Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
2 Chronicles 2:11 speaks of some from the Northern Tribes who went to Jerusalem to live. In the New Testament, Anna the Prophetess is described as being of the Tribe of Assur.
She was not obviously "lost" , and knew who she was.
The people of Israel today, primarily of Judah, but also a mixture of all of the 12 tribes DNA, are the modern day Israel of the Bible and are composed of all the tribes.
How does a country that is composed of Germans, Poles, Russians, Native Peoples, Blacks, Mexicans, Far East Asians, and many more, qualify as somehow "genetically" the lost 10 tribes of Israel??
Perhaps an argument can be made for the USA to be some type of "manifest destiny" people, but the genetics thing, along with linguistic and many other evidences demonstrate how ridiculous the theory is.
I am not convinced by this video. Remember, HWA is not the original author. He just stumbled into J H Allen's book and found it to have merit and put a new angle to it. His "US and BC In Prophecies" became a "best seller" in WCG literature.
What is undeniable is the rich physical blessings on America and British Commonwealth, including Australia, New Zealand and North Western Europe. Further, historically the sun never set on the British Empire. America is still the world's number one nation in all aspects.
British-Israelism is part of God's Plan for mankind. God loves all people.
The tale of Jeremiah's escape to Europe with a princess may not be believable but it is in the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction.
I am a non white but I believe in God's providence for these blessed descendants and I am happy for them because through them I am blessed as the Bible promised.
There were several British-Israel associations in England during Queen Victoria's era, and they put out associated literature. The doctrine goes back to the sixteen hundreds, so it's not as if it's J H Allen's creation.
The video was well done. It challenges historical sources and that is always an issue. Proponents of BI will think that Herman Hoeh could understand these historical sources and knew their integrity and the author of this video did not. This is not the case but it is desperately needed wiggle room.
There is a more direct and logical route to demonstrating that BI is false. The logical structure is a simple Modus Ponens with a compound antecedent. It looks like this:
IF (1) Abraham is descended from Noah through Shem in the masculine line and (2) The Jews and the Adnani Arabs are both descendants of Shem and (3) The ancient Jews and Adnani Arabs are the people known to us today as Jews and Arabs and (5) The science of genetics is real science and not fable THEN (6) The people of Britain are not descended from Abraham END-IF
In order to falsify proposition (6), the consequent, one must falsify at least one of the propositions composing the antecdent. If propositions 1 through 5 (the antecedent) all stand, then proposition 6 (the consequent) stands. It may be a little confusing at first because propositon (6) is stated as a negative. Proponents of BI will want to falsify proposition (6).
I had a lengthy back-and-forth with a critic of an essay this blog published that I had written demonstrating that the science of genetics abrogates BI. His view was that I did not know and could not know that Abraham had the same haplogroup as the bulk of modern Jews and Adnani Arabs. He would not accept the attestation of history and the current identification of Jews and Adnani Arabs - conditions that are conclusive. He simply and in a block-headed way insisted that nobody could know Abraham's haplogroup. You would have to get in a time machine and go back and draw a blood sample from Abraham and have it analyzed. But he understood the logic above. He, essentially, was attacking proposition (3) above. He understood that he had to falisfy at least one of these propositions to make the BI stand.
I understand one of the Splinter leaders claims a superior understanding of logic. Maybe he could try his hand at overturning this argument. And then a follower could leak the counter-argument back to this blog for review.
They changed their name to HOUSE OF WINDSOR to disguise the fact that they held German lineage in several direct lines, including the Hapsburg, The House of Oldenburg, and the houses of Schleswig, Holstein, Sonderburg and Glücksburg
Simply read wikiepedia to verify this well known fact!
No college in the world would let someone cite Wikipedia as a source. So everyone should have some skepticism on what they read on Wikipedia since anyone can edit a page.
To your point the British Crown does have German lineage in it starting back with George I but they didn't change the name to the House of Windsor to hide there German lineage. Everyone in Britian and Europe knew Queen Victoria was the grandmother to Keiser Wilhelm. King George the V changed the name because of Anti German sentiments during WW1 and to show solidarity with the British people.
My first encounter with HWA's "BI" was a small piece in the fictitious newspaper that came with the World Tomorrow booklet. Later I wrote for the US & BC booklet, and thought the "new knowledge" was great - and I annoyed a lot of people with it. About the same time, some Mormon missionaries explained their version of the subject. For years I though the criticism was easily explained, and dismissed various rebuttals. What eventually convinced me it was wrong was Ralph Orr's article on the history of BI in the WCG. I heard Bob talk about prophecies that mentioned Samaria, and his thoughts on it referring to the US. At the time, I was thinking post-Assyrian Samaria, and that Bob was just using his "if the shoe fits" brand of eschatology. After watching part of the YouTube sermon, I understand what Bob meant, but I can't say he changed my feelings that it was more quote mining to try to support his interpretation of supposed BI prophecies.
"The tale of Jeremiah's escape to Europe with a princess may not be believable but it is in the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction."
You must be reading a different Bible to me. My Bible shows that Jeremiah went to Egypt (Jeremiah 43:1-13). There is no record of him going to Europe.
Check out this for a decent overview of many of the arguments, http://www.imninalu.net/myths-brits.htm
A couple of good points, - HWA tries to link Tuatha De Danann to "Tribe of Dan".
"According to the official chronology, if the Tuatha-de-Danann really existed, they ruled Ireland before Dan, son of Israel, was born! The actual meaning of that name is "Folk of the goddess Danu"." Imninalu.net
This then explains why so many places are names "Dan", not after the tribe of Dan, but a goddess.
-HWA tries to link the english "British" to Hebrew "covenant people". "The alleged meaning of "Brit-ish" as the Hebrew "covenant-man" is utterly ridiculous and shows that who has suggested such a simplistic equation has no knowledge of Hebrew language nor the slightest idea of philology. It is well established by history that the term "Briton" is a Latin word and was adopted only in modern times, when the English language took a definitive shape strongly influenced by Latin and the Roman culture (even the kilt, a "typical Celtic", Scottish garment, is indeed a derivation of the Roman soldiers' suit). The Celts of Great Britain still call their land "Cymru", not Britain - a word that sounds foreign to them." Imninalu.net
-Also both the Cimmerians and the Scythians were in existence BEFORE Israel was even taken into captivity.
There are so many holes in the US/GB theory--and so it makes sense why HWA was so vague with his referencing of historical documentation. Really this theory places a lot of FAITH and confidence is folk law, and denies more obvious scientific evidence.
I'm happy to see that you went to imninalu.net for some real history on BI. I have recommended this site several months ago so the folks here could get a critique about BI from somebody who was Jewish. The gent does a smashing job of tearing apart this fake history. The true believers will never accept the actual facts, but those who care about finding the truth will read it, and understand it.
The refusal to accept the DNA evidence because we don't have DNA straight from Abraham's body is silly. DNA changes very little over the centuries. And the fact that only Jews and Arabs have haplotypes J and E, and the so-called Lost Tribe European nations do not, is pretty much proof that type are different people genetically.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says, 'The theory ( of British Israelism ) rests on premises which are deemed by scholars both theological and anthropologial to be utterly unsound.' They are indeed. http://www.losttribesofisraelmyth.com/ The above was interesting. Under the spotlight of solid scholarship this nonsense just does not hold up.Along with other 'truths' within Armstrongism.
I thought some evangelical theologies were scripturally unsound but they have nothing on this nonsense. Shallow scholarship underpins this theory and exposes an absurd lack of biblical understanding which is rampant within the cog movement. What passes as ‘evidence’ supporting British Israelism just will not stand up under the light of critical examination and thinking. Let alone under the light of archaeology history linguistics etc etc etc. Alas for many it is an issue of ‘faith’. Professing to be wise they became as fools.
All these posts fail a basic reality test. Do the promises made to Abraham match the history of England and America? Yes they do. Ignoring the elephant in the room is intellectually dishonest. Second, what does a prayer request on this matter yield? For me, it was yes. So BI is correct. Just because you all sing the same song, doesn't mean that you are right.
Anon 9:04 Ignoring the elephant in the room is intellectually dishonest. It is noted you did not refute all of the above comments above with critical argument , so disingenuous of you to claim them as ‘intellectually dishonest’. For many of us prayer on this subject lead us to repudiate BI as incorrect . So for us our conclusions are correct.
And because one may sing a song differently from the rest may mean perhaps you are the one out of tune.
Harping on the twigs of the tree while ignoring the large branches IS being intellectually dishonest. I do not need to go down some DNA/haplogroups rabbit hole when a glance at the last few hundred years of history fits the promises made to Abraham. Just one example, Australia. Indonesia is an overcrowded Asian country of over 200 million while the large island of Australia only has 25 million. During WW2, God as part of His promise to Abraham, protected the country by the "miracle" of Midway. A lost squadron of dive bombers sank 3 Jap aircraft carriers in 5 minutes. But nah, let's forget all that and just over focus on haplogroups.
"Do the promises made to Abraham match the history of England and America?" No. God promised the Promised Land! ISRAEL. The Holy Land. No doubt there was a spiritual dimension to the promises as we subsequently read about Abraham being the father of the faithful. But to use the argument that the promises to Abraham were about GB, USA Aus, NZ, etc, then we must say that those promises weren't fulfilled in the Promised Land... which is actually anti Biblical. Note also Deut 1:10, 10:22, Josh 1:3, Nehamiah 9:23 . For possessing gates of enemies see Deut 3:3-5 (spoiler, it doesnt refer to the Suez Canal)
To all the anti British Israelism, you are defending the indefensible.
"God works in mysterious way" "Let God be true but every man a liar" "There is none as blind as those who would not see" "There will always be scoffers" "God's word is sure"
"I do not need to go down some DNA/haplogroups rabbit hole when a glance at the last few hundred years of history fits the promises made to Abraham."
A remarkable statement. Maybe a crafted trollism. But, yes, you do need to look at DNA. Someone's glib interpretation of geopolitics does not trump scientific research. Looking at clouds and seeing one that looks like an elephant is not the same as zoology. Rather than be complacent in your ill-considered and partial knowledge you should do some research. Belief in unfounded ideas is not the same as faith. Who knows, one day you might have to explain to god why you believed what you did. If I were you, I would prepare some kind of credible answer. No threat implied, just a way to avoid chagrin.
Use of Wikipedia is fine. When one does college level research, encyclopedias are not typically used. But researchers can get an initial overview from looking at encyclopedias and can as well pick up some useful citations. It is ironic that someone who supports the pseudo-history of BI would criticize you for using Wikipedia.
I am not sure how "hide there (sic) German lineage" and "because of Anti German sentiment" significantly differ. Some people are desperate.
Defending British Israelism is an exercise in futility. Even if we exclude any discussion of DNA, the teaching is easily refuted from both an historical and biblical perspective.
That the languages of Northwestern Europeans (including the English) belong to the Indo-European family is beyond dispute - they are NOT Semitic in origin. As for the British monarchy, we know that there have been numerous gaps in the father to son inheritance of the throne (the current occupant, Elizabeth II, is preparing to celebrate her platinum jubilee). In fact, since the conquest (1066), seven distinctly different dynasties have occupied that throne). Moreover, the British throne was vacant (non-existent) for over eleven years following the execution of Charles I.
The Bible is very specific about the boundaries of the Promised Land, and there is NO mention of North America, the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, India or South Africa! If we are attempting to identify the recipients of the promises by focusing on the "nation and company of nations" language, then why haven't we focused on Spain and the nations of South America (the Hapsburg Empire and gold are legendary) - OR what about the conquests of the Vikings, or the colonial acquisitions of other European powers. What about the biblical stories related to the demise of David's dynasty? What about the numerous passages which refer to David's fallen tabernacle and Jesse's stump? What about all of those many passages which imply that Jesus Christ is David's heir? And, finally, what about the many biblical passages which suggest that the ten tribes were never really lost? If you're interested, I would be glad to supply references OR You could display a little intellectual curiosity and initiative and discover these truths for yourself!
In the video, the White Identity movement is mentioned as advocating BI. At the same time, I am watching a summary of the Biden-Putin Summit on TV. It leads me to an observation. Donald Trump is loved by millions of Americans because he is a White Nationalist. He is also probably a White Supremacist but I will leave that for now.
I have seen much speculation on news shows about Trump's relationship with the Russians. The speculation is that he is favorable to the Russians because they have something damning against him. Nobody has found anything significant and I doubt that they will.
My belief is that Trump, with his explicit White Nationalist views, simply wanted to cozy up to one of the greatest White nations on earth, Russia. He wanted to bond with Putin and Russia not based on politics or personal economic interest but based on race. It's the "White people should stick together" policy. An astute news analyst on ABC might call this "The Trump Doctrine."
Oddly, people in Trump's base argue that he is a conservative when there is no history of trust of the Russians in conservatism. And certainly such trust is in inappropriate now after the cyber attacks. Such departures from conservatism demonstate that Trump is not a conservative and that his followers are not conservatives. They are White Nationalist populists who have taken over the Republican party by wrapping themselves thinly in the mantle of conservatism. This is why no conservative leader will do. Only Trump has their fealty.
White Nationalism should play well with British Israelism. BI moves White Nationalism to a theological foundation. It seems like BI would be a hit with the Trump crowd. They like conspriacy theories and reject science. They are easily indoctrinated because they do not believe in research but in charisma as long as charisma supports White privilege. But I do not think HWA's pet theory, discovered in analects of faux history, will appeal to Trump's base. It comes with too much Judaic baggage. But I would not be surprised if we one day see some recycled version of BI ascend out of the pit into a favorable atmosphere thick with White Nationalism and oxygenated by Trumpism.
I told someone her belief in something (don't remember what) was "unbiblical". She told me I "must have faith". So, is faith the promise of things unseen, or is faith something you have when it isn't true, or something else. (I didn't want to make this "black or white" as there are usually other options.)
The declaration of Arbroath, written 700 years ago, in 1320, claims that the people of Scotland were descended from the tribes of Israel, and travelled from Scythia, via a long spell of time in Spain, to reach Scotland.
They further claim an unbroken line of monarchy, and also that the apostle Andrew was sent to them after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
So BI is not a new idea at all!
Extract from the English translation of the declaration of Arbroath 1320. (It was an appeal for help against the English, sent to the pope in Rome):-
“Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today. The Britons it first drove out, the Picts it utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, it took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the histories of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all servitude ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.
The high qualities and merits of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, shine forth clearly enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor did He wish them to be confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles - by calling, though second or third in rank - the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter’s brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron for ever”.
If Tonto researches this he will find that actually the royal line of England is descended from the Scottish royal line (via the elder sister of Henry VIII).
In the 1700's, because it was decided that a Catholic monarch was not acceptable, the closest protestant heir to the throne became king. This line was indeed monarch in one of the many German states of the time, but traced their linage back to James I of England, who was also James VI of Scotland, and the sponsor of 'King James' translation of the Bible.
The current Queen Elisabeth II is a direct descendent from James I, although for two or three generations her ancestors did indeed live in what is now Germany.
Some believe that only 90% of the House of Israel was taken, based on Amos ...
Amos 5:3 For thus says Adonai YHVH: “The city that goes out by a thousand shall have a hundred left, and that which goes out by a hundred shall have ten left to the house of Israel.”
Remnants of House of Israel who escaped ...
2 Chr 30:
v1 And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of YHVH at Jerusalem, ...
v6 Then the runners went throughout all Israel and Judah with the letters from the king and his leaders, and spoke according to the command of the king: “Children of Israel, return to YHVH God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel; then He will return to the remnant of you WHO HAVE ESCAPED from the hand of the kings of Assyria ...
v11 Nevertheless some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem.
v18 For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, ...
No Dennis, that is your wet dream interpretation of Hebrew 11:1. Rather it says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not SEE." We do not see gravity and any of the laws of chemistry and physics, but we know they exist by observing their effects. The you shall know them by their fruits principle.
You turn science on and off when it suits your point of view. You are not a honest person.
Dennis, you wrote "Belief in an unfounded idea is EXACTLY the definition of faith."
I am glad someone looks at my comments. You are right and I am right and I will propose how that fits together.
You are right in this way: Christian faith is a belief in unproveable ideas. I would not use the word "unfounded" in reference to Christian faith. Faith can be founded on principles and experiences. Specifically, it is a belief in the numinous when the numinous cannot be proved directly. And the faith of Christianity is not just common belief but a spiritual gift and that is something that I cannot prove to you. In fact, I cannot prove to you or anyone else that God exists. I think there is much contextual evidence for an uncaused first cause. I think materialism is vacuous but reasoning so doesn't prove God exists. Likewise, you cannot prove that God does not exist. That is why Dawkins is an agnostic and not an atheist. I think we have passed this way before.
I was right in this way: I stated "Belief in unfounded ideas is not the same as faith." I made this statement in reference to someone who says they can dismiss all the conclusive physical evidence and believe in BI as a spiritual matter. But belief in BI is not about the numinous. The debate of BI should be about archaeology, history and genetics. You can't have "faith" in the unfounded idea that moon does not exist. That is misunderstanding of the concept of Christian faith. When I wrote to that statement it was in reference to this case.
In summary, one can have faith that God exists based on principles and experiences. (I could cite the ministry of the Holy Spirit in this regard to another Christian and they would immediately know what I was talking about.) One cannot have faith that the British are Israelites when there is physical evidence to account for and nothing in the word of God to point in that direction.
2 Sa 5:5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.
Similar to David, who was king over the house of Judah before becoming king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, James I was king of Scotland before becoming the king of England in the Union of Crowns of Scotland and England; in 1707 they were united into one kingdom, the kingdom of Great Britain.
Ps 110:4 LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Ps 110:5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
"... the Davidic monarchy was made a priest-king, after one named Melchizedek" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, p.162).
"The Reformation and Glorious Revolution produced an England in which both spiritual and temporal rule had the same figurehead: a head of both Church and Parliament. The change was subtle but profound, as the authority of ENGLAND'S PRIEST-KINGS now theoretically extended across moral and political domains. But in practice, they wielded no direct power" (Mary Harrington, It's the Queen or tyranny, unherd.com, April 21, 2021).
Ge 46:28 Now Jacob sent Judah ahead of him to Joseph to get directions to Goshen... (NIV).
"Curiously, in the narrative itself it was Judah, not Joseph, who led the sons of Israel into the land of Goshen... it appears that the writer has singled out Judah for special attention over against Joseph. Although in the Joseph story as a whole it was Joseph who was responsible for the preservation of the sons in Egypt, here, within the detail of the passage, it was Judah who "pointed out the way" (lehorot; NIV, "to get directions," v.28) to the land of Goshen...
"The chapter ends with Joseph's plan to secure the land of Goshen as a dwelling place for the sons of Israel (vv.31-34). In the next chapter, Joseph's plan succeeded, and the people were given the land of Goshen. In these two brief narratives, Joseph and Judah are placed in marked contrast. Judah led the brothers to the land of Goshen, but it was Joseph's wise plan that resulted in their being able to live there" (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC, Vol.2, p.263).
"... the Scots were important to the development of the Empire in diverse ways: as businessmen, as educators, as missionaries, as imperial administrators and soldiers. Their contribution was so substantial that it has led some historians to refer to 'the Scottish empire'. While the Scots were hugely important to the global growth of British influence, to argue that the Empire was essentially their creation would be to ignore the role of the British state and other national groupings such as the English and the Irish. The Scots may have run the Empire, and profited by it, but at the end of the day it was London that decided its fate. It was English laws and civil institutions that the Scot was to uphold and live by" (W W J Knox, Institute of Scottish Historical Research, Migration and Empire, educationscotland.gov.uk. University of St Andrews, 2009).
“The tale of Jeremiah's escape to Europe with a princess may not be believable but it is in the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction.” June 16, 2021 at 8:27 AM
The legend that Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch accompanied a royal party to Ireland where a princess daughter of Zedekiah married an Irish prince is pure fantasy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_kings_of_Britain#Tea_Tephi and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism#British_Throne_is_a_continuation_of_the_Davidic_Throne). The Davidic throne was patrilineal (like the twelve tribes of Israel) never matrilineal and the throne never passed to a female like the Scottish, English and British thrones have.
“For possessing gates of enemies see Deut 3:3-5 (spoiler, it doesnt refer to the Suez Canal)” June 16, 2021 at 10:50 PM
I agree with your argument and only want to add the "gates" of their enemies Israel was prophesied to possess wasn't the unbiblical BI invention of "sea gates" but actually the gates of enemy cities (see http://www.americantorah.com/2020/11/17/possess-the-gates-of-your-enemy/). So while I still reserve judgment whether the northwestern Europeans are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel one can see to a certain degree how the British Commonwealth and the USA have fulfilled this prophecy in the modern era by possessing anti-UK/US and anti-Christian cities globally promoting and enforcing Western Biblically based principles of liberty and justice.
“The Davidic throne was patrilineal (like the twelve tribes of Israel) never matrilineal and the throne never passed to a female like the Scottish, English and British thrones have.”
While this may have happened in practise with the kings of Israel and Judah, it was a male dominated society, and you can ask was this necessarily a decree from God?
Two examples that show the female line had equal credibility:-
The Bible shows that all the sons of Zedekiah perished, but Jeremiah escaped to Egypt with daughters (plural) of Zedekiah. If God was to ensure the line continued, wherever the location may have been, it would be via females, not males.
Jesus Christ was born from the line of David through His mother Mary, the female line. It is true that his step father Joseph was also from David’s line, but if we believe the Biblical account, he had no part in the genealogy of Jesus.
Questeruk wrote on June 19th @4:53am, While this may have happened in practise with the kings of Israel and Judah, it was a male dominated society, and you can ask was this necessarily a decree from God?
I'm not the one you were replying to but I'll answer your question.
Jer 33:17For thus saith YHVH: There shall not be cut off unto David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
See also 1 Chr 17:11; 2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89:29-37.
There will always be a son of David even when the throne/kingdom is not existing (Hos 3:4-5). Only a son of David can become king.
Jehosheba was not a royal heir
The tribal affiliation and royal succession is patrilineal (Num 1:18, Jer 33:17-18). We can read how the Davidic line was preserved divinely in 2 Kings 11. Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram (aka Jehoram of Judah, not the Joram of Israel; see 2 Kings 8:16,23-25) hid Joash (2 Kings 11:2) when Athaliah was killing all the royal heirs (2 Kings 11:1). Although Jehosheba was the daughter of King Joram of Judah, she was not killed because she's not considered a royal heir (neither her son if she bore one).
Zelophehad's 5 daughters
Num 27:1-4 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad ... saying: “Our father died in the wilderness; ... and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.”
Num 27:6-11 And YHVH spoke to Moses, saying: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. If he has no daughter, ... '"
Note: Inheritance goes to the son(s) except where there is no son.
Num 36:2-4 And they said: “YHVH commanded my lord Moses ..., and my lord was commanded by YHVH to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”
Num 36:5-9 Then Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of YHVH, saying: “What the tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks is right. This is what the YHVH commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ,‘Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe.’ So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance.” Just as YHVH commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad;
Note: The above is not prohibiting intertribal marriage. Women can marry outside of their tribe. It will only be a problem IF she has inheritance which her tribe would loose if she marries someone outside.
The tribal affiliation of the children of a couple from different tribes is that of their father's, not their mother's.
A follow-up to the comment on Zelophehad's 5 daughters, where it was stated:-
”Num 27:1-4 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad ... saying: “Our father died in the wilderness; ... and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.”
Num 27:6-11 And YHVH spoke to Moses, saying: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. If he has no daughter, ... '"
Note: Inheritance goes to the son(s) except where there is no son”.
That is the exact point – things were passed to the son(s), except where there is no son. This decree in Numbers is exactly the way the British crown established the line to the throne (until about five years ago).
For example, the current Queen Elizabeth’s father was George VI – he had no sons, so on his death in 1952 his eldest daughter became queen, the current Queen Elizabeth II. (as per Number 27).
At the time of her coming to the throne, she had two young children, Charles and his younger sister Anne. They were then first and second in line to the throne. The queen later had two more sons, Andrew and Edward. They took second and third place in line, relegating Anne to fourth.
Since then they all have had children, and there have been grandchildren. This has resulted in Anne being relegated to I believe sixteenth in line, while Charles remains first in line.
For Anne to become queen, Charles, Andrew, and Edward would all have to die, as well as all of their children and grandchildren.
The law was changed about five years ago, so children now follow the age order, so Prince William’s three children would be in age order in line to the throne, son, daughter and then the youngest son. This change, which departs from Numbers 27, was not retrospective, so Princess Anne remains in position sixteen.
The point in Numbers 36, regarding who the daughters of Zelophehad should marry was to ensure that each tribe’s area that God had allotted did not get fragmented, but stayed in one piece for the particular tribe. This is not relevant to this discussion, as we are not talking about splitting inheritance, but rather a line of succession.
Have you checked the verses I mentioned - Jer 33:17; 1 Chr 17:11; 2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89:29-37?
The case of Zelophehad's daughters illustrates that once a daughter marries a man from another tribe, not only her inherited land, if any, but also their children will be under her husband's tribe. The instruction given to them was "they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe" (Num 36:6b).
The case shows that tribal affiliation is transmitted only through male descendants.
Questeruk previously wrote, Jesus Christ was born from the line of David through His mother Mary, the female line.
Even IF we assume Mary was from the tribe of Judah, her tribe wouldn't matter. The tribal affiliation comes from the father, not the mother (Num 1:18; Ezra 2:59; see also the case of Zelophehad's daughters).
Also, the example of Jehosheba tells us a princess is not included in the line of succession. What she doesn't have, she cannot hand down. Her children are not also considered royal heirs.
Nowhere in the NT is Mary's tribe ever mentioned. The first chapter of Luke tells us that she was related to Elizabeth who was from the tribe of Levi. The author of Luke plainly states that it was Joseph who was from the house of David (Lk 1:27, 2:4).
The problem with Luke's genealogy is that it lists Nathan (Lk 3:31), not Solomon. It was Solomon whose kingdom God promised will be established forever (2 Sam 7:12-16). Also, the list has Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Lk 3:27) who both appear in Mt 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah (Jer 22:24, 30), which invalidates Joseph's line to the throne.
There is no basis in Tanakh for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.
Questeruk previously wrote, The Bible shows that all the sons of Zedekiah perished, but Jeremiah escaped to Egypt with daughters (plural) of Zedekiah. If God was to ensure the line continued, wherever the location may have been, it would be via females, not males.
Who was the king prior to Zedekiah? His nephew Jeconiah (2 Ki 24:17)!
The line of succession went up! Jeremiah cursed Jeconiah (Jer 22:28-30). No descendant of Jeconiah will sit on David's throne. Although his great grandson Zerubbabel was faithful to God, he was unable to sit on the throne. But he was given a signet ring (Hag 2:23) and appointed governor over the Jewish people. Regarding Jer 52:31, if you read until the end of the book, nothing is mentioned about Jeconiah's son succeeding him.
This thread is coming to an end, so I will be brief. Yes, I have checked the verses you mentioned, and there is the problem, they don’t conclusively say what you claim they say, that only a man could come to the throne.
For example you quoted Jeremiah 33v17
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man (Strong's H376) to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
The word 'man' is Strong’s H376, which is a masculine form, and certainly can mean ‘man’. But there are plenty of verses in the Bible where that exact word clearly does not mean ‘man’, but is referring to a person or people of either sex. A few examples:-
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, (H376) but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Pro 18:24 A man (H376) that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
Both these verses in Proverbs use the exact same word (H376), but they very clearly include woman. The verses would be nonsense if the meaning was that this did not apply to women.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one (H376) another's speech.
The same word here is translated as ‘one’ not ‘man’ – clearly this is correct. I am sure you are not going to claim only the men did not understand each other’s speech, but the women did!
Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one (H376) from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
Again, did the king of Nineveh’s decree exclude women? I think not – the king even included animals in the fast.
There are many other verses where the word clearly is including both men and women – in the same way that the English word ‘mankind’ is used to refer to the human race, and not exclusively to the male sex.
Questeruk on June 21 @9:43am wrote, There are many other verses where the word clearly is including both men and women – in the same way that the English word ‘mankind’ is used to refer to the human race, and not exclusively to the male sex.
The Hebrew ish literally means man or male human. Its default meaning is man/male, different from the word 'mankind'. Context is important, and determines whether a figurative meaning can be applied. According to H376, the word appears 2006 times. I would not be surprised if the majority of its usage pertains to its literal meaning.
The first occurrence of ish in the bible: Gen 2:23 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman (Heb ishah, H802), Because she was taken out of man (Heb ish, H376).”
Jer 22:30 (JPS) Thus saith YHVH: Write ye this man childless, A man that shall not prosper in his days; For no man (Heb ish, of his seed (Heb zera, H2233) shall prosper, Sitting upon the throne of David, And ruling any more in Judah.
No man of Jeconiah's seed shall sit on the throne of David. Can the word man/ish in this verse mean a woman? No. It's usage is literal and specific - man (son) or male offspring. This shows that the succession is through the male line.
The cases of Jehosheba and Zelophehad's daughters further demonstrate that the Davidic line and tribal affiliation are patrilineal.
A woman cannot pass her tribal membership to her children. If she's a princess, she's not included in the royal succession, nor her children. Imagine if she marries someone from another tribe, their children would be identified as belonging to her husband's tribe, not the tribe of Judah. Lineage in Tanakh is determined by the father's house or tribe, not the mother's.
Example of how the tribal membership changes in intertribal marriages. I hope my crude illustration conveys my point.
1: Father (Judah) + Mother (Manasseh) -> A Jewish man marries a woman from Manasseh and bears him a son who takes the tribe of his father.
2: Son (Judah) + Woman (Benjamin) -> Their son marries a woman from Benjamin (her dad is from Benjamin and her mom is from Ephraim), and they have a daughter who is considered from Judah because of her father.
3: Daughter (Judah) + Man (Levi) -> Their daughter marries a Levite and produces a daughter who is now considered from the tribe of Levi. The Levite man's dad is a product of a Levite father and a mother from Simeon. The Levite man's mom is from the tribe of Asher and is a product of a father from Asher and a mother from Gad.
4: Daughter (Levi)
This latest generation daughter is considered from the tribe of Levi. If we disregard the teachings of Tanakh, which tribe would she be part of? She is 12.5% Judah, 12.5% Manasseh, 12.5% Benjamin, 12.5% Ephraim, 12.5% Levi, 12.5% Simeon, 12.5% Asher and 12.5% Gad.
It’s probably only you and me still reading this thread – however let me make my point one more time!
Firstly I fully agree with you about how tribal membership worked, and agree that in your example the girl in step four would count as the tribe of Levi, although genetically you could say this wasn’t the case.
This could also be shown in the genealogy in Mathew 1v 5 and 6. Salmon an Israelite was father to Boaz – the mother was Rachael from Jericho, so genetically Boaz was 50% Israelite. He then married Ruth, again she was not an Israelite, so their son Obed was only 25% Israelite. However Obed was also grandfather of King David, who counted as a full Israelite.
However, that is different to saying that the daughter’s of Zelophehad (or any other family in their situation with no brothers) could not inherit.
Let’s analyse their situation.
1. They would appear to be unmarried. When their father died they inherited from him. The inheritance was theirs, and no one else’s. Had they not married the inheritance was theirs to use until the day they died, then it would revert to other relatives in their tribe. 2. If they married within their tribe. Then their inheritance would stay within their family, together with the inheritance that the man brought with him, from his family. Their children would benefit from BOTH inheritances, the inheritance of the father, AND the inheritance of the mother – a ‘double portion’. That is the point I am making, in those circumstances the inheritance would pass through the female line as well as the husband retaining his inheritance. 3. If they married outside the tribe, then yes, their inheritance would not go with them, it would remain within the tribe, and the couple would inherit whatever was passed down to the husband from his side of the family, as per the normal rules of inheritance.
The basic point I am making is that there were situations, as in point 2 above, where the family inheritance was passed down through the female line. I am also suggesting that in principle this too could apply to the line of succession of the kings, in certain circumstances.
Questeruk wrote on June 22 @4:50am, However, that is different to saying that the daughter’s of Zelophehad (or any other family in their situation with no brothers) could not inherit.
I don't think I said something along that line. Would you point the timestamp of the comment where you think I said that. No one is saying that Zelophehad's daughters could not inherit the land given their situation. In a previous post, I quoted Num 27:1-11. This chapter is where most people stop. They forget or ignore Num 36:2-9 which demonstrates that tribal membership is only transmitted through male descendants.
Questeruk also wrote, The basic point I am making is that there were situations, as in point 2 above, where the family inheritance was passed down through the female line. I am also suggesting that in principle this too could apply to the line of succession of the kings, in certain circumstances.
Your point 2 has already been explicitly mentioned in my previous quote of Num 36:8-9 (And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers.)
Land inheritance is different from royal succession. The situation of Zelophehad's daughters existed only to ensure that tribal land did not transfer into the possession of another tribe before that land was allocated. (If the phrase 'before that land was allocated' raised a red flag to you, please read Num 36:2-4 which I also quoted. Do you notice the concerns of the elders that the land would not revert to their tribe even on the Jubilee?) Also, Zelophehad was not a king.
The example of Jehosheba demonstrates that a princess is never included in the line of succession. If she was, Athaliah would have included her, and her children, if any, in the purge. Athaliah killed all (she thought) the royal heirs, (knowingly) leaving Jehosheba alive.
The curse on Jeconiah prevented his sons from sitting on the throne. The curse was explicit, 'no man of his seed'. Nowhere is said that her daughters, if any, took possession of the throne.
Jeconiah's successor was his uncle. This demonstrates that the line can go up, it's not always downward, until it finds a close legitimate male member of the house of David and Solomon.
The following is not related to our topic. It's just food for thought for a quester from UK ...
If you check the interlinear of Gen 2:23 (click the link on my previous post), and click the Strong's H120 for Adam. The listed meaning of Adam is man or mankind. Some explain that prior to this verse, Adam was not male or female. Only after a 'bone/substance/self' was taken from him to form Eve that he became a 'man' (Heb ish).
Also, click H127. Man/Adam was created from the ground (Heb adamah). This is an example of Hebrew word pun, a characteristic of Tanakh to help Israelites remember what they were hearing.
Questeruk wrote, 3. If they married outside the tribe, then yes, their inheritance would not go with them,
I just noticed that there is a problem with your 3rd point. Please read again Num 36:2-9 which is opposite of what you are saying.
Again, Zelophehad's daughters inherited the land because Zelophehad died without a son. That inherited land goes with the daughters whether they marry within the tribe or outside the tribe. The concerns of the elders were IF they marry outside of the tribe, the land would then be under the tribe of their husbands (to simplify, let's just call it an all or nothing, meaning either all of them marry within, or all of them marry outside).
Example ... If the 5 daughters marry 5 men from the tribe of Dan, their land, which originally part of the tribe of Manasseh, would now be part of the tribe of Dan. The concern of the elders was such land would not even revert to Manasseh come Jubilee.
Num 36:3-4 Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”
They were not yet settled in the Promised Land.
Lev 25:25,28 If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, ... But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession.
Below is a quick presentation for the continuance of the Davidic line through Jehoiachin:
Jer 52:31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of JEHOIACHIN KING OF JUDAH, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of JEHOIACHIN KING OF JUDAH, and brought him forth out of prison,
Like Elijah’s small cloud, the released of Jehoiachin KING OF JUDAH (mentioned twice) provides hope for the future of the Davidic line.
Jer 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, HE AND HIS SEED, AND ARE CAST INTO A LAND WHICH THEY KNOW NOT? Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for NO MAN OF HIS SEED SHALL PROSPER, sitting upon the throne of David, AND RULING ANY MORE IN JUDAH.
It is suggested the “seed” could refer to those born “in the land of Israel,” not to the “seed” born in Babylon.
"As I Live - Yahweh's word - Coniah ben Jehoiakim king of Judah shall not be the signet ring on my right hand. Yes, Coniah, I will pull you off" (Jeremiah 22: 24, translation by J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, p.482).
“And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them” (Hag 2:22).
“In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, WILL I TAKE [LQH] THEE, O Zerubbabel, MY SERVANT, the SON OF SHEALTIEL, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I HAVE CHOSEN [BHR] THEE, saith the LORD of hosts” (Hag 2:23).
1Ch 3:17 The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son, 1Ch 3:18 Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah. 1Ch 3:19 The sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei
2Sa 7:8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto MY SERVANT David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I TOOK (LGH) THEE from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: 2Sa 6:21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which CHOSE [BHR] ME before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel:
Phinehas through his zeal for the Lord was rewarded with an eternal priesthood. Solomon built the First Temple and was rewarded with a permanent dynasty.
Zerubbabel for his part in building the Second Temple was rewarded with the Davidic line being continuing through him, and his descendant the greater son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, the Messiah being his descendant who will reinstitute “the throne of David/the Lord” (1 Chr 29:23).
If the “seed” referred to those born before the exile and after the exile, God reverses the sentence on Jeconiah as a reward for Zerubbabel’s part in building the Temple.
The future son of Solomon and Zerubbabel (legal line) will build the Third Temple, after the day of the Lord.
The sons [ben] of David (Jer 33:21) will not be ruling anymore in Judah alone, but in the United Kingdom of twelve tribes - no longer two nations but one nation (cp. Jer 33:17; Eze 37:22).
“In that day” (Hag 2:22). “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. (Jer 33:15).
Jeremiah 33:15- 26 is a prophecy for the Millennium (contra British Israelism).
Jer 22:30 (JPS) Thus saith YHVH: Write ye this man childless, A man that shall not prosper in his days; For no man (Heb ish) of his seed (Heb zera, H2233) shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, And ruling any more in Judah.
Hag 2:23 ‘In that day,’ says YHVH of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says YHVH, ‘and will make you like a signet ring (Heb chotham, H2368); for I have chosen you,’ says YHVH of hosts.”
Both the above verses have "says YHVH". We know that what goes out from God's mouth, it shall not return empty (Isa 55:11).
Regarding Jer 52:31, if you read until the end of the book, nothing is mentioned about Jeconiah's son succeeding him. Although his great grandson Zerubbabel was faithful to God, he was unable to sit on the throne. He was a governor (Hag 2:20-21), not a king.
Were kings the only ones who had signet [rings]? No. Judah had one which was one of the items the disguised Tamar asked him as pledge (Gen 38:18). Other officials had signet rings. Click Bulla. Here's an excerpt from the Bulla link:
The seal impression, dated to the First Temple period, features the words: “(belonging) to Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King” (LeNathan-Melech Eved HaMelech). The name Nathan-Melech appears once in the Bible, in the second book of Kings 23:11, where he is described as an official in the court of King Josiah, who took part in the religious reform that the king was implementing: “And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-Melech the officer, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.”
The title “Servant of the King” (Eved HaMelech) appears often in the Bible to describe a high-ranking official close to the king.
Sons of Zadok The valley of dry bones prophecy is in Ezekiel 37. The next 2 chapters are about gog's attack and destruction. From Ezekiel 40, the blueprint of the Third/Ezekiel's Temple is given. These chapters are still in the future. Another indication of the messianic fulfillment is the special role that the sons of Zadok will have which never happened in the past Temples (Eze 44:10-16). The other sons of Aaron will be relegated to gatekeeper duties. Only the sons of Zadok will come near to YHVH. Eze 40:45-46 describes two chambers for the priests - one of which is for the sons of Zadok only. (See Ezra 7:1-5)
2 Chronicles 2:11 speaks of some from the Northern Tribes who went to Jerusalem to live. In the New Testament, Anna the Prophetess is described as being of the Tribe of Assur.
ReplyDeleteShe was not obviously "lost" , and knew who she was.
The people of Israel today, primarily of Judah, but also a mixture of all of the 12 tribes DNA, are the modern day Israel of the Bible and are composed of all the tribes.
How does a country that is composed of Germans, Poles, Russians, Native Peoples, Blacks, Mexicans, Far East Asians, and many more, qualify as somehow "genetically" the lost 10 tribes of Israel??
Perhaps an argument can be made for the USA to be some type of "manifest destiny" people, but the genetics thing, along with linguistic and many other evidences demonstrate how ridiculous the theory is.
Tonto what you describe is ludicrous. Jewish people are a dna mixture of all the tribes ! No jew would agree with that idea.
DeleteI am not convinced by this video. Remember, HWA is not the original author. He just stumbled into J H Allen's book and found it to have merit and put a new angle to it. His "US and BC In Prophecies" became a "best seller" in WCG literature.
ReplyDeleteWhat is undeniable is the rich physical blessings on America and British Commonwealth, including Australia, New Zealand and North Western Europe. Further, historically the sun never set on the British Empire. America is still the world's number one nation in all aspects.
British-Israelism is part of God's Plan for mankind. God loves all people.
The tale of Jeremiah's escape to Europe with a princess may not be believable but it is in the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction.
I am a non white but I believe in God's providence for these blessed descendants and I am happy for them because through them I am blessed as the Bible promised.
There were several British-Israel associations in England during Queen Victoria's era, and they put out associated literature. The doctrine goes back to the sixteen hundreds, so it's not as if it's J H Allen's creation.
ReplyDeleteI agree. This is true 12:31.
DeleteAllen may not have originated the idea, however his book was the main propaganda piece that suckered many people into BI.
DeleteThe video was well done. It challenges historical sources and that is always an issue. Proponents of BI will think that Herman Hoeh could understand these historical sources and knew their integrity and the author of this video did not. This is not the case but it is desperately needed wiggle room.
ReplyDeleteThere is a more direct and logical route to demonstrating that BI is false. The logical structure is a simple Modus Ponens with a compound antecedent. It looks like this:
IF (1) Abraham is descended from Noah through Shem in the masculine line
and
(2) The Jews and the Adnani Arabs are both descendants of Shem
and
(3) The ancient Jews and Adnani Arabs are the people known to us today as Jews and Arabs
and
(5) The science of genetics is real science and not fable
THEN
(6) The people of Britain are not descended from Abraham
END-IF
In order to falsify proposition (6), the consequent, one must falsify at least one of the propositions composing the antecdent. If propositions 1 through 5 (the antecedent) all stand, then proposition 6 (the consequent) stands. It may be a little confusing at first because propositon (6) is stated as a negative. Proponents of BI will want to falsify proposition (6).
I had a lengthy back-and-forth with a critic of an essay this blog published that I had written demonstrating that the science of genetics abrogates BI. His view was that I did not know and could not know that Abraham had the same haplogroup as the bulk of modern Jews and Adnani Arabs. He would not accept the attestation of history and the current identification of Jews and Adnani Arabs - conditions that are conclusive. He simply and in a block-headed way insisted that nobody could know Abraham's haplogroup. You would have to get in a time machine and go back and draw a blood sample from Abraham and have it analyzed. But he understood the logic above. He, essentially, was attacking proposition (3) above. He understood that he had to falisfy at least one of these propositions to make the BI stand.
I understand one of the Splinter leaders claims a superior understanding of logic. Maybe he could try his hand at overturning this argument. And then a follower could leak the counter-argument back to this blog for review.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
The British Crown itself is GERMAN!
ReplyDeleteThey changed their name to HOUSE OF WINDSOR to disguise the fact that they held German lineage in several direct lines, including the Hapsburg, The House of Oldenburg, and the houses of Schleswig, Holstein, Sonderburg and Glücksburg
Simply read wikiepedia to verify this well known fact!
No college in the world would let someone cite Wikipedia as a source. So everyone should have some skepticism on what they read on Wikipedia since anyone can edit a page.
DeleteTo your point the British Crown does have German lineage in it starting back with George I but they didn't change the name to the House of Windsor to hide there German lineage. Everyone in Britian and Europe knew Queen Victoria was the grandmother to Keiser Wilhelm. King George the V changed the name because of Anti German sentiments during WW1 and to show solidarity with the British people.
Amateurs always quote Wikipedia "tonto".
DeleteThe British crown goes beyond the 17th century "Tonto".
DeleteMy first encounter with HWA's "BI" was a small piece in the fictitious newspaper that came with the World Tomorrow booklet. Later I wrote for the US & BC booklet, and thought the "new knowledge" was great - and I annoyed a lot of people with it. About the same time, some Mormon missionaries explained their version of the subject.
ReplyDeleteFor years I though the criticism was easily explained, and dismissed various rebuttals. What eventually convinced me it was wrong was Ralph Orr's article on the history of BI in the WCG.
I heard Bob talk about prophecies that mentioned Samaria, and his thoughts on it referring to the US. At the time, I was thinking post-Assyrian Samaria, and that Bob was just using his "if the shoe fits" brand of eschatology.
After watching part of the YouTube sermon, I understand what Bob meant, but I can't say he changed my feelings that it was more quote mining to try to support his interpretation of supposed BI prophecies.
To Anon 8:27, you state:
ReplyDelete"The tale of Jeremiah's escape to Europe with a princess may not be believable but it is in the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction."
You must be reading a different Bible to me. My Bible shows that Jeremiah went to Egypt (Jeremiah 43:1-13). There is no record of him going to Europe.
Check out this for a decent overview of many of the arguments,
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-brits.htm
A couple of good points,
- HWA tries to link Tuatha De Danann to "Tribe of Dan".
"According to the official chronology, if the Tuatha-de-Danann really existed, they ruled Ireland before Dan, son of Israel, was born! The actual meaning of that name is "Folk of the goddess Danu"." Imninalu.net
This then explains why so many places are names "Dan", not after the tribe of Dan, but a goddess.
-HWA tries to link the english "British" to Hebrew "covenant people".
"The alleged meaning of "Brit-ish" as the Hebrew "covenant-man" is utterly ridiculous and shows that who has suggested such a simplistic equation has no knowledge of Hebrew language nor the slightest idea of philology. It is well established by history that the term "Briton" is a Latin word and was adopted only in modern times, when the English language took a definitive shape strongly influenced by Latin and the Roman culture (even the kilt, a "typical Celtic", Scottish garment, is indeed a derivation of the Roman soldiers' suit). The Celts of Great Britain still call their land "Cymru", not Britain - a word that sounds foreign to them." Imninalu.net
-Also both the Cimmerians and the Scythians were in existence BEFORE Israel was even taken into captivity.
There are so many holes in the US/GB theory--and so it makes sense why HWA was so vague with his referencing of historical documentation. Really this theory places a lot of FAITH and confidence is folk law, and denies more obvious scientific evidence.
I'm happy to see that you went to imninalu.net for some real history on BI. I have recommended this site several months ago so the folks here could get a critique about BI from somebody who was Jewish. The gent does a smashing job of tearing apart this fake history. The true believers will never accept the actual facts, but those who care about finding the truth will read it, and understand it.
DeleteThe refusal to accept the DNA evidence because we don't have DNA straight from Abraham's body is silly. DNA changes very little over the centuries. And the fact that only Jews and Arabs have haplotypes J and E, and the so-called Lost Tribe European nations do not, is pretty much proof that type are different people genetically.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErratum:
ReplyDeleteProposition (2) should read:
"The Jews and the Adnani Arabs are both descendants of Abraham"
Abraham instead of Shem
The Encyclopedia Britannica says, 'The theory ( of British Israelism ) rests on premises which are deemed by scholars both theological and anthropologial to be utterly unsound.'
ReplyDeleteThey are indeed.
http://www.losttribesofisraelmyth.com/
The above was interesting. Under the spotlight of solid scholarship this nonsense just does not hold up.Along with other 'truths' within Armstrongism.
I thought some evangelical theologies were scripturally unsound but they have nothing on this nonsense.
ReplyDeleteShallow scholarship underpins this theory and exposes an absurd lack of biblical understanding which is rampant within the cog movement.
What passes as ‘evidence’ supporting British Israelism just will not stand up under the light of critical examination and thinking.
Let alone under the light of archaeology history linguistics etc etc etc.
Alas for many it is an issue of ‘faith’.
Professing to be wise they became as fools.
All these posts fail a basic reality test. Do the promises made to Abraham match the history of England and America? Yes they do. Ignoring the elephant in the room is intellectually dishonest. Second, what does a prayer request on this matter yield? For me, it was yes. So BI is correct.
ReplyDeleteJust because you all sing the same song, doesn't mean that you are right.
Anon 9:04
ReplyDeleteIgnoring the elephant in the room is intellectually dishonest.
It is noted you did not refute all of the above comments above with critical argument , so disingenuous of you to claim them as ‘intellectually dishonest’.
For many of us prayer on this subject lead us to repudiate BI as incorrect . So for us our conclusions are correct.
And because one may sing a song differently from the rest may mean perhaps you are the one out of tune.
Harping on the twigs of the tree while ignoring the large branches IS being intellectually dishonest. I do not need to go down some DNA/haplogroups rabbit hole when a glance at the last few hundred years of history fits the promises made to Abraham. Just one example, Australia. Indonesia is an overcrowded Asian country of over 200 million while the large island of Australia only has 25 million. During WW2, God as part of His promise to Abraham, protected the country by the "miracle" of Midway. A lost squadron of dive bombers sank 3 Jap aircraft carriers in 5 minutes. But nah, let's forget all that and just over focus on haplogroups.
Delete"Do the promises made to Abraham match the history of England and America?"
ReplyDeleteNo. God promised the Promised Land! ISRAEL. The Holy Land. No doubt there was a spiritual dimension to the promises as we subsequently read about Abraham being the father of the faithful. But to use the argument that the promises to Abraham were about GB, USA Aus, NZ, etc, then we must say that those promises weren't fulfilled in the Promised Land... which is actually anti Biblical. Note also Deut 1:10, 10:22, Josh 1:3, Nehamiah 9:23 . For possessing gates of enemies see Deut 3:3-5 (spoiler, it doesnt refer to the Suez Canal)
To all the anti British Israelism, you are defending the indefensible.
ReplyDelete"God works in mysterious way"
"Let God be true but every man a liar"
"There is none as blind as those who would not see"
"There will always be scoffers"
"God's word is sure"
Amen.
"I do not need to go down some DNA/haplogroups rabbit hole when a glance at the last few hundred years of history fits the promises made to Abraham."
ReplyDeleteA remarkable statement. Maybe a crafted trollism. But, yes, you do need to look at DNA. Someone's glib interpretation of geopolitics does not trump scientific research. Looking at clouds and seeing one that looks like an elephant is not the same as zoology. Rather than be complacent in your ill-considered and partial knowledge you should do some research. Belief in unfounded ideas is not the same as faith. Who knows, one day you might have to explain to god why you believed what you did. If I were you, I would prepare some kind of credible answer. No threat implied, just a way to avoid chagrin.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Tonto,
ReplyDeleteUse of Wikipedia is fine. When one does college level research, encyclopedias are not typically used. But researchers can get an initial overview from looking at encyclopedias and can as well pick up some useful citations. It is ironic that someone who supports the pseudo-history of BI would criticize you for using Wikipedia.
I am not sure how "hide there (sic) German lineage" and "because of Anti German sentiment" significantly differ. Some people are desperate.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
The point is the royal family wasn'hiding their lineage when it was common knowledge that they had German lineage.
DeleteI also want to clarify that I'm not distorting history just adding more information to the topic, but you do you.
Defending British Israelism is an exercise in futility. Even if we exclude any discussion of DNA, the teaching is easily refuted from both an historical and biblical perspective.
ReplyDeleteThat the languages of Northwestern Europeans (including the English) belong to the Indo-European family is beyond dispute - they are NOT Semitic in origin. As for the British monarchy, we know that there have been numerous gaps in the father to son inheritance of the throne (the current occupant, Elizabeth II, is preparing to celebrate her platinum jubilee). In fact, since the conquest (1066), seven distinctly different dynasties have occupied that throne). Moreover, the British throne was vacant (non-existent) for over eleven years following the execution of Charles I.
The Bible is very specific about the boundaries of the Promised Land, and there is NO mention of North America, the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, India or South Africa! If we are attempting to identify the recipients of the promises by focusing on the "nation and company of nations" language, then why haven't we focused on Spain and the nations of South America (the Hapsburg Empire and gold are legendary) - OR what about the conquests of the Vikings, or the colonial acquisitions of other European powers. What about the biblical stories related to the demise of David's dynasty? What about the numerous passages which refer to David's fallen tabernacle and Jesse's stump? What about all of those many passages which imply that Jesus Christ is David's heir? And, finally, what about the many biblical passages which suggest that the ten tribes were never really lost? If you're interested, I would be glad to supply references OR You could display a little intellectual curiosity and initiative and discover these truths for yourself!
In the video, the White Identity movement is mentioned as advocating BI. At the same time, I am watching a summary of the Biden-Putin Summit on TV. It leads me to an observation. Donald Trump is loved by millions of Americans because he is a White Nationalist. He is also probably a White Supremacist but I will leave that for now.
ReplyDeleteI have seen much speculation on news shows about Trump's relationship with the Russians. The speculation is that he is favorable to the Russians because they have something damning against him. Nobody has found anything significant and I doubt that they will.
My belief is that Trump, with his explicit White Nationalist views, simply wanted to cozy up to one of the greatest White nations on earth, Russia. He wanted to bond with Putin and Russia not based on politics or personal economic interest but based on race. It's the "White people should stick together" policy. An astute news analyst on ABC might call this "The Trump Doctrine."
Oddly, people in Trump's base argue that he is a conservative when there is no history of trust of the Russians in conservatism. And certainly such trust is in inappropriate now after the cyber attacks. Such departures from conservatism demonstate that Trump is not a conservative and that his followers are not conservatives. They are White Nationalist populists who have taken over the Republican party by wrapping themselves thinly in the mantle of conservatism. This is why no conservative leader will do. Only Trump has their fealty.
White Nationalism should play well with British Israelism. BI moves White Nationalism to a theological foundation. It seems like BI would be a hit with the Trump crowd. They like conspriacy theories and reject science. They are easily indoctrinated because they do not believe in research but in charisma as long as charisma supports White privilege. But I do not think HWA's pet theory, discovered in analects of faux history, will appeal to Trump's base. It comes with too much Judaic baggage. But I would not be surprised if we one day see some recycled version of BI ascend out of the pit into a favorable atmosphere thick with White Nationalism and oxygenated by Trumpism.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
"To all the anti British Israelism"
ReplyDeleteI told someone her belief in something (don't remember what) was "unbiblical". She told me I "must have faith". So, is faith the promise of things unseen, or is faith something you have when it isn't true, or something else. (I didn't want to make this "black or white" as there are usually other options.)
The declaration of Arbroath, written 700 years ago, in 1320, claims that the people of Scotland were descended from the tribes of Israel, and travelled from Scythia, via a long spell of time in Spain, to reach Scotland.
ReplyDeleteThey further claim an unbroken line of monarchy, and also that the apostle Andrew was sent to them after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
So BI is not a new idea at all!
Extract from the English translation of the declaration of Arbroath 1320. (It was an appeal for help against the English, sent to the pope in Rome):-
“Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today. The Britons it first drove out, the Picts it utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, it took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the histories of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all servitude ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.
The high qualities and merits of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, shine forth clearly enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor did He wish them to be confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles - by calling, though second or third in rank - the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter’s brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron for ever”.
If Tonto researches this he will find that actually the royal line of England is descended from the Scottish royal line (via the elder sister of Henry VIII).
ReplyDeleteIn the 1700's, because it was decided that a Catholic monarch was not acceptable, the closest protestant heir to the throne became king. This line was indeed monarch in one of the many German states of the time, but traced their linage back to James I of England, who was also James VI of Scotland, and the sponsor of 'King James' translation of the Bible.
The current Queen Elisabeth II is a direct descendent from James I, although for two or three generations her ancestors did indeed
live in what is now Germany.
Some believe that only 90% of the House of Israel was taken, based on Amos ...
ReplyDeleteAmos 5:3 For thus says Adonai YHVH: “The city that goes out by a thousand shall have a hundred left, and that which goes out by a hundred shall have ten left to the house of Israel.”
Remnants of House of Israel who escaped ...
2 Chr 30:
v1 And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of YHVH at Jerusalem, ...
v6 Then the runners went throughout all Israel and Judah with the letters from the king and his leaders, and spoke according to the command of the king: “Children of Israel, return to YHVH God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel; then He will return to the remnant of you WHO HAVE ESCAPED from the hand of the kings of Assyria ...
v11 Nevertheless some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem.
v18 For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, ...
NEO noted: "Belief in unfounded ideas is not the same as faith."
ReplyDelete========================
Belief in an unfounded idea is EXACTLY the definition of faith.
"For Faith is what we hope is true, based on no evidence that it is true"
Heb 11:1
No Dennis, that is your wet dream interpretation of Hebrew 11:1.
ReplyDeleteRather it says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not SEE." We do not see gravity and any of the laws of chemistry and physics, but we know they exist by observing their effects. The you shall know them by their fruits principle.
You turn science on and off when it suits your point of view. You are not a honest person.
Dennis, you wrote "Belief in an unfounded idea is EXACTLY the definition of faith."
ReplyDeleteI am glad someone looks at my comments. You are right and I am right and I will propose how that fits together.
You are right in this way: Christian faith is a belief in unproveable ideas. I would not use the word "unfounded" in reference to Christian faith. Faith can be founded on principles and experiences. Specifically, it is a belief in the numinous when the numinous cannot be proved directly. And the faith of Christianity is not just common belief but a spiritual gift and that is something that I cannot prove to you. In fact, I cannot prove to you or anyone else that God exists. I think there is much contextual evidence for an uncaused first cause. I think materialism is vacuous but reasoning so doesn't prove God exists. Likewise, you cannot prove that God does not exist. That is why Dawkins is an agnostic and not an atheist. I think we have passed this way before.
I was right in this way: I stated "Belief in unfounded ideas is not the same as faith."
I made this statement in reference to someone who says they can dismiss all the conclusive physical evidence and believe in BI as a spiritual matter. But belief in BI is not about the numinous. The debate of BI should be about archaeology, history and genetics. You can't have "faith" in the unfounded idea that moon does not exist. That is misunderstanding of the concept of Christian faith. When I wrote to that statement it was in reference to this case.
In summary, one can have faith that God exists based on principles and experiences. (I could cite the ministry of the Holy Spirit in this regard to another Christian and they would immediately know what I was talking about.) One cannot have faith that the British are Israelites when there is physical evidence to account for and nothing in the word of God to point in that direction.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Queen Elizabeth II is James I’s tenth great-granddaughter, through her father George VI.
ReplyDeleteI second Questeruk.
When this subject came up previously I mentioned the Stewart thread to the British Royal Family.
James 1 was the first of the Stewart Kings of the combined crowns of England and Scotland.
George 1, the first British monarch of the House of Hanover, was great-grandson of James 1.
QE2 is descended from the Royal House of Stewart on both sides of her family. See:
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/features/queen-elizabeth-ii-and-scotland
Typology
2 Sa 5:5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.
Similar to David, who was king over the house of Judah before becoming king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, James I was king of Scotland before becoming the king of England in the Union of Crowns of Scotland and England; in 1707 they were united into one kingdom, the kingdom of Great Britain.
Ps 110:4 LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps 110:5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
"... the Davidic monarchy was made a priest-king, after one named Melchizedek" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, p.162).
"The Reformation and Glorious Revolution produced an England in which both spiritual and temporal rule had the same figurehead: a head of both Church and Parliament. The change was subtle but profound, as the authority of ENGLAND'S PRIEST-KINGS now theoretically extended across moral and political domains. But in practice, they wielded no direct power" (Mary Harrington, It's the Queen or tyranny, unherd.com, April 21, 2021).
Ge 46:28 Now Jacob sent Judah ahead of him to Joseph to get directions to Goshen... (NIV).
"Curiously, in the narrative itself it was Judah, not Joseph, who led the sons of Israel into the land of Goshen... it appears that the writer has singled out Judah for special attention over against Joseph. Although in the Joseph story as a whole it was Joseph who was responsible for the preservation of the sons in Egypt, here, within the detail of the passage, it was Judah who "pointed out the way" (lehorot; NIV, "to get directions," v.28) to the land of Goshen...
"The chapter ends with Joseph's plan to secure the land of Goshen as a dwelling place for the sons of Israel (vv.31-34). In the next chapter, Joseph's plan succeeded, and the people were given the land of Goshen. In these two brief narratives, Joseph and Judah are placed in marked contrast. Judah led the brothers to the land of Goshen, but it was Joseph's wise plan that resulted in their being able to live there" (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC, Vol.2, p.263).
"... the Scots were important to the development of the Empire in diverse ways: as businessmen, as educators, as missionaries, as imperial administrators and soldiers. Their contribution was so substantial that it has led some historians to refer to 'the Scottish empire'. While the Scots were hugely important to the global growth of British influence, to argue that the Empire was essentially their creation would be to ignore the role of the British state and other national groupings such as the English and the Irish. The Scots may have run the Empire, and profited by it, but at the end of the day it was London that decided its fate. It was English laws and civil institutions that the Scot was to uphold and live by" (W W J Knox, Institute of Scottish Historical Research, Migration and Empire, educationscotland.gov.uk. University of St Andrews, 2009).
“The tale of Jeremiah's escape to Europe with a princess may not be believable but it is in the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction.”
ReplyDeleteJune 16, 2021 at 8:27 AM
The legend that Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch accompanied a royal party to Ireland where a princess daughter of Zedekiah married an Irish prince is pure fantasy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_kings_of_Britain#Tea_Tephi and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism#British_Throne_is_a_continuation_of_the_Davidic_Throne). The Davidic throne was patrilineal (like the twelve tribes of Israel) never matrilineal and the throne never passed to a female like the Scottish, English and British thrones have.
“For possessing gates of enemies see Deut 3:3-5 (spoiler, it doesnt refer to the Suez Canal)”
June 16, 2021 at 10:50 PM
I agree with your argument and only want to add the "gates" of their enemies Israel was prophesied to possess wasn't the unbiblical BI invention of "sea gates" but actually the gates of enemy cities (see http://www.americantorah.com/2020/11/17/possess-the-gates-of-your-enemy/). So while I still reserve judgment whether the northwestern Europeans are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel one can see to a certain degree how the British Commonwealth and the USA have fulfilled this prophecy in the modern era by possessing anti-UK/US and anti-Christian cities globally promoting and enforcing Western Biblically based principles of liberty and justice.
Helpful comment here and elsewhere, Neo.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“The Davidic throne was patrilineal (like the twelve tribes of Israel) never matrilineal and the throne never passed to a female like the Scottish, English and British thrones have.”
While this may have happened in practise with the kings of Israel and Judah, it was a male dominated society, and you can ask was this necessarily a decree from God?
Two examples that show the female line had equal credibility:-
The Bible shows that all the sons of Zedekiah perished, but Jeremiah escaped to Egypt with daughters (plural) of Zedekiah. If God was to ensure the line continued, wherever the location may have been, it would be via females, not males.
Jesus Christ was born from the line of David through His mother Mary, the female line. It is true that his step father Joseph was also from David’s line, but if we believe the Biblical account, he had no part in the genealogy of Jesus.
Questeruk wrote on June 19th @4:53am, While this may have happened in practise with the kings of Israel and Judah, it was a male dominated society, and you can ask was this necessarily a decree from God?
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one you were replying to but I'll answer your question.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith YHVH: There shall not be cut off unto David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
See also 1 Chr 17:11; 2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89:29-37.
There will always be a son of David even when the throne/kingdom is not existing (Hos 3:4-5). Only a son of David can become king.
Jehosheba was not a royal heir
The tribal affiliation and royal succession is patrilineal (Num 1:18, Jer 33:17-18). We can read how the Davidic line was preserved divinely in 2 Kings 11. Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram (aka Jehoram of Judah, not the Joram of Israel; see 2 Kings 8:16,23-25) hid Joash (2 Kings 11:2) when Athaliah was killing all the royal heirs (2 Kings 11:1). Although Jehosheba was the daughter of King Joram of Judah, she was not killed because she's not considered a royal heir (neither her son if she bore one).
Zelophehad's 5 daughters
Num 27:1-4 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad ... saying: “Our father died in the wilderness; ... and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.”
Num 27:6-11 And YHVH spoke to Moses, saying: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. If he has no daughter, ... '"
Note: Inheritance goes to the son(s) except where there is no son.
Num 36:2-4 And they said: “YHVH commanded my lord Moses ..., and my lord was commanded by YHVH to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”
Num 36:5-9 Then Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of YHVH, saying: “What the tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks is right. This is what the YHVH commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ,‘Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe.’ So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance.” Just as YHVH commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad;
Note: The above is not prohibiting intertribal marriage. Women can marry outside of their tribe. It will only be a problem IF she has inheritance which her tribe would loose if she marries someone outside.
The tribal affiliation of the children of a couple from different tribes is that of their father's, not their mother's.
A follow-up to the comment on Zelophehad's 5 daughters, where it was stated:-
ReplyDelete”Num 27:1-4 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad ... saying: “Our father died in the wilderness; ... and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.”
Num 27:6-11 And YHVH spoke to Moses, saying: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. If he has no daughter, ... '"
Note: Inheritance goes to the son(s) except where there is no son”.
That is the exact point – things were passed to the son(s), except where there is no son. This decree in Numbers is exactly the way the British crown established the line to the throne (until about five years ago).
For example, the current Queen Elizabeth’s father was George VI – he had no sons, so on his death in 1952 his eldest daughter became queen, the current Queen Elizabeth II. (as per Number 27).
At the time of her coming to the throne, she had two young children, Charles and his younger sister Anne. They were then first and second in line to the throne. The queen later had two more sons, Andrew and Edward. They took second and third place in line, relegating Anne to fourth.
Since then they all have had children, and there have been grandchildren. This has resulted in Anne being relegated to I believe sixteenth in line, while Charles remains first in line.
For Anne to become queen, Charles, Andrew, and Edward would all have to die, as well as all of their children and grandchildren.
The law was changed about five years ago, so children now follow the age order, so Prince William’s three children would be in age order in line to the throne, son, daughter and then the youngest son. This change, which departs from Numbers 27, was not retrospective, so Princess Anne remains in position sixteen.
The point in Numbers 36, regarding who the daughters of Zelophehad should marry was to ensure that each tribe’s area that God had allotted did not get fragmented, but stayed in one piece for the particular tribe. This is not relevant to this discussion, as we are not talking about splitting inheritance, but rather a line of succession.
Questeruk,
ReplyDeleteHave you checked the verses I mentioned - Jer 33:17; 1 Chr 17:11; 2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89:29-37?
The case of Zelophehad's daughters illustrates that once a daughter marries a man from another tribe, not only her inherited land, if any, but also their children will be under her husband's tribe. The instruction given to them was "they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe" (Num 36:6b).
The case shows that tribal affiliation is transmitted only through male descendants.
Questeruk previously wrote, Jesus Christ was born from the line of David through His mother Mary, the female line.
Even IF we assume Mary was from the tribe of Judah, her tribe wouldn't matter. The tribal affiliation comes from the father, not the mother (Num 1:18; Ezra 2:59; see also the case of Zelophehad's daughters).
Also, the example of Jehosheba tells us a princess is not included in the line of succession. What she doesn't have, she cannot hand down. Her children are not also considered royal heirs.
Nowhere in the NT is Mary's tribe ever mentioned. The first chapter of Luke tells us that she was related to Elizabeth who was from the tribe of Levi. The author of Luke plainly states that it was Joseph who was from the house of David (Lk 1:27, 2:4).
The problem with Luke's genealogy is that it lists Nathan (Lk 3:31), not Solomon. It was Solomon whose kingdom God promised will be established forever (2 Sam 7:12-16). Also, the list has Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Lk 3:27) who both appear in Mt 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah (Jer 22:24, 30), which invalidates Joseph's line to the throne.
There is no basis in Tanakh for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.
Questeruk previously wrote, The Bible shows that all the sons of Zedekiah perished, but Jeremiah escaped to Egypt with daughters (plural) of Zedekiah. If God was to ensure the line continued, wherever the location may have been, it would be via females, not males.
Who was the king prior to Zedekiah? His nephew Jeconiah (2 Ki 24:17)!
The line of succession went up! Jeremiah cursed Jeconiah (Jer 22:28-30). No descendant of Jeconiah will sit on David's throne. Although his great grandson Zerubbabel was faithful to God, he was unable to sit on the throne. But he was given a signet ring (Hag 2:23) and appointed governor over the Jewish people. Regarding Jer 52:31, if you read until the end of the book, nothing is mentioned about Jeconiah's son succeeding him.
This thread is coming to an end, so I will be brief. Yes, I have checked the verses you mentioned, and there is the problem, they don’t conclusively say what you claim they say, that only a man could come to the throne.
ReplyDeleteFor example you quoted Jeremiah 33v17
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man (Strong's H376) to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
The word 'man' is Strong’s H376, which is a masculine form, and certainly can mean ‘man’. But there are plenty of verses in the Bible where that exact word clearly does not mean ‘man’, but is referring to a person or people of either sex. A few examples:-
Pro 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, (H376) but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Pro 18:24
A man (H376) that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
Both these verses in Proverbs use the exact same word (H376), but they very clearly include woman. The verses would be nonsense if the meaning was that this did not apply to women.
Gen 11:7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one (H376) another's speech.
The same word here is translated as ‘one’ not ‘man’ – clearly this is correct. I am sure you are not going to claim only the men did not understand each other’s speech, but the women did!
Jonah 3:8
But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one (H376) from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
Again, did the king of Nineveh’s decree exclude women? I think not – the king even included animals in the fast.
There are many other verses where the word clearly is including both men and women – in the same way that the English word ‘mankind’ is used to refer to the human race, and not exclusively to the male sex.
Questeruk on June 21 @9:43am wrote, There are many other verses where the word clearly is including both men and women – in the same way that the English word ‘mankind’ is used to refer to the human race, and not exclusively to the male sex.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew ish literally means man or male human. Its default meaning is man/male, different from the word 'mankind'. Context is important, and determines whether a figurative meaning can be applied. According to H376, the word appears 2006 times. I would not be surprised if the majority of its usage pertains to its literal meaning.
The first occurrence of ish in the bible:
Gen 2:23 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman (Heb ishah, H802), Because she was taken out of man (Heb ish, H376).”
Jer 22:30 (JPS) Thus saith YHVH: Write ye this man childless, A man that shall not prosper in his days; For no man (Heb ish, of his seed (Heb zera, H2233) shall prosper, Sitting upon the throne of David, And ruling any more in Judah.
No man of Jeconiah's seed shall sit on the throne of David. Can the word man/ish in this verse mean a woman? No. It's usage is literal and specific - man (son) or male offspring. This shows that the succession is through the male line.
The cases of Jehosheba and Zelophehad's daughters further demonstrate that the Davidic line and tribal affiliation are patrilineal.
A woman cannot pass her tribal membership to her children. If she's a princess, she's not included in the royal succession, nor her children. Imagine if she marries someone from another tribe, their children would be identified as belonging to her husband's tribe, not the tribe of Judah. Lineage in Tanakh is determined by the father's house or tribe, not the mother's.
Example of how the tribal membership changes in intertribal marriages. I hope my crude illustration conveys my point.
1: Father (Judah) + Mother (Manasseh) -> A Jewish man marries a woman from Manasseh and bears him a son who takes the tribe of his father.
2: Son (Judah) + Woman (Benjamin) -> Their son marries a woman from Benjamin (her dad is from Benjamin and her mom is from Ephraim), and they have a daughter who is considered from Judah because of her father.
3: Daughter (Judah) + Man (Levi) -> Their daughter marries a Levite and produces a daughter who is now considered from the tribe of Levi. The Levite man's dad is a product of a Levite father and a mother from Simeon. The Levite man's mom is from the tribe of Asher and is a product of a father from Asher and a mother from Gad.
4: Daughter (Levi)
This latest generation daughter is considered from the tribe of Levi. If we disregard the teachings of Tanakh, which tribe would she be part of? She is 12.5% Judah, 12.5% Manasseh, 12.5% Benjamin, 12.5% Ephraim, 12.5% Levi, 12.5% Simeon, 12.5% Asher and 12.5% Gad.
It’s probably only you and me still reading this thread – however let me make my point one more time!
ReplyDeleteFirstly I fully agree with you about how tribal membership worked, and agree that in your example the girl in step four would count as the tribe of Levi, although genetically you could say this wasn’t the case.
This could also be shown in the genealogy in Mathew 1v 5 and 6. Salmon an Israelite was father to Boaz – the mother was Rachael from Jericho, so genetically Boaz was 50% Israelite. He then married Ruth, again she was not an Israelite, so their son Obed was only 25% Israelite. However Obed was also grandfather of King David, who counted as a full Israelite.
However, that is different to saying that the daughter’s of Zelophehad (or any other family in their situation with no brothers) could not inherit.
Let’s analyse their situation.
1. They would appear to be unmarried. When their father died they inherited from him. The inheritance was theirs, and no one else’s. Had they not married the inheritance was theirs to use until the day they died, then it would revert to other relatives in their tribe.
2. If they married within their tribe. Then their inheritance would stay within their family, together with the inheritance that the man brought with him, from his family. Their children would benefit from BOTH inheritances, the inheritance of the father, AND the inheritance of the mother – a ‘double portion’. That is the point I am making, in those circumstances the inheritance would pass through the female line as well as the husband retaining his inheritance.
3. If they married outside the tribe, then yes, their inheritance would not go with them, it would remain within the tribe, and the couple would inherit whatever was passed down to the husband from his side of the family, as per the normal rules of inheritance.
The basic point I am making is that there were situations, as in point 2 above, where the family inheritance was passed down through the female line. I am also suggesting that in principle this too could apply to the line of succession of the kings, in certain circumstances.
Questeruk wrote on June 22 @4:50am, However, that is different to saying that the daughter’s of Zelophehad (or any other family in their situation with no brothers) could not inherit.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I said something along that line. Would you point the timestamp of the comment where you think I said that. No one is saying that Zelophehad's daughters could not inherit the land given their situation. In a previous post, I quoted Num 27:1-11. This chapter is where most people stop. They forget or ignore Num 36:2-9 which demonstrates that tribal membership is only transmitted through male descendants.
Questeruk also wrote, The basic point I am making is that there were situations, as in point 2 above, where the family inheritance was passed down through the female line. I am also suggesting that in principle this too could apply to the line of succession of the kings, in certain circumstances.
Your point 2 has already been explicitly mentioned in my previous quote of Num 36:8-9 (And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers.)
Land inheritance is different from royal succession. The situation of Zelophehad's daughters existed only to ensure that tribal land did not transfer into the possession of another tribe before that land was allocated. (If the phrase 'before that land was allocated' raised a red flag to you, please read Num 36:2-4 which I also quoted. Do you notice the concerns of the elders that the land would not revert to their tribe even on the Jubilee?) Also, Zelophehad was not a king.
The example of Jehosheba demonstrates that a princess is never included in the line of succession. If she was, Athaliah would have included her, and her children, if any, in the purge. Athaliah killed all (she thought) the royal heirs, (knowingly) leaving Jehosheba alive.
The curse on Jeconiah prevented his sons from sitting on the throne. The curse was explicit, 'no man of his seed'. Nowhere is said that her daughters, if any, took possession of the throne.
Jeconiah's successor was his uncle. This demonstrates that the line can go up, it's not always downward, until it finds a close legitimate male member of the house of David and Solomon.
The following is not related to our topic. It's just food for thought for a quester from UK ...
If you check the interlinear of Gen 2:23 (click the link on my previous post), and click the Strong's H120 for Adam. The listed meaning of Adam is man or mankind. Some explain that prior to this verse, Adam was not male or female. Only after a 'bone/substance/self' was taken from him to form Eve that he became a 'man' (Heb ish).
Also, click H127. Man/Adam was created from the ground (Heb adamah). This is an example of Hebrew word pun, a characteristic of Tanakh to help Israelites remember what they were hearing.
Shalom
Questeruk wrote, 3. If they married outside the tribe, then yes, their inheritance would not go with them,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed that there is a problem with your 3rd point. Please read again Num 36:2-9 which is opposite of what you are saying.
Again, Zelophehad's daughters inherited the land because Zelophehad died without a son. That inherited land goes with the daughters whether they marry within the tribe or outside the tribe. The concerns of the elders were IF they marry outside of the tribe, the land would then be under the tribe of their husbands (to simplify, let's just call it an all or nothing, meaning either all of them marry within, or all of them marry outside).
Example ... If the 5 daughters marry 5 men from the tribe of Dan, their land, which originally part of the tribe of Manasseh, would now be part of the tribe of Dan. The concern of the elders was such land would not even revert to Manasseh come Jubilee.
Num 36:3-4 Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”
They were not yet settled in the Promised Land.
Lev 25:25,28 If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, ... But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession.
Let's not go deep in the Jubilee thing.
Below is a quick presentation for the continuance of the Davidic line through Jehoiachin:
ReplyDeleteJer 52:31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of JEHOIACHIN KING OF JUDAH, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of JEHOIACHIN KING OF JUDAH, and brought him forth out of prison,
Like Elijah’s small cloud, the released of Jehoiachin KING OF JUDAH (mentioned twice) provides hope for the future of the Davidic line.
Jer 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, HE AND HIS SEED, AND ARE CAST INTO A LAND WHICH THEY KNOW NOT?
Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for NO MAN OF HIS SEED SHALL PROSPER, sitting upon the throne of David, AND RULING ANY MORE IN JUDAH.
It is suggested the “seed” could refer to those born “in the land of Israel,” not to the “seed” born in Babylon.
"As I Live - Yahweh's word - Coniah ben Jehoiakim king of Judah shall not be the signet ring on my right hand. Yes, Coniah, I will pull you off" (Jeremiah 22: 24, translation by J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, p.482).
“And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them” (Hag 2:22).
“In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, WILL I TAKE [LQH] THEE, O Zerubbabel, MY SERVANT, the SON OF SHEALTIEL, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I HAVE CHOSEN [BHR] THEE, saith the LORD of hosts” (Hag 2:23).
1Ch 3:17 The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son,
1Ch 3:18 Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah.
1Ch 3:19 The sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei
2Sa 7:8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto MY SERVANT David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I TOOK (LGH) THEE from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
2Sa 6:21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which CHOSE [BHR] ME before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel:
Phinehas through his zeal for the Lord was rewarded with an eternal priesthood. Solomon built the First Temple and was rewarded with a permanent dynasty.
Zerubbabel for his part in building the Second Temple was rewarded with the Davidic line being continuing through him, and his descendant the greater son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, the Messiah being his descendant who will reinstitute “the throne of David/the Lord” (1 Chr 29:23).
If the “seed” referred to those born before the exile and after the exile, God reverses the sentence on Jeconiah as a reward for Zerubbabel’s part in building the Temple.
The future son of Solomon and Zerubbabel (legal line) will build the Third Temple, after the day of the Lord.
The sons [ben] of David (Jer 33:21) will not be ruling anymore in Judah alone, but in the United Kingdom of twelve tribes - no longer two nations but one nation (cp. Jer 33:17; Eze 37:22).
“In that day” (Hag 2:22).
“In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. (Jer 33:15).
Jeremiah 33:15- 26 is a prophecy for the Millennium (contra British Israelism).
Anon June23 @3:30am,
ReplyDeleteHow do we reconcile Jer 22:30 and Hag 2:23?
Jer 22:30 (JPS) Thus saith YHVH: Write ye this man childless, A man that shall not prosper in his days; For no man (Heb ish) of his seed (Heb zera, H2233) shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, And ruling any more in Judah.
Hag 2:23 ‘In that day,’ says YHVH of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says YHVH, ‘and will make you like a signet ring (Heb chotham, H2368); for I have chosen you,’ says YHVH of hosts.”
Both the above verses have "says YHVH". We know that what goes out from God's mouth, it shall not return empty (Isa 55:11).
Regarding Jer 52:31, if you read until the end of the book, nothing is mentioned about Jeconiah's son succeeding him. Although his great grandson Zerubbabel was faithful to God, he was unable to sit on the throne. He was a governor (Hag 2:20-21), not a king.
Were kings the only ones who had signet [rings]? No. Judah had one which was one of the items the disguised Tamar asked him as pledge (Gen 38:18). Other officials had signet rings. Click Bulla. Here's an excerpt from the Bulla link:
The seal impression, dated to the First Temple period, features the words: “(belonging) to Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King” (LeNathan-Melech Eved HaMelech). The name Nathan-Melech appears once in the Bible, in the second book of Kings 23:11, where he is described as an official in the court of King Josiah, who took part in the religious reform that the king was implementing: “And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-Melech the officer, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.”
The title “Servant of the King” (Eved HaMelech) appears often in the Bible to describe a high-ranking official close to the king.
Sons of Zadok
The valley of dry bones prophecy is in Ezekiel 37. The next 2 chapters are about gog's attack and destruction. From Ezekiel 40, the blueprint of the Third/Ezekiel's Temple is given. These chapters are still in the future. Another indication of the messianic fulfillment is the special role that the sons of Zadok will have which never happened in the past Temples (Eze 44:10-16). The other sons of Aaron will be relegated to gatekeeper duties. Only the sons of Zadok will come near to YHVH. Eze 40:45-46 describes two chambers for the priests - one of which is for the sons of Zadok only. (See Ezra 7:1-5)