the Jews, for, to say the least, they are one of those many

nations; but in writing the history of the Jews, it would be

utterly impossible to write the history of the many nations which

were promised to the birthright people, whose national name is,

in a special sense, Israel, and whose people are not Jews.  

Nationally speaking, they are brother nations, but not always

very brotherly. But if we can keep track of the birthright

nation, and if they ever have that birthright promise fulfilled

to them, then, and only then, can we write the history of the

many nations which the Lord God of Israel promised unto their

fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob-Israel, Joseph, and Ephraim and

Manasseh.

     It will help us much in our study of this question, to know

just when and under what circumstances the word Jew is first used

in the canon of Sacred Scripture.

     It was not until more than two hundred years after the

revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David. It was at a

time when Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, formed a

federation with Rezin, king of Syria, and came up against Ahaz,

king of Judah, to war for acquisition of territory. Notice how

the prophet of God speaks of these three nations Israel, Syria

and Judah. He declares: "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz,

the son of Jotham, the son of Uziah, king of Judah, that Rezin,

the king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of

Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it (Jerusalem was

the throne seat of Judah) but could not prevail against it. And

it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with

Ephraim." Isa.7:I,2. The prophet further explains, that "The head

of Syria is Damascus, (Damascus was the capital of Syria) and the

head of Damascus is Rezin (King of Syria); and within

threescore-and-five (65) years shall Ephraim be broken that

it be not a people. (Marginal--from being a people.) And the head

of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's

son." Isa.7:8,9. Remaliah's son was Pekah, king of Israel.

     What Isaiah had to say concerning this war was for the

purpose of making prophecies concerning the outcome. We must pass

over the prophecies for the present, as our object now is to show

the difference between the Jew and Israel and we have simply

quoted sufficient for our purpose.

     We now turn to the historic record of that war, and read:

"In the seventeenth year (as king) of Pekah, the son of Remaliah,

Ahaz, the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign, and

reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. Then Rezin, king of

Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to

Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz (king of Judah), but

could not overcome him. At that time Rezin, king of Syria,

recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath; and the

Syrians dwell there unto this day. So Ahaz sent messengers to

Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy

son; come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria,

and out o f the hand o f the king o f Israel, which rise up

against me." 2 Kings 16:1,2,5-7.

     Here we have it clearly stated that in this war the

besieging party is, "Pekah, the king of Israel," who is the "head

of Samaria," which is the head of "Ephraim," together with

another nation with whom they are confederate. And if we put it

as Isaiah does concerning the other house, the besieged party was

"Ahaz, king of Judah," head of "the Jews," whose head is

"Jerusalem," the head of the house of David.

     Do you see the point? The king of Judah, or the king of the

Jews, was besieged in his capital, and wanted to form an alliance

with the king of Assyria and, to secure him as an ally, even

fawned upon the king of Assyria, saying "I am thy servant, thy

son," and crying "Come up!" What for? To save the JEWS from 

the hand o f ISRAEL.

     Thus we see that the first time the word Jews is used in the

history of the Abrahamic race is at a time when the Jews and

Israel were at war with each other. Hence we ask, If the Jews

were the besieged and Israel was with the besiegers, how can it

be possible that the Jews and Israel are one and the same people?

According to the conclusion of the great number of our learned

men, also some "higher (?) critics," we must needs conclude that

the Jews were fighting their own shadow, which would be reducing

the whole matter to an argumentum ad absurdum.

     It is high time for the Christian world, yea, and all secular 

historians, too, "to awake out of sleep," take the advice of the 

learned Apostle Paul and "cease giving heed to Jewish fables" 

and quit telling the people that all Israelites are Jews.

It is not true, never has been and never can be, for the difference 

between them is not only political and territorial but it is semiracial. 

For, although the inheritors of the Sceptre and the Birthright were 

sons of the same father, they were not sons of the same mother, 

and thus they were only half brothers. This, together with the fact 

that Leah is described as "tender-eyed" and Rachel was said to be 

"fair," would make some strong facial and physical distinctions 

in the posterity of the two families.

But when we remember that Joseph married an Egyptian princess,

thus blending the best Semitic blood with the royal blood of

Egypt, and making the posterity of Joseph half-blood Egyptian,

then we must know that while the children of Joseph are half

Israelitish they are still three-fourths removed from the children 

of Judah. This alone would make great changes in their physique 

and largely eradicate all facial resemblances.

     The fact that Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, 

who were the final inheritors of the Birthright, were half-blood

Egyptians is that which made it necessary for Jacob to adopt them

and make them fully his own, as Reuben and Simeon were his,

before he could confer upon them the covenant Birthright. This is

the adoption to which the Apostle Paul refers in his argument

concerning the Children of the Promise versus the Children of the

Flesh, as follows: "Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption,

and the covenants, and the glory, and the giving of the law, and

the service, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom

as concerning the flesh Christ came." Here Israelites as a whole,

including both houses, are spoken of. Hence, to all who really

believe, claim, or teach that the Jews ONLY are Israelites, and

of all who believe that the word adoption, as used in this

connection, can possibly have reference in any way to spiritual

adoption we ask: When, how, or where did there ever occur an

adoption, either spiritual or racial, among the Jews as a nation?

No answer required. Please reflect.

     An eminent theological professor, who gives an exegesis of

the Sunday-school lessons for the most prominent denominational

papers in this country, began his exposition on "The Call of

Abraham" as follows "We come now to the third of the great

landmarks of history, the call of Abraham. From being a universal

history the record becomes national. Hereafter, we have to do

with one people, the Jews. In the founder of the Jewish nation we

find not a conqueror or a lawgiver but a saint." Yet it is fact that 

the term "Jews" is not used in writing the history of the Abrahamic 

people until twelve hundred years after the call of Abraham.

     Another theological professor, of one of our largest training 

schools, defines "The Jews" as "A name given to all the descendants 

of Abraham." Ah!!! We ask-When?

     Still another defines "The Jews":  "A name given to the

descendants of Abraham, who were divided into twelve tribes"; 

and yet it is a fact that in the Scriptures the name "Jews" was given

only to those who dwelt in Jewry, which country was occupied by

the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, and did not include

Samaria, the home of the ten-tribed kingdom.

     No; it is a fiction which has been foisted upon us by modern

scholars, many of whom are presidents and professors of

universities, colleges and theological seminaries, editors of

religious and secular newspapers, doctors of divinity and church

dignitaries, that the words "Jew" and "Jews" are equivalent to

"Israel," "Israelites," "Israelitish," "Hebrew" and "Hebraic."

By not distinguishing Israel from Judah we have in the Bible a

historical and prophetic chain which can never be linked

together, and which sets all of the writers at variance with one

another; for we cause Isaiah to question statements made by

Jeremiah; set Joel, Amos, and Zephaniah against Zachariah; cause

Jeremiah to convict Hosea of being a false prophet; then make

Ezekiel step in and contradict them both and many others in such

a manner that one prophet is made to give the lie to the other.

We feel sorry for the so-called "Higher Critics," for they really

do find trouble, but they cannot conceive that this trouble

could, by any possible chance, arise because of their

misconception of the subject matter; hence it must be in the

style [stylus-a pen] or manner of the prophet. Thus if any of the

prophets chance to reveal a mannerism at one time which is not so

plainly manifest at another, then the exclamations, "Ah! Eureka!

We've found it! There are two of them!" are heard to vibrate and

revibrate throughout the ecclesiastical world.

     Is it any wonder that skepticism is rampant, both in the

church and out of it, since the common error of Christendom 

is to regard the Jews as the whole house of Israel? Is it any wonder

that Tom Paine lost his soul while following the beaten path of

this fallacy? For he did give the Bible up as a myth, and boldly

states in his writings that he was led into infidelity because he

saw that the Jews did not and never could verify the promises

concerning Israel.

     For it is true that God had declared, through Micah, of Israel, 

who was divorced and cast far off, that he would (at the proper time) 

make her a strong nation; while Judah was to become a remnant. 

Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah and the New Testament declare Israel 

to be lost; while both Jeremiah and Ezekiel affirm that Judah is 

well known. Hosea declares Israel to be as "the sands for multitude"; 

while Jeremiah insists that Judah is "few in number" and a remnant. 

Isaiah, David, Micah, Jeremiah and others declare that Israel is the 

strongest war power on earth, never to be conquered by a Gentile 

power; and yet Jeremiah declares that Judah is "without might;" 

while Daniel bemoans and records the fact that the Jews will be 

conquered by a Gentile power. The entire line of prophets from 

Moses down declare Israel to be a continuous monarchy, whose 

sceptre is held by the seed of David; while Judah is to be "without 

government" of their own, but are to be ruled over. Hosea declares 

that "Israel shall ride" but "Judah shall plow."

     Moses also declares that there shall come a time in the

history of Israel (the ten tribes) when they also shall "be few

in number," and yet it is prophesied concerning them that they

shall obtain possession of "great possessions," inheriting and

establishing (peopling) the desolate places of the earth, rule

many heathen nations, have a great revenue, become the "mart of

nations," hold the keys of commerce, be "exalted above their

neighbors," and become "the chief of nations." But, on the other

hand, Judah is to be "without geographical inheritance,"

"strangers in all countries," "howl for vexation of spirit,"

"leave their name for a curse," "be ashamed," and "cry for 

sorrow of heart" until the great day of Jezreel.

..........

To be continued