Are You an Israelite Chapters 3 & 4

Chapter 3

A friend kindly sent me a copy of a small book, "Hebrew and English—Some Likenesses Psychic and Linguistic," by J. Courtenay James, M.A., B.D., Ph.D. Its general argument is summed up in the following words: "There is a similarity perhaps difficult to define, which is more fundamental, and which constitutes a more striking argument than anything based on vocabulary alone. This argument is psychological rather than philological—it has to do with the order of mental processes rather than with syntactical construction. This is why the Hebrew Bible can be more easily and more accurately translated into English than into any other language."

The author is very wise to say "Let it be clearly stated at the beginning that there are words in English whose derivation is probably Hebrew, but these in themselves do not constitute evidence of identity. Words like camel, cherub, sack, appear to be of Semitic origin. But a few words which can be attributed to Hebrew sources in, this way really mean very little. Far longer lists of words from Greek and Latin can be easily produced, but they would not prove that the early Britons spoke Greek or Latin as their racial tongue." And we might add, would not these longer lists tend to prove that there was a strong psychic affinity between the British and those who created the Latin and Greek tongues?

The author is also to be commended for stating that "ex cathedra statements on the relation between Hebrew and English must be read with caution." Statements that English is based upon Hebrew "all lack scientific confirmation." His book makes "no attempt to demonstrate the racial descent of the Anglo-Saxon people from the Ten Tribes of Israel," but his purpose is rather "to indicate certain modes of thought and forms of expression characteristic of both Ancient Hebrew and later Celto-Saxon based on psychic and linguistic data. This is not a proof of identity of origin, but in its way and measure it is a supporting probability." The author aims at "considering mind-similarities rather than verbal identities and structural likenesses." He is correct in saying that the Hebrew language was not adapted to the expression of abstract ideas, and that the Hebraic mind did not wander away upon imaginary conditions, nor exhaust itself in academic theories. "It employed language as the medium for revealing deep emotion in regard to the real factors of human life." The Hebrew mind did not go in for mere theory. "The realism of the Biblical writers is a fact to be noted." In his book, "The Language of Palestine" (1920) the same author states the mental differences of the Hebrew and the Greek races. "The Semite is a poet and word painter, not a logician and scientist; a free chronicler, not an expert historian. . . . The Greek is philosophic, precise, finished; he seeks to convince, and strives after literary effect. . .. In general it may be said that the Semitic language is psychologically correct; Greek is mechanically exact." Greek was philosophic and academic; the Semite was imaginative and pictorial. Greek was deductive; Semitic was intuitive. Hebrew sentences are "made up of a succession of co-ordinate propositions, a disregard of particles, and inconsequent phrases expressing emotion." The Semite was "impulsive rather than deliberative, poetical and symbolical rather than logical and dialectical." Such people must "vivify every object of nature, and every object thus endowed with life is regarded as male or female. The absolutely impersonal, the real neuter, is inevitably excluded."

"Nothing was indifferent or neutral." "The Semite was instinctively theistic, and the Deity cannot be neutral; the Aryan, was materialistic or hyloistic, and to him things real or possible could be neutral." Again, "the scientific element failed the Hebrew author completely."

Dr. James' objective appears to be to prove that the British race is really Israel. If so, he does not appear to possess the true Hebraic mind or mentality. It is no congenial task for us to have to castigate anyone for his attitude toward the Sacred Scriptures. But "The Differentiator" is devoted to reverent research of the Sacred Scriptures, and naturally we find it difficult to endorse the opinions of one who calls in question, and criticizes the veracity of the Scriptures. We do not believe the account of the Tower of Babel is "mythological" or merely "symbolical." Nor do we believe Gen. 11:1 "has no historical value." Nor do we doubt the historical character of the "Abraham story." That the later writings of the Old Testament "were composed in a degenerate type of Hebrew," is not what one would expect from a true "Israelite." King Alfred's English of over one thousand years ago is quite unreadable today to ordinary British people. But the latest writings of the Hebrew Old Testament shew extraordinarily little difference in any way from the language of the oldest parts. How can anyone be a real British-Israelite scholar when, he writes that "The Jacob-Israel story (Gen. 32:28-30) probably preserves a certain element of historical reality"? In a chapter upon, "The Semitic Mind" the same writer informs us that "The English translation, of the Bible not only equals, but if anything it excels the original." Why then have so many sought to "correct" and improve upon, this English Bible? Why have the latest revisions been made?

As some encouragement to British-Israelites to look to the English language for proof of descent from ancient Israel, Dr. James produces a list of ten English words which are likened to ten, Hebrew words which have fairly similar meanings and consonants. These "English" words are, Stem, Nitre, Cable, Harass, Skill, Flit, Simile, Measure, Paradise, and Mystery. Of these, only two are native English words, Flit and Stem (originally staefn, or stemn), while Skill is Scandinavian. All the others are from Latin or Greek, or Old French, or Arabic (Nitre) or Persian, (Paradise). Such an argument only weakens the case for British-Israel.

All the natural languages in the world are derived from Babel. Every language has lost certain, conants in, its words, due to lip-shape, food, climate and temperature, height above the sea, invasions, etc. Hebrew is not the original tongue of mankind, or the intuitive speech of Adam before the fell. Hebrew preserves the debris of its original condition. It could no more retain its original form than, the Hebrew race could remain, free of sin.

In some respects modern English is more ancient than the most ancient Hebrew we know. Does this prove that the original Hebrews were descended from an ancient British or English race?
Few books deal with the etymology or word-origins of the Hebrew language. It is not easy to find direct connections between many Hebrew words and English words. Yet there is clear proof that English preserves to this day the sound of the letter W which was lost in many cases in the Hebrew of 3,590 years ago and became lost also i1it Greek a few centuries B.C. In the following examples we shall spell Hebrew words minus their modern vowel pointings.

Ido (to know) was originally wido, corresponding to our wit; German, wissen; Greek oida (originally wida). Iin (sounded now as yayin,; our win,e) was originally win (sounded wayin); the Greek being oinos (originally winos). Ill was probably originally wll, our Wail, howl. Ilk and elk (yalak and halak, very common words, meaning to go or walk) were probably originally wlk (walak). Skeat is obliged to derive our word walk from a root, meaning to roll, or toss oneself about but this is very unsatisfactory. Ird (to descend), was originally wird, corresponding to our wort, root, wurzel; Greek riza (originally wriza); Latin radix, Welsh gwreiddyn. Roots are descenders. Iol was probably wol,originally, meaning to benefit, corresponding to our weal, well.
There is clear historical proof that the sound of W (or V) died out of Greek. There is just as clear evidence that an initial W or V died out of Hebrew and was replaced by the weak sound of the Yod (I). This is proved through words such as ird (yarad; descend) forming their nouns with a U (representing a W), as murd. There are many cases like this. Further, it is known, that the word Hayah (eie, to become) was originally Havah (eue), from which comes the great name Jehovah, or Ieue.

According to Gen. 11:1, after the Flood all the earth had one lip and one set of words. We read that Jehovah came down to confound their "lip" and scatter them over the earth. The confusion of tongues was furthered by tribes becoming separated by rivers and mountains, also by the variations in weather and the seasons which commenced with the Flood. For example, the lips of a mountaineer utter rougher and fuller sounds than one who lives near sea level. Climate has a great deal to do with speech. All races use the sounds which come easiest to their lips and avoid those which are difficult or more laborious.

Our argument is that the modern British people possess lips well adapted to form the sounds of W and V, whereas the ancient Hebrews had lips which avoided these letters. Physically therefore this is one more difference between them.

Phrenology also furnishes evidence that the modern Hebrew has a head quite different from the British type. A well known. English phrenologist, who had examined 100,000 heads, stated that "The Jewish head is just as distinct as is the Hebrew physiognomy. It matters little as to the country he inhabits, the Jew retains his own distinctive mental characteristics, his shape of head, and his physiognomy." It is really absurd for anyone to argue that any considerable physical difference between the recognized "Jews" in the world and British "Israelites" is permissible. If they are all sons of Jacob, there ought to be great similarity between them. The phrenologist attributes to the Jews great intuition, which gives them a keen penetrating insight into character and motives, so that they are apt at summing up others. This enables them to personate others and become good actors. They are expert at foreseeing the future and forestalling the future. The properties summed up in the name "Jacob" they have not by any means lost—taking others by the heel, furtiveness, circumventing others, or following others close for a purpose. This last seems to be the root meaning of the name, the heels or footsteps following (or read, "the footsteps following close," and omit "heels") close, often with an ulterior motive. On the other hand the Jew is said to lack concentrativeness. Not only is the Hebrew nose usually prominent, but from the root of the nose upwards to the top of the brow there is a fulness or decided development, not seen in others, and quite different from the British.

If the Jew is really a brother of the British, it is extraordinary that he is so totally and fixedly different from the British people in physical and mental characteristics. What is more, the Jews in Britain are not treated as brothers by the British, nor do they look On the British as brothers.
To sum up, it may be stated without any fear of disproof that the British people are almost as different as they could be either from the ancient Israelites or the modern Israelites. Only wishful thinking can make a British person an Israelite. When the "proofs" of a theory are based upon undocumented traditions, and cannot be discovered within the Sacred Writings, it is evident that 2. Tim. 4:3-4 is being fulfilled:—"For there will be a season when they will not be tolerating the health-giving teaching, but on thecontrary, in accord with their own over-desires they will accumulate for themselves teachers, getting theirhearing tickled; and indeed, from the truth theywill be turning away their hearing, yet to the myths they will get turned aside." This season is now with us.

Chapter 4So far we have dealt mainly with physical and linguistic features. It is necessary now to turn to the direct scriptural statements regarding Judah and Israel. Much useful information may be obtained from a 40 page article in "Unsearchable Riches," January, 1936, compiled from information submitted by a number of associates, entitled "Refuse the Refuse, Anglo-Israelism." This shews that the name Israel belongs to all the sons of Jacob and his race when viewed from the spiritual standpoint. Before the split between the tribes, the expression "House of Israel" is used of the entire nation, including Judah, thirteen times.

At Peniel the name Israel was the spiritual designation given to Jacob, and applied to all his descendants, even though it was restricted temporarily to the ten tribes. Yet so many of the ten tribes who kept on fearing God joined themselves to Judah that the name Judah came to be associated with religious Israelites of any tribe.

The following is a concordant rendering of 2. Chron. 11:13, 14, 16, 17 and 15:9—"And the priests and the Levites who were in all Israel took their stand by him (Rehoboam) out of all their boundary. For the Levites forsook their cattle commons and their holdings and went to Judah and Jerusalem, for Jeroboam and his sons cast them off from being priests to Jehovah. And after them, out of all the tribes of Israel, those giving their heart to seek Jehovah God of Israel, entered Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jehovah, God of their fathers. And they are holding fast the kingdom of Judah. . . .. And he is gathering together all Judah and Benjamin and the sojourners with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh and out of Simeon, for they fell unto him from Israel in great numbers, when they saw that Jehovah his God was with him."

According to 2. Chron. 30, Hezekiah sent to "all Israel and Judah" and then made a proclamation throughout the whole land of Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, after the removal to Assyria, so that all might come to Jehovah's house in Jerusalem, to make passover to their God. Letters were also sent specially to Ephraim and Manasseh by couriers. This means that Israelites were to be found everywhere in the land.

The 6th chapter of Ezra shews that many of the Israelites returned from Assyria to their land. One of the publications of The Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd. (London) states that the Ten Tribes of Israel "never returned to Palestine," but became "concealed and unrecognized." Yet Scripture knows nothing of lost tribes. The Lord said He was only sent unto the sheep, those which had got lost, of "Israel's House" (Matt. 15:24). Yet as He never moved out of the Land, those lost sheep must have been in it.

Thirty years ago a woman who came into the office in which I was employed informed me over the counter that she and I were Israelites. We belonged to the lost sheep. When I told her that in the second of Acts Peter addresses the foreign Jews assembled in Jerusalem as "Men! Judeans!" (v. 14), then "Men! Israelites!" (v. 22), and finally addresses the very same people in these words, "Let all Israel's House know certainly. . . . ." (v. 36), the cold logic of Scripture was too strong for her and she departed in great wrath.

This passage, however, is never referred to in the publications of the British-Israel people.
The same publication I have referred to (British-Israel Facts not Fancies) states in a Foreword by one styled The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of the Falkland Islands, that "Israel had nothing to do with the Crucifixion of Christ." Of course, it would never do for ancient Britannia to have crucified the Lord. Because, if Britain is not Israel, the same high personage states that Britain will lose all they have got, "and God has been playing with us, for WE hold all that Israel is supposed to hold." Further," if we are not Israel, we shall have to give it all up, and even the Coronation stone itself."

Here lies the root of almost every heresy—greed and wishful thinking. The same held true in Eden. The ancient Scottish Coronation stone becomes far more valuable than the spiritual blessings of the Ephesian epistle. Skene, the Scottish historian of last century, has shewn that it was no part of Scottish legend that the stone was Jacob's pillow. English chroniclers added this fable after the English stole the stone from Scotland in the year 1296. Baldred Bisset, one of the commissioners sent to Rome to plead the cause of Scotland's independence before the Pope, in the year 1301 compiled the legend that Scota, daughter of Pharao, King of Egypt, went to Ireland, then to Pictland, the modern Scotland.

It is one thousand times more easy to invent a fable than to arrive at accurate, documented, historical facts. The Stone, of a dull reddish or purplish sandstone, with a few small pebbles embedded, belongs, according to Skene, to Scone (or Skuyn) in central Scotland. He says all the legends attached to it are "but myth and fable."

Israel had a great deal to do with the Crucifixion. We do not find this in myth or fable, but at Acts 4:27, which tells us that there were assembled against the Messiah, Herod, Pontius Pilate, "together with Gentiles and peoples of Israel." Not one word about Jews as such.
If the British people are Israel, they crucified the King of Glory, and must, accordingly, pass through the Great Tribulation. Nathaniel avers, "THOU King art of Israel" (John 1:49), while the throng welcomes the Lord entering Jerusalem as "The King of Israel" (John 12:13). Now this seems a very strange thing for these people to admit, if the real Israel at that time lived in ancient Britain. The Lord came to His own, but His own did not receive Him. Was that because they were many hundreds of miles away and had never heard of Him? And why, in Acts 2:9-11 is there no mention of returned Israelites from Britain?

Much has been made of the reported statement of Professor Totten of Yale University: "I cannot state too strongly that the man who has not seen that Israel of the Scriptures is totally different from the Jewish people is yet in the very infancy, the mere alphabet, of Biblical study, and that to this day the meaning of seven-eighths of the Bible is shut to his understanding." But one ounce of text from Holy Writ is worth a ton of wild bombast. In the New Testament the word Israel never refers to the ten tribes, but to the entire nation. Paul himself was" out of Israel's race, of Benjamin's tribe, a Hebrew out of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5). Though a Jew, he calls himself an Israelite (Rom. 11:1). The religious Israelite came to be known as the Jew." Thus Paul was Jew, Israelite, and Hebrew. Any religious Jew could call himself all these three names.

In no chapters of the New Testament is Israel named more frequently than in Romans 9-11,—one dozen times in all. Yet most of what Paul says regarding Israel is denunciation. It was Israel that did not encounter what she sought for (11:7). If British-Israelites must sneer at the common and "totally different" Jews, as being alone guilty of the murder of Messiah, let them note that in these three chapters the Jew is mentioned twice, at 9:24, where God calls out of Jews (religious Israelites) and out of Gentiles, and 10:12, where there is no distinction of Jew as well as of Greek, as regards blessing. In other words, the Jew is called and blessed, while Israel remained all day long unyielding and gainsaying (10:21).

These three chapters alone knock the bottom out of much of the British-Israel teaching.
Few, however, will examine the evidence of the Scriptures, we fear. As Mark Kagan has so well put it, many become obsessed with this theory to the exclusion of everything else, so that everything becomes subsidiary to it, and there is no time for Christ. "The saint of God, by this teaching, is reduced to a mere earth dweller." Again, "Christians look to be caught up out of this scene, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere. The British-Israel teaching is to make the Christian settle down in this scene." Again, "to apply God's promises at the present day to a nation composed of millions of unbelievers is pure and simple apostasy."

If British-Israelites have been graffed back already into the Olive Tree, then it has not been through faith in God's Scriptures. It must have been through faith in the Pyramid and in fables.
We do not enjoy the spectacle of fine saints being duped and hoaxed by specious fabrications. How can you set your heart upon the things above, where Christ is, one sitting at God's right hand, if you are looking for a material and earthly kingdom? That is just what Israel wanted, but they had to learn that the spiritual must come first.

How can you find your way to resurrection ground, here and now in this life, in line with Phil. 3:11, if your heart is disposed to earthly and material things?

Perhaps we do not sufficiently realize the deep signification of Acts 28:28. It was not only that God's salvation (in the abstract) was sent to the Gentiles. It was not merely that the Gentiles would hear. It was God's salvation-operation or salvation-ministry (sOtErion, not the abstract sOtEria) which was being handed over into Gentile possession. We are indebted to T. S. Green for this differentiation ("Critical Notes on the N.T."). He says the word here is concrete, implying the proffered means of salvation. Not alone so, but the Gentiles were now to hear for themselves (Greek Middle Voice), quite independently of Israel. Can anyone aver that the Jews as a nation now hold lively oracles from God? This salvation-ministry is almost exclusively in the hands of Gentiles, and has to be, until the fulness of the Gentiles has entered in. History records no aggressive evangelical salvation-ministry by Israelites after the first century.

So long as Gentiles are being brought into the blessings of Paul's Gentile ministry and epistles, just so long must Israel continue in her insensibility (this word is to be preferred to callousness, which can have two meanings). That is to say, British-Israel cannot have things both ways. If they are the nation of Israel, then they must be insensible as regards God, and, as regards the gospel, the bulk of them must be inimical (Romans 11 : 28). Only as Gentiles may they enter into that profound truth of Col. 1:27, that "God wishes (or wants) to make known what are the riches of the glory of this secret among the Gentiles, which is, CHRIST AMONG YOU, THE EXPECTATION OF THE GLORY. .." That is, CHRIST AMONG THE GENTILES. This secret was concealed from the Ages gone by, yet some of the prophets may have guessed what might happen, for they must have sensed that Israel would be cast off for a season; Isaiah certainly knew, so did Moses. "Did Israel not get to know? (As) a first one, Moses is saying, ' I shall be provoking you to jealousy over what is not a nation; over a nation unable to understand shall I be making you indignant.' Yet Isaiah gets very daring and is saying, 'I was found by those not seeking Me, disclosed I became to those not enquiring for Me (or, consulting Me).'" (Romans 10:19, 20). Moses was the first one (prOtos, not prOton) to foretell Israel's apostacy. This implies that all the prophets after him must have known too.

What the prophets did not know was the quality of Gentile blessing. Christ in and among all His people, a glorious reality and expectation! Not in any single nation, but in every member of His Body, taken out of all nations.

The British-Israelites claim they have always been God's peculiar people, even though none of their ancestors were aware of the fact. But have they ever yet been provoked to jealousy by saved Gentiles (Rom. 11:11)? If not, they are still lost, the blood of Messiah is still on their heads, and they are in a state of profound insensibility as regards God and spiritual matters. These peoples, in Britain and North America, looked upon by all Gentile nations as beings the leaders of the Gentiles,—how call, they learn the Secret of a God-fearing life (1. Tim. 3:16)? For that Secret is "He who was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by angels (or messengers), heralded among Gentiles. . . ." Now if the British-Israelites have always been and still are God's peculiar people, is it not strange that Paul here excludes them altogether? Was Christ then, not heralded among Israel? Certainly; but the proclamation was productive of almost no effect beyond further apostasy.

We ought to glory ill, the fact that we are Gentiles! Once apart from Christ, alienate from the national rights of Israel, strangers as regards the covenants of the promise, having no expectation or hope, without God in the world of mankind (Eph. 2:12). Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you, the Gentiles, are become near, in the blood of Christ.

If Paul's epistles are still in force—and nothing has intervened to put them out of date—then he has neither room nor message for British-Israelites.

It was to Israel that God gave a spirit of stupor (Rom. 11:8). Yet alas, it seems to be that this spirit now lies also upon British-Israel. This is proved by the fact that British Israelites are generally quite unable to enter into the depths of Pauline truth, and indeed, the Bible has become to them a book for making clippings out of. These clippings are pasted into another book, which then forms their Bible. Here is an example: "Now if you are Christ's, consequently you are Abraham's seed" (Gal. 3:29). That means, of natural course, you must be all, Israelite! What else could you be, if you are Abraham's seed? But it is the flawless divine Greek text which upsets this rather hasty assumption. It does not say "you are THE seed of Abraham," but "of Abraham A seed (or, one seed) you are," or as Dr. Robert Young has it, "then of Abraham ye are seed." Gentile believers are spiritual seed of Abraham. The physical seed of Abraham are mentioned in Romans 9:6-8, "For not all who are out of Israel, these are Israel; nor yet seeing that they are a seed of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac there will be called to thee a seed. This means, that not the children of the flesh, these are children of God, but the children of the promise are being reckoned (collectively) for a seed." Rotherham here correctly reads "a seed" in his first edition of 1872. All versions which read" the seed" are inexact and misleading. If the Greek shewed the definite article here it would have meant "the (whole) seed" of Abraham. Whereas in English, if we said "Abraham's seed," it would generally be understood to mean "the seed of Abraham."

Now if Great Britain is actually Israel, it can only be in the sense that the British are physical seed of Jacob, because probably even fewer than one in a hundred belongs to Abraham spiritual seed.

But you tell me, that Britain (and the United States, and perhaps other peoples) are "The Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). That would entail that these peoples would require to exhibit the necessary characteristics, as enumerated by Liddon (on Romans), John 1:47 (Nathanael was "truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile"); Rom. 2:29, (the religious Israelite or Jew is that "inwardly," literally "in the hidden").

But what does Gal. 6:16 really say? "And as many as shall order their steps by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy; and upon the Israel of God." Note the position of the semi-colon; it is important. Arthur S. Way renders the last few words in his paraphrase, "ay, and upon all the true Israel, the Israel of God." All through the epistle Paul has had strongly in mind his own race, and as he closes the epistle he is unable to forget his kinsmen who are believing. As Ellicott says, "Paul includes all in his blessing, of whatever stock and kindred; and then, with his thoughts turning (as they ever did) to his own brethren after the flesh, he pauses to specify those who were once Israelites according to the flesh, but are now the Israel of God, true spiritual children of Abraham."

"Peace be upon them, and mercy; AND upon the Israel of God." The word AND in the last clause here means ALSO, not EVEN. The repetition, moreover of the proposition UPON (epi) shews that two classes are mentioned. Gentile believers are not the Israel of God, and the Israel of God are not British-Israelites, but individual believers among Israel.

For the construction we might compare 1. Cor. 9:5, "Have we no right at all to be leading about a sister wife, as also the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?" The Lord's brothers here are a distinct group from the apostles.

We were reading a very interesting book upon British Israel by a very likeable Canadian-Scot, written after the 1914-1918 world war. So pleased was he that Japan came into the war on the side of the British and their allies, that he finishes up with a chapter asking" Who are the Japanese ?" He proves, in fact, that they are largely Samurai from Samaria, and therefore, are akin to the British, possessing" every outstanding characteristic possessed by Anglo-Saxons. . . and Americans." His book, strange to say, received the imprimatur of the Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., of London. Of course that was a good twenty years before "Pearl Harbour," when these Israelite-Japanese almost obliterated the fleet of the United States. One wonders now whether any nations on earth can be excluded from some form or other of "British-Israel,"—unless the Jews. The tendency seems to be to incorporate as many nations as possible, especially those under British hegemony, and those which use English speech. However, we must investigate two large atlases, to see whether Japan possesses any places which reveal traces of the names Dan or Brit. We did examine the atlas for Denmark, said to have been called after Dan, but strange to relate, not one other name could be discovered commencing with Dan, or Den, or Din, or Don, or Dun. Why! in at least eighteen countries we found traces of Adam's wanderings—towns called after Adam! Adam must even have visited Australia! Paul's name is found in over a dozen widely scattered countries, even in Siberia and Alaska and on the Atlantic Ocean. We marvel at his mighty movements. But Peter outdoes them all. He takes "the cake, the bun, and the shortbread," for his name is found in at least three hundred and forty places all over the earth.

It gives us incessant pain to think that some of our friends have gone in for British-Israel teaching. We are unable to find one atom of truth behind it. It is not the subject of divine revelation. Every argument put forward seems to be due entirely to national pride and wishful thinking. Ourselves, we must suffer some loss before the Judgment Seat of Christ. But any suffering will be made much worse if we observe dear friends suffering because they were gullible enough to swallow the arch-enemy's specious efforts to destroy the identity of the real Israel.

Alexander Thomson

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Listing of Articles

Who is our God? Chapter 1
Who is our God? Chapter 2
Who is our God? Chapter 3
Who is our God? Chapter 4
Who is our God? Chapter 5
Who is our God? Chapter 6
Who is our God? Chapter 7
Who is our God? Chapter 8
Who is our God? Chapter 9
Who is our God? Chapter 10
Who is our God? Chapter 11
Who is our God? Chapter 12
Who is our God? Chapter 13
Who is our God? Chapter 14
Who is our God? Chapter 15
Who is our God? Chapter 16
Who is our God? Chapter 17
A Female Deity?
Acts 7:15 & 16
All Things
Amos 3:6
An Answer to the Challenge of Hell
Angels & Men One Species?
An Interesting New Version
Are You an Ambassador?
Are You a Pillar?
Are You a Witness for Jehovah?
Are You an Israelite? Chapter 1
Are You an Israelite? Chapter 2
Are You an Israelite? Chapters 3 & 4
A Special Resurrection?
Baptized for the Dead?
"Beloved" or "Loveable"?
Brotherly Love
Book Review
Colossians 1:23
Common or Unclean?
Common Sense
Did Paul Visit Spain?
Did the Lord give up His Flesh?
"Divine" Fire?
Doctoring the Holy Scriptures
Does God know Everything?
Does God will Everything?
Does your Spiritual Life seem Unreal?
Did God hate Esau?
Earth our Future Home?
Emphasis in the Scriptures
English more Archaic than Ancient Hebrew?
Ephesians 1:23
Erroneous Translations
Gleanings from A.T.
Heaven our Homeland
How is Christ God's "Word"?
How many were Crucified?
In the Christ All Shall Be Made Alive
Is Dust the Serpent's Food?
Is the Devil Impersonal?
Isaiah 26:14,19
James 4:5
Jehovah's Theocratic Organization
Jesus the Saviour
John 19:29
The Kingdom of the Hebrews
Leave it with God
Men or Mortals?
Misplaced Ingenuity
New Light on the Second Death
None Other Things
Objective Value of Prayer
Other or Different
Our Advocate
Paul's Chain
Paul the Sensitive
Paul versus James
Prevailing Prayer
Problems of Translation: I Cor. 7:21
Problems of Translation: II Cor. 3:18
Psalm 66:18
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
Rogues and Rascals
Rom 9 & 10: Human Freedom & Human Choice
Romans 9:14-24
Romans 9:30 to 10:21
II Corinthians 5:16
II Peter 3:10
Seven Wicked Spirits
Shall We See God?
Sir, We would see Jesus
Should we fear God?
The Bloody Husband
The Cherubim of Glory
The Corinthian Error
The Cunning Manager
The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah
The Designation of Jesus as "God"
The Disruption Fallacy
The Disruption Fallacy #2
The Eighth of Proverbs
The Eleven "Generations" of Genesis
The Elohim
The Ends of the Eons
The Eternal Saviour-Judge
The Eternity of Hell Torments
The First Christian Convention
The Four Gospels
The Gentiles in Ephesians
The Greek Definite Article
The Hardening of Pharoah's Heart
The Hebrew Conception of Time
The Hebrews Epistle
The Hebrew Terms Rendered 'For Ever'
The Hope of Israel
The Life of Prayer
The Lord Jesus Revealing the Heart of God
The Lord's Relatives
The Lordly Supper
The Meaning of Ta Panta
The Ministry of Women Parts 1 & 2
The Ministry of Women Parts 3 & 4
The "Penalty of Sin"
The Poor in Spirit
The Primeval Laws
The Primeval Laws #2
The Problem of Evil
The Quality of Divine Love
The Rich Man and Lazarus
The Serpent of Genesis 3
The Soul and the Spirit
The Talmud of the Jews Parts 1 & 2
The Talmud of the Jews Parts 3 & 4
The Translation of Acts 28:25
The Trial of the Lord
The Truth of the Bible
The Two Seeds
The Works of Henry Clay Mabie, D.D.
"Three Days and Three Nights"
Translator's Incentive
Truthfulness and Mercy
Try the Spirits
Unto Eternity and Further
We have all been Wrong
What did Peter do?
What does Olethros mean?
What Happened to Jephthah's Daughter?
What is Destruction?
What is the Flesh?
What is the Sin unto Death?
Whence "Eternity"?
Who are the Saints?
Who is Jehovah?
Who Shall Deliver Me?
Why Pray?
Why the "Lake" of Fire?
Will God Punish?
Will the Lord Come for Us?
Will the Man of Lawlessness be Killed?


The Differentiator Revisited 2009