Watchman Willie Martin Archive




Arnold Kennedy ([email protected]) .


There are two opposing views that colour almost everyone’s views of things like education,

politics, philosophy, law, racism and religion. These two views are essentially Nationalism and

Internationalism. The latter view includes the “Brotherhood of Man” idea that pre-supposes all people

are brothers who are the same in God’s sight, in all ways. This idea is taught to children at Sunday

school in the words, “Red and Yellow, Black and White, all are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little

children of the world”. Because this idea is the standard teaching of churches, it is almost universally

accepted. Not only is this the teaching of the churches, it is the dogma of World Government, Socialism

and the New Age. Thus people are being pre-conditioned to think one thing from four ideologies, each of

which oppose the Law of God. It is very hard for a pre-conditioned person to come to think differently

from their long-held beliefs, especially when they are hammered with a belief from on every side. But, for

the few who do stop to think about the Bible, they come to see that it is about the one chosen people of

Israel, as descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, and that other peoples are mentioned only

as they have a connection with Israel. They should quickly see that the promises and covenants made

by God to Israel could not possibly be fulfilled in any different peoples. Paul does confirm in whom these

promises are fulfilled in Acts 13:32-33, “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise

which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children”. There is absolutely

no valid evidence of any later change in what is commonly called the New Testament Age.

Through the New Testament there are many topics and words that originate in the Old

Testament. In the Old Testament there are words such as promises, know, elect, called, chosen, seed

and variations of them which are generally agreed to refer only to the Israel nation. We have to ask if

there is adequate reason to suggest a switch that might allow the equivalent Greek words to apply to

some multi-racial church in the New Testament. Churches dream up doctrines and interpretations to

circumnavigate these things and people accept these because they have been pre-conditioned to do so.

When presented with anything different, they have varying reactions, and we will systematically look at

the most common of these.

To use words like deception and another Gospel cannot be done lightly. These are very serious

considerations and if the weight of biblical evidence is accepted, then the popular teachings must have

cultish elements. The implications of this conclusion are vast and almost devastating to many Christians

and churches. It has bearing on missionary activity as well. But, please note well, it has not been said

or suggested that all the non-Israel nations should not be made subject to the Law of God. Neither has it

been said that they are condemned by God. This matter is a consideration elsewhere. When we come

to God so loved the world as taught, traditionalists have try to immediately get around every reference to

the exclusiveness of Israel (in both Testaments). They do this to try to change the nation of Israel into

some multi-racial church, or otherwise they want to say there are both a national Israel and a Church

consisting of non-Israelites despite the obvious contradiction. So they are operating outside of the given

foundation of the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, and thus must be wrong.

God has told us that He will do nothing He does not reveal first to his servants the prophets of

Israel. He will fulfil His Word to Israel. Any mention of the exclusiveness of Israel will cause immediate

(and common) reactions among Christians who think they know their Bible. Now we can have a look at

some of these common reactions. Only brief comments are made on these reactions, because they are

all expanded at various places elsewhere in “The Exclusiveness of Israel” by this author.


Yes, that is true, but God was speaking to them, and not to us. Now God is speaking to


This would be the thought of the majority of church-going people today, and is a thought that is

wrongly encouraged. So should we go along with that reaction just because it sounds right? As soon as

it is asked, When in this church age did Gods speaking change from them to us?there is no answer

at all. If this question cannot be answered from Scripture, then it has no basis.

It would be profitable for any who would like to retain this particular thought and reaction, to look

at the root word grapho that is used in the New Testament 194 times. It is used in the expression it is

written and refers to the Old Testament Scriptures in reference to Israel. It would be profitable too, to


look at written in a concordance where it will be seen afresh that many times the basis of all doctrine is it

is written. It is written means “written in the Old Testament” and so these quotes refer to Israel.

If the basis of a belief or doctrine appears to be in the New Testament alone, it must be suspect

because it is not written in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets. This is important because there are a

number of such ideas that are generally accepted, but which do not have it is written as a basis. In fact it

might be said that much of what is debated has no foundation at all in the Law, the Psalms and the

Prophets. Some traditional teachings cannot present a clear pattern of simple direct statements from the

Old Testament to support these views. They rely mainly on fabricated “types”, “shadows” and analogies

Man’s tradition therefore is not established in the mouth of two or three witnesses as is required by

Scripture. Israel cannot be changed to mean non-Israel just by making such a statement without having

a foundation.

If a New Testament book, written in the ‘Christian age’, [for example, James’ Epistle to the Twelve

Tribes] was written and addressed to Israelites, then either the writer was wrong or there would need to

have been something that happened since Pentecost in order for men to be able to say, God is now

speaking to everyone [meaning every race]. There is no such happening!


Yes, but Israel has now become the church, so all these things belong to the


This says that “Israel” and “The Church” no longer have any connection and that Israel has

vanished. The church is supposed to consist of non-Israelites, the so-called “Gentiles”. However, the

Hebrew word goi, upon which the “gentiles” thought is based, is also used of Israel. So goi does not

always equate with so-called non-Israel “gentiles”. The whole subject is simplified when we accept what

we find when we build upon the right foundation and have the Cornerstone.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets,

The Cornerstone, the prophets and the apostles all agree. Since “apostles” is put before

“prophets”, this Scripture is used to say that New Testament apostles have new prophecy and doctrine

that was not contained or forecast within the Old Testament. Just to say something like that does not

make it fact. In the books of Galatians and Romans in particular, modern teaching says that the Apostle

Paul has made a turn around from what is recorded in Acts where he tells King Agrippa that he spoke

nothing other than what was said in the law and the prophets! In Romans and Galatians he is now

supposed to be writing to certain so-called Gentiles who are supposed to be non-Israelites. The internal

statements show that each letter in the New Testament is written only to Israelites. This is discussed in

more detail in “That Unfortunate Word Gentile, a chapter of the book, “The Exclusiveness of Israel.

Let us look again at the Apostle Paul’s famous speech in Acts 13 which was made long after

Jesus’ death and resurrection. Here, right in the New Testament age, Israel is still a genetic term. There

is still no sign of “The Church” as this is commonly perceived. Consider all the following highlighted

words from Acts 13:17-42:

v17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers,

v23 Of this mans seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a

Saviour, Jesus.

v24 ¼ the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

v26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham,

v32,3 that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the

same unto us their children,

v39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not

be justified by the law of Moses.

In the last verse we see the first “all” that people most like to generalise to include everyone on

Earth. But the “ye”, and the context, nails it down to Israel alone as the ones to whom the Law of Moses

was given. All the highlighted words in these verses give a very specific definition of who is being

addressed in the New Testament; it is always to a genetic Israel! We can no longer say that these

children of the fathers, (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), come from other stock. These are the people who

had been under the Law of Moses! In the above passage, Paul was addressing those whom he

described as MEN OF ISRAEL, who feared God. “The Church” has not replaced Israel, and is formed

out of Israel only.



The Gentiles are now adopted into Israel, so the promises made to Israel are now made to

everyone who believes in Jesus.

A short answer to this reaction is not possible because there are so many aspects to cover.

These are covered as individual sections on “gentiles”, “the church”, “strangers” and “adoption”, and the

promises made to Abraham and his seed, in “The Exclusiveness of Israel“. As mentioned above, the

words translated as “Gentiles” in both Hebrew and Greek are also used of Israel. This can quickly and

simply be verified by looking at a Young’s Concordance.


It is said that the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down

so that all are now one in Jesus.

Here we have another hinge-point of much of what is taught in the evangelical churches today.

But, in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, the partition is found to be between The House of Israel

and The House of Judah. It is not between Israelites and non-Israelites [see Isaiah 11:13 Ephraim shall

not vex Judah any more]. In all of the New Testament Scriptures quoted above where the exclusiveness

of Israel was shown, all the people addressed by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, are clearly shown to

be Israelites. All the books of the Bible provide the same evidence. It will be shown that the House of

Israel had been “scattered” among the nations and that any pattern showing a gathering or the joining

together of Israel with non-Israel races cannot be found in prophecy. What is found frequently in

Scripture is the joining of the House of Israel with the House of Judah. The divorced House of Israel is

grafted back into the undivorced House of Judah –[Romans 11:17-24]. Only an olive can be grafted

back into an Olive. Note what the word “back” infers; they were together once before, prior to Israel

being divided into two kingdoms.


It is said that the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down

so that all are now one in Christ.

Here we have another hinge-point of much of what is taught in the evangelical churches today.

But, in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, the partition is found to be between The House of Israel

and The House of Judah. It is not between Israelites and non-Israelites [see Isaiah 11:13 Ephraim shall

not vex Judah any more]. In all of the New Testament Scriptures quoted above where the exclusiveness

of Israel was shown, all the people addressed by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, are clearly shown to

be Israelites. All the books of the Bible provide the same evidence. It will be shown that the House of

Israel had been “scattered” among the nations and that any pattern showing a gathering or the joining

together of Israel with non-Israel races cannot be found in prophecy. What is found frequently in

Scripture is the joining of the House of Israel with the House of Judah. The divorced House of Israel is

grafted back into the undivorced House of Judah –[Romans 11:17-24]. Only an Olive can be grafted

back into an Olive. Note what the word “back” infers; they were together once before, prior to Israel

being divided into two kingdoms.


The seed of Abraham has now become the seed of Jesus ¼ it is now a spiritual


The promises were made to Abraham’s seed, but not to Jesus, who came to fulfil them. The

promises were made to Abraham and his seed, which is named in Isaac [Gen 21:12]. The promises

were therefore given to the Israel people as a whole. Now, as Jesus was born into Israel, He is regarded

as the seed of Abraham and of David [Matt 1:1]. But the promises were not specifically given to Jesus

as the ‘one seed’ of Galatians 3:16. And, of course, Jesus had no ‘seed’. The word “seed” is always

used in the physical sense in Hebrew and Greek as a collective noun. If Jesus were that one seed, then

everyone between Abraham and Jesus would be disinherited, including Isaac and Jacob. Israel then,

could not have existed as the seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, if Jesus were that seed. A

more accurate translation of Gal 3:16 reads:

And to Abraham and the seed of him the promises were spoken. He says not, And to the seed

of thee as of many, but as of one. And to the seed of thee which is anointed.

It is the seed of Abraham that is anointed [christ] here, just the same as in the Old Testament, which also

talks about “the holy seed”.



The Jews are Gods natural children, but the members of the Church are Gods

spiritual children.

Two sets of parallel promises cannot be found in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, that is,

there is not one set of promises to “natural” children and another to “spiritual” children. Therefore there

cannot be any New Testament change. Neither is the promises made to Abraham’s seed directed

specifically to Jesus. The promises made to the fathers are always presented as being fulfilled in us

their children. Israelites are the children of the promise. There is only one promise in this respect.

There is not any second similar promise found for non-Israel races.

NOTE: The “children” still have to be redeemed individually from the curse of the broken Law.

They are born at physical birth as heirs of salvation. They are conceived as “children” = teknon

with the ability to become sons = huios by belief in Jesus.

This sixth reaction results from attempting to get around the problem of a national and racial Israel and

retain tradition at the same time. The word Jew has to be made to equate with Israel and the word

Gentile has to be made to equate with non-Israel. This is not the world of reality! Yet it has been

drummed into most Christians, conditioning all their thinking, teaching and writing, on almost every

subject. “The Jews” are not spoken by Jesus as being God’s children ever. Jesus said they originated

“from below” and that the Devil was their father. Please view John chapter eight about this. Jewish

Encyclopaedia claim the modern Jews descend from Esau, and if so they could not be of the promised

seed through Isaac. See Genesis 21:12, Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18, “for in Isaac shall thy seed be

called. This confirms what was said in Reaction four, about “seed”.


That seems to be true, but no one knows who is an Israelite today.

May we quote 2 Timothy 2:19? Never-the-less the foundation of God standeth sure, having this

seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his. There is a holy [separate] people which are called in the Bible

stone, elect and precious, above all other people which have now obtained mercy. They are brethren

from the womb and are anointed [christos]. They are born from above (that is, begotten from above).

The Bible does give marks of identification that are clear and unmistakable, but this identity factor is

outside the scope of this booklet. One thing certain is that God promised David that Israel would remain

a kingdom as long as the sun and moon shine.


This is all very well, but now everything is spiritualised.

It is unfortunate for such a belief that the Twelve Tribes of Israel keep appearing in the New

Testament. In this present New Testament age they are not spiritualised away! To react this way is to

say that Jesus and Paul are wrong. Paul said unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving

God day and night, hope to come - Acts 26:7. How can twelve individual tribes be spiritualised?


The law has been fulfilled, therefore nothing in the law applies any more.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not

come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle

shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Law has different aspects. There is Mosaic Law and Levitical Law which are not the same.

In Romans 13:8-10 we have a discourse about fulfilling the Law, which concludes with, “therefore love, is

the fulfilling of the Law. This Scripture is sometimes quoted as proof that everything relating to the Law

is finished, but verse 8 is about people, as individuals, fulfilling the Law by their actions. It is not about

God fulfilling His covenants and promises. This is confirmed in Matthew 7:12 where Jesus is saying,

therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do YE also unto them, for this is

the Law and the Prophets. Jesus has fulfilled what is written in the Law concerning Himself [Luke 24:44].

His sacrifice has fulfilled that part of the Law concerning sacrifices.

Possibly the short answer to the rest of the matter of fulfilling the Law is that heaven and earth has not

yet passed away. When they are passed away, all will have been fulfilled. What has been written in the

Law, The Psalms and The Prophets, will come to pass. The promises to the seed of Abraham still stand

and will yet come to pass!



Everyone is now the same because all are one in Christ Jesus.

This epitomises the traditional teachings.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which be of faith, the same are the children of


Gal 3:26 For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

It sounds right at first glance, particularly when the pronouns are ignored. The “yeare the people being

addressed. That is why it is necessary to establish that the so-called Gentiles in the Epistles were

Israelites. “The Exclusiveness of Israel” devotes a chapter to this subject. There is no pattern through

The Law, The Psalms and The Prophets to support tradition. It is not there, so something must be wrong

with the traditional teaching. In both Hebrew and Greek, the word translated “all” here means “all of the

context only”, not “all of everything else”. The same applies to words like “whosoever” and “every”.


It makes no difference now because all nations are blessed in Abraham. All is now of Grace.

Some teachers actually do say this, believe it or not. Now, if this were true, it means that the Old

Testament is invalid. It is like the Roman Catholic idea of saying that the Church is the authority rather

than the Bible and yet quoting the Bible wrongly about Peter and the rock (which is feminine) to support

their view. But to whom is God gracious if all is of grace? Is it every one of every race on Earth? Both

Testaments deny this.

Exodus 33:19 .. and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom

I will shew mercy.

Rom 9:15-18 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, so then, it is

not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy ¼

therefore hath he mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he


This question of the Grace of God is a subject in itself; but the over-riding principle is the

Sovereignty of God. It is “whom He will.. To say glibly, all is of grace is to include everyone and to

make a mockery of the Sovereignty of God. If redemption is for every man of every race, then the whole

choice is man’s choice and this is another gospel [2 Cor 11:6 and Gal 1:6].

In the New Testament, “grace” refers to the Divine influence upon the heart. We can find no

reference to God writing the Law on their hearts other than to Israel, nor can we find a word of prophecy

about a new heart being given to any other than Israel.


2 Cor 13:1 In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

First witness:

1. The Old Testament is contained in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets.

2. The New Testament is contained in the Gospels, the Epistles and Revelations.

Second witness:

1. The Old Testament speaks redemption being for Israel ALONE.

2. The New Testament speaks of redemption being for Israel ALONE.

Third witness:

1. The Old Testament was made with Israel ALONE [Psalm 147:19,20 etc].

2. The New Testament is made with Israel ALONE [Hebrews 8:8].

Let us go on to look further into these issues and to meet the objections and the things that might appear

to be at variance. A chapter is devoted to the world as found in Go into all the world in the

Exclusiveness of Israel.


Earlier we looked at the general reactions which immediately spring to mind when the consistent

pattern of Scripture about The Exclusiveness Of Israel is introduced to people. It is time now to look at

the stumbling blocks that modern teaching put in our way. It is appreciated that people’s objections and

concerns are very genuine and that such people are usually sincere. It is also recognised that it is

difficult for people to “unlearn” what they have been taught for years. It is necessary to look at a

selection of stumbling blocks that would represent most of those that are raised.



This is a sincere feeling that many have, but it has its origin in an unbalanced view of the

character of God. Where there is continual emphasis on the Love of God and almost total neglect of the

Righteous Judgements of God, this is understandable. The universalising of alland everybeyond

each context, together with the absence of teaching about the sovereignty of God, are the root cause of

this feeling. In His nature, God is unchanging. That God should create vessels for different purposes is

not readily acceptable to many people, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture. For example:

1. It is God who put the perpetual enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the

woman [Gen 3:15].

2. It was The Lord who put a mark upon Cain and his offspring [Gen 4:15].

3. It was God who saved Noah and his family because Noah was perfect in his generations

[Gen 6:9].

4. God gave different destinies for Noah’s sons Ham, Shem and Japheth.

5. God even placed different “last days” destinies on each of the 12 Twelve tribes of Israel

[Gen 49 and Deut 33].

6. We find scriptural discrimination between “men” as enowish or adam, etc.

7. We find words for “men” that do not apply to women in both Hebrew and Greek (iysh and aner).

8. Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated [Malachi 1:2,3 and Rom 9:13]. God’s hatred for Edom

is for “all generations” so they could not be part of that “world” that God “so loved”.

9. God chose Israel and said they should not be reckoned among the nations [Num 23:9] and the

God of this people Israel chose our fathers [Acts 13:17].

10. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for he shall save His people

from their sins [Matt 1:21]. They were and are God’s people before they are saved.


Rev 5:9,10 For thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every

kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us unto our God

kings and priests: and we shall reign on earth.

Rev 7:9 I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations,

and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne

NOTE: Attention is drawn to out of in the first verse and of in the second verse. Both are the

same Greek preposition ek with the literal meaning showing it is not all the nations, peoples etc.,

but a people taken ‘out of’ them and not ‘of’ them. These two passages appear to stand out

against what has been written so far. It looks conclusive as a statement to say that before the

Throne of God will stand people from every race on earth. This appearance is used as a basis

for the teaching about universal racial or national salvation. Because this does not fit with any

foundation in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, these verses require closer examination.

Firstly, we must look at what this verse is fulfilling. We must ask if there is any stream of

prophecy confirming the popular multi-racial view. If there is none, then the original prophecies

must stand.

Exodus 19:5,6 ... ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is

mine, and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.

NOTE: In the Hebrew all people is plural with the article giving the meaning all the peoples.

These verses are addressed only to Israel, as are a multitude of other Old Testament prophecies.

The Apostle Peter tells us about the same singular, peculiar people also, showing confirmation of the Old

Testament in the New Testament.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar


Although there is reference to every tribe, tongue, people and nation, these are all national, not

racial, terms. It must be remembered that Israel had twelve tribes that became scattered among nations

and peoples. Their languages became those spoken by their captors and later those of the nations

amongst whom they were dispersed or scattered. This is from whence the people of Israel were regathered.

They were from among every tribe, tongue, people and nation, as was prophesied. It is

repeated again that there is no prophecy about all races being in the Kingdom of Heaven or of any race

being redeemed other than Israel. Others had no broken Law-covenant that required redemption. But

Israel is redeemed out of [not of] every kindred, tongue and nation and people. Most of the prophetical

books speak consistently about the re-gathering of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. There is

nothing about the modern concept of this being “Jews and Gentiles”. Both would still have to be


Quoting R.K. Phillips in Incontrovertible Facts Of The Bible, we find:

This Holy Nation was to be the next step in the re-establishment of the Sovereignty of the

Kingdom of God on the Earth. This Sovereignty of God denotes a sphere of Gods rule and

requires that:


1. It has a territory; 2. It has a people;

3. It has laws; 4. It has a King;

5. It has an economy; 6. It has an administration

All these things God was now about to give to the Children of Israel and at Sinai the people accepted

God as their King, thus making them a holy nation. God has never rejected that Sovereignty over that

throne or that nation.

If every race was included then this would all be meaningless. A number of commentaries refer to the

redemption as that of the people who had once been redeemed from Egypt. The Exodus is the first

place where there is mention of redemption [Exodus 15:13]. The redemption in Scripture is always that

of Israel, and of Israel only. The issue of the redemption of Israel is stated before the Covenant of the


Bullinger’s lexicon comments:

“But now the People had been scattered among every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation and

therefore they must be redeemed from out of these the second time, like as it was to Israel in the day

that he came up, out of the land of Egypt”.

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set his hand again the

second time to recover the remnant of his people from Assyria, . and from the

islands of the sea.

The re-gathering is always of His People and not of other races. Contrary prophecy does not exist!

The scene of Rev 5:9 is in heaven as it is in Rev 7:9. Here there is a great multitude out of all

nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues. It does not say of all races; the word genos (races) is

not used in this passage.

It may not be appreciated that Israel is spoken of as the families of Israel, the Tribes becoming nations.

Jer 31:1 At the same time, saith the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and

they shall be my people.


Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.

The word translated as the earth is the Hebrew word erets which is mostly translated as

“country” or “earth” in the sense of a localised area or that earth belonging to a people [for example, the

land, or earth, of Israel]. In context, this whole chapter is about Israel and no other. It certainly is not

used in the generalised sense as the universalists who try to prove the expression the ends of the earth

means every race or place on Earth. A quick look at the word “ends” in Hebrew and Greek will dispel

this idea as it has to do with time, not place.


When Israel made the Exodus from Egypt, it is evident that some Egyptians, or some of mixed

blood, came out with the Israelites. The claim has been made that these saw the miracles that God had

done in the Land of Egypt, and so they joined themselves to Israel. These are then wrongly said to be a

type of non-Israelite Gentiles joining the church. This mixed multitude was continually a problem within

Israel. It should be remembered that these were not permitted to assemble with Israel, before God,

because they were not Israelites. There are two expressions translated, The congregation of the Lord,

namely the edah of Israel and the cahal of Israel, and this difference is important because they separate

the mixed multitude travelling through the wilderness from the Israelites themselves.


Isaiah 55:1 Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters ¼

The context shows this is addressed to Israel alone. The sure mercies of David [v3] indicate the

people of whom He is commander. Concordances do not convey the meaning of this word “everyone”

(kole), but there is a parallel where the Greek equivalent is considered in the next objection.


This man is used by many as an example of a so-called “Gentile” non-Israelite being saved. The

place of birth, or citizenship (“Roman”) tells us nothing about race. But this man’s race can be

determined by Scripture, even if he is not described as a “Jew” [or “Judean”]. In the AV of Acts 10:28,

Cornelius is described as being of another nation but, the Greek text uses the word allophulos which is a

compound of allos [another of the same kind], and phulos [a kindred tribe (phule)]. Note that phule = tribe

does not equate with ethnos = race.


Cornelius was a devout man, we are told, and he feared [the] God, therefore he was one who

could believe. According to Vine, devout means careful as to the presence and claims of God. So

Cornelius knew the Old Testament claims of God upon Israel. We do not find devout being used of

people other than Israelites. Also, he feared “God” [Acts 10:2] and he prayed to [the] God and was

heard by [the] God. “God” here is ho theos, the term used to denote the one true God. So, Cornelius

was not a Roman polytheist! He was an Israelite!


Universalists use the account of Peter’s sheet vision to suggest that the unclean animals in the

sheet represent peoples of all races, but the rest of the chapter shows otherwise. That they are called

“Gentiles” by translators in verse 45 only confirms that the wrong meaning is put on this word Gentile.

Historically, the House of Israel, which was scattered among the nations, was considered unclean and

common by those practising the Jewish (Edomite, Tradition of the Elders) religion. In saying that it was

unlawful, Peter knew that what he was doing was contrary to the Tradition of the Elders in Judea. As will

be shown later, Peter was being shown that the ten Tribes of The House of Israel would be cleansed

under the New Testament. The animals in the sheet represented the unclean and uncircumcised

members of the House of Israel.

This vision in Acts 10 is also used to promote the idea that the prohibition against eating certain

unclean meats is no longer valid. The symbol is taken literally! When Peter declares what God has

shown him, God does not tell him that he should eat unclean meats, but that, God has showed me that I

should not call any man common or unclean. The word another in another nation [v28] has already been

covered in [6] above to show that this refers to people of the same kind. “Nation” here is phulos and not

ethnos or demos which are often translated as “nation” and “people”. The distinction is noted by Vine

under “nation” and refers to allos (another), and phulon (a tribe).

Acts 10:36 The Word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching (proclaiming)

peace by Jesus Christ

Note the limitation as to whom “The Word” was sent. This verse follows on to say that a start

was made in the Holy Land and continued to the uncircumcised Grecians of the House of Israel

[Acts 11:20]. This fulfilled the Word as being sent to all Israel, both circumcised and uncircumcised. In

verse 35 we have every nation that, as the next verse explains, are the nations of Israel [the former

tribes of Israel which were dispersed among all the other nations]. This confirms what the Old

Testament says about the Law and God’s word being given only to Israel. Israel was scattered among

“every nation” [v35], and the Word [logos] was sent to Israel specifically, according to this verse. The

Word of God was sent to Cornelius, as an Israelite. The “in every nationof verse 35 is commonly and

incorrectly given the general meaning of every as being every race, despite the fact that “every” in

confined to the context people only. Cornelius was one of those who feared and believed God. He had

that spiritual capacity within him from his conception. These men had the capacity to believe God and so

could accept the ‘good news’ and become reinstated as God’s people. “All men” is thus all the men of

dispersed Israel and all the men of the Judean nation who were of Israel.

Acts 10:43 To Him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosever believeth

in him shall receive remission of sins.

The prophets did not witness or prophesy of redemption and remission of sins for all races.

Evidently it is thought that they should have, according to the common popular doctrine. The prophets

were giving witness about Jesus and Israel [v43].


Here we have a man who went to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning and reading the Scriptures in

his chariot. It impossible for a pagan to be returning from an Israelite feast, let alone be reading the

Scriptures. Although he was of Ethiopia, this says nothing about his race or genes; it only tells us where

he was living. If he had been a black man, he would not have been allowed near the temple, as he

would have been an alien. The Jews would have killed such a person immediately. We can see this

when the Apostle Paul tried to take one who was suspected of not being an Israelite into the temple

[Acts 8:21]. Would Phillip be sent to one who was not called by God and to one who “could not” receive

the Word? The weight of this passage says the Ethiopian was an Israelite, even if his residence was in



Again, there is nothing conclusive to say the widow was not an Israelite in this passage

[Luke 4:24-28]. The principle is no different to that given in Matthew 13:57 where Jesus did few mighty

works in His hometown. There are however two points that should be noted:

1. The widow woman obviously knew that Elijah was a man of God, and she knew about sin and

therefore the Law which was given only to Israel [1 Kings 17:18].


2. Elijah was a prophet of Israel sent to Israel and he said to the woman, “Thus saith the Lord God




Luke 12:8 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son

of man also confess before the angels of God.

The “you” Jesus is addressing is not the multitudes, but the disciples only. The word “men” is

one of many words translated as “men”. There are differing kinds of “men” and different words for “men,”

in the original languages. Men may have differing origins and be of differing seeds and plantings. To

deny this is to deny Jesus’ words. To deny and to teach differently is to deny Me before men. These

things are not being taught today because they do not fit in with the “all” of the all the world universal



This passage in John 4:12 is easily satisfied in the words, Art thou greater than OUR FATHER

JACOB who gave us this well. She was a descendant of Jacob and thus was an Israelite. How anyone

can use her place of residence to say she was a non-Israelite is hard to comprehend. Samaria

contained a mixture of races. In Acts 8:14 we can see that certain of the Samaritans received the Word

of God. In the first verse we find evidence of the scattering abroad to Samaria. Philip proclaimed the

Word in Samaria as did Peter and John. Their proclamation to Israel was concerned with the Kingdom

of God.


Luke 11:10 For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that

knocketh it shall be opened.

In the New Testament there are many like Scriptures that use the words all and everyone,

whosoever etc. In the Greek the situation is similar to that already pointed out to be the case in the

Hebrew. We could take the meanings of these words as either:

[a] All of everything, or

[b] All of that part being spoken about.

We are not at liberty to choose which meaning suits us to prove a doctrinal position, but this is what most

do. Usually it is done in ignorance or without thought because of the traditional teachings. We cannot

mis-apply these words to suit ourselves. We can read the Scriptures from the viewpoint of generalisation

or from differentiation, but both cannot be right at the same time. It is always necessary to take note to

whom any passage is addressed. This defines the context of the passage. In this passage Jesus

isolates those He is addressing. He says twice, I say unto you and uses the pronoun ye. He was talking

to his disciples as Israelites.

We find that many of the stumbling blocks are based upon mis-understanding of all, all men

whosoever, every, everyoneand such words. Lexicons give much space in covering these words.

In his coverage of “all” [Greek: pas] which is often translated in these various ways. Vine’s Expository

Dictionary says:

Before proper names of countries, cities and nations, and before collective terms like Israel, it

signifies either all or the whole, for example, Matt 2:3, Acts 2:36. Used with the article, it means

the whole of one object. In the plural it signifies the totality of the persons or things referred to.

This totality only refers to that part which is the subject of the context. Thus all men [of Israel] cannot

mean all of every race in the world.

Thayer confirms this [under ref 3956]:

The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very

rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually.

Thayer quoted the last sentence from one of Spurgeons’s lectures, and this book shows that view to be

incorrect. However, the important point to note is that the “all” is recognised as not being a universal

“all”. Its precise restriction is the purpose of this book. From a note from Josephus [Wars 2:19.1] we


Here we have an eminent example of that Jewish language, which Dr. Wall truly observes, we

several times find used in the sacred writings; I mean where the words all or whole multitude,

etc., are used for much the greatest part only, but not so as to include every person, without

exception; In considering all similar objections listed, this must be taken into account.


Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord

shall be saved.


Here we have another whosoever and so we must determine to whom the “whosoeverrelates.

This whole chapter is exclusive to the people to whom the prophet Joel made his prophecy. This was

made to Israel so how can any say it was made to others? If every prophecy is made to everyone then

we have a grey mass and everything is likewise an obscure grey. Nothing is ever clear! What would be

the point of prophets giving different messages to different people if all people were the same?

The “whosoeverrelates only to those to whom it is spoken. Peter makes this very clear in

verse 36 Let ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL know that God ¼. Who was he addressing? The

whosoever and “all” is exclusive to that group. The “whosoeverand the “all fleshcannot allude to

anyone other than genetic Israelites.

At Pentecost some scattered Israelites came to Jerusalem from different countries. This does not say

that they were from different races. Would they have come to the feast if they had been pagans or if they

were following other cultural beliefs? Such would not even be permitted to enter the temple [Acts 21:28].

Yet this is said by churches to try to prove the generalisation that people of all races came to the feast. The

bulk of the House of Israel had become scattered among other nations and the majority of these were to be

reached later. The gospel was to be proclaimed which began from Galilee [Acts 10:37] and was published

through all Judea. Jesus sent His disciples away to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and it is not

unreasonable to suggest that some among those sought out attended the Feast of Pentecost. We read

about Jews [Judeans] “dwelling” (katoikeo) in Jerusalem [Acts 2:5] and of others “dwelling” in other

countries [Acts 2:9] attending Pentecost. To infer that nationality and race are always the same thing is far

from honest! And, of course, the notion about the “Church” being a “Gentile” Church of non-Israelites

following Pentecost is nonsense simply because there were Jews there.


Matt 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the


Again, the standard universalistic doctrine teaches this Scripture wrongly in an endeavour to say

everyone of every race is included in this call. There is a lot more in these verses than meets the eye.

The servants were told to go to the cross-roads [diex] but instead they went to the ways [hodos]. Both

words are translated as cross-roads in the KJV. At the cross-roads there is a separation place, but on the

ways, or the path between two places there is no separation place. The consequence of going to the

wrong place to invite people to the wedding was to bring in people who were an un-separated mixture of

two kinds. In verse 11 there is a man not having on a wedding garment. This suggests that one group

does not have on the wedding garments and the consequence is that the evil or the bad guests are to be

cast into outer darkness.

Where do the churches go today to preach? Do they go to the hodos or to the diex? Should we

be going to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as Jesus commanded His disciples? Should it not be

with Israel to whom the New Testament is made? The New Testament still pertains to those who had

the Old Testament and direct statements to the contrary cannot be found in Scripture. [Please read

Jeremiah 31:31-34 to review the limitation given].


Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to

condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all

men unto justification of life.

Our prime consideration in this verse is the latter part because we are establishing the identity of

these all men. In all this book of Romans, the subject people are of the seed of Abraham according to

the flesh [Rom 4:1] and so this book is not written to any others than Israelites. The subject people are

indicated as “wein this chapter and these people are identified as being Israelites. If there is any

hesitation in acceptance of this statement, the reader should obtain the book, “The Exclusiveness of

Israel” and read the sections on the exclusive nature of Israel in the book of Romans. In

Romans 4:16 we read that the promise might be sure to all The Seed. It is not to all seeds on earth, but

to that particular seed or sperma being addressed.

A similar situation occurs in Romans 7:6 “That we being delivered from the Law. The pronoun

we” only refers to those to whom the Law had been given and the Law was given to Israel only as a

covenant. Because of this, the all men in this verse is applicable only to the seed of Abraham through

Isaac and to nobody else.


1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


The earlier notes on “all” and “every” apply here. That it does not mean a blanket every person

on earth is obvious from the fact that all men are not saved. In the following verses there are the words

who gave Himself a ransom for all ¼ and these words show that the all concerns only those who needed

to be ransomed, that is, those who were under the Law which is exclusively Israel.


Matt 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the


Again, the standard universalistic doctrine teaches this Scripture wrongly in an endeavour to say

everyone of every race is included in this call. There is a lot more in these verses than meets the eye.

The servants were told to go to the cross-roads [diex] but instead they went to the ways [hodos]. Both

words are translated as cross-roads in the KJV. At the cross-roads there is a separation place, but on the

ways, or the path between two places there is no separation place. The consequence of going to the

wrong place to invite people to the wedding was to bring in people who were an un-separated mixture of

two kinds. In verse 11 there is a man not having on a wedding garment. This suggests that one group

does not have on the wedding garments and the consequence is that the evil or the bad guests are to be

cast into outer darkness.

Where do the churches go today to preach? Do they go to the hodos or to the diex? Should we

be going to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as Jesus commanded His disciples? Should it not be

with Israel to whom the New Testament is made? The New Testament still pertains to those who had

the Old Testament and direct statements to the contrary cannot be found in Scripture. [Please read

Jeremiah 31:31-34 to review the limitation given].


2 Peter 3:9 ¼ But is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [that is, any of us] should

perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Here we do not have the word “men” mentioned, but in its place we have the indefinite pronoun

tis which denotes some or any person or object ¼ any man ¼ whomsoever, or certain men etc ¼ see

Strong G5100. Certain men are not all men in general.

Thayer [5100] It indicates that the thing with which it is connected belongs to a certain

class, or resembles it.

In this book Peter is writing to the one Holy Nation. He is writing to the strangers of his own

blood. Peter again refers to our Fathersindicating that the people to whom it was written were the

children of the Fathers, and so the “any” is racially exclusive. All men on Earth do not have “The

Fathers” Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as their progenitors. In this passage Peter is pointing out that God

is long-suffering to “US-ward” and not to “THEM-ward”. Peter is writing to an Holy Nation. He is not

writing to “The Church” as a multi-racial group.


Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

The all men in this passage is the same as that in the passage above. It is again limited by

those to whom it is addressed, namely God’s elect [Titus 1:1], and in Titus 2:14 we can see that this

again limits the scope of all men to those who were given the law ¼who gave himself for US, that he

might redeem US from all iniquity.


Jesus told the disciples where told to go and proclaim The Kingdom and that the time was at

hand. After His resurrection Jesus spoke to the Apostles about this Kingdom.

Acts 1:3 ... being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the

Kingdom of God.

This is the prime message of Jesus and He taught it right up to His ascension. But who is willing

to teach this today? We hear much about the gospel of universal salvation, but this is not what Jesus

taught. Try to find the gospel of universal salvation in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. Then try

to find it in the New Testament as the fulfilment of the Old Testament. “The Church” might seem to be

an answer, but the fulfilment still has to be in us their children [Acts 13:32,33]. If this is so, then The

Church still has to be racial; the members still have to be the children (descendants) of The Fathers.

The disciples asked Jesus before His ascension, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom

TO ISRAEL? [Acts 1:6]. Look again at this. To whom is the Kingdom to be restored? Is there ever a

suggestion that any but genetic Israel will be included in that Kingdom? The meaning of Israel includes

ruling with God. If Israel was made up from all the nations, then who are the other nations over which


Israel is to rule with God? Jesus used the word ‘salvation’ only twice, but 78% of the gospels are about

the Kingdom.

Consider these expressions:

The KING Is the King of ISRAEL.

The REDEEMER Is the Redeemer of ISRAEL.

The HOLY ONE Is the Holy One of ISRAEL.

The FATHER Is the Father of ISRAEL [“My Son”].

Look in vain for these titles to apply to other than Israel in the Bible.


To say that there is a natural Israel and a spiritual Israel is the only way out of the dilemma some

people have in trying to fit their doctrines and prophecy together. Their dilemma arises from the wrong

basic traditional teaching that:

[a] The Jews are National Israel, [or “Natural Israel” or “God’s natural people”].

[b] The Gentiles are The Church, [or “Spiritual Israel” or “God’s heavenly people”].

In a chapter of “The Exclusiveness of Israel” it is shown that “The Jews” are not Israel and that

“Gentiles” may be Israelites. Obviously there are two groups of peoples concerned. There is no denying

this. This is why it is so important to determine exactly who the two groups are. In the Old Testament

there is no dispute about this. Israel separated into two Kingdoms which were basically:

[a] The House of Israel [ten Tribes] ¼. known as Ephraim.

[b] The House of Judah [two Tribes] ¼ known as Judah.

These two Houses had enmity between them, and according to prophecy, they retain this enmity

until unity is restored under the New Testament that the two Houses receive nationally. The timing of the

reunion is at the time of the re-gathering of both Houses of all Israel. Ephraim and Judah are unique

identities, through Scripture from the time of the division of Israel into two Kingdoms, until the regathering

of Israel as a whole. Ephraim was and is the leader of the House of Israel-[ten tribes] whereas

Judah was and is the leader of the House of Judah-[two tribes].

Isaiah 11:12,13....and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of

Judah from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart,

and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and

Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

Here in the Old Testament we find two groups within all Israel which stay two national groups

until the time given to once again become one group. They are still the two groups to whom the New

Testament was given.

Heb 8:8,9 Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the

house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I

made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out

of the land of Egypt; ¼

There is no record in Scripture of the New Testament being made with any other two groups.

This verse says that they are the same race with which God was involved in the Exodus from Egypt.

Again we have definition in the words their fathers. This gives a racial statement of meaning that cannot

be spiritualised. The problem that then arises is, that if the covenant people were to be spiritualised into

two different groups, one Israelite and the other non-Israelite, then one of the original two national groups

would have to have vanished or the two combined before the appointed time.

Despite the fact that this cannot be found in prophecy in the Old Testament, or in the New

Testament as fulfilment of prophecy, the belief about Jews and non-Israel Gentiles is still taught as being

truth. In order to accommodate all races, another doctrine had to be created and this is actively


This non-scriptural doctrine pre-supposes that non-Israel races need salvation from a broken law

that they were not given to break in the first place. This idea cannot be found as a doctrine in either


NOTE: No statement about the final destiny of non-Israel races has been made or suggested in

this book. The idea about all races needing redemption comes mainly from the misuse of all,

whosoever etc in the New Testament. But there is no denial that the non-Israel nations should

be made subject to the Law of Christ. Jesus will rule with a rod of iron, and the nations will bring

their glory to the New Jerusalem, but we are told that the other nations will be outside that City.

The extra-scriptural doctrine about “Jews and Gentiles” arises from interpretations of the books

of Romans and Galatians. But, the racial statements cannot be eliminated from these books, even if it is

thought God should have given the covenants to every race on Earth. The expressions, The House of

Israel, and The Twelve Tribes still exist through the New Testament.


In concluding his argument about the so-called “Jews and Gentiles”, the Apostle Paul says:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the

Deliverer, and shall turn away un-godliness from Jacob.

There is no mention about any but all Israel being saved. None other than the seed of Jacob are

included in being turned from un-godliness. Other races can never be part of all Israel or Jacob.

Rom 3:30 Seeing that it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and

uncircumcision through faith.

Those whom God would justify are shown to be:

[a] The circumcision ¼¼.The House of Judah.

[b] The uncircumcision ¼ The House of Israel.

The House of Israel had become dispersed among the nations and were known as the un-circumcision.

They had become as strangers and aliens to the Judeans, but they were still Israelites by race. To the

Judeans who had the temple worship, the House of Israel was unclean and was despised.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or

to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

It is still to Abraham’s seed through Isaac that the promises were made. This includes all from

Jacob to Jesus who believed God. All Israel was saved by Jesus but it is personal belief in what God

says that saves the individual person within that seed. The popular doctrine says the seed is only a

spiritual seed which can be made up from all races.

Rom 4:16 ... to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.

Paul is not talking about other races. It is always to the one seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

These are the children of promise. Prophetically the New Testament is made only with the two Houses,

the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Hebrews 8:8 shows the promise of the New Testament

concerns only these two Houses. This is the fulfilment of Jer 31:31. Paul sums up the two parties, and


Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, ¼

All the objections in the world are not going to change what pertains to Israel or to the Word of the Lord.

This verse says Who ARE Israelites.


When we pray as Jesus taught, OUR Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, THY

KINGDOM come, what are we saying?

· Is the pronoun our referring to all races or to Israel?

· Is God ever called the Father of races other than Israel?

· Is Thy Kingdom ever other than the Kingdom over which the King of Israel will reign?

A close examination will indicate that the particular “Father” referred to is Our Father, the One in The

Heavens. It is not “their” father. Jesus said that the father of “The Jews” was the Devil-[John 8].

23. THE ISRAEL OF GOD- [Gal 6:16]

It is common to hear that The Israel of God means The Church. This statement is used as a

basis for sermons about universal salvation. It is so easy to make a wrong statement and then use that

statement as a foundation. But being based on a wrong foundation, this doctrine cannot stand. The

“Israel of God” means the “Israel of the Supreme Divinity”. It says nothing about God being the God of

all the races. This book of Galatians is written to them that were under the Law, that is to Israel. There

will be those who say that there is now a spiritual Israel as well as a natural Israel, as a way of promoting

universal salvation, but this is not valid.


It is claimed by many that the word strangers indicates other than Israelites. In the Book of Peter

we find this Apostle to the circumcision writes to strangers scattered as also does James, in the first

verse of his book. The Strangers scattered, contains the same word that is used in James, who

addresses his book to the Twelve Tribes. Please look this up and make sure about this. So these

strangers are still the Twelve Tribes!

If any want to consider this matter further they can find that looking at the word pilgrim as used

by Peter will help. This is exactly the same word that is translated as stranger in 1 Peter 1:1. The words,

pilgrims and strangers, also appear in Hebrews 11:13 which clearly isolates them as being Hebrews [that

is, Israel]. A chapter of “The Exclusiveness of Israel” entitled Pilgrims, Strangers and Israel examines

this in more detail.

This again is the language of the Old Testament where David says:

Psalm 39:12 ... for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.


My fathers gives immediate racial identity. But, further to this, the Hebrew words used for stranger and

sojourner are:

Ger meaning a stranger (an unknown person) of ones own blood, tribe, or


Toshav meaning only a pilgrim or a temporary resident, and one who has no

rights OR KINSHIP in any way at all with the people of the land in which

they have taken temporary residence.

In this Psalm, David is saying that he is a stranger away from his home with God and he has no kinship

with any other race around him. Peter make this same distinction.

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father

In Chapter 2 of “The Exclusiveness of Israel” this word “elect” and the elect nation, are those whom God

is saying that He “foreknew” in the Old Testament.

Rom 11:2 God has not cast away his people which he foreknew.

1 Peter 2:10 goes on to quote from Hosea, (which is a book dealing primarily with the ten-tribed House of


1 Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which

had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

In Hosea and Peter, the not a people refers to the same people and hence cannot be non-Israelite

“Gentiles”. Peter would have had trouble in convincing the Judeans that they had become not a people

at some past time.


Remember how God said that David would never want for a descendant upon his throne until

Jesus came to take this throne?

Jer 33:17 For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want for a man to sit upon the throne

of the house of Israel.

At the time of Jesus, the throne of the Kingdom of Judah and Solomon’s line had long gone from

Judea. The throne must therefore be manifest somewhere else and within the ten tribes headed by

Ephraim. The Epistles are in full accord with the Law, The Psalms and the Prophets. But they are not in

accord with tradition!

The people to whom Peter was writing had a King [1 Peter 2:13 and 1 Peter 2:17]. This again confirms

that these people were not the Judeans, although they were Israelites. The people addressed had a

king they were to honour. Peter tells us who they were racially. The indicators are given in the

expressions an Holy [that is, set-apart] nation and a peculiar people as pointed out in the earlier.

26. IN THEE SHALL ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED -[And all the families of the Earth being

blessed in Abraham]

The major source of error in these blessing passages is what we mean by certain words. We

have different words translated as earth and the ground, countries and the land, and also this occurs with

the words translated nations, families and kindreds. Although an extensive technical Hebrew language

exposition is beyond the scope of this paper, there are things that need to be pointed out.

Originally Abraham was told to go from his father’s house unto an eretz that God would show

him. If eretz here is the whole Earth, then Abraham must have gone to another planet! Abraham was

told all The Earth which thou seeth, I will give thee. He was told to arise and walk through the earth.

Did he walk across the whole globe? So we have to ask if this ‘earth’ is the whole earth or the Promised

Land. It is not all the ‘eretzs of all the races on earth. Abraham was told to get himself out of his present

earth and to go to THE earth. There are many references that give confirmation of the meaning. THE

earth does not mean the whole globe, but rather that portion belonging to the particular area or person

under consideration.

Contrary to popular presentation, we must note that in Genesis 12:3, the ‘them’ in I will bless

them is plural, whereas the ‘him’ in I will curse him is singular. The Hebrew allows for two possible

translations of be blessed, namely:

1 may be blessed in, or by, association with thee, and

2 may bless themselves [as the RV footnote says].

Some awkward questions could be posed here if it was to be taken that all nations had the meaning of

“every race on earth”:

1. If those who curse Abraham are cursed, how could those so cursed be part of all nations that were

to be blessed?

2. Were the Egyptians blessed or cursed through Israel’s presence during their captivity and also in

the Exodus?


3. When the Children of Israel went into the Promised Land, they were told to exterminate all the

Canaanite nations. Was not that an unusual way of blessing the Canaanites? After all, they were

supposed to be part of all nations. Likewise Amalek was to be exterminated.

4. In Deut 23:6, God commanded Israel that they should not seek the peace or the prosperity of the

Ammonites and the Moabites right up to the end of the age. Ezra 9:12 indicates similar treatment

of the non-Israelites in the land. This is hardly a blessing on those nations, is it?

5. When The House of Judah was in captivity in Babylon, is there any evidence of Israel being a

blessing to Babylon?

6. When the House of Israel was in captivity in Assyria, did this make the Assyrians blossom?

7. In prophecy why are all the forecasts concerning non-Israel nations always detailing them as being

servants to Israel and for them to perish if they refuse this destiny? This is so right up to the end

of the age.

8. The promise to Abraham was to “ALL” nations without any exceptions. “All” cannot include those

who are cursed and those God says that He hates. Hence “all” means all the nations of Israel.

Throughout Scripture, Israel was to dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations

[Num 23:9]. Prophecy sustains this to the end.

Daniel 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the

whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose

kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve him.

Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those

nations shall be utterly wasted.

Zech 14:16,17 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which

came up against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the

King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacle. And it shall be that

whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship

the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Israel and Judah were scattered among all nations, but are these other nations to be blessed? Jeremiah

does not agree.

Jer 30:11 ¼ though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet I

will not make a full end of thee ¼

Jeremiah repeats this in Jer 46:28, addressing this to Jacob.

In all these Scriptures we can see the unique place of Israel among the other nations. This

continues after Jesus returns and Israel reigns with God over the other nations. Finally there will be no

more death. What a blessing! The blessing is either given by this seed, or by the Act of God.


Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with

our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall the kindreds of the earth

be blessed.

Only Israelites are being addressed here! We can find references in Scripture to the families

[plural] of Israel. “Kindreds” is patriai which all lexicons give as kindred from one ancestor. The Hebrew

mishpachah’ supports ‘family’ 288 times and it is used of the subdivisions of Israel. The Tribes became

national identities but were of one racial group from one ancestor. Israel is still an exclusive race existing

as families or nations. It is unto these Jesus was sent.

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in

turning every one of you from his iniquities.

In context, “youstill is the Israelites being addressed.

Without continual recourse to the Old Testament origins, it is impossible to rightly interpret

passages in the New Testament. Only by going back can we know what all nations means and only then

find a doctrine that is 100% consistent. Galatians 3:8 can no longer be allowed as an “out” for those

preaching universal racial salvation. When we take Scripture as originally written in the Hebrew and

Greek, we find that conflicts disappear.

We can understand that an exclusive Israel in the Old Testament remains an exclusive Israel in

the New Testament. The promises are ever fulfilled in us their children and never in others. They are

fulfilled in brethren of the same kin. The blessings of the Patriarchs [as given by Jacob in Genesis 48 and

by Moses in Deut 33] for the last days still apply separately to each of that same group of peoples, who

are being specified. These include the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. In Genesis 49 Jacob

gives his prophecy about what will befall each individual Tribe of Israel, in the last days. These are

limited, specific and definite. We cannot find prophecy for the application of the blessings given by the

patriarchs as being applicable to all other races. This is why all nations is commonly taken wrongly

today as meaning every race on earth. The statement of Romans 4:11, a father of all-them that believe is

only in the context of Israel.


For the last days, Jacob gave his blessings to his children one by one [Genesis 49]. The

blessings were to his seed only. They were not to other seeds. The New Testament is still made only

with the House of Israel and the House of Judah [Heb 8:8]. The word children in Galatians 3:7 [the

Children of Abraham] is huios which denotes kinship or physical offspring. [Note: This word is also used

of animals, so it cannot refer to spiritual offspring in the way commonly taken!]

How can the Patriarchal blessings apply to all races? If they were all the same, what would be

the point of separation? And, if they are for the “last days”, why not accept this as a reality, rather than

saying that some singular multi-racial church that has nothing to do with these Twelve Tribes is the

recipient of these blessings?

As it has been pointed out, translators show what they believe in their translations. For instance,

in Galatians 3:8 the words translated heathen and nations are identical. The translation as heathen

gives an entirely different connotation to the verse. The nations whom God would justify by belief were

not heathen, but were of Israel. The proof of this is that this is the fulfilment of the prophecy made by the

Patriarchs. This is confirmed – by him are ye justified from all things from which ye could not be justified

by the law of Moses ¼These justified people must have first been under the Law of Moses, so they

could only be Israelites. Most of this book of Galatians is written relating Law and Grace to the one

people. The whole argument might be summed up by questioning whether or not they were going to

remain under the schoolmaster or whether they were going to believe God as Abraham did. What they

were to believe was that Jesus had redeemed Israel and that Jesus was the Son of God.

Ultimately, that which is reserved for Israel, namely redemption, salvation, resurrection to eternal

life, belongs only to Israel. It is their inheritance from Abraham, according to the promise made by God

to the fathers of Israel.


We can see that the churches today have a major problem in doctrine. This is simply through

wrong teaching that has arisen through failure to base doctrine upon the same basis used by Jesus and

the Apostles. The basis must ever be the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets.

The Law and the Word of God were given only to Israel among the nations. Because of the

misuse of the word all, particularly within the New Testament, the presumption is made that the Law of

Moses, together with the associated covenant with Israel, was given to every person of every race. In

this way, all have sinned is taught forgetting the context statement whatsoever the Law saith, is said to

them who are under the Law [Rom 3:19].

Look at this quotation that is one of many that shows “all” in the reverse situation.

Deut 28:10 And all the people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the

Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee.

Here all the people of the earth does not include Israel! This same situation exists more often the other

way around with all being Israelites. There is yet one more important impediment preventing people

accepting an exclusive Israel.

It is addressed in the writer’s booklet, That Unfortunate Word Gentile. The unity of the

Scriptures is made or broken upon this untranslated Latin-originating word Gentile and what that word

actually means.

If we look at the words translated as Gentile in the KJV translation of the Bible and immediately

something strange will be seen. From Hebrew, it is translated 374 times as nations, 143 times as

heathen, 3o times as Gentile(s) and 11 times as people. From Greek it is translated 64 times as nations,

5n times as heathen, 93 times as Gentiles and twice as people.

The word “Greeks” in the Greek is the word Hellen and is used thirty five times. But our

translators have chosen to translate this word (wrongly) as “gentile”, particularly in the Book of Romans.

Ethnos and Hellen are quite different words! Sometimes the justification is to say that the Greeks were

not Jews and therefore they must be Gentiles. This is not translating; rather it is interpreting Scripture in

the translations. There is neither rhyme nor reason for all these various translations and mis-translations,

other than to perpetuate a belief!

The commonly accepted meaning of the word “gentile” immediately falls flat from the translation point of

view alone. When we add the fact that the word in Hebrew is used also of Israel it falls even flatter!

When we show the real meaning from the New Testament, it becomes so flat that it cannot be seen!

The Hebrew and Greek words mean “nations” as races and peoples. They mean any group of a

common origin, including Israel.


Let us look at some Old Testament Scriptures where the word Gowy, Goi or Goyim are used. If we

apply the logic concerning Gentiles for these verse, we can see the ridiculous conclusions that could be

reached. Remember that Goi and Ethnos are used of Israel as well as of other races.

Gen 12:1,2 Now the Lord said unto Abram ... and I will make of thee a great nation.

Gen 17:5 ¼ a father of many nations have I made thee.

Did God make a great non-Israel “gentile” nation out of Abraham and did Abraham father many

Gentiles? Was the great nation other than Israel?

Gen 25:23 And the Lord said unto her (Rebecca), Two nations are in thy womb

Could Rebecca have what would become two non-Israel “gentiles” in her womb?

Gen 48:19 and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

There is no evidence in Scripture that Ephraim would produce a lot of non-Israelites.

Gen 46:3 And he said, I am God, the God of thy father (Isaac) fear not to go down into

Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation.

Could the sons of Jacob be non-Israel “Gentiles”?

Jer 31:36 If those ordinances [the sun and the moon] depart from before me, saith the

Lord, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before me for


As the word for “nation” is the same as that translated “Gentile”, we could equally read the seed of Israel

shall not cease from being Gentiles before Me. We could even say Israel would not cease from being

heathen! This is absurd!

When we consider the word ethnos, which is sometimes translated “gentiles” in the New Testament, we

have another block of translations among which we could make transpositions. The consequences are

equally absurd!

Luke 7:5 For he loved our nation, and has built for us a synagogue.

Would that section of Jewry be pleased if the Centurion had built a synagogue for the so-called gentiles

or the heathen? “Nation” is the word ethnos.

Luke 23:2 We found this fellow perverting the nation,

Would “The Jews” care so much if Jesus were perverting the “Gentiles”?

John 11:48 the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

For the Romans to come to Judea and take away “our” gentiles gets a little silly.

John 11:49,50 Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man

should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

So we can see how transliterating one word is the major cause of objections to the exclusiveness of

Israel as consistently presented through Scripture.

Reference Materials