Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

Just Who Was to Be Grafted In?

In order for the "Christian" ideas of Replacement Theology to coincide with scripture so as to be accepted by their followers, a redefining of the words and terms contained in scripture becomes necessary -- even to the extent of renaming their new replacement god "Jesus" and the downplay of YEHOVAH to a "God of mankind" instead of who He is consistently called in scripture from Genesis to Revelation -- the Holy One of Israel!

by haRold Smith

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief (in Yeshua as the Messiah), but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.(Romans11:17-24)

Most Replacement theologians use the above set of verses to argue that YEHOVAH God no longer views the Israelite people as His Chosen People and has replaced Israel with the church.*

But is that what the Bible really teaches? Scrutiny shows the fallacy of the Replacement interpretation.

Paul’s Words

Romans 2:28–29: Here Paul said, “For he is not a Jew [Israelite] who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew [Israelite] who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” Replacement theologians use this passage to say the term Jew (in reality "Israelite" since the term "Jew" was not known at that time) has been changed to include Gentile (non-Israelite) believers and that being a true Israelite is not based on ethnicity but, rather, on an inward commitment to YEHOVAH God. Thus they claim the passage proves YEHOVAH God has redefined Israel to mean the church.

Their interpretation is based on the assertion that Paul included Gentiles when he spoke of him who “is a Jew.” However, these verses fall into the larger section of Romans 2:17-3:20 in which Paul’s subject is ethnic Israel. In Romans 2:28–29 Paul spoke exclusively of Israelite people. He was making the point that a true “Israelite” is one who trusts in YEHOVAH God through faith in the Messiah. These verses cannot teach that Gentiles are spiritual Israelites because Gentiles were not even being discussed! Paul was simply distinguishing between Israelite people who believe in the Messiah and Israelite people who do not.

Romans 9:6: Another text is Romans 9:6: “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” Replacement theologians claim Paul was distinguishing between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. They believe he taught that spiritual, or “true,” Israel is comprised of all believers, including Gentiles, and is made of those who are spiritually, not physically, related to Abraham.

However, as in the previous passage, Paul was not speaking of Gentiles. He was speaking exclusively of the Israelite people, teaching there is spiritual Israel inside of physical Israel; and he identified the believing Israelite remnant as true Israel. So not all of Jacob’s physical descendants will inherit YEHOVAH God’s promises to Israel. Nevertheless, this verse does NOT say the church has replaced Israel or that YEHOVAH God has rejected the Israelite people.

Romans 11:26: Here Paul said, “And so all Israel will be saved,” which is problematic for Replacement theologians. They are divided on this verse and offer differing interpretations. The most common are these:

None of these interpretations explains Paul’s argument in Romans 11. There are 10 other references to Israel in chapters 9 through 11, and each refers to physical Israel -- the Israelite people. The obvious implication is that Romans 11:26 can only refer to physical Israel.

Taken in the context of the verses that precede it, the grammar argues for a sequence of events. In 11:25 Paul spoke of a period of the House of Judah's spiritual blindness, when salvation is readily available to the House of Israel [the "Gentiles"]. But there is a future time when ALL Israel will be saved (v. 26). So Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:26-27 links Israel’s national repentance with Old Testament promises of Israel’s restoration (Jeremiah 31- 32; Ezekiel 36; Zechariah 12).

Through the apostle Paul, YEHOVAH God clearly declares there is indeed a future for ALL of Israel -- meaning the Israelite people. Not only does Romans 11:26 NOT teach Replacement Theology, but it teaches precisely the opposite.

Peter’s Words

1 Peter 2:9-10: The apostle Peter wrote: "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."

Replacement theologians say Peter used Old Testament descriptions of Israel to identify the church, thereby redefining Israel as the church. They also say Peter taught that the church is new Israel and that YEHOVAH’s “chosen people” are now the spiritual, rather than physical, descendants of Abraham.

To understand Peter’s teaching, it is necessary to know whom Peter was addressing. He was addressing Israelite believers who had been dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Peter was first and foremost an apostle to the Israelite people, according to Paul’s testimony in Galatians 2:7-8 and Peter’s ministry in Acts. In 1 Peter 1:1, Peter addressed the “pilgrims of the Dispersion,” a title that would naturally fit first-century Israelite believers but not Gentiles.

In addition, Peter used the Septuagint to quote the Old Testament. It would be highly unlikely he would use the Septuagint for Gentiles but natural to use it when speaking to Israelites. In fact, Peter’s arguments in 1 Peter would have been difficult for Gentiles to grasp; but an Israelite audience would have understood them easily.

Since Peter was writing to Israelite believers, he would have found it natural to use Old Testament titles of Israel. Peter was not teaching that the church has appropriated the Old Testament titles of Israel; rather, he used words his Israelite audience would readily identify with. This passage does NOT teach YEHOVAH God has replaced Israel or made the church the new or true Israel.

None of the New Testament passages that are favorites with Replacement theologians contain an actual statement by YEHOVAH God that He has replaced Israel with the church. At most, they teach that the church shares the spiritual promises given to Abraham. Since the New Testament church or ecclesia can only be made up of ethnic Israelites, this is inclusion of the church, not exclusion of Israel!

"Grafted Into"

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to be "grafted into" something? The Greek word translated into the English "grafted" is egkentrizo and means "to cut into for the sake of inserting a scion (a young shoot or twig of an identical plant)" and clearly, indicated by the same usage given to it in Paul's letter above, does not mean a "replacing" or "negating" of the original as so-called Christianity asserts. Nor does it mean inserting a scion of a different plant. Context is everything when trying to divide the Truth contained in scripture properly.

In Bible times, it was very common to graft olive trees. A branch from a good olive tree was taken and grafted onto a wild olive tree. The wild olive tree, called agrielaios, did not produce very good fruit. But the good cultivated olive tree, called kallielaios, did produce very good fruit. Wild olive trees would grow up and take up space with it's root system. To keep from having to cut down a tree and plant a new seedling, a branch from the good tree would be grafted onto the wild tree. This good branch would then produce fruit while getting nourishment from the wild tree root system. Several branches would be grafted onto a wild tree.

In Romans 11:17 we read, "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

YEHOVAH God was using the grafting process to make a very important point. Instead of grafting a good branch onto a bad tree, YEHOVAH took a bad branch and grafted it onto a good tree. This was opposite of the way the first century people grafted olive trees. YEHOVAH God had a good tree with a good root system. The Judahite nation was the tree with the root system of the patriarchal law -- YEHOVAH's Law. The Israelites of the northern ten tribes in exile were represented by the wild olive tree. YEHOVAH God took the wild olive tree, the Israelites in exile, and grafted them into the good tree and it's root system.

The reference to the branches being broken off means that the Israelites who did not accept the Messiah were unacceptable to YEHOVAH God. They were cut from the tree. This shows that just because an Israelite has a sincere heart and believes in YEHOVAH God does not mean that person will be acceptable to YEHOVAH God. A person must believe in and obey the Messiah (i.e., keep YEHOVAH's Law) to be acceptable to YEHOVAH God.

Only YEHOVAH God has the power to graft a wild tree branch onto a good tree and have that branch produce good fruit.

An article from off the Internet states:

Grafting is done for several purposes, but most commonly in the olive oil industry it is to get the hardy roots of one variety [of olive tree] with the fecundity of another variety. The whole point of grafting is that each part of the grafted tree keeps its original character. The variety used for the root stock may be resistant to fungus or other pests but has a small or low yield olive. The graft may have weak roots but large fruit with high oil content. The resulting tree has the best of both varieties.

You cannot graft a peach scion onto an olive tree, nor any other type of fruit tree apart from the olive. Similarly, you CANNOT graft a non-Israelite onto the Israelite tree with the root system of YEHOVAH's Law! Romans 11:17-24 is all about the two houses of Israel, and has absolutely nothing to do with non-Israelites!

Paul says, in the opening verses of this same chapter, that the Father, YEHOVAH God, has NOT rejected His family, Israel. In fact, Paul says a bit further on in this same letter that the very reason the Messiah became a servant to the circumcised was to show YEHOVAH's truthfulness in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs and in order that the Israelites of both houses might glorify YEHOVAH God for His mercy (Romans 15:8-12, quoting from 2 Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49 to support this conclusion).

Contrarily, "Christianity" teaches that all Israelites "rejected Jesus by crucifying Him" and, as a result, a "new" covenant was born on the day of Pentecost, whereby "Christianity" is now the recipient of all the covenantal blessings and promises of YEHOVAH God. Known as Replacement Theology, it has become the "mainstream" view of most "Christian" theologians today. However, both of these ideas are not consistent with scripture. To say that all Israelites "rejected the Messiah" (the underlying theme of Replacement Theology) is to ignore the masses of Israelites that followed him everywhere during his life and, afterwards, continued to embrace his life.

To underscore their statement, most "Christians" point to the episode in Pilate's courtyard to where those in attendance clamored for Barnabas' freedom thus sentencing Yeshua to death. But, those who rejected him that day were, in fact, very few in number and did not comprise the whole of Israel. At the Gabbatha that day (since renamed the Lithostrotos, in Greek meaning "stone pavement" so called because of the carvings on the huge stones which made up the flooring) were the priests and elders of the Pharisees, as Luke 23:13-18 and Luke 24:20 support. While there may have been some, generally speaking, it was not the common "men of the street" crowded into that plaza but those in league with those who had turned the Messiah over to Pilate to begin with (John 18:28-32).

It was only a select few of those comprising the ruling council of chief priests and Pharisees who felt threatened by the Messiah's presence, with an agenda of seeing him removed, that were gathered there that day to make sure he was crucified.

Most so-called Christians have been taught that "Christianity" (the Church) was founded at Pentecost and will point to Acts 2 as the scriptural validation of this belief. What is interesting about that statement is that is not what those words of scripture say. Words mean things. So, if we can set aside all the theological rhetoric surrounding this subject for a brief moment and just look at the words on the page for what they say and mean, we find quite a different picture presented than what is commonly accepted.

Understanding that the reason there were Israelites from every nation there that day is key to understanding what these words mean. This was the Hebrew Feast of Shavu'ot (replaced by the English word Pentecost) that true Hebrews to this day travel great lengths to Jerusalem to attend. To know that simple fact puts a whole different light of perspective upon these words. It was here that 3000 Israelites were added to that very day (verse 41). Each Israelite community in each of those nations where they had come from had a different dialect of Hebrew they spoke from the influence of the language of the nation they were in.

Acts 2:6 in the Original Greek Interlinear Version verifies that it was Hebrew dialects -- NOT different languages. According to the words written, even in the English translation -- with the exception of a few proselytes to the Hebrew faith mentioned in verse 11 -- there is nothing mentioned about any Gentiles (non-Israelites) being in attendance that day. For us to arbitrarily place Gentiles into that context becomes eisegesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (reading out of the text).

History tells us there were no "Christians" around for at least another 250 to 300 years. Peter's sermon on Yom Shavu'ot (day of Pentecost) was entirely Hebraic, copiously quoting from the prophets and David, which would have meant little to any Gentiles in earshot (had there been any). To understand who the 5000 added to those of the Way mentioned in Acts 4:4 were, you need to begin in Acts 3 to see that Peter and John were addressing Israelites assembled in Solomon's porch. It was 5000 Israelites who were added to the Way that day -- again, no mention of Gentiles being present.

Also, the Hebrew phrase ruach ha kodesh (reading right to left is Hebrew for "the holiness of spirit") is widely considered to be the equivalent to the English "Holy Spirit" appearing in their Bibles. This is incorrect as there is no capitalization in Hebrew; thus, there is no personification, no third person "Holy Spirit". What is the holiness of spirit? Holiness is the nature abiding in spirit, that is, YEHOVAH God. Holiness of spirit is something that is cultivated. What was given to those present that day was the "Breath of Life" of the Father, YEHOVAH God, as it was originally given to the first Hebrew, Adam -- fulfilling YEHOVAH's promise.

The Case of Cornelius

Further, if Gentiles had already received the infilling (not baptism) of the Breath of Life at Shavu'ot, then what do we make of a commotion made over that event seemingly happening again at the house of the righteous Roman centurion, Cornelius, eight chapters (several years) later? We can be fairly certain of the time frame from what we are given in Acts 11:28. Understanding that Shavu'ot (Pentecost) took place "seven Sabbaths complete" plus 50 days after Yeshua's death in 31 A.D., and Claudius Caesar became Emperor of Rome in 41 A.D, then Peter's vision and his visit to Cornelius could have been at any time between 33 and 40 A.D.

Also, notice the similarity in description of Cornelius in verse 2 as that of the Hebrews in Acts 2 above being "…a devout man who feared God with his entire household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God." Cornelius was already actively involved in the Hebrew faith -- so who was he?

Cornelius no doubt was an ISRAELITE that feared YEHOVAH, gave alms and prayed to YEHOVAH God always: "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment..." (Acts 10:1). In Acts 26:7 we read that the twelve tribes (ALL of Israel) understood the promise that YEHOVAH gave to Abraham -- and were instantly serving YEHOVAH day and night. Isn't it just possible that Cornelius was someone of these twelve tribes? Notice: "To this promise our TWELVE TRIBES, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For THIS hope's sake...I am accused by the Jews."

I realize many people will argue that it does not say anywhere in the New Testament that Cornelius was an Israelite. But using logic and common sense, and what we just read in Acts 26:7, we have to come to the conclusion that the hope of the promise given to Abraham is ONLY applied to the twelve tribes of Israel. Since Cornelius was a devout man and always prayed to YEHOVAH, and evidently hoped for this promise too, then he had to be an ISRAELITE!

There is much evidence in history that the ruling and upper classes of the Roman people were descended from the Israelites. In a letter written by the 1st-century B.C. British king Cassibellaunus to the Roman emperor Caius Julius Caesar, we find some fascinating references to a common bond between the two nations:

Cassibelaun, king of the Britains, to Caius Julius Caesar. We cannot but wonder, Caesar, at the avarice of the Roman people, since their insatiable thirst after money cannot let us alone whom the dangers of the ocean have placed in a manner out of the world; but they must have the presumption to covet our substance, which we have hitherto enjoyed in quiet. Neither is this indeed sufficient: we must also prefer subjection and slavery to them before the enjoyment of our native liberty.

Your demand therefore, Caesar, is scandalous, since the same vein of nobility flows from Aeneas, in Britains and Romans, and one and the same chain of consanguinity shines in both: which ought to be a bond of firm union and friendship. That is what you should have demanded of us, and not slavery: we have learned to admit of the one, but never to bear the other. And so much have we been accustomed to liberty, that we are perfectly ignorant what is to submit to slavery. And if even the gods themselves should attempt to deprive us of our liberty, we would to the utmost of our power resist them in defense of it.

Know then, Caesar, that we are ready to fight for that and our kingdom if, as you threaten, you shall attempt to invade Britain. (Historia Britonum, Bk. IV, Ch. 2)

The reference in this letter to Aeneas provides support that the ancient British royal line stemmed from Troy -- as did the early rulers of Rome. The tradition that the Trojan leaders stemmed from the royal tribe of Judah is upheld by competent research and the Apocrypha record.

Not only that, but many scholars have shown that the LATINI people were a Celtic tribe that moved into Italy in the 9th-century B.C. Notice the following excerpt --

Originally the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula were settled Neolithic -- or agricultural Mediterranean peoples, but starting about 1000 B.C. -- 3000 years ago -- Italy also fell victim to the invading bands of NORDICS flooding across Eastern Europe. In the 9th-century B.C. the last of these Nordic invasions took place -- and the last tribe to invade carried the name of LATINI -- and it is from them that the word Latin came.

Together with other invading Nordic tribes, the Latini amalgamated with the Mediterraneans in Italy and formed the CORE of the Roman people.

Continuing, we find that

by the 4th-century B.C. -- 2000 years ago -- the Latini or, as they became known, the Romans, after their great city, had become the dominant tribe in all Italy. They were PREDOMINANTLY NORDIC in racial make up, with a fair admixture of Mediterranean blood (History of the White Race).

It can be shown that the Nordic Peoples were directly descended from various of the northern ten tribes of Israel. The great Indo-European invasions of Europe took place in four main waves, and there were a number of sub-waves. Each sub-wave was a smaller tribe from one of the four major migrations. Leaving their ancestral homeland in the Caucasus, the CELTS (1); the Germans (2); the Balts (3) and the Slavs (4) settled different regions of Europe, often giving their names to those regions.

Sub-waves of note included the Mycenae (1A) into Greece and the LATINI (1B) into Italy. The Latini were a sub-group of the Celts, who were, in turn, part of the larger Nordic classification. The Nordics in general, and the Celts in particular, were descended from the northern ten tribes of Israel who, at one time, settled the Caucasus region of Europe.

With this in mind, let's return to the subject under discussion.

Laws of the Kingdom

Despite "Christianity's" claim that the event of Pentecost was solely for them, what happened on Yom Shavu'ot was the fulfillment of the promise of the restoration of YEHOVAH's Kingdom by the indwelling of YEHOVAH's spirit into the hearts of His family of Israel, creating a "new" Temple for YEHOVAH to dwell in. When a person becomes a citizen of any kingdom in the world, there is no question about whether that citizenship includes a behavioral observance of the laws governing that kingdom. Why would anyone think that citizenship in YEHOVAH's Kingdom is any different? Scripture tells us that Israelites of the House of Israel are grafted INTO the Israelite Kingdom of YEHOVAH God -- not the other way around. The Messiah even proclaimed it to be his Father's Kingdom.

If "Christians" say that they are citizens of YEHOVAH's Kingdom, then what gives them the audacity to pick and choose which of His instructions and definitions apply to them? Could it be they are following the tradition of men instead of the words of the Messiah? "But, what about all the millions who have followed Christianity for the past 1700 years -- were they all deceived?"  is often a common retort given by those who want to justify their position in defiance of the Words of YEHOVAH God. Just because a belief becomes popular does not make it Truth. Many millions of the Islamic religion over centuries have died believing Allah is a supreme god -- are they also exempt from the Truth of scripture simply because they believe wholeheartedly in a popular cultural phenomena?

So, just where does "Christianity" come up with the idea it has a claim on the promises given to the patriarchs of Israel apart from that family? For that answer, we have to research some history. In its earliest years, haderek nozerim (Hebrew for the Way of the Nazarene) composed a somewhat tolerated subset within larger Israel. After the national tragedy of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., however, evidence of formal persecution of the followers of the Way by the religious rabbinical leaders can be detected.

This included the addition of the (infamous) Birkat Ha Minim, a "blessing" (composed by the Sanhedrin at Yavneh) that was added to the week-day Amidah which invoked a curse on followers of the Way of the Nozerim (as well as the Essenes). Hebrews unwilling to recite the Birkat Ha Minim were suspected of heresy and subject to cherem (excommunication).

This rift between the followers of the Messiah and Rabbinic Judaism was intensified during the bloodiest of the Hebrew-Roman wars, the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 A.D.). The Hebrew sage Rabbi Akiva convinced the Sanhedrin at Yavneh to support the revolt and actually regarded its leader (Simon Bar Kokhba) to be the Israelite Messiah. Since the Israelite followers of the Messiah could not support such a claim (and therefore could not support the war), the divide between Rabbinical Judaism and the early followers of the Way became sealed -- each becoming cloistered in their respective communities.

Concurrent with the rejection of the Way of the Nazarene by the rabbinic leaders of ethnic Israel, and with more and more Gentiles coming into the now paganized "Christian" faith over the next several hundreds of years, the Hebrew roots of the Messiah began to be forgotten. This "forgetfulness" was solidified by the aggressive promotion among various Gentile "Christian" teachers of the first few centuries who, influenced by Greek philosophy, advocated severing themselves from the historic Hebraic root.

The Gentile "Church" then came into prominence as a distinct entity from Israel, with its own mission and purpose -- thus "replacing" the Hebrew root with a new religion. Sampling the teaching of many of the early Gentile Christian leaders, considered the "fathers" of modern Roman Catholicism, reveals the "Gentilization" of what became known as the Greek ekklesia:

Marcion of Sinope (110-160 A.D.) was a Hellenist steeped in the ideas of Plato and Gnosticism and wanted to separate Christianity from any connection with Judaism and the law.

Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), an early Christian apologist, wrote his Dialogue with Trypho the Hebrew in which he claimed that YEHOVAH's covenant with Israel was no longer valid, and that the Gentiles had replaced them.

Tertullian (160-220 A.D.) was another Gentile Christian apologist who blamed the Hebrews for the death of the Messiah.

Origen (263-339 A.D.) founded a school in Alexandria Egypt that taught the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Origen was heavily influenced by neo-Platonic Gnosticism. He was also an "anti-Semite" who accused the Israelites of plotting to kill Christians.

Eusebius (263-339 A.D.) wrote an influential history of the church that blamed the calamities which befell the Hebrew nation on the Israelites' role in the death of the Messiah.

John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) denounced Hebrews in a series of sermons to Christians who were taking part in Hebrew festivals and other Hebraic observances.

Jerome (347-420 A.D.) produced the Latin translation of the Bible which became the official bible of the "Catholic Church" which had now become the sole patriarch of Christianity. He said, Hebrews "...are incapable of understanding Scripture and should be severely punished until they confess the true faith."

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) spiritualized the kingdom of YEHOVAH God and introduced amillennialism thinking into the Gentile Church. Augustine maintained that the Hebrews deserved death but were destined to wander the earth to witness the victory of "Church" over synagogue.

As you can see, these "fathers of Christianity" had a deliberate agenda of separation from anything Hebraic, and whose philosophies eventually became the foundation of that religion -- something the Messiah absolutely denied. Besides these Gentile "Church" leaders who rejected the Hebraic root of faith, various Catholic Church Councils of the third and fourth centuries likewise rejected Hebrew influence within the Church, completely abandoning the Hebrew influence of the Way of the Messiah. These include the Council of Elvira (306 A.D.), the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the Council of Antioch (341 A.D.), the Council of Laodicea (434 A.D.), and so on. These councils went so far as to forbid Hebrew and Christian intermarriage, the observance of Passover and worship on the Sabbath day.

The Reformers tried to return the Gentile "Church" to its early roots, but sadly this did not involve a return to the Hebrew roots of the original followers of The Way. Instead, in changing some of the positions advocated by Martin Luther (1483-1586) nailed to the door of the Catholic Church, he kept everything else the Catholics embraced. His frustration with those claiming to be Hebrews (see Revelation 2:9; 3:9) and unwilling to embrace his own interpretation of Protestant Catholicism, caused him to become one of the bitterest so-called anti-Semites in history.

His writings described those whom he considered Hebrews as "worse than devils." They also were "poisoners," "ritual murderers," and "parasites," who should be expelled from Germany. His even went so far as to rouse the mob to "burn synagogues to the ground," and seize Jewish holy books. Later on, Adolf Hitler would tell Germany that his Final Solution was just an attempt to finish the work that Luther had begun.

You might say, "Well I don't believe what these guys say. I don't even know who they are"; but, if you believe there are two parts of the Bible, a "new" covenant or testament and an "old" one, then you are operating under the influence of these men and their teaching because that concept did not exist prior to their injection of it into the "Christian" religion. It cannot be found in the words of the Messiah or in any of the epistles. The subject of "Christian" so-called anti-Semitism is vast and should be soberly studied by all serious seekers of Truth. (See our article, Could the Modern "Jews" Be Israel?).

In order for these "Christian" ideas of Replacement Theology to coincide with scripture, so as to be accepted by their followers, a redefining of the words and terms contained in scripture becomes necessary -- even to the extent of renaming their new replacement god "Jesus" and the downplay of YEHOVAH to a "God of mankind" instead of who He is consistently called in scripture from Genesis to Revelation -- the Holy One of Israel!

* Unless otherwise specified, all references to the church refer to the church in its broadest sense, including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and evangelical.

-- Edited by John D. Keyser.

Hope of Israel Ministries -- Correcting the Errors of Modern "Christianity"!

Hope of Israel Ministries
P.O. Box 853
Azusa, CA 91702, U.S.A.

Scan with your
Smartphone for
more information