The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, and Adultery!

The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, and Adultery! A Review of a Paper by Clifton Emahiser.

Here we are going to present, critique and hopefully be able to elaborate upon a paper by our dear friend Clifton Emahiser, which, according to his own records, he had written in April of 2007. It has been 23 months since we have reviewed any of Clifton’s work, so it is well past time that we gave him a visit.

There are lies which Christian churches have taught for over 1,800 years, and when these lies are examined against Scripture, there is no way in which they could possibly be true or Christian, since the Scripture tells a completely different story. So all who perpetuate those lies in the name of Christ are basically accusing Him of fraud, and that is the point which Clifton shall make here. But they are also accusing Him indirectly of other sins, such as adultery, and here we shall endeavor to explain that as well. These lies are a system of Bible interpretation which we generally describe as “replacement theology”, which we can begin to identify in the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” as early as Justin Martyr and the middle of the 2nd century of the Christian era. Justin lived as an adult and wrote his several works about one hundred years after the death of Paul of Tarsus.

But the lies do not reflect the teachings of the apostles. It is fully evident in various statements in the epistles of James, Peter, and especially those of Paul, that those epistles were written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, who at that time were found in Europe, Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia. As Flavius Josephus and other historical sources attest, since the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations and until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem there were chiefly only a remnant of three tribes in Judaea during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, who had ever called themselves Judaeans. That remnant represented a small portion of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. A greater portion of those three tribes were taken into Assyrian captivity, or had never returned from those who were later taken into Babylonian captivity.

So James wrote his lone surviving epistle explicitly to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad”, Peter wrote his epistles more specifically to certain sojourners of the provinces of Anatolia, whom his words throughout the epistles later prove are descendants of the ancient Israelites, and Paul wrote explaining many explicit facts to his own readers informing them that they were also descendants of the ancient Israelites, especially in Romans chapter 4, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and Galatians chapters 3 and 4. Then, near the end of his own ministry, as Luke records it in Acts chapter 10 Paul informs Herod Agrippa II of the scope and purpose of his ministry where he proclaimed that “6 … now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” There we see a plain statement that Paul worked for the hope and promises made to the twelve tribes of ancient Israel, and that the Jews, or properly Judaeans of the time were opposed to his fulfillment of that work.

Wherever Paul went throughout the course of his ministry, Judaeans who lived in diverse parts of the Roman empire had already persecuted him for that same thing. But in Judaea, Paul was despised because his teachings concerning the “works of the law”, which are the rituals of the law such as circumcision, sacrifices and other things which distinguished the Judaeans from Romans and Greeks, were very misunderstood. This is evident where we read in Acts chapter 21, in an exchange between James, the other elders and Paul in Jerusalem just before Paul’s arrest, that Paul was told, in part: “ 20 … Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of [Judaeans] there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the [Judaeans] which are among the Gentiles [Nations] to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”

So the Judaean Christians and the subsequent Christian sects of Judaea, such as the Ebionites, had rejected the writings of Paul of Tarsus. Therefore men who learned Christianity in Judaea or from Judaeans, such as Justin Martyr who had been born and raised in Samaria and was originally a pagan philosopher, never received what Paul of Tarsus had taught concerning the identity of the Israelites who had been scattered in ancient times, as long as 800 years before the Passion of the Christ. So in the writings of Justin, it is already fully apparent that so-called “replacement theology” was developed. While we do not know precisely how it developed or who developed it, it is evident that it is an early corruption conceived by Judaeans.

A generation or two later, Clement of Alexandria, a pagan philosopher who was also educated to some degree in Jewish Gnosticism, had converted to Christianity. At the time, there were many Jews in Alexandria and having been familiar with Gnosticism, Clement must have been intimately acquainted with them. So while Clement accepted the epistles of Paul, it is evident that he did not fully understand them, and he taught the same sort of “replacement theology” found in the writings of Justin Martyr. So Clement passed his false theology on to his students, one of which became the noted so-called “Church Father” named Origen. The first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Judaea, whom we consider one of the originators of Jewish Gnosticism, was an influence on both Clement and Origen. After Clement, Origen had left Alexandria for Caesarea where he founded a school of his own, and where a generation or two later, the noted “Church Father” Eusebius of Caesarea had studied. Many, if not most of the later noted early Church writers were also influenced by Origen, and then by Eusebius, and “replacement theology” along with other doctrines which had never been taught by the apostles were ultimately incorporated into the fabric of the Roman Catholic Church.

So with this summary background, we shall now present and critique and hopefully even expand upon Clifton’s essay.

The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, by Clifton Emahiser

Clifton begins with some situational irony:

This is a very serious charge to make against anyone, let alone the Almighty. I believe, though, once the evidence is weighed, there will be no alternative but to bring this very grave charge against Him, and penalize Him accordingly. After all, if He has committed such an appalling crime, why should He be treated differently from anyone else? The charge for this crime of fraud has already been alleged by a multitude of people, so it’s about time that charges are written up, and a summons be given Him to appear in court to face these allegations.

The contention here is that if “replacement theology” is true, as the churches teach in His Name, then they themselves must charge Yahweh God with fraud, since what they teach is certainly not what He had promised. So Clifton is asserting that their teaching “replacement theology” in His Name, which is contrary to His promises, is tantamount to accusing Him of fraud. Therefore he continues:

Before this charge of fraud is laid, let’s see just what the term “fraud” means. For this, we will use The World Book Encyclopedia, 1971, volume 7, page 421:

“FRAUD is an intentional untruth or a dishonest scheme used to take deliberate and unfair advantage of another person or group of persons. Actual fraud includes cases of misrepresentation designed specifically to cheat others ... Actual fraud includes something said, done, or omitted by a person with the design of continuing what he knows to be a cheat or a deception. Constructive fraud includes acts or words that tend to mislead others ... Ordinarily, a person wronged by another’s fraud may sue the wrongdoer and recover the amount of damages caused by the fraud or deceit. But the person wronged must be able to prove damages ...”

In order to grasp how, when, where and why the Almighty allegedly committed fraud, it will be necessary to comprehend the various legal contracts in which He engaged Himself with Adam-man. These include (1) Edenic, (2) Adamic, (3) Noahic, (4) Abrahamic, (5) Mosaic, (6) Palestinian, (7) Davidic, (8) Solomonic, and, (9) The New Covenant. The New Covenant is the binding legal agreement for which the Almighty is alleged to have committed fraud.

All of the promises of Yahweh God are in the form of covenants which are binding upon Him, by His Own Word. Some of the covenants, such as the Sinai or Mosaic covenant, also bound the children of Israel. When Israel did not fulfill their obligations, their nation was destroyed and they were driven into captivity. Yet further promises of reconciliation and a new covenant were made to them without any obligation on their part, to which Yahweh God is also bound. That is the purpose of Christ as it was stated in both the Old Testament promises and prophecies, and in the words of Christ Himself. So Clifton continues:

Many today call themselves “New Testament Christians.” The single Greek word for both “testament” and “covenant” in the Strong’s Concordance is [διαθήκη in Greek, Strong’s] #1242. In other words, when one claims one is a “New Testament Christian”, one is, in effect, saying one is a “New Covenant Christian.” This Greek word #1242 is used 17 times as “covenant” [actually 20 times, Clifton missed 3 which are plural] and 11 times as “testament” [actually 13 times, Clifton must have missed two of them]. The word for “testament” or “covenant” in the Old Testament is [Strong’s] #1285, beriyth, in the Hebrew, and means essentially the same thing as “testament” in the Greek. Whether you want to call them contracts, covenants or testaments, they all have some of the same elements and are binding legal instruments. The word “testament” or “covenant”, in the New Testament, is treated much like a man’s Last Will and Testament. In order for a Last Will and Testament to be effective, the testator must die. Therefore, when Messiah died, He made provisions for His named beneficiaries in His Last Will and Testament. Unless the beneficiaries are named, any Testament is useless. In all legal binding agreements, contracts, compacts, covenants, testaments, treaties, trusts, or whatever, the parties thereto must be named.

One example of the use of the Hebrew word covenant for a binding agreement or a contract is found in Genesis chapter 21 where we read: “27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves? 30 And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. 31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them. 32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.” Another is in 1 Samuel chapter 11 where we read: “1 Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.” Of course there are others, but these should suffice to prove Clifton’s point. In that manner he continues:

Now, let’s take a look to see who Messiah named as beneficiaries in His Last Will and Testament. In the Old Testament, this can be found in Jeremiah 31:31, and at Hebrews 8:8 in the New.

Jeremiah 31:31: “Behold the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.”

Hebrews 8:8: “... Behold the days come, saith Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

There are certainly other promises of a new, everlasting covenant in Scripture, in the words of the Old Testament prophets which are not so explicit, but which are nevertheless just as significant and which serve as additional witnesses. Both Israel and Judah are being addressed in a promise of future reconciliation found in Ezekiel chapter 37 where we read: “26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Likewise, the estranged children of Israel are the subjects of the promise of God where they are addressed in a prophecy found in Hosea chapter 2 where we read: “19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.” So continuing with Clifton:

Are we going to contest His Last Will and Testament, claiming the Redeemer must have been mentally incompetent when He made it because we don’t approve of who His beneficiaries are? Do you suppose we could rewrite the terms of His Will to meet our approval? For it would appear, if we are not of the House of Israel or the House of Judah, we have no legal claim to His Will.

His Will, or better, the have no legal claim to His estate. But this is true, and the Roman Catholic and other denominational churches have all attempted to rewrite for themselves this contract made by Yahweh God, so that they can be the beneficiaries rather than those whom Yahweh had intended. As they teach Scripture, God committed fraud, but the truth is that they themselves are attempting to defraud God beneficiaries. So now Clifton examines this situation again:

Now, let’s take a look at this thing from a different perspective. Say, that a person of a family of several brothers and sisters found out their last surviving parent intended to leave him/her out of his Will. Say, this person slipped into the parent’s house, found the Will, put it into a typewriter which could lift the print of the named beneficiaries off of the paper, and placed his/her name in their place. Would not this be considered fraud? Maybe this person had a substantial moral right to be named in the Will, but the last living parent didn’t see it that way. The question again is: would this be fraud? Maybe this person had done more for his/her parents than any of the others, but again, would this be fraud? Any way one might want to look at it, it is out-and-out fraud!

Let’s now apply this same situation to the Last Will and Testament of Messiah, where He had named the House of Israel and the House of Judah as His beneficiaries. There have been hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps more who have tried to disenfranchise the names of The House of Israel and the House of Judah, and place “Gentiles”, “church”, “whosoever will”, and “all men” in their place!

Their excuse is: they say, that “God” gave up on the “Jews” and decided that, if they didn’t want to be “saved”, He would open the door to the “Gentiles.” Poor old “God”; can’t do anything right. So, what did the Almighty do according to these various pastors? He allegedly disenfranchised the names of the House of Israel and the House of Judah from His Last Will and Testament and inserted “Gentiles”, “church”, “whosoever will”, and “all men” in their place. Can we now see why “God” must be “indicted” and tried for fraud? Well, if one can’t trust “God” to keep His Word, who can one trust?

The churches typically cite the words of Paul of Tarsus in this context, where in Acts chapter 18 Paul is in Corinth, and after preaching the Gospel in a particular synagogue and being rejected by the leaders of that synagogue we read: “6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles” [or Nations, as Clifton explains here that the word should be translated]. The word translated as gentiles is ἔθνη, the plural form of ἔθνος which is properly nation. There is a Greek word for people, λαός, which whether singular or plural was generally used to describe only a people as a single related body, the people of a particular race or nation, or a subset of such a body. When people of various nations were considered, whether in the same context or not, ἔθνη, in the sense of a group consisting of different ethnicities, was commonly used. With both Greeks and Judaeans present in the synagogue, Paul was only telling its leaders that he would bypass them and go directly to the common people of the synagogue, whether they be Greek or Judaean.

Furthermore, if Paul’s words in that passage meant what the denominational churches claim that it means, then Paul should not have been found conversing with Judaeans again, as it is described that he lodged with Justus and converted Crispus, the “chief ruler” of the same synagogue, in the verses which immediately follow that. Nor should Paul have remained in Corinth another eighteen months, which we see in verse 11, nor should Paul have been found in a synagogue in Ephesus some time after that, in verse 19 of that same chapter of Acts. Other claims of the churches, based on other verses which they also take out of context, are easily refuted in the same manner, by merely understanding their proper context. So Clifton continues:

If the House of Israel and the House of Judah were the true beneficiaries of His Will, it would appear they have a very sound case against the Almighty in this lawsuit of fraud for name changes in the Will after the fact. I wonder how much damages the House of Israel and the House of Judah might sue for in such a case? I wonder if this could be considered a class action suit? If I were to be the legal advocate for either Israel and Judah or for “God”, I believe I would choose Israel and Judah in preference to “God”, as “God”, in this case, has little to no legal standing.

The churches teach that God changed the terms of the covenant, which were made explicitly before He died. How could a man change his will after he dies? Of course Clifton is still using irony, since God Himself has never changed the terms of His covenants.

The fact that the New Covenant is founded upon what we would consider to be the Last Will and Testament of Yahweh God, fulfilled in Yahshua Christ, is explained by Paul of Tarsus in Hebrews chapter 9 where he wrote in reference to Christ, in part: “15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament [or covenant, as Clifton explained], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.” A chapter earlier in that same epistle, in Hebrews chapter 8, Paul had repeated the terms of the New Covenant as it appeared in Jeremiah chapter 31, and he implicitly upheld those terms when he repeated them in that manner. Paul had also rather explicitly stated in Romans chapter 9 that the promises, the covenants [plural indicating all of them, not just the old], the law, the service of God, and even the adoption, were for the children of Israel alone.

So now Clifton says:

This brings up another sticky situation; for if the Last Will and Testament of the New Covenant can be broken by changing the names of the assigned beneficiaries, then all the aforementioned Covenants can also be broken, from Adam to Messiah. If this were the case, why did the Almighty even bother making covenants in the first place? What good is the New Testament if “whosoever” can break in and claim to be a party of the second part? If “whosoever” is the rightful heir; a New Testament wouldn’t have been necessary. How would you like it if you were named in a Will and the probate court designated “whosoever” as the beneficiary? Yet, this is exactly what the modern-day clergy in the churches are doing with the NEW TESTAMENT, thus making it a fraudulent document.

It is imperative we stress one more significant fact: If the New Covenant / Testament was lawfully bequeathed to the House of Israel and the House of Judah, what right do any other entities have to that claim? It is obvious; they have no right whatsoever!

Fortunately, the Churches are not powerful enough to overcome God. Therefore, in truth, the actual victims of fraud shall be all those in the category of “whomsoever” whom the Churches have convinced may be parties to the New Covenant, when they are not. In the end, the Churches shall be guilty of fraud, and all of “whomsoever” who were never intended to be beneficiaries shall all be left empty-handed; they will benefit neither from God nor from the Churches. So now Clifton speaks of context, under a subtitle with that very label:

CONTEXT

Now that we have identified the House of Israel and the House of Judah as the proper beneficiaries within the context of New Testament, let’s consider some of the other subjects which “surround” it. If you will look up the word “context” in the dictionary, it will tell you it means, “words surrounding a word or phrase.” In other words, the New Testament relates to the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and all other Scripture must “surround” or fit this concept. Let’s take a look at some of these Scriptures:

It may be better said that the New Covenant, which was promised explicitly to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, that explicit promise is the context which must surround the entire New Testament and every statement contained therein, as that promise is the very reason why Christ came, and why there is a New Testament. So outside of that promise there is no meaning in the New Testament, and the promise is the bracketing concept within which everything in the New Testament must be interpreted. Otherwise, one is trying to force God to violate His contract!

Acts 2:21: And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Messiah shall be saved.

Under the rule that the New Testament must fit around or “surround” this, it must apply only to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Anything else is criminal fraud!

We must add that in the immediate context of Peter’s words in that passage, all of the men whom he was addressing were Judaeans. In verse 14 where he began to address those men he said “Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem” and then after citing a prophecy of Joel made in regard to Israel, he spoke those words Clifton cites here from verse 21, and immediately thereafter he said “ 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words.” In verse 29 he referred to those to whom he spoke as brethren, although they were not yet Christians so they must have been his kindred, and in verse 36 he said “36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” So even in their immediate context, none of Peter’s words are applicable to any other people but “all the house of Israel”.

Now Clifton offers another example of Church misteachings:

Acts 17:26: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.

Here again, to be in context, this must apply only to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. From a first reading, it may not appear to be that way, but an Old Testament passage from which this Scripture is derived must be taken into account:

Deuteronomy 32:8: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

When it says in Acts 17:26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men”, it is not talking about all the men on the earth, but the Adamic-Israelites of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. If all men were descended from Adam, why would it be necessary to set boundaries to enforce the segregation of Israel and Judah from other peoples? When Acts 17:26 speaks of all nations (ethnos/goy) being of one blood, contextually it means the nations of Israel and Judah being of the same bloodline. Here again, to apply “all men” to someone other than the House of Israel or the House of Judah is criminal! - - - Yes, criminal!

Actually the word for blood is not in the original Greek. However in Deuteronomy chapter 32 the context is the sons of Adam, although we see that even they were separated and distinguished from the children of Israel, who were to be a peculiar and separate people even from the other descendants of Adam. Paul of Tarsus cannot be assumed to have been taking this reference to that passage of Deuteronomy out of context, or of twisting it to mean something other than what it plainly says.

Now for Clifton’s next example:

Acts 11:18: ... Then hath Yahweh also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The term “Gentiles” is an unfortunate translation, and has become one of the greatest stumbling-blocks to our Bible understanding. Actually, the word in the Greek is “ethnos” from which we get the term “ethnic” today (check your dictionary). The Latin term “Gentile” is misapplied and only causes confusion as it can refer to an Israelite or non-Israelite within the context of the individual. (That “Gentile” is Latin, check any English to Latin dictionary.) In the Strong’s Concordance the so-called word “Gentiles” (the Greek ethnos) is #1484, which can mean (1) race, (2) tribe, (3) heathen, (4) nation, and (5) people; each to be applied in its proper context.

It would be another two-and-a-half years from the writing of this paper until when Clifton was encouraged to write another, which he titled Misapplication of the Biblical Term Gentile. The later paper was inspired when Clifton found a definition for the Latin word gentilis in the Junior Classic Latin Dictionary published by Wilcox & Follett Company in 1945 which reads, in part: “of the same clan or race”, and where he had made the comment that therefore gentilis was “surely a word consistent with all of Scripture”. However the modern understanding of the term gentilis, which was used in the Vulgate by Jerome but which the Churches wrongly assert means “non-Jew” today, is quite unfortunate. The word gentilis never meant “non-Jew”. If the Greek word ἔθνος was properly translated as nation in common Bibles, the messages of the apostles, and especially those of Paul found in places such as Romans chapter 4, would be much more clear. In that chapter, Paul had explained that the promise that Abraham’s seed would become many nations was already fulfilled, and that the fulfillment of the promises of God concerning those particular nations was certain. But the promise was never made to anyone other than the children of Israel, which Paul’s words in that chapter also establish.

Now for Clifton’s final statements:

The counterpart word in Hebrew is [Strong’s] #1471, “goy”, and is translated in Genesis 17:4, 5 as “nations” where Yahweh promised Abraham: “... thou shalt be a father of many nations (goy).” The proper context [evidently referring back to his citation of Acts chapter 11] should then be “nations”, as most of the time (but not all) in the New Testament, when the word “Gentile” is used, it is referring to all the 12 tribes of Israel! Again, to place non-Israel “Gentile” names into His Last Will and Testament is criminal! Does your pastor imply “God” committed fraud? Why don’t you ask him!

While there are promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that their seed would become many nations, and while Jacob had inherited those promises, the first place where the children of Israel are described as nations is in the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 32 where we read: “43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.” Then immediately thereafter we read: “44 And Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he, and Hoshea the son of Nun. 45 And Moses made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel.” The tribes of Israel are the nations which Moses had called to rejoice, and they alone are His people. But the King James Version, and even the translation found in the Greek Septuagint, wrongly add the word with to the text and thereby corrupt its meaning.

Now to this we shall add a subtitle of our own, and make another charge concerning the churches, which is:

The Clergy Claims God Committed Adultery

Throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh God was consistently described as a husband to the nation, which is the people, of Israel. The marriage was conducted at Mount Sinai as it is recorded in Exodus chapter 19. The agreement that Israel would keep the commandments of the Husband is probably the earliest recorded prenuptial agreement. That Israel as a nation was and shall remain married to Yahweh their God can be fully demonstrated in the words of the prophets.

In the prophecies of Hosea, the children of Israel, described as an unfaithful wife, would be put away in divorce, but later forgiven. Once forgiven, Israel would once again be married to Yahweh forever. So we read in Hosea chapter 1 that the prophet is told to do things which are representative of the relationship which Yahweh God had with Israel. He was first told to take a wife who was a whore, as was Israel. Then when she bore a child, we read: “4 … Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” Then a little further on she had another child, a daughter, and we read: “6 … And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.” Finally, she had another son, and we read: “9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.”

But immediately after this there is a promise of reconciliation, and its meaning cannot be overlooked where we read: “10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” So where the apostle Peter had cited this same passage, quoting it in his first epistle, the churches imagine that people other than Israel were made sons of God, but that is not what the passage says, and we cannot imagine that Peter made the same error as those churches. The passage only refers to the children of Israel once again being acknowledged as the sons of God, and that is how Peter also wrote it when he cited it, and therefore how he meant it, which is apparent from the context of his epistle where he cited it, in 1 Peter chapter 2.

So in Hosea chapter 2 where Yahweh addresses the children of Israel once again we read a promise of restoration where it says: “19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.” This very promise is why Yahshua Christ was described by John the Baptist as a bridegroom, and why Christ also referred to Himself by that term, several times in the Gospel accounts. So Paul of Tarsus wrote in Romans chapter 7: “1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman [Israel] which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband [Yahweh] so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead [Christ], she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another [Yahshua Christ], even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

While Paul had explained elsewhere in that epistle that the Romans had indeed descended from the ancient Israelites, there in that passage Paul perfectly described how the children of Israel would be reconciled to Yahweh their God in Christ, which is also how Yahweh could fulfill the promises of betrothing Himself to Israel once again, found in Hosea.

In Joel chapter 2 the relationship between Yahweh and Israel as Husband and wife is alluded to where we read: “16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. 17 Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”

Likewise, in Isaiah chapter 50 Yahweh addresses Israel where we read: “1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother [the nation of Israel] put away.” But later, in chapter 54, Israel is given an assurance: “5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. 6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. 7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.” Then in Isaiah chapter 61: “10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.”

In Isaiah chapter 62 the prophet celebrates Yahweh’s renewed marriage to Israel, where we read: “5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.” A little further on there is another assurance: “12 And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.” The City of God descended from heaven in Revelation chapter 21 is also an allegory for the children of Israel. All of those words were written after most of Israel had already been taken into Assyrian captivity, following the failed siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians in the time of Hezekiah.

Around seventy years after Isaiah’s ministry was completed, Jeremiah the prophet began his own. So in reference to the transgressions of Israel, we read in Jeremiah chapter 2: “32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.” Then in Jeremiah chapter 3, Israel is portrayed as a treacherous wife: “20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.” But much later in Jeremiah, in chapter 31, there is nevertheless an assurance of complete reconciliation, and that promise of the new covenant which would be made only with those same houses of Israel and Judah. The new covenant, being a matter of prophecy, can only be intended for those people for whom it was prophesied!

One of the more grievous sins of the children of Israel is that the nation, as the wife of Yahweh, had committed whoredom, or adultery, with all of the surrounding nations. This whoredom describes much more than mere idolatry, and the surrounding nations are described as the lovers of the wife. Sometimes this is described quite graphically, such as in Ezekiel chapter 16 where the children of Israel are addressed and we read in part: “22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood. 23 And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, (woe, woe unto thee! saith the Lord GOD;) 24 That thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place, and hast made thee an high place in every street. 25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms. 26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger. 27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way. 28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.” In the pagan high places of Baal worship, all sorts of sexual licentiousness was conducted in fertility and other immoral rituals.

The surrounding nations are often described as the lovers of a sinful Israel in the words of the prophets. Further on in that same chapter of Ezekiel, chapter 16, we read: “32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! 33 They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.” Then in Ezekiel chapter 23, speaking of Israel in captivity: “9 Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.”

There are other examples, but we shall only provide one more here. Returning to Hosea chapter 2 we find one of the more explicit examples, where we see that international trade was one of the faults which caused Israel to sin in this manner: “5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink. 6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. 7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. 8 For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. 9 Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness. 10 And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. 11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. 12 And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. 13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD.”

That first husband is Christ, Yahweh God incarnate, and He will not commit adultery. Yahweh will not accept the lovers of His unfaithful wife, otherwise He would commit adultery. For that reason, in Luke chapter 16, in the words of Yahshua Christ, we read: “16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Yahweh put away Israel, but if He marries another, then according to the Word of Christ, He Himself commits adultery, and that shall certainly not happen. If Yahweh accepts any people from any other nation other than the children of Israel, then He commits adultery. The clergy is basically and indirectly, although explicitly, accusing Yahweh of committing adultery. That is because it is clear in the Scriptures, that Yahweh had put away His wife, and in these words of Christ, He cannot marry any other, lest He be committing adultery.

In those words, Christ did not suddenly change the subject from the Kingdom of God to the evils of divorce. Rather, speaking of every man that presses into the kingdom of God, Christ evidently foresees and alludes to the ‘whosoever’ of the modern churches. Where He then speaks of marrying another, he is refuting so-called “replacement theology”, since He did not come for any others but for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” for whom He Himself had explicitly professed to have come. So Yahweh God had put away the children of Israel, and the law must also be applicable to Him, as the husband of the children of Israel. To imagine that Christ would ever accept anyone other than Israel into His Body is to basically imagine that He Himself would commit adultery.

The other nations, as we saw here in both Ezekiel and Hosea, were described as the adulterous lovers of the children of Israel, the wife. To believe that Yahweh God would accept the lovers of His adulterous wife is to believe that He would play the part of a cuckold, accepting the lovers of the wife along with the wife herself. God is not a cuck, but the churches attempt to accuse Him of that also, whenever they claim that He would accept “whosoever”, which is evidently anyone who is not of the children of Israel.