Your Heritage
Part 2 of 2
By Bertrand L. Comparet

WAS JESUS CHRIST A JEW?

Now, let us review for a moment what we have covered. We have seen that Jesus Christ was NOT a Jew by religion, for the Jews based their religion on the Babylonian Talmud, which was at that time called "The Tradition of the Elders," and Jesus Christ's whole ministry was one constant battle against the evils of Judaism. We have seen that Jesus Christ was a TRUE ISRAELITE, of the Tribe of Judah, BY RACE. And we have seen that the Jews of His time included the mongrel descendants of Shelah, the mongrel "mixed multitude" which followed the Israelites out of Egypt, the various Cananite peoples in Palestine, including the Jebusites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites and the Amorites, NOW do you understand why Jesus Christ, who said that He was sent only to "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" told the Jews that "I know My sheep, and they know Me. BUT YE (the Jews) BELIEVE NOT BE-CAUSE YE ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, AS I SAID UNTO YOU. MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE, AND I KNOW THEM, AND THEY FOLLOW ME" in the 10th chapter of John?

The tiny remnant of Judah and Benjamin which came back to Palestine from the Babylonian Captivity did leave some descendants in Palestine; but THESE were Jesus Christ's sheep, and He himself said He knew them, they knew Him, and they followed Him. All those in Palestine who became Christians were true members of the Tribe of Judah or the Tribe of Benjamin, but they were NOT Jews. And the Jews were not members of Judah, Benjamin, or any other Israelite tribe, for Jesus Christ Himself said they were NOT of his sheep.

Now we know who it was who constituted the Jews in Jesus Christ's time. If you want to bring it down to date, and find out who are the Jews in our own day, we must add one more racial element. Of course, the descendants of the Jews of Jesus Christ's day are among them: but there is also another element: the KHAZARS. These make up the Slavic Jews of today.

Meanwhile, we must return to the Jews of Palestine for a few words. As you know, by AD. 68, the Romans had found the rascality of the Palestinian Jews so intolerable that they began the campaign which resulted in the fall of Jerusalem in AD. 70. The Jews were then expelled from Palestine, and most of them migrated in large numbers to what was then called Byzantium, later called Constantinople, and today is known as Istanbul, facing the Bosphorus, outlet of the Black Sea. Here, they again demonstrated the truth of the Bible's lesson, that CONDUCT IS THE PRODUCT OF CHARACTER: or in Jesus Christ's own words, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." By about the year 300 AD. their rascality had again become so intolerable that they were again expelled; and they moved northeast, into the Khazar kingdom.

About the year 150 AD. the Khazars, an Asiatic people related to the Turks, migrated westward from Central Asia, and established a great empire which covered what is today southwestern Russia, north of the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Black Sea, including the Don and Dnieper Valleys and the Crimea. About 740 AD. Bulan, the Kagan or King of the Khazars, was converted to the religion of Judaism, together with some 4,000 of the most powerful nobility of the kingdom. In those days, it was not healthful for a subject to be in a religion in conflict with that of the king or with the baron on whose land he lived; so in due course, most of the Khazars became Jews by religion. In fact, it became part of the kingdom's constitution that no one but a Jew by religion could be king. The principal languages spoken were the Khazar (called "Yiddish" today) and Turkish. During the great invasion by the Mongols under Genghis Khan, many of the Judaized Khazars were dispersed into what is now Poland and Lithuania. These Khazars, Jews by religion, constitute the Slavic Jews of today, those with names such as Minsky and Baranov and Moscowitz; (the latter often shortened to "Mosk") also, since much of the western part of this area has been at one time or another ruled by Austrian or Germanic peoples who brought in their own language, these Khazars also took Germanic names, such as Gold or Goldberg, Rosenberg, Eisler, and so forth. if you are wondering how they can be so much like the other Jews, historical documents written at the time the Khazar empire was at its greatest height refer to their tradition that their ancestors originally came from the region of Mt. Seir, which is Edom, the home of the Edomite Jews.

If you wish to look up further details, you will find brief articles on the Khazars in various encyclopedias such as the Britannica, the Jewish Encyclopedia has 6 pages on it In some it is spelled "Khazar" and in other Chazar and even other variations. It is also discussed in "A History of the Jews", by Solomon Grayzel, and "A History of the Jews," by Prof. H. Graetz, both works being published by the Jewish Publication Society of America. The most thorough discussion of the whole problem is found in that magnificent bit of historical research, "The Iron Curtain Over America," by Col. John Beatty. Col Beatty is an Historian and Professor of History, whose works are used as text books in more than 700 colleges and universities. "Iron Curtain Over America" is one of the most thoroughly documented and accurate works ever put in print. It should be in the library of every patriotic American and good Christian.

Perhaps you are wondering, "Why does my Bible some-times speak well of the Jews? Such as Paul saying in Romans that "the gospel of Christ . . . is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:" and in Acts, Paul saying that he was "a Jew of Tarsus.'' If you will look up these few instances in a good concordance, such as Strong's you will find that in each instance the translators have written the word "Jew" in English, where it was not used in the original Greek from which they MIS-translated it. In such in-stances, in the original Greek, the word used was "Ioudaios' which does not mean "Jew," but simply a "Judean," a person whose home is in the land of Judea, or southern Palestine. It has no religious connotation, and it has no racial connotation either; it is purely a geographic term, like "Californian." A "Californian" could be white, black, brown or yellow by race; and he could be Christian, Jew, Buddist or atheist. So also a "Ioudaios" was merely a person who lived in Judea, where, as we saw, there were some few Israelites of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin; but there were far more Canaanite Jews, and also a general mixture of Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, etc. It is true that Christian salvation was first offered in the land of Judea, hence to those who were living there, the Ioudaios; and later, as the Apostles traveled from city to city; it was soon offered to the Greeks. But it was never offered to the Jews as a preferred class, for you will remember that Jesus Christ taught only in hard-to-under-stand parables when there were Jews around, and explained them privately to His Disciples, explaining that He spoke among the Jews ONLY in parables "Lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." Both Matthew 13:10-15 and Mark 4:10-12 record this. Jesus was taking great pains to see that the Jews could not understand Christianity and be converted. He was preaching only "to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" the members of the Tribes of Judah and Ben3amin, which He said were his sheep, who knew His voice, and followed Him. The Jews He rejected as the children of "their father, the devil."

Now to sum it up; the Jews are not, and never were any part of any tribe of Israel; they include various mixtures of Egyptians, Babylonians and Canaanites, the Edomites, and - later - the Khazars. Christ was a pure-blooded Israelite of the Tribe of Judah, without any Jewish ancestry; and He was NOT a Jew by religion.

Now think this over carefully; the group of nations which we loosely group under the term "Anglo Saxon," (including the people of the British Isles, the Scandinavian nations, nearly all of Germany, Holland and some few of the people of France and Belgium, with the closely-related people found in Austria, some of the Swiss, Czechs, some of the Hungarians, North Italians, and Spanish, and their descendants now living in the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa) are the living descendants of the Israel of the Bible, blood brothers of our Saviour, Jesus Christ!

If you are descended from these, the true "people of the Book," - "the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" - accept gladly the Salvation and Leadership of your Risen Saviour and King, the Lord Jesus Christ. You are called as Israelite Christians to stand up for righteousness and decency in the home, the church, the community, the nation, and the world, as Jesus directed, ". . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . ." Don't you appreciate your Ancestry, your Salvation, and your Calling? That truly is YOUR HERITAGE.
 
 

WHO ARE THE GENTILES?

It is unfortunate that most people have so many mistaken ideas about their religion, due largely to the many mistranslations of words in the commonly-used King James' Version of the Bible. One of these mistaken ideas is that most of the people of the United States and Western Europe - in fact, nearly all the Christians in the world - are "Gentiles". You hear many of them - even clergymen, who should know better - say, "I'm just a Gentile, saved by grace." I think it is high time that we learned something about one of the most mis-used words, "Gentile."

First, you might be surprised to know that there is no such word in the Bible, in its original languages. Oh yes, I know that you are now riffling the pages of your King James' Version, looking for some of the many places you will find "Gentile" in it. But I said that there is no such word in the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. The word was put into it by translators, who changed the wording of the Bible centuries after the last book in the Bible was written. If you are a good Christian, you will surely agree with me that what the prophets originally wrote in the books which make up our Bible was inspired by God. It was correct as the prophets wrote it. But not one of them wrote in English, remember, because no such language as English existed until many centuries after the prophets lived. It was written in Hebrew, as to the Old Testament; and the New Testament was originally written in the language which Jesus Christ spoke, Aramic, a Semitic dialect somewhat similar to, but not the same as, Hebrew. But Aramaic was not generally understood outside of Western Asia; so when Christianity began to spread into southern and southeastern Europe, the New Testament had to be translated into a language which was widely used in Europe. Greek served this purpose nicely, for it was understood by well-educated men over nearly all of Europe. Therefore, the New Testament was first translated into Greek. Protestant English-language translations of the Bible, today, are nearly all translated from Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. So, let's start at the beginning, with the Old Testament.

The word "Gentile" is not even once used in any Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament, for the good reason that there is no such word in Hebrew, nor any word which corresponds to it. Everywhere you find the word "Gentile" used in the Old Testament, it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "Goi," which means "NATION". The plural form of it is "GOYIM". Since it means "nation," why didn't they translate it correctly? Sometimes they did; but for the most part, they translated it to fit the official doctrines of the church of their day, no matter what violence that did to the true meaning of the word. The church hierarchy had long since determined what its doctrines should be: and if the Bible didn't agree with them, so much the worse for the Bible. Men were still being burned at the stake for heresy, in those days: and "heresy" meant any religious idea which differed from the official doctrines proclaimed by the Bishops. So the translators did the best the Church would allow them to. Let's take some examples.

In Genesis 12:2, God said to Abram, "I will make of thee a great nation". In Hebrew, God said "I will make of thee a great GOI." It would have been too silly to translate this "I will make a Gentile of you," so they correctly translated it "nation". Again Genesis 25:23. Rebekah was pregnant with the twins, Esau and Jacob; and while still in her womb, the unborn children were struggling against each other; so she wondered at this, and asked of God what was the meaning of this? God said to her, "Two GOYIM are in thy womb." Certainly God was not telling her, "You are an adulteress, pregnant with two Gentile children, when your husband is not a Gentile." God said "Two NATIONS are in thy womb," and that is the way it was translated: but it is that same word, "GOYIM", which elsewhere they generally translate as "Gentiles."

Now let's take some examples from the New Testament. Here the word mistranslated "Gentile" is nearly always the Greek word, "ETHNOS" which means just exactly "NATION", the same as the Hebrew word "GOY". Luke 7 begins with the incident of a Roman Centurion who appealed to Jesus Christ to heal his servant who was sick unto death. The Elders of the Jews praised him to Jesus, saying "He loveth our ETHNOS, and hath built us a synagogue". These Jews would never praise anyone for loving the Gentiles; and the Centurion would not have built a synagogue for Gentiles. So, to avoid complete absurdity, the translators were forced to translate "ETHNOS" correctly, as "NATION". Again, in John 11:50, we find that the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, was plotting with the chief priests and Pharisees, to murder Jesus Christ; and Caiaphas told them, "it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole ETHNOS perish not." Nothing could have pleased this evil Jew more than for all the Gentiles to perish - using the word "Gentile" as we do today. Therefore, the translators had to translate "ETHNOS" correctly, as "nation." Yet in many other places they mistranslate it "Gentile".

The Greek word "ETHNOS"means simply "nation", nothing more or less. It has no pagan, or non-Israel, or even non-Greek connotation. The Greeks distinguished between Greeks and all non-Greek peoples, whom they called "Barbarians". All educated men of that day knew this, and the Apostle Paul was a very well-educated man, who was quite familiar with the Greek language and its idioms. He recognized this distinction in Romans 1:14, where he said, "I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians". Paul, therefore, never wrote the word "Gentile" in any of his Epistles.

What does this word "Gentile" mean, and from what is it derived? It is derived from the Latin word "GENTILIS", which means "ONE WHO IS NOT A ROMAN CITIZEN." If you use the word correctly, then you would have to say that Jesus Christ and his twelve disciples were all Gentiles, because none of them was a Roman Citizen. Only Paul could say that he was not a "Gentile," because in the 22nd chapter of Acts, Paul says that he was a Roman citizen by birth.

How, then, is it used at present when The speaker means to say that someone is non-Jewish? About the fourth century AD., its use was loosely extended to cover more than its original meaning. It was applied especially to those who were heathen, pagan; it became a term for those who were neither Christian nor Jewish, for Christians and Jews were generally called just that, (Christian; or Jew). But this was centuries after the last book in the New Testament had been written.

The word "Gentile" was never used by the writer of any book of the Old Testament, because none of them bad ever heard it, as they had never come in contact with Rome. It was not used by the writer of any book of the New Testament, for there is no such word in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek languages. They did not borrow the word from the Latin, for if you will look up every place it is used in your King James' Version, you will see that it is never used in the correct sense, to say that someone is not a Roman citizen; and that is the only meaning it had, the only way anybody used it, in those days. It was put in by the translators in an effort to make the Bible say what the Translators thought it should have said. Therefore, it has no authority at all.

In short, wherever you see the word "Gentile" in the Bible, remember that the correct word is "nation," "race," or "people". Sometimes it is used when speaking of ISRAEL nations or the ISRAELITE race, as we have seen in the examples I have given you in other instances, the context will show that it is being used of a nation which is non-Israelite. Only the context in which it is used will show you which meaning to give it. When used of non-Israelite race perhaps "Gentile is as good a word as any, for we seam to have no other in general use. But never be deceived by reading the word "Gentile" in your Bible, for its only correct meaning is "nation" or "race."
 
 

SUPPOSE WE ARE ISRAEL,
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

What would you say to me, or of me, if you knew I had discovered that I was the heir to vast estates, great wealth, power and responsibility, and that, instead of rejoicing in the great privilege and turning to the work with all its great issues, I simply said "Well, and what if I am the heir; what difference does it make?" I know what you'd think, even if you didn't say it.

Yet, when we show from the Bible, and from history and archaeology that the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples are the modern descendants of the House of Israel, to whom God has pledged with His oath so many great privileges and blessings, many say indifferently "what difference does it make?"

They want only personal salvation. Now the man who has the blessing of personal salvation is the recipient of a marvelous gift of God in Jesus Christ. But that doesn't warrant his despising and rejecting the other God given birthright - the birthright of race.

The Bible, as given by God, is a complete whole. It stands or falls in one piece. It declares the whole counsel of God and it required nothing short of the whole book to declare it. Otherwise, much of it would not have been written. It is not for man to go through the Book sorting and picking, deciding what he wishes to accept and then say about the rest, "what difference does it make?" To do so is the height of presumption.

God, in His wisdom, chose Israel to be used by Him in His great plan for the transformation of a lost world. He wrote a large portion of the Bible to tell us about Israel's part in that plan. Allowing ample space in the Bible for the presentation of the Gospel to the individual, God wrote about five-sevenths of the Book as his message to the nations. And related to almost every phase of this revelation, is the great nation Israel, promised by God to Abraham.

Infidel critics are busy all the time knifing the Scriptures, cutting out a bit here and a bit there - but the "what difference does it make" folks throw away five sevenths of the Bible in one lump. Five-sevenths is a lot of Bible to scrap!

Actually the Israel Truth is the key which opens up the Bible from the first promise made at the Fall, until Jesus delivers up the finished Kingdom to the Father. It may be likened to a spiritual thread which runs through almost every chapter of Bible history, every doctrine, symbol, promise and covenant. The thread which, when found, makes possible the unraveling of most of the mysteries of the Word. This is why the people who see this truth have declared the Bible to be a "new book;" consistent, harmonious and satisfying to mind and soul.

Centuries ago God made an unconditional, irrevocable, covenant with Abraham to increase and preserve his posterity throughout all generations. And now, here we are, the many nations of Israel, right here on the planet after almost 4,000 years - doing the work he said Israel would do. Psalm 105:8 says: "He remembers his covenant forever, the word he has commanded, to a thousand generations: The covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac. For he confirmed it to Jacob as a statute, To Israel as an eternal covenant."

The writers of the four Gospels constantly call attention to God's faithfulness to Abraham. The Apostles, every one of them, gloried in it: but you say "what difference does it make?"

It made quite a difference to Esau who despised his birthright of race. Afterwards he found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears. The birthright of race made quite a difference to Ishmael, the son of the bond woman, Hagar. The birthright of race also make quite a difference to the sons of Keturah.

"Suppose we are Israel", then we are the descendants of Abraham through Sarah, Isaac and Jacob. There is a world of difference in the blessings of race, country, enlightenment and opportunity bestowed upon the descendants of these than that which was bestowed upon the others. Does the fact that a man is saved eternally, preclude the possibility of his appreciating the civil blessings which he enjoys under the Abrahamic covenant in these Israel countries? A short stay in the lands of the dictators would show the difference and be quite convincing.

In Isaiah 51:2, God says "Hearken unto me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah, that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." "Ye that follow after righteousness", are certainly tbe Christians and we see that God wants them to see that they are Abraham's seed.

In Genesis 17:7, God says, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Can it be possible that it means nothing to the believer to be chosen of God as an heir of that covenant, which in all of its ramifications, God unfolds through the remainder of the Scriptures?

"Suppose we are Israel", then we are members of the Kingdom of God on earth. He established that Kingdom at Sinai. Constituting that Kingdom was twelve tribed Israel. Matthew 21:43 tells us plainly that He took the Kingdom from the Jews and turned it over to a "nation." The Greek word is "ethnos". Don't tell me it was given to a church - for the Greek word for church is "ekklesia". That nation was to bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. Those fruits are both political and religious.

True to Christ's assignment, the Israel nations lead the world in evangelistic work, missionary work, Bible translation, publication and distribution. The United States and the British Commonwealth holds the record for 90% of this work.

It is not good Bible Christianity to hug the covenant of grace so close to our heart and that we have no room for God's covenant of race. That spurns the honors conferred by God. It does not require much research to find many texts in which God reveals the exalted position given to his chosen race. A few of them are:

"But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine . . . Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable and I have loved thee." Isaiah 43:1,4

"Thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance." I Kings 8:53

"For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for a peculiar treasure." Psalm 135:4

"For thou art a holy people (meaning set apart), the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all the nations that are upon the earth." Deuteronomy 7:6

Note the honors conferred: He chose them, redeemed them, claimed them for his own, separated them, calls them precious, his peculiar treasure, his special people, his inheritance above all the peoples on the earth. Think of any believer reading all of that and then turning upon his heel and saying "suppose we are Israel: what difference does it make?"

It rejects God's comfort for the last days. God was anxious that His Israel people should have a clear vision of all that was to come to pass in these trying times, and consequently, sent prophet after prophet, telling of world conditions which we would experience in our day. But right along with the cataclysmic upheavals foretold, there is always a word of cheer, consolation and encouragement to his people Israel. He wanted us to have the benefit of knowing what He is doing in the world, what the world events actually mean, how He is going to make it all work out to the good of His people Israel, and through all that is happening bring in the Kingdom of God on earth. The Kingdom of God on earth is the one theme of the Bible. It is the theme Jesus preached. In Romans 15:8 Paul tells us that Jesus Christ came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.

What is the worth of our identity with Israel? It proves God to be unchangeably faithful. It proves the Bible to be literally and historically true. It proves that God is working today, as the prophets have all foretold he would, in and through and for his people Israel - who are the Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian and Germanic peoples. Lastly, but by no means least, it proves that Jesus Christ did what he came to do, confirm the promises made to the fathers.
 
 

HISTORIC PROOF OF ISRAEL'S MIGRATIONS

In my lecture called "ISRAEL'S FINGERPRINTS", I have sketched briefly for you some of the Bible's evidence that the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Germanic people of today are the living decendants of the ISRAEL of the Bible. This evidence was in the form of many Bible prophecies of Israel's future which have been accurately fulfilled by these nations, and by no others. If the people who have actually done all the things which God said Israel would do, and who have received the exact blessings which God said He would give to Israel - if they are not Israel, how could God be so greatly mistaken? No, God was not mistaken: He knew what He would do, and for whom He would do it; and by making good all His prophecies and promises, He has identified these nations as Israel.

But there are some people who won't believe God, and will not accept His identification of these nations. In fact, one clergyman with whom I discussed this, minister of a church in this county, wrote to me demanding to know "what other historians of the time, inwhat books, chapters and verses, record theirmigrationintoNorthem and Western Europe and the British Isles?" He is but one of many skeptics who ask this; and to these skeptics, the answer is, "Yes, various historians of those centuries have traced various steps of this migration." What I propose to do for you now is to race this migration historically. Remember that, within the time limits which must necessarily be fixed on such a talk as this, I can only "hit the high spots" - you know how large a library can be filled with history books, so I can't quote them all verbatim. But I will have time enough to show you that the historians have traced this migration from Israel's old Palestinian home intotheir European homes as the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Germanic peoples. Not under their old names, of course but that, also is the fulfillment of God's prophecy that He would "call His servants by another name," and surely you now know that the Bible identifies Israel - and only Israel - as God's servants.

The migration of the Israelites covered about 12 centuries, during which time they were mentioned by various historians, writing in different languages, during different centuries - and therefore mentioned under different names. Even today, if you were to read a London newspaper1 a Paris newspaper, and a Berlin newspaper, all dated about the end of 1940, you would find that the British newspaper said that in that year France was invaded by "the Germans, ' the French newspaper said that the invasion was by "les Allemans;" and the German newspaper said that the invasion was by 'der Deutsch" - yet all three were talking about the same people and the same invasion. Likewise, we must not be surprised to find that the Israelites were given different names in the Assyrian, Greek and Latin languages. Likewise, even in the same language, names change from century to century, just as today we never speak of "Bohemia", as it was called only a century ago, but only of "Czechoslovakia."

You remember that the original 12 - tribed nation of Israel broke up into two nations upon the death of king Solomon, about 975 BC. The northern 2/3 of the land, containing ten Tribes, kept the name "Israel," while the southern 1/3, containing the Tribes of Benjamin and Judah, with many of the Levites, took the name of "Judah" after the royal Tribe. From that time on, they kept their separate existence until they were finally merged into a vast migration, as we will see.

Most of the kings of the 10 tribed northern kingdom of Israel were distinguished more for their wickedness than for any ability. However, OMRI, who reigned from 885 to 874 BC., was a vigorous and able king - although as wicked as the others - and his reign was regarded among the other nations of western Asia as the foundation upon which the national identity thereafter rested. The languages of that day spoke of a family, a Tribe, or even a whole nation as a "house" or household. If you have read your Bible much, you must surely remember God's many references to the "House of Israel" or "House of Judah" - meaning, in each case, the Kingdom of Israel or the Kingdom of Judah. But the phrase was also used in those days to refer to a nation as the "House" of a great king who ruled it. The Assyrians, among others, began calling the 10 tribed Kingdom of Israel "the House of Omri". In Hebrew, "house" was "bahyith" or "bayth" - in English usually spelled BETH and pronounced "BETH". In the related Semitic language of Assyrian, this was "BIT". The Hebrew "OMRI" was in Assyrian sometimes written "HUMRI", sometimes "KUMRI."

With this preface in mind, let's start tracing the Israelites from their Palestinian homeland, in the Assyrian conquest and deportation. In II Kings 15:29 we read, "In the days of Pekah, king of Israel, came Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, and took Ijon and Bel-beth-maachah and Janoa and Kedesh and Razor and Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria." In 1st Chronicles 5:26 it says, "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah and Habor and Hara and to the River Gozan, unto this day."

Confirmation of this is found in inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser which archaeologists have dug up and are in our museums today. One of these says: "The cities of Gala'za (probably Assyrian for Galilee), Abilkka (probably Assyrian for Abel-beth maacha), which are on the border of Bit-Humna ** the whole land of Naphtali in its entirety, I brought within the border of Assyria. My official I set over them as governor. ** The land of Bit Humna ** all of its people, together with all their goods, I carried off to Assyria. Pahaka their king they deposed, and I placed Ausi as king." In confirmation of this change of kings, we read in II Kings 15:30, "And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against PEKAR son of Remaliah and smote him and slew him, and reigned in his stead."

The conquest thus begun in the northeastern and northern parts of the kingdom about 740 BC. worked southward, down to the heavily-fortified capital city of Samaria, which was captured about 721 BC. Another king of Assyria reigned, by that time. 2nd Kings 18:9-11 records it as follows: "And it came to pass in the 4th year of King Hezekiah (of Judah), which was the 7th year of Hoshea, son of Elah, King of Israel, that Shalmanezer, King of Assyria, came up against Samaria and besieged it. And at the end of 3 years they took it, even in the 6th year of Hezekiah, that is the 9th year of Hoshea, King of Israel, Samaria was taken. And the King of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." We know that king Shalmanezer died toward the latter part of this siege, and the final conquest and deportation were carried on by his successor, King Sargon II. In confirmation of this, an inscription of Sargon II says, "In the beginning of my reign, the City of Samaria I besieged, I captured. **27,280 of its inhabitants I carried away."

The deportation of a whole nation naturally took a considerable period of time. The journey had to be organized, with adequate supplies for each convoy on each stage of the journey, and proper organization of the places selected to receive them. We know that Sargon II did not hold "the cities of the Medes" east of the Zagros mountains until a few years after 721 BC., so about 715 to 712 BC. is the correct date for the deportation to Media. The places to which Israel was deported by the Assyrians can be summed up in brief as constituting an arc or semi-circle around the southern end of the Caspian Sea.

This deportation took in the entire population of the ten northern Tribes constituting the nation of Israel. From this point on, the separation into Tribes is apparently most, and it is as a nation that the Kingdom of Israel moved into its Assyrian captivity.

This left the other 2 tribes still living in the southern Kingdom of Judah. Assyria and Egypt were the two giant empires of that day, each seeking domination over all the smaller and weaker nations. Assyria had driven Egyptian influence out of western Asia, back to the continent of Arica, and had made all the smaller nations surrounding Judah into vassal states paying heavy tribute to Assyria. The brutal arid rapacious character of the Assyrians made them no friends, and their vassal states were always hopefully looking for any means of escape from Assyrian power. Egypt kept the hope of revolt alive by offers of military assistance to those who would rebel against Assyria. The death of a king seemed the most opportune time for revolt, since his successor would need time to get his power organized, and might even face some competition at home for his throne, Therefore, when king Sargon II of Assyria died, about 705 BC., revolts began in western Asia, the Kingdom of Judah under king Hezekiah taking part in it, in the hope of military aid from Egypt (although the prophet Isaiah warned that the revolt would fail).

The new king of Assyria, Sennacherib, set about recovering his empire; one rebellious city after another was reconquered, with the hideous cruelty characteristic of Assyria; and in 701 BC., Sennachenib's huge army invaded the kingdom of Judah; midway through it, they paused briefly to defeat the Egyptian army, then moved on to besiege Jerusalem. None of the smaller cities of Judah were able to resist. 2nd Kings 18:13 and Isaiah 36:1 say that "In the 14th year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and captured them." Then followed the siege of Jerusalem, which was ended when the angel of the Lord killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in on~ night, and Sennacherib gave up the siege and fled back to his own land. In confirmation of this, Sennacherib's own record of this says, "I then besieged Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, and I captured 46 of his strong cities and fortresses, and innumerable small cities which were round about them. with the battering of rams and the assault of engines, and the attack of foot-soldiers, and by mines and breaches made in the walls. I brought out therefrom 200,150 people, both small and great. **Hezekiah himself, like a caged bird, I shut up within Jerusalem his royal city." Ancient kings were boastful of their victories,but never of their defeats: so king Sennacherib tactfully fails to state how the siege of Jerusalem ended. But he does confirm the capture of all the other cities of Judah, and the deportation therefrom of 200,150 people.

Remember that all the people of the 10 northern tribes were already settled around the south end of the Caspian Sea, in the Assyrian deportation of Israel; now to them was added a large portion of the 2 southern Tribes of Benjamin and Judah; so that the Assyrian deportation included all of the ten Tribes and a substantial representation from the other 2. These were the people who became your ancestors and mine, whenthev moved into Europe.

Over the years, the increasing numbers of the Israelite tribes expanded northward along both sides of the Caspian Sea. They were not basically city-builders but farmers and herdsmen. Probably in the earlierpart of their stay here,the Assyrians sternly discouraged the building of cities, which would naturally be fortified centers of resistance. As they were moved into this area, herded along as prisoners, robbed of all their belongings, they had to make themselves brush shelters or booths where they stopped for any length of time, Here in the southwest our Indians call such a brush shelter a "wickiup''; the Hebrews called it a "soocaw'' - applying the name also to a tent. It was the only house a nomad owned. The plural of "soocaw" was "succoth". Gradually this was slurred over into "Scuth", used of a ten-dweller or nomad, and finally became "Scythian."

The great carving on the Behistun Rock made about 516 BC. carried inscriptions showing the many different nations who were tributary to King Tarius I of Persia. These inscriptions were written in Old Persian. in Median, and in Assyrian. Thev showed that among these were a Scythian nation called in Assyrian and Babytonian "Gimiri", which means "The Tribes From "Gimiri" was derived the name of the "Cimmerians", who settled somewhat to the north and into the Ukraine. But the Behistun Inscriptions also stated that these people were called "Sakka" in Persian and Median. Already the later names are beginning to evolve.

The great Greek historian HERODOTUS, who lived from 484 to 425 BC., and who is generally called "The Father of History", speaking of these people, says, "The Sacae, or Scyths, were clad in trousers, and had on their heads tall, stiff caps, rising to a point. They bore the bow of their country and the dagger; besides which they carried the battle-axe or sagaris. They were in truth Amyrgian Scythians, but the Persians called them Sacae, since that is the name which they give to all Scythians." Incidentally, some of the magnificent carved walls of the ancient ruins of the Persian palace at Persepolis show illustrations of those Sacae, in their trousers and pointed caps, bringing tribute to the Persian king.

We are now getting further clues to these people. Herodotus says that the Scythians or Sacae first appeared in that land in the seventh century BC., which is the same period in which the Tribes of Israel were settled there by their Assyrian conquerors. Their use of the battle-axe as aweaponisacarry-over from their history as Israel. In Jeremiah 51:20 God says of Israel, "Thou art My battleaxe and weapons of war, for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms". We will see later that the name evolved from SAKKE to SAXON; and it is noteworthy that the battle-axe was the great weapon of the Saxons.

These Scythians or Sacae lived up to God's description of Israel as His battleaxe and weapons of war. They became a military people of great power, who did much to break up ancient nations. The Greek geographer and historian, STRABO, who lived between 63 BC. and about 21 AD.,says: "Mostof the Scythians, beginning from the Caspian Sea, are called 'Dahae Scythae' and those situated more towards the east, 'Massagatae' and 'Sacae'; the rest have the common name of 'Scythians', but each tribe has its own peculiar name. The Sacae had made incursions similar to those of the Cimmenans and Treres, some near their own country, others at a greater distance. They occupied Bactriana, and got possession of the most fertile tract in Armenia, which was called after their own name, Sacasene. They advanced even as far as the Cappadocians, those particularly situated near the Euxine Sea (Today called the Black Sea), who are now called 'Pontici.'"

This was but the early part of their expansion, however. when a century had elapsed since their deportation to this land of Scythia, they had grown strong enough to begin the long series of harassing wars against their conquerors, the Assyrians. They lacked the strength to capture the powerfully fortified group of cities about the Assyrian capitol; and in turn, their nomadic habits made it easy for them to retreat before a too-powerful Assyrian army. But generations of this constant warfare wore down the Assyrians, "bled them white", so that when the Medes finally overran Assyria and captured Nineveh in 612 BC., their victory was a fairly easy one against the exhausted Assyrians.

From this point on, I could refer you to just one historical work which fully traces the Scythians on to their settlement in England as the Anglo-Saxons. "A History of the Anglo- Saxons", by Sharon Turner does a magnificent job of this. As most of you know, I am a lawyer by profession: and a lawyer soon learns to distinguish between the man who actually knows the facts and the man who is merely repeating hearsay - that is, gossip and rumor he has heard from others - and how do we know whether these others actually know what they are talking about? Unless a man has seen the occurrence with his own eyes, his ideas on the subject are no better than the accuracy of the information he has received. Now no historian living in our times can have any personal knowledge of what happened 2,000 years ago, so his writings can be no better than the source material he has obtained from people who lived and wrote at a time when accurate information could still be had. Most modern history books are based on rather scanty documentation from any sources, as it is so much easier for one historian to copy from another. But Sharon Turner's "History of The Anglo-Saxons" is one of the most thoroughly documented historical studies ever produced, and its reliability is beyond question. He traces the Anglo-Saxons cf Britain back to the Scythians; unfortunately, he doesn't go the one step further and trace the Scythians back to Israel; but we can do that from other sources.

But let us go back to the Scythians, as the people of Israel became known in the land to which they were deported. Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the times of Julius and Augustus Caesar, says this: "The Scythians anciently enjoyed but a small tract of ground, but (through their valor) growing stronger by degrees, they enlarged their dominion far and near, and attained at last to a vast and glorious empire, At the first, a very few of them, and those very despicable for their mean origin, seated themselves near to the River Araxes. Afterwards, one of their ancient kings, who was a warlike prince and skillful in arms, gained to their country all the mountainous parts as far as to Mount Caucasus. **Sometime afterwards, their posterity, becoming famous and eminent for valor and martial affairs, subdued many territories. **Then turn mg their arms the other way, they led their forces as far as to the River Nile, in Egypt."

Other historians record that BLOND SCYTHIANS made an expedition against Palestine and Egypt about 626 BC. The town of Scythopolis, in the Jordan valley, is named for a settlement made on this raid. But to continue with Diodorus Siculus, he says, "This nation prospered more and more, and had kings that were very famous; from whom the SACANS and the Massagetae and the Arimaspians, and many others called by other names derive their origin. Amongst others, there were two remarkable colonies that were drawn out of the conquered nations by those kings the one they brought out of Assyria and settled in the country lying between Paphlagonia and Pontus; the other out of Media, which they placed near the River Tanais which people are called Sauromatians."

Note how God's destiny for these people worked. They would not leave behind any pockets of their people in the lands where their conquerors had settled them; but when they had gained great power, they came back and picked up any who remained, taking them into the migrating mass. Likewise, history records that they raided Babylon, after its overthrow by the Medes and Persians, carrying off with them such of the people of Judah and Benjamin as were not going back to Jerusalem.

Even in early times, before the final mass movement into Europe, the Scythians had begun their march to their new homelands, where some of them had already arrived before the beginning of the Christian Era. Pliny the Elder, a Roman historian who lived from 23 to 79 AD., says this: "The name 'Scythian' has extended in every direction, even to the Sarmatae and the GERMANS; but this ancient name is now only given to those who dwell beyond those nations, and live unknown to nearly all the rest of the world. **Beyond (the Danube) are the peoples of Scythia. The Persians have called them by the general name of Sacae, which properly belongs only to the nearest nation of them. The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii (Arameans). The multitude of these Scythians is quite innumerable; in their life and their habits they much resemble the people of Parthia (Persia). The Tribes among them that are better known are the Sacae, the Massagetae, the Dahae, **" etc.

Others have noted this early migration into Germany. For example, Herodotus mentions a migration and settlement of a people he calls the Sigynnoe, who them selves claimed to be colonists from Media, and who migrated as far as the River Rhine. (Remember that among the places the Israelites were resettled were "the cities of the Medes"?)

Also note that Pliny the Elder said that "The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii" - that is, "Aramean", in modern language called "Syrian." In Deuteronomy 26:5, every Israelite was commanded to confess and sojourned there with a few, and became a nation, great, mighty and populous." Hence, such ancient writers could correctly identify the Israelite Scythians as "Arameans", for they had come from a land which was part of Syria.

Among the Tribes of the Scythians, the Massagetac attracted the notice of all the ancient historians, by their numbers and warlike ability. Those who described them in more detail divided them into the Massagetac and Thyssagetae; and the "getae" part of the name soon evolved into "Goth"; the Massagetae were the Greater Goths and the Thyssagetae were the Lesser Goths. Thus we already find among the Scythians names we can identify as the people who later conducted the great migrations into Europe. The Goths, as we know, were later called "Ostrogoths," meaning "East Goths," and "Visigoths," meaning "West Goths."

But to go back a few centuries, the Sacae were allies of the Medes and Persians in the attack upon Babylon, in 536 BC. Remember that God had said that Israel was "My Battleaxe and weapons of war; for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms." So God had used Scythian Israel to maintain constant war against Assyria for nearly a century, until Assyria was too weakened to resist the Medes and Persians; then God used Scythian Israel, the Sacae, to help in the conquest of Babylon, when its time had come. Later, King Cyrus of Persia was foolish enough to try to conquer his former allies, the Sacac; but he was killed in the battle. King Darius also tried to conquer them, but they being a nomadic people, retreated before his massive armies until he gave up and retired.

Professor George Rawlinson says that the original development of the Indo-European language took place in Armenia - which, you will remember, was at that time occupied by "Scythian" Israel. Certainly from these people we can trace the introduction of this language into Europe.

This powerful and increasingly numerous people thereafter spread further north, both east and west of the Caspian Sea. To the west of it, they penetrated into the Volga and Don River Valleys as the Sauromatians and the Royal Scyths, nomadic peoples. To reach these lands, they had come up through the Caucasus Mountains by a great pass which is today occupied by the Georgian Military Road. Perhaps the Communists have changed the name of this pass in recent years, but from ancient times until without our own lifetimes this pass was known as "The Pass of Israel." The white Race of Europe is often called "Caucasian" because the ancestors of many of them did thus come out of the Caucasus Mountains.

When Alexander the Great began his great marauding expedition across western Asia and as far as India, he had to skirt the edge of the lands held by the Scythians. In his limitless vanity and ambition, he wanted also to conquer them; but it is recorded that their ambassadors said that they would never surrender to him; that they were nomadic peoples who, if they could not resist, could retreat indefimtely before his armies; and they had no wealthy cities for him to occupy and loot. Alexander invaded their lands long enough to fight one severe battle with them, defeating the Scythians forces he met; but this was evidently just as a lesson to them not to attack the flanks of his forces, for he led his forces out of their territory and never returned to the attack.

Remember that Israel is "God's battleaxe and weapons of war." They had already weakened Assyria, and as allies of the Medes and Persians had helped overthrow Assyria and Babylon. They had beaten off attempts of the Persians to conquer them. In the article "Scythians", Chambers Encyclopedia (1927) records that "The Scythians, after about 128 B.C. overran Persia, routed several Persian armies, and levied tribute from the Persian kings. During the first century before and the first century after Christ, hordes of Scythians, having overthrown the Bactrian and Indo-Greek dynasties of Afghanistan and India, invaded northern India: and there they maintained themselves with varying fortune for five centuries longer. **The Jats of India and the Rajputs have both been assigned the Scythian ancestry." Madison Grant writes that "Ancient Bactria maintained its Nordic and Aryan aspect long after Alexander's time, and did not become Mongolized and receive the sinister name of Turkestan until the seventh century (AD.). ** The Saka were the blond peoples who carried the Aryan language to India."

A land so vast, and not the original home of the Israelite Scythians, but already having some inhabitants when they were settled there, must of course show varying types of people. The Nordic or Aryan Israelite Scythians conquered these other races. while some speak of a Mongoloid type found in some parts of Scythia, ancient writers pretty well agree that the dominant Sakka or Massagetae Scythians were a Nordic people. Dr. Hans Gunther, professor at Berlin University, in his "Racial Elements of European History," published in the 1920s, says: "The investigations into the traces left behind them by that wide-spread Nordic people, the Sacae (Scythians), with its many tribes, are well worthy of attention. It had been living on the steppes of southeastern Europe, and spread as far as Turkestan and Mghanistan, and even to the Indus. The ancient writers, such as Polemon of Ilium,Galienos, Clement of Alexandria, and Adamantios, state that the Sacae were like the Kelts and Germans, and describe them as ruddy-fair. The Scythian tribe of the Alans are also described as having a Nordic appearance. Ammianus (About A.D. 330-400) calls them, 'almost all tall and handsome, with hair almost yellow, and a fierce look.'"

We have seen that the names of the Massagetae and the Thyssagetae evolved into Goths, the Ostrogoths (or East Goths) and Visigoths (or West Goths). The historian Ptolemy, who died about 150 AD., mentions a Scythian people, descended from the Sakae, by the name of SAXONS, who had come from Media. Albinus, who lived in the first century BC., also says, "The SAXONS were descended from the ancient Sacae in Asia, and in process of time they came to be called SAXONS." Prideaux reports that the Cimbrians came from between the Black and Caspian Seas, and that with them came the ANGLI.

We are now well into established European history. By the beginning of the 4th century AD., many of the Goths were already Christians. In the 4th century there were several collisions between Visigoths and Rome, and in 410 the Visigoths became the masters of Italy and captured Rome. Later, they moved on into Southern France and northern Spain where they settled permanently. The Ostrogoths settled in what is modern Hungary about 455 AD.; under Theodoric the Great, they conquered Italy about 493, and set up an Ostrogoth kingdom in Italy, which, however, was short-lived. Their descendants are the fair-skinned and blond Italians of northern Italy. But the Goths had ended the Roman Empire: "God's battleaxe" again destroying the kingdoms of the Babylonian order of empires.

The Angli and the Saxons moved up the Danube Valley and settled in Germany and along the Baltic shores, as is well known; and from there, the Jutes, Angles and Saxons colonized England after the Roman legions were withdrawn in AD. 408.

Actually, the earliest waves of migration penetrated to the farthest edges of the European continent - partly because they could move through nearly empty lands, without meeting any peoples strong enough to effectively resist them, partly because they were pushed farther by the later waves of Israelite migration coming behind them. Hence, we find the settlement of the Scandinavian Peninsula pretty well completed before the arrival of the Jutes, Angles and Saxons along the southern shore of the Baltic Sea.

The Tribes which settled along the shores of the Baltic were a great maritime people - as some of the Israelites had been1 even when still in Palestine, and as God had prophesied. The Jutes, Angles and Saxons came from within the Baltic Sea, but their ocean-borne raids on England were heavy and continuous; later, by invitation of the British, they settled along the eastern shores, in East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Kent.

William the Conqueror invaded England in 1056, with the Normans; they were actually Norse Vikings who had settled on the coast of France in the province of Normandy: "Norman" being really derived from "Norseman."

So we see that the migrations of Israel, first into Scythia, expanding there, then gaining the names of Goths, Angli and Saxons, and under those names moving into their present European homelands, is a well established historical fact. There is also the fascinating story of the early migrations by sea, but that is another subject in itself.
 

The End


Click here to return to the Bible Study.