THE EPHRAIM-SCEPTER HERESY, #2
This is the second in a series on this subject, and it�s
simply amazing what some people dream up on what they presume the Bible is
saying. This subject is no exception. Evidently, they are endeavoring to find
some new revelation so they can set themselves up, wittingly or unwittingly,
on a pedestal and lord it over everyone else as some kind of pompous,
grandiose, overblown demagogue. This is the image they make of themselves when
peddling this off-the-wall, counterproductive, recycled hogwash, and that is
probably overrating it. For those who don�t know what the Ephraim-Scepter
heresy is all about, it�s a sorry, reprehensible attempt to remove the Scepter
from Judah and place it in Ephraim�s hands. In order to fully understand, you
will need to read The Ephraim-Scepter Heresy, #1. The reason for such
outlandish, preposterous conclusions is because they haven�t the slightest
idea why Judah was chosen by Jacob for the Scepter in the first place.
We are told at Genesis 35:23 that Jacob, by his first wife
Leah, had six male children: (1) Reuben, (2) Simeon, (3) Levi, (4) Judah, (5)
Issachar, and, (6) Zebulun. Ancient Law demanded that the firstborn son
receive both the birthright and Scepter. But in this case, Rueben was
disqualified for both the birthright and Scepter because he had violated
another of Jacob�s wives Bilhah, Genesis 35:22. After this disqualification,
the birthright and Scepter were divided between the children of Jacob by Leah
and Rachel; Leah�s line receiving the Scepter and Rachel�s line the
birthright. Since Reuben was disqualified, the next in turn for the Scepter in
Leah�s line would be Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun in that order.
But Jacob had a problem with both Simeon and Levi and bypassed them in favor
of Judah for the Scepter. The story on Simeon and Levi is told in Genesis
chapter 34, where the Hivite Shechem, son of Hamor, raped Dinah, full sister
of Simeon and Levi. Upon this, Simeon and Levi dealt deceitfully with them
requiring all the men of their city to be circumcised so Shechem might have
Dinah to wife. (This Shechem shouldn�t be confused with the city of Shechem or
two other people by that name.) Reportedly, while the men were sore from the
circumcision, Simeon and Levi "digged down a wall"; slew all the male
inhabitants; spoiled the city and rescued Dinah. Jacob reminded Simeon and
Levi of this when he passed on the birthright and Scepter in Genesis 49:5-6.
It wasn�t that these Hivites didn�t deserve what they got, but Jacob
understood that Simeon and Levi didn�t have the qualities required for
leadership. Therefore, Jacob designated the coolheaded Judah for that
position. Had Simeon and Levi waited for Jacob�s guidance, the same outcome
would have resulted without putting the whole family at risk. Should one check
Josephus� Antiquities 1:21; 1-3, he will find that Dinah had gone on a
shopping excursion at a festival where women�s "finery" was for sale. Knowing
the wiles of the Hivites, perhaps when Dinah stepped into the women�s private
clothing booth, Shechem entered and forced himself on her and raped her. (The
Canaanite-kikes were in the clothing business in those days too!) Oddly
enough, Josephus says nothing about any circumcision, but that the men
of the city got drunk at the festival, and that was when Simeon and Levi
killed them. In any case, this is the reason Jacob bypassed Simeon and Levi,
and chose Judah. Therefore, Judah�s line got the Scepter and Joseph�s line got
the birthright. Again, Joseph was bypassed in favor of his two sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh. Had Jacob given the birthright directly to Joseph, it would have
been only a single portion, whereas giving it to his two sons Ephraim and
Manasseh, it became a double blessing. The promoters of the Ephraim-Scepter
heresy are totally ignorant of these facts, for they are unable to
differentiate between the birthright and the Scepter. Again, the birthright is
not the Scepter and the Scepter is not the birthright. Once more, they
ignorantly leave Manasseh entirely out of that birthright, and all they can
think about is Ephraim. It�s simply amazing how people read these passages
concerning Reuben, Simeon and Levi and have no idea what they are talking
about!
FROM PADDAN ARAM TO BETHLEHEM JUDAEA
Although the territory of Judah hadn�t been established yet
in the book of Genesis, nevertheless it was called at that time Ephrath, when
Jacob returned to his father�s family after 20 years in Paddan Aram. This is
an important element, as the Ephraim-Scepter people vainly attempt to place
Ephrath in the territory of Ephraim, which also hadn�t yet been established.
Actually, Jacob had left Beersheba to journey to Paddan Aram, and when leaving
Laban his father-in-law, was returning to that same general location, which
was about 40 miles south of Ephrath. Beersheba is the same location that
Israel (Jacob) stopped at before going into Egypt during the great famine � it
is where he grew up, so we shouldn�t be surprised that he journeyed as far
south as Ephrath in the account of Genesis 35:26. I cite this period of time
between Paddan Aram to Ephrath (Bethlehem Judah), for it represents closely
the time period contemporaneous with the birth of the last two of Jacob�s
children.
In Genesis chapter 31, we are told there was friction
between Laban�s sons and Jacob, with Laban upholding his sons. Upon that
development, the Almighty instructed Jacob to return to the land of his
father�s kindred. Then Jacob gathered together his family and all the
possessions that he had acquired at Paddan Aram and left quietly, without
informing Laban, and made Gilead his first destination. After three days Laban,
being informed of Jacob�s departure, pursued him seven days and found him at
Mount Gilead, a mountainous region east of the Jordan River and midway between
the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea (a chase of about 350 miles). After
chiding Jacob for not giving him the opportunity of properly seeing his
daughters and grandchildren off, and after much harangue about their former
business relations, Laban and Jacob made a mutual non-aggression pact between
them.
No sooner had this agreement been finalized, than in
Genesis chapter 32, Jacob was faced with the dilemma of having to confront his
brother, Esau, who had vowed to kill him. After leaving Mount Gilead, Jacob
met some angels of Elohim at a place he named Mahanaim; an ancient town in
Gilead, east of the Jordan River in the vicinity of the River Jabbok, which
later became the border between the tribes of Manasseh and Gad (Joshua 13:26,
30). Then, skipping the story of Jacob�s encounter with the Angel, we will
dwell on the meeting with Esau, for we are interested in the narrative
concerning the members of Jacob�s family at Genesis 33:1-2 of that
confrontation: "1 And Jacob lifted up
his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men.
And he [Jacob] divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the
two handmaids. 2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and
Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost."
Noticeably, all the children are accounted for except
Benjamin, and thus importantly narrows the time frame with which we are
working. The question arises: when did Rachel conceive Benjamin? Might she
have already been pregnant at the meeting with Esau? Anyway, Jacob wisely paid
off Esau in the form of a large "gift" and parted with him never to fraternize
again. To avoid Esau altogether and throw him completely off his track, Jacob
(now named Israel) headed temporarily west to Shechem while Esau headed east
to Seir. The RSV on Genesis 33:18 says:
"And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of
Canaan, on his way from Paddanaram; and he camped before the city."
(Evidently, the reference in verse 17 to "Succoth"
simply means a place for Jacob to build booths for his cattle.) LXX has
it, "to Salem a city."
Genesis chapter 34 is the incident with Dinah, which we
have already discussed. Then in chapter 35:1, Elohim instructs Jacob to go
south to Bethel and dwell there. That verse reads:
"And Elohim said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to
Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto El, that appeareth unto
thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother."
The words "go up" have nothing to do with a direction like some might wrongly
interpret to mean to go north. It is #5927 in the Hebrew, and simply means to
go to a place which is higher in altitude which, depending on the topography,
could be almost any direction. We will skip over the importance for the trip
to Bethel, and go to verse 16 where Jacob then leaves Bethel with an intended
destination for Ephrath, which was later called "Bethlehem of Judah." That
verse reads: "And they journeyed
from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel
travailed, and she had hard labour." We have now
traced Jacob step by step from Paddan Aram to Ephrath (Bethlehem Judah). A
so-called mythical place in the territory Ephraim named "Bethlehem Ephrath"
positively never existed as the Ephraim-Scepter advocates so vociferously
proclaim!
SOME MORE OF THEIR HOCUS-POCUS
Their next devious ploy is to jump from unrelated passage
to unrelated passage and time-period to time-period. All one need do is refer
to some maps of the various great empires such as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon,
Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome at different stages of their development, at
different time periods, and the borders are all over the place. The territory
of what we now call Palestine was no different. This next maneuver by the
Ephraim-Scepter people is to cite the borders at different stages of
development in an attempt to prove that Bethlehem Ephrath was in Ephraim
rather than in Judah. As we very carefully tiptoe through their subterfuge,
their motives will become exposed to the light of day. We will counter their
erroneous assumptions with Scripture!
First, they start by quoting Genesis 35:6-20, leaving out
verses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18:
"6 So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel,
he and all the people that were with him ... 14 And Jacob set up a pillar in
the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a
drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. 15 And Jacob called the
name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel. 16 And they journeyed from
Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel
travailed, and she had hard labour ... 19 And Rachel died, and was buried in
the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. 20 And Jacob set a pillar upon her
grave: that is the pillar of Rachel�s grave unto this day."
Next, they say: "Now let us see where Samuel the
Ephratite prophet says Rachel�s grave is ... 1st Samuel 10:2:
�When thou art departed from me to
day, then thou shalt find two men by Rachel�s sepulchre in the border of
Benjamin at Zelzah ...� So the tomb of Rachel is
not in Judah but in the territory of Benjamin! Why then are we told she is
buried in Judah?" [Their spelling, not mine]
The answer to that one is quite simple! Before answering
that though, their statement that Samuel was an "Ephratite (sic)" is
incorrect, for he was a Levite. (a la the clown, Bozo.) In order to understand
the topography of that area, the town of Bethlehem is about 2� miles south of
Jerusalem. The southern border of Jerusalem is the shared border of Judah and
Benjamin. As Ephratah was also a district, it is not improper to imagine that
the district reached to the border of Jebus, later Jerusalem, and hence
Benjamin (much like the border of Lucas County, Ohio reaches Michigan). Now
standing in Judah, we would refer to the border between Judah and Benjamin not
as the "border of Ephratah", nor the "border of Judah", but as the "border of
Benjamin" to avoid confusion. Surely the A.V.�s "in the border" may better be
rendered "by" or "at the border." Bethlehem was called Bethlehem-Judah" long
before Benjamin and Judah became what would be better labeled "Judaea", and is
clearly in Judah, being 2� miles south of the border of Benjamin.
IN SPITE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THEY NEVER STOP!
Shamelessly, they continue with their faulty diatribe.
Continuing, they quote Joshua 15:1, 8 in a futile attempt to authenticate
their false premise! "This then was
the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; even to the
border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the
south coast ... 8 And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom
unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border
went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom
westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward."
Then they ask an inadequate question: "Do you see
the territory of Judah never included Jerusalem? It stopped south of
Jerusalem! Now look at where the territory of Joseph Ephraim the birthright
territory was located!" Persistently, in an effort to somehow prove their
contention they quote Joshua 16:1-2:
"1 And the lot of the children of Joseph fell
from Jordan by Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from
Jericho throughout mount Bethel, 2 And goeth out from Bethel to Luz, and
passeth along unto the borders of Archi to Ataroth ..."
After quoting this passage, they ask a
foolish question thusly: "Do you see how it was impossible for Christ to be
born south below Jerusalem in Bethlehem Judah?" This passage has nothing
to with the geographic place of the birth of our Messiah. As I stated before:
Bethel is not Bethlehem and Bethlehem is not Bethel. This passage only
describes the lot that fell to Joseph which would include both Ephraim and
Manasseh (check verse 4). To use this passage so as to prove the birthplace of
our Savior is ridiculous. And again, they completely brush Manasseh aside as
if he never existed.
But these Ephraim-Scepter people never cease their lunacies
by making the statement: "Christ was born in Bethlehem Ephrata north of
Jerusalem in the city of David who was himself a Ephramite! 1st
Samuel 17:12: �Now David
was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah, whose name was Jesse; and
he had eight sons: [i.e. all Ephramites!].�"
Their brackets, not mine! Again they refer to
Genesis 49:24, stating "... and had the promise of the shepherd and stone
of Israel, noted in 49:24 that Christ would birth into the house of Joseph
..." The "shepherd" and "stone of Israel" has everything to do with Joseph
(Ephraim and Manasseh) and nothing to do with Judah�s inheritance in the
person of "Christ." In my Watchman�s Teaching Letter #50 for June,
2002, I addressed this false doctrine as follows:
Another such false teaching being promoted in some circles
of Israel Identity is built on 1st Samuel 17:12 which says in part:
"Now David was the son of that
Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight
sons ..." They incorrectly conclude from this
that our Messiah was from the Tribe of Ephraim rather than Judah. Here again,
it is speaking geographically instead of genetically. This can be corroborated
by the Nelson�s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pages 408-409:
"EPHRATHAH ... 2. The ancient name of
Bethlehem of Judah (Genesis 48:7; Ephrath, NIV) ... EPHRATHITE ... 1. A native
or inhabitant of Ephrathah, or Bethlehem (Ruth 1:2; 1st Samuel
17:12) ..." This can also be authenticated by
Unger�s Bible Dictionary, page 318; The Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. D-G, page 335; The Interpreter�s
Dictionary Of The Bible, vol. E-J, page 122; The Popular And Critical
Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, page 605; Insight On The Scriptures,
vol. 1, page 755; New Concise Bible Dictionary, page 150; The
Westminster Dictionary Of The Bible, page 169; Peloubet�s Bible
Dictionary, page 183; New International Bible Dictionary, page 318;
Smith�s Dictionary of the Bible (1890), page 181; Nave�s Topical
Bible, page 344; Gesenius� Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon under #673,
page 73, and Strong�s Exhaustive Concordance under Hebrew #673.
My undated Smith�s Dictionary of the Bible, which
has "Miss Lilly Summerskile, St. Mark�s S. S., Christmas 1890" written on the
front flyleaf, says this on page 85: "Bethlehem.
1. One of the oldest towns in Palestine, already in existence at the time of
Jacob�s return to the country. Its earliest name was Ephrath of Ephratah (see
Genesis 35:16, 19; 48:7), and it is not till long after the occupation of the
country by the Israelites that we meet with it under its new name of
Bethlehem. After the conquest Bethlehem appears under its own name
Bethlehem-Judah (Judges 17:7; 1st Samuel 17:12; Ruth 1:1, 2). The
book of Ruth is a page from the domestic history of Bethlehem: the names,
almost the very persons, of the Bethlehemites are there brought before us ...
In the New Testament Bethlehem retains its distinctive title of
Bethlehem-Judah (Matthew 2:1, 5), and once, in the announcement of the Angels,
�city of David� (Luke 2:4; comp. John 7:42) ... 2 A town in the portion of
Zebulun named nowhere but in Joshua 19:15."
The next thing these proponents do is point to Genesis
49:24 where it says in part concerning Jacob�s blessing on Joseph:
"... (from thence is the shepherd, the
stone of Israel) ..." They will imply by this that
the "shepherd" or "stone" is Yahshua the "rock", and that He descended from
Joseph rather than Judah. The Believer�s Bible Commentary by William
MacDonald makes that same error. Some of these proponents go so far as to
claim there was never a David nor a Bethlehem-Judah; only Bethlehem of
Ephraim. They might have gotten by with this, but in 1993, Seymore Gitin,
digging for The W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeology, unearthed a piece of
stone at Tel Dan inscribed in Aramaic "King of Israel" and "House of David."
These proponents will also point to the 15th chapter of Joshua,
claiming Bethlehem is not mentioned among Judah�s cities. They should check
the LXX on Joshua, for it is listed at 15:60. The reason 1st
Samuel 17:12 designates Bethlehem as "Bethlehem-Judah" is to distinguish it
from Bethlehem-Zebulun. Had there been only one Bethlehem, it wouldn�t have
been necessary to make that distinction. Judges 17:7 speaks of "a Levite" of
"Bethlehem-Judah." Are we also to make him of the Tribe of Ephraim? It seems
that if a Scripture can be taken wrongly, there is always going to be someone
out there to do it. Again, "Ephrathite" in 1st Samuel 17:12 is not
speaking of the Tribe of Ephraim, but of a city. (end of Watchman�s
Teaching Letter reference)
Next, the Ephraim-Scepter people point to Genesis 43:33 and
1st Chronicles 5:1-2 and make a big thing out of Joseph being in
line for the birthright. There is no problem with that as Joseph (Ephraim and
Manasseh) are the birthright tribes, and Judah is the Scepter tribe (the
Scepter is not the birthright, and the birthright is not the Scepter). But
then they proceed to make the ignorant statement: "The birthright was
Joseph�s passed on to Christ the Kinsmen Redeemer." I have a Franklin
electronic KJV Bible. In the word-search program, I entered the word
"birthright" and searched the entire Bible, and there was not a single place
in the entire Bible where it speaks of the Christ, Jesus or Emannuel in the
context of a birthright. It is obvious that this statement concerning "Christ
receiving the birthright" is a figment of their imagination, and is not based
on any Scripture in Holy Writ. The word "birthright" is used only 10 times in
all Scripture. Why don�t you check your Strong�s and see if you can
find a place where "Christ the Kinsmen Redeemer" will receive the
"birthright"? If there is any question about the Scepter, we only need to look
to Genesis 38:18, where Tamar demanded a pledge from Judah thusly:
"And he [Judah] said, What pledge shall I give
thee? And she [Tamar] said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that
is in thine hand. And he [Judah] gave it her, and came in unto
her, and she conceived by him." The staff was
the symbol of ruler-ship showing that Judah had the Scepter. The word "staff"
in Hebrew is #4294 in Strong�s, and anyone can check it out for
themselves, where it can mean "rod" or "sceptre." I am sure that Judah, from
his abilities in this case, didn�t need a walking stick.
Some may argue that there were others not of the Tribe of
Judah who used the staff as a sign of authority, which is true, but one must
take into consideration "Thy signet,
and thy bracelets, and thy staff." Put all three
of these together, the signet, bracelets and staff, and it is a sign of
royalty. Actually, the word "bracelets" as translated here means twisted
thread, and the signet was a ring which was strung on a ribbon and usually
worn around the neck, and was used to make an impression or seal on legal
documents. From the record, we can be confident that Judah�s ribbon was of a
royal-scarlet color. We can be certain of this because at the birth of Pharez
and Zerah, Tamar�s midwife tied a scarlet twisted thread around the hand of
Zerah prematurely, believing he would be Judah�s firstborn by the Shemite,
Tamar. Not only that, but the name Zerah means "brightness" or "redness"
(check The International Bible Commentary by F. F. Bruce on Genesis
38:27-30, page 139). Again, in Joshua 2:18, 21 we come face to face with the
royal "scarlet thread" indicating that Rahab (translated the harlot) was of
Judah�s royal line, though some incorrectly suggest Ephraim. We meet with the
color scarlet again in Matthew 27:28 where a "scarlet robe", the color of
royalty, was put on Yahshua (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah) in mockery. It is
noteworthy that the color "scarlet" is not always used in a good sense, so we
must understand the context in which it is used.
To show that David and Jesse were not Ephraimites, as the
Ephraim-Scepter heretical advocates claim, there is one passage of Scripture
that is so striking and outstanding that no one should ever have any doubt of
the origin of the Royal Line of the Tribe of Judah and its major role in being
the Line of the promised Messiah. Shame on anyone who would say otherwise!
That passage is 1st Kings 12:16, and it is simply astounding:
"So when all [the 10 northern tribes
of] Israel saw that the king [Rehoboam] hearkened not unto them, the people
answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we
inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own
house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents."
Here are ten witnesses (all the ten northern tribes of the
House of Israel) saying with a certainty that David and Jesse are not part of
their inheritance. One of those ten tribes was Ephraim, and another was
Manasseh! Here Ephraim and Manasseh are literally shouting at the top of their
voices that Jesse and David are not part of them. Therefore, anyone who claims
Jesse and David were of the Tribe of Ephraim, wittingly or unwittingly, make
liars of themselves! Again, shades of Bozo the clown!
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
