Ephraim Scepter #3
Home Up Ephraim Scepter #2 Ephraim Scepter #3




This is the third in a series on this subject. Again, what some people fantasize or presume the Bible is saying is simply flagrant. When they deviate from the true context, the Scripture will make a liar out of them every time. The Ephraim-Scepter heresy is an outrageous undertaking designed to validate that the Scripture proves that the Redeemer many call "Jesus Christ" was of the Tribe of Ephraim rather than the Tribe of Judah. They go to long lengths and twist many passages into pretzels in order to accomplish their goal. I will again cite a passage that blows their ludicrous surmise (wild off-the-cuff guess) into oblivion, 1st Kings 12:16: "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."

One must comprehend the circumstances to which the above passage appertains; otherwise one might be sucked into their unmitigated, warped logic. Therefore, letís analyze what 1st Kings 12:16 is saying. Any competent Bible student worth his salt is aware that this chapter concerns itself with the division of the twelve tribes at the time of Jeroboam. After the breakaway, the northern kingdom had Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, and remaining in the southern kingdom were Judah and Benjamin, with Levi scattered among all the tribes. Importantly you will notice, representing Joseph in the north are both Ephraim and Manasseh among the other eight northern tribes. Inasmuch as Ephraim was the dominant tribe of the northern Kingdom of Israel, it would have been illogical for Ephraim to make the statement: "What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse", if David and Jesse were of the Tribe of Ephraim. Under such an erroneous state of affairs Ephraim could only have said: "Our portion is with David and our inheritance is in the son of Jesse." Not only are Ephraim and Manasseh sending this message to Rehoboam, but to the entire ten northern tribes, so we know with confidence that Jesse and David were indeed not of the Tribe of Ephraim! Here we have ten witnesses in the ten northern tribes of the House of Israel (representing millions of people), testifying to that indisputable fact, and not a single witness in opposition. Conversely, the Ephraim-Scepter people insist that David and Jesse were of the Tribe of Ephraim! So if you would rather believe people like Scott Vaught, Buddy Johnson and Russell Walker, then thatís your problem!

Quoting from a manuscript with many typing errors, by Walker and Johnson: "You only have to know one thing here to see the deception of the lying pens of the scribes; that is the fact that this is not revealed in the genealogy; Salmon [of Ruth 4:20], Boaz, Jesse, and (sic) David and Christ were all Ephraimites!" Again, all one need do is refer to the above passage at 1st Kings 12:16 to see this statement that "Salmon [of Ruth 4:20], Boaz, Jesse, and (sic) David and Christ were all Ephraimites!" simply IS not true. To add to the confusion, these two Ephraim-Scepter hucksters attempt to make an issue of John 7:40-44. Before quoting the passage, they ask an unrelated double question: "Galilaean or Judean, Israelite or Jew?" They then add: "The great debate was raging over this very fact." Since the geographical terms "Galilaean or Judean" have nothing to do with the genetic terms "Israelite or Jew", the question makes no sense! Many unrelated people could live in either Galilee or Judah, and therefore can only apply to a place, while Israelite or Jew can only be peoples who could live in any of many different countries of the world! It is apparent they canít even ask an intelligent question! After these clumsily stated nonsensical questions, they move on to type out this passage thusly: "40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said. Of a truth this is the Prophet. 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? 43 So there was a division among the people because of him. 44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him."

They then make the statement: "It is clear here that there was a controversy over where He should be born and to (sic) what bloodline He was descended." Again, Johnson and Walker make an unqualified statement, for this passage is very distinct concerning both the town of Bethlehem as the place of birth and the lineage of David as His descent. Inasmuch as the Herodian-Jews were sure they had killed the promised Redeemer (Matthew 2:18), the "Jews" ruled out any possibility of Bethlehem of Judaea, and pointed out how no prophet could come from Galilee. It seems the only ones who were confused were the Herodian-Jews, unless we include the Ephraim-Scepter advocates.

After this, they again accuse the Apostle Matthew of misquoting at Micah 5:2, which reads: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among 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." This is how they conjecture, in their own erratic typing, that Matthew 2:6 should read: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah [misquoted by the scribes, should be Ephrata!] Are not the least among the rulers of Judah: For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel." If the Apostle Matthew deliberately misquoted Micah 5:2, as they so preposterously claim, then the physician Luke, of Colossians 4:14, also misquoted at Luke 2:4. And if David was from Bethlehem of Judaea (and he was), then John (the beloved Disciple of Messiah) also misquoted at John 7:42! How many red flashing lights must we observe before we understand there is something rotten in Denmark? It should be quite apparent; this Ephraim-Scepter heresy is built on one damnable lie right after another.

Then the Ephraim-Scepter people continue to erratically type from John 7:45-52, keying in on verse 52, which they type (non-italics mine): "They [the Pharisees] answered and said unto him [Nicodemus], ĎArt thou also of Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee." These Ephraim-Scepter people then make the statement: "This [verse] is a very deliberate lie!" Again, it should be stated: Galilee is not Ephraim, and Ephraim is not Galilee (look it up on any map of Palestine showing the locations of the tribes. Galilee was formerly Zebulun with Manasseh separating Zebulun (Galilee) and Ephraim). In other words, to travel from Ephraim to Zebulun, one had to go through Manasseh. Again, Galilee [Zebulun] is not Ephraim and Ephraim is not Galilee [Zebulun]! (lunacy unending!)


This is the old Canaanite merchant game of "bait and switch", designed for simple-minded suckers. The object is to get the victimís eye on the "bait" while switching to another object. In other words, now you see it; now you donít! It is nothing more than the old Canaanite variety of "Jewish" hocus-pocus, sometimes referred to as abracadabra! Using this Canaanite-Jewís system of bait and switch, the Ephraim-Scepter advocates setup their unwary prey by typing 1st Samuel 17:12: "Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem-judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul." You have now been introduced to the "bait", after which next comes the preparation for the "switch." To accomplish this they will erratically type Romans 1:3, showing that: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." This is a softening-up process getting you ready for the ultimate switch. Then by typing another passage at 2nd Timothy 2:8, they continue their sly maneuver to position you for their trap: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." Let us now analyze the process they are using in order to deceive you. By citing the truth from two outstanding Scriptures that Messiah was the seed of David, youíre expected to believe they will tell the truth the third time around when they pull "the switch": "Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Clearly Christ is the seed and offspring of David who, it has been shown was of the House of Ephraim." Now if you believe the last phrase of this last sentence, you are as an Eskimo in need of a refrigerator and youíve been had. Youíve just been "baited" and "switched", Canaanite style and youíve been sucker-punched. Wanna try for the Brooklyn Bridge? Notice once more the process: two outstanding truthful references from Scripture, followed by a two part sentence; the first part a cardinal truth followed in the second segment by a crafty, misleading lie!

They then have the gall to accuse the scribes of lying and continue typing thusly: "Now get ready for the final nail in the coffin lid of deceit and deception of the scribes! Who do you think the Land of Israel belongs to, the Jews or the Arabs? This Land belongs neither to the Jews nor the Arabs. Ephraim himself holds the title deed, (no the world in its fullness belongs to Yahshua ... Ephraim may have possession only)." Notice, once again, the Ephraim-Scepter people leave the Tribe of Manasseh completely out of the picture, when actually they shared in the birthright, Genesis 49:22-26. And when it says "Joseph" it includes both Ephraim and Manasseh, for both were blessed, not just one. At Genesis 48:5 Jacob said, "Ephraim and Manasseh which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they are mine." Although Ephraim got a greater blessing, where do these Ephraim-Scepter people come up with all this partiality? Here Jacob claims all his children, and Jacob gave Judah the Scepter in Genesis 49:8-12: "8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy fatherís children shall bow down before thee. 9 Judah is a lionís whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his assís colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: 12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth with white milk." All this, according to the Ephraim-Scepter people, is one big scribal lie. How absurd!

It surely is strange how the Ephraim-Scepter advocates come up with all their idiotic, harebrained, off-the-wall, freakish notions. I will now show you how Scripture has made them liars once again. In 2nd Samuel 2:4, we are told David was anointed king over Judah. This passage says: "And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul." For the story of this passage, I will use the Believerís Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 325:

"Coronation as King of Judah, 2nd Samuel 2:1-7 ... With Saul dead and Israel without a king, David sought guidance from the Lord and was directed to go to Hebron, one of the cities of Judah. There the men of Judah ... anointed him as their king. When they informed him how the men of Jabesh Gilead had kindly buried Saul, David immediately sent a message of thanks to them and rather indirectly invited them to recognize him as king, as the men of Judah had done.

"Conflict with Saulís House, 2nd Samuel 2:8-11 ... But not all the tribes of Israel wanted to recognize David as their monarch. Abner, the commander-in-chief of the late Saul and also his uncle, took Saulís only surviving son, Ishbosheth, and proclaimed him king. For seven years and six months ... David reigned over the lone tribe of Judah, with Hebron as his capital. However, it was for only two of these years that Ishbosheth ... reigned over the other eleven tribes. It may have taken Abner five years to push the Philistines back out of Israel and establish Ishbosheth on his fatherís throne ..." Isnít it simply incredible how David (a supposed Ephraimite) would rule over the lone Tribe of Judah for seven and a half years, while Ishbosheth would rule over the other eleven tribes? Why are we not informed of an objection from the Tribe of Ephraim on such a thing? Because David was never of the Tribe of Ephraim; thatís why! (insanity supreme) "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." - - Yeats. (and especially with Holy Writ)

In stark contrast to the southern Kingdom of Judah, which included the territory of Benjamin, the northern Kingdom, which was made up of the other ten tribes and designated as Ephraim, chose non-Davidic kings. How do the Ephraim-Scepter heretics account for that ironclad fact? In the case of David, they diametrically chose Ishbosheth the Benjamite, with blood-ties to the Tribe of Ephraim through Joseph. Then in parallel to that episode, they chose Jeroboam the Ephraimite of the Tribe of Ephraim over Rehoboam of the line of David. These concrete facts prove, beyond all doubt, the Ephraim-Scepter heretics are shamefully and disgracefully ignorant of Biblical history. Secondly, we need to know just who this Ephraimite Jeroboam was. There are three different accounts of Jeroboamís life prior to his becoming king ó two in the LXX, and a third in the MT, the latter of which forms the basis of most English translations. When we observe such discrepancies, then it is legitimate to question the scribes or copyists, but not as the Ephraim-Scepter heretics do by making blanket allegations without evidence. Check 1st Kings 11:26 - 12:24 LXX, especially verse 24, and compare it with the Masoretic Text. Among the midrashic elements added to put Jeroboam in the worst possible light are the following: (1) (Compare LXX at 11:26.) (2) he attempted a siege of Jerusalem during Solomonís reign 12:24b, which is a distortion of MT 11:27 in which Solomon is said to have repaired a breach in the walls. (3) having fled to Egypt, he married Shishakís eldest and most prominent daughter Ano who bore him a son Abia (verse 24e; cf. the story of the rebel Hadad the Edomite in 1st Kings 11:14-22 cf. LXX verse 19 with LXX 12:24e to see that Ano was thought to be the daughter, not the sister-in-law, of Shishakís wife Tahpenes. The key words of verse 24e are, ten Ano adelphen Thekeminas ten presbyteran tes gynaikos autou, ĎAno, sister of Thekemina, the eldest of his wifeí), and (4) Shemaiah (not Ahijah; cf. 1st Kings 11:29-39), the prophet was told by the Lord to go to Jeroboam at Shechem to tear a new garment into twelve pieces and to tell Jeroboam, ĎTake for yourself ten shreds for you to wearí (tou peribalesthai se ó a sarcastic purpose clause; [a rather odd phrase; possibly]). Each of these details seek to discredit Jeroboam and should probably be ignored when reconstructing his rise to power. (from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume H-L, page 456.)

The Interpreterís Dictionary of the Bible, vol. E-J, page 840 does a good job of describing this situation: "According to the latter account Jeroboam was an Ephraimite. His motherís name was Sarira, and she was a harlot. Consequently, no mention is made of his fatherís name. Solomon had made him overseer of the corvťe of the house of Joseph. He built a city called Sarira on Mount Ephraim. He built the Akra and enclosed the city of David. Then he rebelled against Solomon who therefore attempted to kill him, but he fled to Egypt to the protection of Sousakim (Shishak). There he remained until the death of Solomon. When word reached him that Solomon was dead, he wanted to return home, but Sousakim was unwilling to let him go. Parenthetically, we learn that Jeroboam had married the Pharaohís sister-in-law, who had borne him a son, Abia. Sousakim finally gave permission to return. He came back to Sarira, where the tribes of Ephraim gathered to him, and there built a fortress ... After this Jeroboam came to Shechem, where he gathered the tribes together. This is followed by the prophecy of Samaias the Elamite (cf. 1st Kings 11:29 ff). The rest of the Greek supplement corresponds to the Hebrew text of 1st Kings 12:1-24." Where are the Ephraim-Scepter people on this?

Again, if David was of the Tribe of Ephraim, why didnít the Tribe of Ephraim accept him as king? The Ephraim-Scepter people strongly declare the "Sanhedrin scribes" changed the genealogy of the Messiah from the Tribe of Ephraim to the Tribe of Judah. Contrary wise, the Bible records no Ephraim kingly line, so with that hideous, dreamed-up hypothesis, our Redeemer had no genealogical record! Of the northern Kingdom of Israel, Scripture shows kings Jeroboam and Nadab as Ephraimites, and kings Baasha and Elah as Issacharites, with the kings Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam II, Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah and Hosea with no family or tribal records. It is overwhelmingly evident that no kingly line can be traced among the kings of the northern Kingdom of Israel. In addition to that, of all the ten northern tribes of Israel, excepting in the book of Revelation only the Tribe of Aser (Asher) is mentioned in the New Testament at Luke 2:36. Therefore, there is no record in either the Old Testament or the New of a kingly line of Ephraim! If Ephraim is the Scepter tribe, letís see the evidence! There isnít any! PERIOD! If this allegation were true, about a conspiracy of the "Sanhedrin scribes" changing Ephraim to Judah (and it isnít), the scribes would had to have changed 890 entries on Judah alone! How fantastic, and indeed a falsehood! Do they mean to tell us this could have happened without someone exposing them? Well, that seems to be what they are saying! Surely, Yahshua would have warned us if that were true, and He didnít (my, what incompetence the Ephraim-Scepter heretics are charging Him with)! Yes, He did warn us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, but He never cautioned us that they would change the record from Ephraim to Judah. Itís the last thing they (the Pharisees and Sadducees) would have done, for they love to falsely claim their heritage as Judah, and they would have been the first to complain if such a change was made! This pregnant fact is quite evident at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9! It doesnít say they claim to be of Ephraim "but do lie", but rather Judah "but do lie." In fact, Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 donít make any sense if the Scepter tribe was Ephraim! It is clear from this passage there are both true Judahites and impostor Judahites. As we can plainly see, this is one area where the "Sanhedrin scribes" wouldnít have changed things, so that leaves only Matthew, Luke and John left to accuse, which these people also do! Like all liars, the Ephraim-Scepter people canít keep their story together. Wittingly and deliberately, the Ephraim-Scepter peddlers of misinformation and confusion have made themselves equal to the blasphemous liars of John 8:44.


Once analyzing the motives of the Ephraim-Scepter people, we can then understand what they teach and promote. The basic underlying factor is that they have discovered that all the evil in this world stems from the "Jews." Thus their fundamental incentive is to fight back at this evil system. But by not studying history (especially Biblical history), they arrive at some mistaken conclusions. Their basic error comes from their inability to differentiate between the impostor and the genuine members of the Tribe of Judah. Therefore, they have formulated the incorrect premise that all the people professing to be of the Tribe of Judah are satanic. Their dominant theme is to destroy all of Judah, both the good figs and the bad. Because their fundamental reasoning is flawed, their objectives are misdirected, and they become like "one that beateth the air" (1st Corinthians 9:26). And, rather than helping the cause, they are helping to defeat it. All this simply because they havenít done their homework on the subject. As one Ephraim-Scepter person typed: "This is the document that will set the satanic jews on their ass by taking away their alleged status as ĎGodís chosen people.í" No it will not! For the Ephraim-Scepter message will only aid and abet the impostors who are calling themselves Judah!

In their all-out attack on all the Tribe of Judah, as opposed to a few bad-figs which were mainly at Jerusalem, shows their utter lack of knowledge concerning Biblical history of the deportations of Judah. If they ever come to that knowledge, they will have to hide their face in a corner somewhere in shame for some of the uncouth remarks they have made. It all boils down to a severe case of ignorance! After Tiglath Pileser initially took many Israelites into Assyrian captivity during 745-727 B.C., Shalmaneser V deported more throughout 727-722 B.C. In the years 722-705 B.C., Sargon II continued the process of deporting more Israelites of the northern Kingdom. Then during the years 705-681 B.C., Sennacherib entered the land of Judah and deported all the Judahites and many of Benjamin in that area to Assyria, leaving only the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem (2nd Kings 18; 2nd Chronicles 32; and Isaiah 36).

This history contains points that I used to interrupt Scott Vaught in the middle of his presentation in October, 1996, at the Feast of Tabernacles meeting at Louden, Tennessee. Vaught was mouthing this same Ephraim-Scepter garbage at that time. In the process, he called Tamar a whore; said that David and Jonathan were homosexuals in one breath; and said there was never a historical David in another. Vaught also presented himself as an expert in Palaeo Hebrew with 15 years experience. He never did show us any original Palaeo Hebrew manuscripts, but only allegedly converted square style Hebrew back to the earlier Palaeo. With that he could make Scripture say anything he wanted. As I listened, he spewed out one vial of poison after another. His main thrust was to exclude Judah from being part of Israel. Among his many allegations, he said that Ruth was a Moabite, and thus polluted the entire line of Judah. He said that he had worn out either four or five Bibles finding out all these things, and waited for a year or two after that before he decided to pass on his great revelation to the world. He further intimated that all of Judah turned out bad and that they are the Jews of today. After that meeting, I wrote one of the first of a few articles and titled it: The Lies Of Scott Vaught.

Scott Vaught made a disciple of a man at that meeting by the name of Buddy Johnson. I sent "tons" of documentation to Buddy, but evidently to no avail. Since that meeting, Johnson has made a disciple of another man who was at that meeting by the name of Russell Walker. I simply cannot sit idly by while this kind of garbage is circulating around the country, for if I keep quiet on the matter, I become part and parcel of their lies. The main reason for exposing this is because it is a hindrance to Yahwehís Kingdom, and only scatters His sheep. "He that gathereth not with me scattereth." Matthew 12:30 & Luke 11:3. This should now give you an idea how some are trying to elevate their own ego through subterfuge.

Clifton A. Emahiserís 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