A Company of Nations
One of the linchpins of Herbert Armstrong's identification of the United States and Great Britain as the modern manifestations of Israel is found in the thirty-fifth chapter of the book of Genesis. The "prooftext" reads as follows: "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins..." (Genesis 35:11, KJV) For Armstrong, "a nation" implied the single greatest nation in the history of the earth (the United States), and "a company of nations" suggested a great commonwealth of nations led by Great Britain. For him and his followers, those promises could never have been fulfilled by any other nations in the history of the world!
Indeed, this verse continues to be the foundational "prooftext" for the Armstrong Churches of God up to the present day. In their article Does the United States Appear in Bible Prophecy?, the United Church of God underscores the fact that: "God specifically told Jacob that through him would come 'a nation and a company of nations' (Genesis 35:11)." They go on to point out that "The promise of national expansion beyond Canaan into a great nation and company of nations was never fulfilled in biblical times by the Israelites." According to the article, this promise devolved onto the two sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh; and they go on to reference the forty-eighth chapter of Genesis (verse 19) to prove it. They conclude: "Descended from Ephraim was the group of nations that formed out of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, the British Empire...Out of this power came the British-descended countries of the Commonwealth of Nations—Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand." What of Manasseh? They conclude: "From Manasseh came the great single nation. Its people dwelt with the Ephraimites in Great Britain until it was time for their separation through westward colonization and a war for independence—the American Revolution, by which came the formation of the United States."
For the sake of this argument, we will overlook the license which they employ in their interpretation of greatness, and their complete dismissal of the fact that God's promises to the patriarchs were clearly tied to a particular piece of real estate in the Middle East (see Genesis 15). Instead, we will focus on those all important phrases in United's principal prooftexts (Genesis 35:11 and 48:19): "a company of nations" and "a multitude of nations" respectively.
First, it should be noted that these promises are directly/purposefully associated in Scripture with God's promises to make Abraham "fruitful" and to "multiply" him. In other words, whatever these promises entail, they are intimately connected to God's promise to make Abraham's descendants like the stars in the sky or the sands on the seashore in numbers.
Now, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word translated into English as "company" is "qahel" - meaning "assembly, company, congregation, convocation" (especially in a religious context). In similar fashion, the same source informs us that the Hebrew word translated into English as "multitude" is "melo" - meaning "fulness, handful, mass, multitude." In both cases, the English word "nations" is a translation of a Hebrew word that means nations or peoples (especially Gentile ones). Hence, to suggest that the original Hebrew predicts a "commonwealth of nations" frankly stretches linguistic credibility to the breaking point!
In fact, the sense of the original Hebrew wording suggests an assembly of folks from all of the kindreds of the earth. In other words, the language used in these passages once again points to these promises finding their ultimate fulfillment in and through the Messiah (tying it back into the promise that all of the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham). Indeed, the English word "commonwealth" suggests a republic or a collection of republics - a much more narrowly defined connotation than that implied by the original Hebrew in these verses.
Is it possible then that these verses refer to Israel and all of the other peoples of the earth who will be saved through Jesus Christ? In fact, isn't that interpretation much more plausible than suggesting that the United States and British Commonwealth are the modern manifestations of Manasseh and Ephraim (especially in light of all of the historical, linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence which refutes such a conclusion)? Don't we really have to stretch the language in these verses (and their context) to make them identify the U.S. and Britain as Israel?
Lonnie Hendrix
20 comments:
But I thought that the USA was a "Nation of Companies" , hence the existence of Wall Street! :-)
In ancient Israel, Manasseh has the largest land area, and the name Ephraim is sometimes used to refer to the Northern Tribes collectively. Hence, a "great nation" and a "company of nations".
Similarly, Rehoboam was allocated Judah and Benjamin, assimilating members of the Northern Tribes who fled south in later years, and was collectively named Judah.
That the union of Semitic Joseph and the Egyptian daughter of an Egyptian Hamitic cultic priest produced Ephraim and Manasseh whose offspring morfed into the Anglo Saxons is quite bizarre. And that they became a great nation and company of nations, Britian and the US and commonwealth even more so and shows an utter misunderstanding of scripture. It’s on the same level as the commonality held belief that Russia is Meshech Gog Magog. Devoid of evidence, factually inaccurate and what one would expect from the low level scholarship of Armstrongism. Found these sources:
The British-Israel Myth-Over-blog kiwi
http://www.losttribesofisraelmyth.com/
Enjoy.
Miller, you wrote "their complete dismissal of the fact that God's promises to the patriarchs were clearly tied to a particular piece of real estate in the Middle East"
I think your point above is important and I would like to expand on it. The JPS Tanakh translation states the following qualification on this promise as it was passed to Jacob:
"The land I assigned to Abraham and Isaac
I assign to you;
And to your offspring to come
Will I assign the land."
This connects the promise to a geographic setting - not only for that time but for all their offspring throughout history. I am not sure what land is meant here. At its largest extent I think it would be "greater Israel": from the river of Egypt (Nile) to the Euphrates as stated in Genesis 15:18. The implication of the contiguous allocation of land is that God foresees Israel living not in diaspora but united around Jerusalem. Note that this geographic qualification is an "assignment" not a notion.
It is clear that God does not see a diaspora as a blessing. Just the opposite. Deut 30:3 states:
"That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee."
The "great nation, indeed a company of nations" is to happen within Eretz Yisrael. What this means is that God's blessing does not support the idea of a scattered collection of nations. That does not align with the concept of blessing as God pronounces it. The BI theory simply does not conform to God's promise. Britain was a great Gentile nation that colonized many geographic regions and plundered them. At the same time they helped build institutions in those nations - principally to make their management task easier. Britains influence was not wholly bad.
I was in the London Museum years ago looking at the Rosetta Stone and then it occurred to me that the Brits had this stone and it did not belong to them. It is from the heritage of another nation. A WCG church member reminded that the Brits systematically plundered their colonies.
Israel was to live in the Middle East around Jerusalem and be a blessing to other nations. It was not supposed to have populations dispersed around the world and be an oppressor of other nations like the Gentile British. Many Gentile nations did this - Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy, Russia, France. Anyone who could build a boat.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO @ 7:20 PM, nailed it.
Ask any BI advocate when did the Anglo Saxons revert from writing right to left to left to right and one is met by a blank look.It seems impossible to believe that a group of educated peopled with a writern language forgot how to write as they travelled to Europe after the 'Assyrian' invasion.And where is the writern hebrew record of this. For the Jews never lost their hebrew after 2000 years in exile.
Gamaliels advice to the leaders was that if this was of God it would not be defeated, but if this group were merely from men it will fade ( the Church ). As one looks at the COG and their BI doctrines we see them slowly but surely dying. Perhaps that is because BI is but from men, a foundation of sand and the COG has forgotten Christ the Foundation Stone. Lots of good sources available online about 'company of Nations' etc etc.
It was noted that:
“That the union of Semitic Joseph and the Egyptian daughter of an Egyptian Hamitic cultic priest...”
Can it be proven that Asenath was Hamitic?
Cleopatra was Egyptian but she was of Greek ethnicity, not Hamatic:
“While Cleopatra was born in Egypt, she traced her family origins to Macedonian Greece and Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander the Great’s generals. Ptolemy took the reigns of Egypt after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., and he launched a dynasty of Greek-speaking rulers that lasted for nearly three centuries. Despite not being ethnically Egyptian, Cleopatra embraced many of her country’s ancient customs and was the first member of the Ptolemaic line to learn the Egyptian language” (history.com/news/10-little-known-facts-about-cleopatra).
“There are numerous examples of Semites rising to positions of great authority in Egypt from the Middle Kingdom [2040-1782 BC], Hyksos, and New Kingdom periods” (Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC, p.395).
If a ruler can be Egyptian and not be Hamatic, could a priest of the sun-god be Egyptian and also not be hamatic?
Anon @ 8:32 PM
Good points raised.
Can it be proven that Asenath was Hamitic? Well no it cannot.
Like BI, lol. Listening to a debate on BI a is like listening to a broken record or a parliamentary discourse. Lots of wind and noise, facts be damned; but at the end of the day me thinks the arguments against have greater resonance and value.
A casual reading of the promises made to Abraham and history tells me that BI is true. Plus the many hard to explain coincidences that look very much like miracles. For instance, the Vikings attacking England days before William the conqueror's invasion, gave him the edge in defeating his opponents. This conquest raised the genetic stock of the nation. The "miracle of Midway" which protected Australia from the Japs. The commander of the torpedo planes disobeyed orders by attacking the Japanese fleet. This attack distracted the zero planes, which enabled the lost dive bombers to successfully sink three aircraft carriers in five minutes.
Btw, there were BI societies in Britain before HWA was born, and was an official doctrine of the Anglican church at that time.
According to Armstrongism, physical Israel will follow spiritual Israel. Meaning that the USA will splinter and become a has-been world power, just like Herbs church. No doubt the dissidents here have their thinking hats on trying to explain away this as well.
Anonymous (10:00), you wrote "A casual reading of the promises made to Abraham and history tells me that BI is true."
The problem is that most BI proponents in the Armstrongist realm have just a "casual" knowledge. Fortuitous circumstances do not amout to a proof of BI. Ancecdotes and notions do not trump science. A faculty member at AC/BS wrote a book that consisted of fortuitous circumstances from the perspective of the British, of course. Other faculty members immediately pointed out that the work was anecdotal and did not rise to the level of proof.
I was there.
Genetics, for instance, is neither anecdotal nor notional nor is it intuitive. But it is science and it demonstrates to the reasonable mind that the Brits and the Jews are unrelated peoples. I don't mean different branches of the same people. I mean the genetic difference between them is great. Native Americans are much more closely related to Brits than Jews are - to give you the picture. That is counter-intuitive but DNA does not have political interests or fund-raising interests or religious interests or racist views.
If some theory sounds good, feels good, is appealing or can be supported by a tendentious interpretations of history, that alone does not amount to proof. This world is ruled by what Paul calls "thrones, principalities and powers." I believe we can expect to see events that are non-random as spirits that rule the nations contend with eachother. None of this trumps science.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
A NATION AND A COMPANY OF NATIONS. THAT MUST BE THE USSR, RUSSIA AND THE SATELLITE NATIONS OF EASTERN EUROPE.
12.55 PM
Try reading the Genesis's description of a nation and company of nations. Did God bless those who blessed the USSR and curse those who cursed the USSR?
Anonymous (7:07)
In this world nations do not bless other nations. That is as fictional as Manifest Destiny. Nations follow self-interested political agendas. If some good accrues to a colonized nation it is generally happenstance. A more advanced nation colonizes a less advanced nation, for instance, and some technology will inevitably migrate from the more advanced to the less advanced nation in the process of exploitation. This is not a great mystical phenonmenon. The Brits did a lot of evil in all the places they went. Just think, for a moment, of how they treated the Scots and the Irish - kindred peoples on their doorstep.
This statement from a Lowland newspaper dating from the time of the Highland Clearances I believe captures the British view nicely:
"Ethnologically the Celtic race is an inferior one and, attempt to disguise it as we may, there is ... no getting rid of the great cosmical fact that it is destined to give way ... before the higher capabilities of the Anglo-Saxon."
I cite the Irish/Scottish history because you may be able to relate to that. If I were to cite the African or Indian situation you might well dismiss it. Armstrongism conduces to racial snobbery.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
It’s also very sad that these “ministers” in these splinter GOG groups also use the “physical birthright blessings” out of context in the New Testament to fit their narrative.
Galatians 3:8-9 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
In this context, Paul here clearly referenced Genesis 12:3 “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” and he was addressing Non Israelites and he was referring to the spiritual blessings within the New Covenant.
The COG splinter groups use the, “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” phrase OUT OF CONTEXT designating it to the physical Israelite nations helping other nations physically nearly two millennia later.
For instance a minister used to talk about how the US and Britain would give aide to India during the famine. But totally ignoring how Britain colonized India and took their resources. It’s sad. But they are the peacemakers, meek or the merciful stuck in the old covenant.
NEO writes:
“The Brits did a lot of evil in all the places they went. Just think, for a moment, of how they treated the Scots...”
From projectbritain.com/nationality.htm:
“Many people think that 'English' is the same as 'British'. It is not!...
England is only one of the three countries in Britain (Scotland, England and Wales)...
“Most white people born in Great Britain, although British citizens, do not regard themselves as British and prefer to state their national identity as English, Scottish or Welsh.
“People born in Scotland are called Scottish or British and can say that they live in Scotland, Britain and/or the UK. Most people in Scotland will say they are Scottish rather than British.”
According to BI, ‘Ephraim’ = England.
Working relationship - Judah/Joseph and Scotland/England
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).
Lonnie Hendrix asked: "Is it possible then that these verses refer to Israel and all of the other peoples of the earth who will be saved through Jesus Christ?"
******
Yes, God the Father, by His Spirit, through His Son Jesus Christ (and not Doug Winnails' 'another Jesus'), our Passover sacrificed for us, is going to save all mankind, including Israel, and subsequently destroy Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41, 46; 2 Peter 2:12; Heb 2:14, etc).
Israel, plus all of the remaining Nations, will compose all families as specified in the following words promised to Abram, before Abram did anything to impress God Almighty:
Genesis 12:2-3 "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
God the Father (Deut 32:40; Isaiah 64:8; Acts 3:13), the God of the old testament, will save all families and not lose one.
If not known sooner by all peoples and all nations, this will be abundantly evident in the Great Last Day, the 8th Day, the fulfillment of God's 7th annual Holyday, and also pictured by every Sabbath day of rest, but...
Time will tell...
John
While God is the God of the Old and New Testament, He was not the God-being that interacted ‘dynamically’ with human-beings in the Old Testament.
Jn 20:17b I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
This is the pattern for the NT. God and Jesus Christ are both God but it was Jesus Christ who interacted ‘dynamically’ with human beings in the NT
In the OT God and His Angel were both God.
Ge 48:15 And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
Ge 48:16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads;
In the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob addresses God in v.15, and in v.16 clarifies which God-being he is speaking to.
Ge 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed [yakol] not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Ge 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Ge 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Hosea clarifies which God-being Jacob wrestled with and saw “face to face”:
Hos 12:3b and by his strength he had power with God:
Hos 12:4a Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed [yakol]:
Hos 12:4b he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Beth-el, and there he spake with us;
Hos 12:5 Even the LORD God of hosts; the LORD is his memorial.
The God-being that appeared to Moses and led Israel was also the Angel of the Lord:
Ac 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
Ac 7:31b ... the voice of the Lord came unto him,
Ac 7:32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
This is the angel of the covenant, now known as Jesus Christ:
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger [angel] of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Anon Aug 8 @4:37PM,
Based on your method of analysis in Gen 48:15-16, would you say that Satan is also YHVH?
2 Samuel 24:1-2 Again the anger of YHVH was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” So the king said to Joab the commander of the army who was with him, “Now go throughout all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and count the people, that I may know the number of the people.”
1 Chronicles 21:1-2 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, “Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it.”
Satan is an angel. The word angel is translated from the Hebrew malak meaning a messenger to whom God has entrusted a specific mission. Any words or actions of a malak are as if YHVH was the one uttering or doing it.
Isa 45:21 (NLT), Consult together, argue your case. Get together and decide what to say. Who made these things known so long ago? What idol ever told you they would happen? Was it not I, YHVH? For there is no other Elohim but me, a righteous God [El-Tsaddiq] and Savior. There is none but me.
8:49 Methinks you’re taking 4:37’s analysis out of context. Satan is nowhere referred to in Scripture as an or the Angel of the Lord. Paul states Satan can transform himself to appear as if he is an angel, but he is not. And to equate YHWH with Satan is wrong pure and simple.
Anon 8/10 @6:30am,
Read again what I wrote. I've questioned his method of analysis. If he cannot apply the same method in 2 Sam 24:1-2 and 1 Chr 21:1-2, his analysis of Gen 48:15-16 is immediately dubious. He's applying such method selectively, only on what can support his christology.
MALAK YHVH (ANGEL OF YHVH)
Haggai 1:13 Haggai is described as 'malak YHVH' (Angel/Messenger of YHVH).
Mal 2:7 The priest is described as 'malak YHVH' (Angel/Messenger of YHVH).
Any words or actions of a malak, in the performance of YHVH's divine will, are as if YHVH was the one uttering or doing it.
SATAN
Nowhere in Tanakh, Genesis to Malachi, is Satan mentioned as a rebellious, fallen angel who is out to overthrow God. On the contrary, he is always presented as one who is in submission to the will of God. The OT comprises more than 76% of the Christian bible yet mentions only the angel Satan in 4 places - 1 Chronicles 21:1, Zechariah 3:1-2, Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-7. He is portrayed either as an agent of God, man's accuser or prosecutor. He is designed and created as such. Like all the other angels, he doesn't have free will. Angels are messengers (from Hebrew malak) of God who carry out His divine will. Aside from being a name, the word satan can be a noun or adjective that is translated adversary when referring to a man or an angel opposing someone (Numbers 22:22, 1 Kings 5:4, 11:14, 23, 25).
Great Post John;
Genesis 12:2-3 "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
God the Father (Deut 32:40; Isaiah 64:8; Acts 3:13), the God of the old testament, will save all families and not lose one.
If not known sooner by all peoples and all nations, this will be abundantly evident in the Great Last Day, the 8th Day, the fulfillment of God's 7th annual Holyday, and also pictured by every Sabbath day of rest, but...
------------------------------------------------------------------
And as of right now anyone who is converted is of Israel, no matter what your ethnic background. For Paul wrote:
Romans 9:8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. (NIV)
And this coincides with Gal 3:8-9. I think its amazing you tied it into the holy days.
Post a Comment