|
Ephraim Scepter #2
Ephraim Scepter #3
| |
THE EPHRAIM-SCEPTER HERESY, #1
At John 8:32, we are told "And ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free." It is paramount, therefore, we find
that truth and never deviate from it, for without it the enemy�s
shackles can never be broken. With this treatise, we will investigate a
doctrine contrary to all that is Holy, and will only tighten our chains of
servitude all the more. This great fallacy is a formula for disaster,
and when we are finished, we will see clearly how UN-Scriptural it is. The
proponents of this heresy dub it "In Search Of The Missing Birthright." Once
analyzing the nature of the distortion and the unsoundness of its foundation,
one can recognize it for the fraud it really is. Its very heading is a
deception, for the "birthright" was never lost. The undeniable intent of this
heresy has nothing to do with the "birthright", but to remove the Scepter from
the Tribe of Judah and transfer it to the Tribe of Ephraim. Let�s call it what
it truthfully is! If the Scepter were to go to Ephraim, as they falsely claim,
Ephraim would have everything and Judah nothing. Once grasping their
subterfuge as a means to divert the eye toward the birthright while
manipulating the Scepter, their entire shell game is exposed.
After propagating the above highly misleading
title-heading, the proponents of this false doctrine will say: "the birthright
belonging to the House of Ephraim was hidden by the scribes who ruled the
Sanhedrin" and that "the scribes also tried to distort the genealogy of the
Messiah so as to create the appearance that the Messiah would descend from
Judah and not Joseph Ephraim." Continuing, they will claim that the motive was
selfishly done "to enhance their own importance as they believed that they
descended from Judah, and wanted to glory in being in the tribe from which the
Savior-Messiah would be born." Continuing, they make the unfounded claim, "we
can safely assume that the scribes were learned Talmudic experts and that
maybe they knew that they in fact were descendants of Satan but claiming to be
the undiluted seed of Abraham through Judah." How do you like that word
"assume"? Answer: We can�t "safely assume" any such thing! Breaking down that
word it reads "ass-u-me" (ass-of-me), and that is what they do!
Then they will walk you through Genesis 28:10-15 where
Jacob uses a rock for a pillow and dreamed of a ladder from earth to heaven �
Genesis 28:18-22 where Jacob sets up the rock for a pillar (witness), anoints
it with oil and names the place Bethel � Genesis 31:13 where Yahweh identifies
Himself with the angel at Bethel � Genesis 35:9-15 where Jacob�s name is
changed to Israel and Yahweh reconfirms His promises and Jacob once again
anoints the stone and designates the place as Bethel. They then take Genesis
49:24 completely out of context to prove their unfounded, groundless argument.
That passage is speaking of Jacob�s blessing on Joseph and pertains to both
the House of Ephraim and the House of Manasseh (not just Ephraim) and reads:
"But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands
were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence
is the shepherd, the stone of Israel)."
The motive of the proponents of the Ephraim-Scepter heresy
is to deviously precondition the unwary Bible student so he will unguardedly
accept the misconception that the "shepherd" and "stone" represent
respectively our Redeemer the Messiah, and Jacob�s anointed pillar. These
terms don�t even come close to that hypothesis, so their premise is flawed
from the start. While you will notice that the last phrase is enclosed in
parentheses (a device of English grammar), parentheses in the A.V. are used to
mark a digression in the narrative by the writer, and such digression should
be kept in its proper context. It simply means that Joseph (Ephraim and
Manasseh) was a prince among his brothers � a shepherd tribe(s) � a rock of
refuge � a type of messiah, but not actually the promised Messiah � and a
sustainer of his brethren. In other words, Joseph would be solid, and
afterward advanced to a shepherd to feed in time of famine, and a stone or
rock in support of all of Jacob-Israel. All one need do is to take a look at
Ephraim and Manasseh (England and America) today, and they are feeding much of
the world, and their weapons of war, though used in many cases for all the
wrong reasons, have no equal among the nations. Anyway, the terms "shepherd"
and "stone" in that phrase do not represent the Messiah or Jacob�s
anointed stone, Bethel. The proponents of the Ephraim-Scepter heresy are
reading something into that verse that simply is not there.
As the advocates for the Ephraim-Scepter heresy continue to
prop up their untenable position by citing various passages of Scripture, they
show their utter disregard for Biblical history in evaluating the
circumstances and the time-periods involved. They cite Joshua 24:24-27 where
Joshua sets up a stone under an oak as a witness at Shechem where the people
pledged to keep the Law. That was not Jacob�s anointed Bethel stone, and was
much before Jerusalem became the Capital of the United Kingdom. Before
Jerusalem was established as a religious center, Shechem served that purpose,
and because it was the place where Jacob set up an altar, it continued to be
the place for crowning kings even until Rehoboam who became king of Judah.
It�s a blatant attempt to favor Ephraim at Judah�s expense. Then they cite 1st
Kings 12:1 showing that Rehoboam went to Shechem to be crowned king at
Ephraim. As you can plainly see, citing this passage does not in any way make
Rehoboam an Ephraimite as they imply. Then they cite 1st Kings
12:25 in an attempt to claim that Jeroboam, son of Nebat of the Tribe of
Ephraim somehow legitimizes their claim that Ephraim was the Scepter tribe.
Then, in another vain attempt to bolster their absurd
position, they quote 2nd Kings 11:13-14 and 2nd
Chronicles 23:13 where the eight-year old Joash (Jeoash) was crowned by a
"pillar." Doubtless, it was in fact Jacob�s anointed stone, but that in no way
makes him of the Tribe of Ephraim. Further, to hatch their unwarranted point,
they cite Judges 9:1-6 where it speaks of a certain Abimelech, a son of Judge
Gideon born of his concubine at Shechem. After his father�s death, Abimelech
with presumptuous impudence sought to make himself king. Cunningly, he
appealed to the landowners of Shechem through his mother�s influential family.
After obtaining their support he hired some hoodlums, went to his father�s
house at Ophrah, and there annihilated his half brothers upon a single stone.
Of the 70 half brothers, only the youngest, Jotham, escaped the slaughter,
whereupon Abimelech proclaimed himself king, standing by a pillar at Shechem.
Again, all this adds nothing to their faulty supposition about Ephraim being
the Scepter tribe. It is overwhelmingly obvious their motive in using these
passages is to favor Ephraim and lambaste Judah.
After this, they point to Hosea 3:4 which says:
"For the children [of the northern kingdom] of
Israel shall abide many days [years] without a king, and without a prince, and
without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and
without teraphim." Evidently somehow,
according to the Ephraim-Scepter people, this passage is supposed to prove
Ephraim was the Scepter tribe. Actually, this passage along with verse 5
teaches quite the opposite! Verse 4 is designed to show a lengthy period of
isolation for northern Israel, and the absence of a king and prince
implies a loss of national sovereignty. The elimination of sacrifice
and sacred stones meant the cessation of formal religious activity.
However, with the adoration of Baal, Israel�s sacrifices became contaminated,
and her condition was further exacerbated by the people�s failure to obey the
more important matters of Law. Without an image, literally a pillar (KJV
center reference) � no other than Jacob�s anointed stone, Bethel, which
Jeremiah took to Ireland. Without an ephod; assuredly the ephod of
Exodus 28:6-14, of Israel�s royal colors and two onyx identifying stones with
six names each (including Judah)! Without teraphim; teraphim meant
inheritance in ancient times, and when all Israel was divorced, they lost
theirs temporarily until Messiah purchased them back. Hosea 3:5 says:
"Afterwards shall the children of Israel
return, and seek Yahweh their El, and David (Messiah, the lion of the Tribe of
Judah) their king; and shall fear Yahweh and his goodness in the latter days."
In no way does this passage in Hosea support an
Ephraim-Scepter theory, but upholds the Judah-Scepter fact.
EPHRAIM DELIBERATELY CONFUSED WITH EPHRATH
The next blatant, intentional deception the proponents of
the Ephraim-Scepter heresy use is purposely confounding the geographical
location of Ephrath with the unrelated biological Tribe of Ephraim! They will
start something like this: "As you shall see, hidden in the flawed Bible
text in plain sight of millions of readers is the mystery of the true
birthplace of the Savior." Then they will ask the sly question: "In
what city was the Promised Messiah born, Bethlehem Judah, or Bethlehem
Ephrata?" (Ehprath also spelled Ephrata) Not only do they confound the
geographical Ephrath with the Tribe of Ephraim, but also confuse the location
of Ephrath with the city of Ephraim in John 11:54! So where is that so-called
"Bethlehem Ephrata" in the territory of Ephraim? It�s not there, and it never
was! The only Bethlehem Ephrata was in Judah. The Ephraim of 2nd
Chronicles 13:19 is NOT Ephraim, but rather an error in the A.V.
for Ephron (Strong�s #6085), and no Old Testament geographical city of
"Ephraim" can be found, and the Ephraim mentioned at John 11:54 may not be an
actual town at all.
Now in the A.V. there was a second Bethlehem in the
northern Kingdom, but it was in the territory of Zebulun (seven miles NW of
Nazareth), not Ephraim!, (Joshua 19:10-16, especially verse 15). The LXX
has it Baithman (Beth-man). The true location of Bethlehem Ephrata can be
resolved at Genesis 35:16, where it says:
"And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to
Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour."
All one need do is find a map of Palestine with a
scale-of-miles and locate Bethel along with the Bethlehem in Judah and the
Bethlehem or Baithman, seven miles NW of Nazareth, and measure the miles
between these three locations very carefully. Upon doing that it will be found
that from Bethel south to Bethlehem Judah is 16 miles, whereas from Bethel
north to Bethlehem-Zebulun is 62 miles. Surely, the description "a little way"
hardly fits the Bethlehem in Zebulun. Moreover, one would hardly think that
Jacob would put Rachel on a pack-animal in her sick and dying condition in
"hard labor" and force her to travel 62 miles north to the Bethlehem in
Zebulun! It is considerably apparent that the Ephraim-Scepter people are
talking when they should be listening, and being taught rather than teaching!
Yet in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the
Ephraim-Scepter theorists continue spouting their false dogma. There simply is
no Biblical, secular or archaeological record of such a so-called place as
"Bethlehem Ephrata" in the area of the Tribe of Ephraim! Another witness,
The Protevangelion of James 12:1-5 properly identifies the correct
Bethlehem:
"1 And it came to pass, that there went forth a decree from
the Emperor Augustus, that all the Jews [Judeans] should be taxed, who were of
Bethlehem in Judaea: 2 And Joseph said, I will take care that my children be
taxed: but what shall I do with this young woman? 3 To have her taxed as my
wife I am ashamed; and if I tax her as my daughter, all Israel knows she is
not my daughter. 4 When the time of the Lord�s appointment shall come, let him
do as seems good to him. 5 And he saddled the ass, and put her upon it, and
Joseph and Simon followed after her, and arrived at Bethlehem within three
miles." Again in 1 Infancy 1:5 we read:
"Joseph therefore arose, and with Mary
his spouse he went to Jerusalem, and then came to Bethlehem, that he and his
family might be taxed in the city of his fathers."
Again, the Ephraim-Scepter advocates are proving to be only
surface-readers of the Bible rather than mature students. All one need do is
read Matthew 2:21-23 and it is perfectly clear that Messiah-Emmanuel was born
in Bethlehem of Judaea rather than anyplace in northern Israel:
"21 And he [Joseph] arose, and took the young
child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard
that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was
afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of Yahweh in a dream, he
turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23 And he came and dwelt in a city
called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
He shall be called a Nazarene."
From this, it should be categorically indisputable that
Yahshua was born in Bethlehem of Judah PERIOD! That fact should not even be
debated! If Joseph was afraid to return to where he departed, he would of
necessity had to have left from somewhere in Judaea which was his ancestral
home, and not some nonexistent, mythical so-called "Bethlehem Ephrata" in
Ephraim! The Ephraim-Scepter heretics are implying that Joseph left from
somewhere in northern Israel to go to Egypt. If that�s the case (and it�s not
true), he would have returned to the same place he left, making this passage a
total lie. It should be glaringly obvious that when they departed for Egypt,
they left from Joseph�s ancestral home in Judaea, and when they left Egypt,
they returned to Mary�s birthplace at Nazareth, which evidently at times
Joseph used as a temporary residence. It appears from verse 22 that Joseph�s
initial intention was to return to Bethlehem in Judaea.
Then, the Ephraim-Scepter people try to make a case of
Ephraim receiving all the inheritance of Jacob such as jewelry, ointments,
revered relics, Bethel stone, etc., and somehow that is supposed to, in their
perverted way of reasoning, give Ephraim the Scepter that rightly belongs to
Judah. Continuing, they cite 12 various Scriptures on "rock", evidently trying
once again to prove Yahshua was the "stone" of Genesis 49:24. After that they
attempt to add some words to Micah 5:2 which were never implied: "But thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among [compared to] the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." With
this little twist, they shift the "ruler" (Scepter) from Judah to Ephraim.
They do this by fallaciously claiming that the geographical location of "Ephratah"
means the same thing as the Tribe of Ephraim. Further they ask an unskilled,
incompetent, illogical double question: "Where is Bethel Ephratah? Is it in
Galilee of Ephraim?" Illogical inasmuch as "Bethel" and "Ephratah" are two
different unrelated localities � and when combined together as "Bethel
Ephratah", there is no such place. Furthermore, the lot apportioned to the
Tribe of Ephraim was not in Galilee nor Galilee in Ephraim�s lot, for they
also are two separate entities! (shades of Bozo the clown!)
THE BETHEL-BETHLEHEM HOCUS-POCUS
Not only do the Ephraim-Scepter practitioners deliberately
misrepresent the geographic Ephratah as being the same as the Tribe of
Ephraim, but they also manipulate Bethel and Bethlehem to be the same place.
Let�s observe how they maneuver that subterfuge: "But thou, Bethlehem
Ephratah ... The words tingle with excitement and mystery. Why Bethlehem?
Where is Bethlehem? What role has it played in history to make God�s choice
for the birthright of His Son? Actually Bethlehem is one of several names for
the same place in Holy Scripture. The Hittites called it Luz meaning the place
of an almond tree." This is simply preposterous! But as stated here,
rather than "tingle with excitement", it gives a pain in one�s posterior, and
let�s see why. If one will check any good Bible dictionary, they will find
that Luz was Bethel, not Bethlehem! Let�s state that again: Bethel is not
Bethlehem!, and Bethlehem is not Bethel! They might sound somewhat alike, but
they are two separate, individual entities! (To and two sound alike too!,
along with cite, site and sight!) Let�s read Genesis 28:19 to confirm that
pregnant fact: "And he [Jacob] called
the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz
at the first." Therefore, Bethel only was called
Luz, and Bethlehem has nothing to do with it! The only thing these two
place-names have in common is the Hebrew word "beth" which means "house."
Bethel therefore means "house of El", and Bethlehem "house of bread." I�m sure
that El is the bread of life, but that analogy cannot be applied to these two
geographical locations. You should now grasp somewhat the underhanded tactics
these turkeys are using. If Bethel and Bethlehem are the same place, there is
no way Jacob could have journeyed from Bethel to Ephrath (Bethlehem) as stated
in Genesis 35:16! That passage is very clear that Jacob and company
"journeyed from Bethel, and their destination was Ephrath (Bethlehem).
(absurdity unlimited!) Let�s repeat it again: Bethel is not Bethlehem and
Bethlehem is not Bethel!
After attempting to establish that faulty premise, they
move on to another flawed supposition, and a quite serious one at that. The
Ephraim-Scepter people, in their own words, with several misquotes and
typographical errors, start by stating: "Now let us pickup the trail of
deception of the scribes starting in the book of Luke chapter 2."
Continuing with their muddled typing and inaccurate quoting, they will
approach the subject from the backdoor, and this is what they say, which I
place in italics: "1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the
days of Herod The king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2-
saying, �Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His
Star in the East, and have come to worship him.� When Herod the king heard
this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with Him. And when he had gathered
all the chief priests and scribes of the People together, he inquired of them
where the Christ was to be born. So they said to him, �In Bethlehem of Judea�:
for thus it is written by The prophet ... Now let us examine the text that the
scribes was quoting from in the Book of Micah to see if they quote the
prophesy correctly. Micah 5 1- But thou Bethlehem Ephrata, which art
little to be [compared] among The thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall
one come forth unto me that Is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are
from of old, from Everlasting." You will notice how they insert the word
"compared" in brackets. Their motivation is to make you believe that Bethlehem
is in Ephraim, and the prophet is comparing it with all the larger cities of
Judaea. No, it is comparing little Bethlehem with all the larger cities of
Judah of which Bethlehem was a part. Then they continue with this statement:
"The prophesy reads that Christ would come out of a small region called
Bethlehem Ephrata not Bethlehem Judah!" Continuing they state: "in
ancient times luz better known as bethel, this is the original home place of
Jacob in the territory inherited by Joseph. Jacobs�s prophecy in Genesis 49:24
given to Joseph was the promised seed [Christ] would come through the house of
Joseph Ephraim Claiming the birthright! [author�s text copied exactly]"
Garbage piled on top of garbage! � what a disarray of confusion! That passage
has nothing to do with "Christ", nor does Jacob�s Bethel make Joseph the
Scepter tribe. By the way, the scribe they are calling a liar is Luke, the
physician of Colossians. 4:14, a coworker with Paul, and I hardly believe Luke
was a "Talmudic scribe of the Sanhedrin" as the Ephraim-Scepter people claim.
(Luke was a Greek from Antioch.) Before they are through, they will call
Matthew the Apostle, and John the beloved liars also. If that were true, (and
it isn�t), three of the four witnesses to the Gospel are false witnesses. Now
that�s serious!
Then this Ephraim-Scepter advocate asked an asinine
two-part question: "Why do most think the birthright was Judah�s?, when
Jacob�s prophecy states clearly that the scepter would depart from Judah when
the true birthright inheritor Christ the promised seed came?" "Asinine"
inasmuch as such unlearned gibberish proves they can�t even ask a rational,
scholarly question. Outside of a few Ephraim-Scepter people, I have never read
or heard anyone suggest that Judah received the "birthright." It should be
quite evident from this two-part question; the incompetent proponents of this
insane heresy confuse the birthright with the Scepter. Unequivocally, the
Scepter is not the birthright, nor is the birthright the Scepter! Judah was
the Scepter tribe and Joseph through Ephraim & Manasseh were the birthright
tribes. The second part of this two-part question suggests, contrary to
Genesis 49:12 that the Scepter would depart from Judah when Messiah comes. To
understand their bizarre harebrained premise on that, one must ascertain that
they consider Emmanuel�s first coming to be His Shiloh coming. That position
simply is not true for at His Shiloh, or Second Coming, there will be "a
gathering of the people" which never happened at His First Coming. Where did
that adage disappear to that we should rightly divide the Word? All one need
do is check 1st Chronicles 5:1-2, for it states clearly that the
birthright, after Reuben�s disqualification, went to Joseph and that Judah
became "chief ruler" or the Scepter tribe.
To show how inconsistent those who teach this untenable
doctrine are, in one breath they strongly claim that David and Jesse were
Ephraimites rather than Judahites, and in the next breath will admit that
Judah had the Scepter only to have it taken away again. It would seem they
really should make up their mind which way they want it to be, because it
can�t be both ways!
While there is absolutely no doubt that Ephraim is one of
the two birthright tribes, on the other hand, Ephraim has proved by his
performance he doesn�t have what it takes for leadership. The entire chapter
of Psalm 78 is devoted to that theme, especially verses 9, 11, 57, 60 & 68.
Time after time Ephraim failed in that position. Then Psalm 78:67-68 sums up
the chapter by saying: "67 Moreover he
(Yhwh) refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim;
68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved."
Judah was the fighting tribe then as well as now. Judah
today is found in Germany, Ireland and Scotland. If your lineage is of these
three, then you are of the same tribe that the Almighty chose to come in the
flesh. Judah�s hand is to be "in the neck of thine enemies." In other words,
without Judah, which includes Yahshua, we have no salvation from our age-old
fight with the seed of the serpent.
Space will not allow all that should be presented on the
downright false and misleading bilge manifested by this concept. It is a
misconception rather than a concept. Therefore, of necessity, this subject
will be continued in further brochures.
Clifton A. Emahiser�s Teaching Ministries
1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419)435-2836
Please Feel Free To Copy, Or Order:
10 for 2.00; 25 for 3.00; 50 for 5.00 or 8.00 per 100
HOME
|
