Many have been led to believe that Jesus Christ is of the race we designate
as Jews today. Because of this conception, when the activities of certain Jews
and their organizations are criticized, the immediate rejoinder is, "You know
Jesus was a Jew and you must be good to the Jews, for a curse is pronounced upon
those who are not."
Our Saviour was not a Jew, as Jews are now defined, and it
is imperative that every Christian understand this. It is also important to know
that the blessings under the covenant made with Abraham only
apply to those among his descendants who conform with the
covenant terms. By Jewry's rejection of Jesus Christ as their Messiah, they
deliberately repudiated the covenant and became His enemies, as Jesus Himself
declared.
This article presents irrefutable evidence proving that Jesus Christ, while
He was not a Jew, was, nevertheless, of the line of Abraham, an Israelite of the
seed of David, born of the virgin Mary. Through Him, as both Redeemer and
Saviour, the covenant promise will be brought to its full fruition: "In thee and
in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed."
When an examination of the genealogy of a given individual or family is
undertaken, the researcher is very careful to distinguish between the distinct
and divergent branches of the family tree. A genealogist who is not meticulous
in this respect would soon find his research completely discredited.
However, when an examination is made of the genealogical facts contained in
the Scriptures, Christians are notorious for their carelessness
in tracing and properly identifying the ancestry of Biblical persons by
establishing lines of descent. Reviewing the conclusions at which some
theologians have arrived, which have been accepted as genuine ethnological
findings in regard to the races and their divisions dealt with in the
Scriptures, we are confronted with a veritable hodge- podge of inaccuracies.
It is our purpose here to deal with the ancestry of our Lord Jesus Christ,
whom the Bible declares was of the seed of David. When
referring to Jesus Christ, the statement is invariably made that He was a Jew.
But was He? How many who make this assertion have actually examined the family
tree of Judah, the son of Jacob?
Briefly stated, Jacob had twelve sons, one of whom was named
Judah. It is a rewarding study to investigate the-ancestral background of each
of the twelve sons of Jacob, but in order to confine this study to tracing the
ancestry of our Jesus, we will concern ourselves with. Judah only and with the
many branches of the family tree of the tribe of Judah.
In the first place, up to the time of Jacob, the father of Judah, no
one was called a Jew. Adam was not a jew,-nor Seth
(the appointed seed - Gen. 4:25), nor Noah, nor Abraham. Abraham was a Hebrew,
quite true (Gen. 14:13), but he was not a Jew.
Judah, son of Jacob, was not a Jew, but was of
Hebrew descent and an Israelite. Judah was a Hebrew because he
was of the line of Heber, who was one of Abraham's great
grandfathers (five generations before Abraham); he was an Israelite because he
was the son of ' Jacob ' who was the first Israelite (Gen.32:28).
Judah had three sons by his wife Shuah, who was a Canaanite. Their names were
Er, Onan and Shelah. Er and Onan were wicked and died, having
had no children, leaving the remaining son, Shelah, whose mother was of
Canaanitish ancestry.
After Shuah's death, Judah became the father of two sons by his
daughter-in-law Tamar, the widow of Er, under deceptive circumstances (see
Genesis 38). These two sons were named Zarah and Pharez, and they were twins.
They were racially pure in their descent, even though they were born out of
wedlock.
The descendants of Zarah (sometimes spelled Zerah) formed a distinct branch
of the line of Judah. Professor C.A.L.Totten engaged in extensive research in
regard to the development and migrations of the Israel peoples and he made this
statement:
"It is patent from the sacred chronicles that Zarah had, as
yet no children when he went down into Egypt with his grandfather Jacob
(Gen.46:12), although his twin brother, Pharez, was accompanied by two, Hezron
and Hamul, who are accordingly enumerated among 'the seventy souls' who,
'besides his son's wives' (v' 26), settled in the land of Goshen with the
Patriarch." (From The Secret of History.*) *Out of print.
The descendants of Zarah, both sons and grandsons, are referred to in I
Chronicles 2:6-8 and I Kings 4:30-31. Solomon's wisdom is said to have exceeded
the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt:
"For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite [i.e., Zerahite], and
Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all
nations round about (1 Kings 4:31.)
There is a lack of clarity in the Biblical listing of the men whose names are
given and their relationship to Zarah, the head that royal clan. It is
conjectured that this was due, partly at least, to the fact of intense
rivalry between the twin princes of Judah Pharez and Zarah. The upshot
of it all was that the Zarah branch left Egypt long before the
Exodus of the people of Israel from the land. This being so, the
Bible allows the records of Zarah's line to lapse. Nevertheless secular history
picks up the story and supplies some very interesting information about the
children of Zarah whose wisdom was exceeded only by that of Solomon.
In Volumes 4 and 5 of his compilations under the general title of "Our Race"
Series Professor Totten referred to the Chronicles of Ireland where he found
confirmatory evidence concerning the part the descendants of
Zara played in colonizing all the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and
as far west as the British Isles and Ireland. From his
painstaking study of many sources of knowledge, arrived at the following
conclusions, which have never been successfully refuted: -
"For if Darda. the Egyptian, son of Zarah was
Dardanus, the Egyptian founder of Troy and if Chalcol was the Egyptian Cecrops,
Niul, and the contemporary founder Athens and Thebes, and if Heman, the brother
of Niul, was the likewise contemporary Egyptian Agenon who inherited Phoenicia,
and if Mahol, the son of Zarah, and the father of these famous Egyptians, was
Scytha, or Fenesia Farsa, the Egyptian ancestor of the Milesians, whose records,
full and complete, enable us to blend the whole into one continuous recital down
to the present day, surely we have means at hand in Trojan, Grecian and Milesian
sources, to continue out the record of the Sacred Chronicles,
and lend them greater reverence as we come to understand and prize them at their
worth." (Our Race Series, Vol. 4, p. 165.)
Thus, from Zarah's line came the progenitors of the Milesian civilization
that was established around the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. However,
although they were descendants of Judah, they were not
Jews.
The descendants of Shelah, who were workers in fine
linen (1 Chron. 4:21), left the rest of Israel shortly
after the Exodus and before Israel entered the
Promised Land, joining with their brethren of the Zarah line in
their westward trek. They became the progenitors of the linen workers in Ireland
in the Isles. Therefore, the descendants of Judah, through two of his sons,
Zarah and Shelah, pioneered in the work of colonization. The remaining son of
Judah, Pharez, became the progenitor of the tribe of Judah which entered the
Promised Land with the remainder of the tribes of Israel.
Later on, in Palestine, the tribe of Judah was divided into two houses - the
House of Judah and the House of David. Thereafter the Bible
does not confuse these two entities but recognizes them as separate
divisions within the tribe of Judah. God selected one family
line of the tribe of Judah to inherit the right to the sceptre. This
had been promised to Judah when his father Jacob apportioned the blessings which
were to govern the inheritance of each of his sons:
"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."
(Gen. 49:10.)
To David the Lord declared:
"And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before
thee: thy throne shall be established for ever." (11
Sam.7:16.)
By this Divine selecting, the Royal House of David came into
being, wherein the line of the sceptre was
established. In no other branch of the tribe of Judah will it be found.
Therefore, in order to be given the right to rule as the Lion of the Tribe of
Judah, and wield the sceptre, it was mandatory for Jesus Christ
to be of the House of David. In the annunciation to His mother Mary, the Angel
Gabriel confirmed this:
"And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his
father David." (Luke 1: 32.)
David could not be the forefather of Jesus unless the Lord was of Davidic
descent through His mother Mary. Thus, the House of David was separated from the
House of .Judah and was established as a separate branch of the
tribe of Judah. From that time forward the Bible deals with the descendants of
David as entirely separated from the remainder of the descendants of Judah.
There are also specific prophecies, directly addressed to the House of David,
which cannot be fulfilled in any other branch of the tribe of .Judah. A careful
study of the genealogical facts discloses that there are no
Jews in the line of the House of David.
Long before the House of Judah was carried captive to Babylon by King
Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib had taken over 200,000 of that House into Assyrian
captivity. This occurred at the time the House of Israel, the northern
ten-tribed Kingdom, was taken captive into Assyria in 721 B.C. The Assyrian
captives from Judah became the progenitors the Jutlanders (Judahlanders) and
some of their descendants migrated, in later years, to
Scotland. They moved westward in the Great Trek after they left
the land of their captors and they were not Jews.
All of these migratory movements were ever westward, toward the appointed
place of which David had been told:
"Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and
will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more;
neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime.
(11 Sam.7:10.)
This was a Divine provision for all of the Israel of God, not the
Jews, and was to have its complete fulfilment in the latter day when
modern Israel - the Anglo-Saxon-Celti peoples - took up their national abodes in
fulfilment of what was stated by Moses:
"When the Most High divided to the nations their
inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the
bounds of the people according to the number of the children of
Israel." (Deut.32.8.)
There is one other offshoot of the tribe of Judah whose
mention should not be looked as a matter of interest. At the outset of the
Babylonian Captivity, which was to take the greater part of the southern kingdom
of Judah to Babylon to reside there seventy years, a company of Judahites forced
the prophet Jeremiah, and a few with him to go down into Egypt against the
prophets advice. The 42nd chapter of Jeremiah's tells about this
group who were determined to leave Palestine:
"Saying, No; but we will go into the land of Egypt, where we shall see no
war, hear the sound of the trumpet, nor have hunger of bread and there will we
will dwell.(Jer. 42:14)
The prophet gave a message from the Lord to this "remnant of Judah" and it
was contrary to what they had made up their minds to do:
"And now therefore hear the word of the Lord, ye remnant of Judah; Thus saith
the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; If ye wholly set your faces to enter into
Egypt, and go to sojourn there; Then it shall come to pass, that the
sword, which ye feared, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt,
and the famine, whereof ye were afraid, shall follow close after you there in
Egypt; and there ye shall die." (Jer.42:15-16.)
The men of that immediate generation did die in Egypt and
their posterity came under the curse pronounced in verse 18:
"For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As mine anger and my
fury bath been poured forth upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so shall my fury
be poured forth upon you, when ye shall enter into Egypt: and ye shall be an
execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach; and ye
shall see this place no more." (Jer.42:18.)
The descendants of that cursed generation who flouted the word of the Lord
are today called Gypsies, but they are not Jews. The
word "Gypsy" is derived from "Egypt" because, The Columbia Encyclopaedia states,
it is thought that they came "from a certain Little Egypt." They have indeed
been an execration and a reproach among. all peoples. They have never returned
to dwell in Palestine, but have wandered throughout all lands
to this day.
Thus far we have dealt with many branches of the tribe of Judah, one of the
twelve tribes of Israel, without designating any of them as Jews. Whence, then,
came the Jews?
Up to the time of the captivities, the Jews, as a people, had not yet
come into being. The word first appears in the Bible in 11 Kings 16:6,
where it is translated from Yehudim; of the tribe of Judah, i.e., Judaites. The
deportations of the northern Kingdom of Israel were beginning then as the result
of the invasion of certain parts of the land by Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria
(11 Kings 15:29). Approximately 130 years later, the deportation of the Southern
Kingdom of Judah to Babylon took place.
We now assert unequivocally, as the result of a painstaking
study of the genealogical tables and an analysis of the various branches of
peoples who trace their ancestry back to Judah, that in one branch of the
descendants of Judah alone - and in that instance as the result of a mutation of
the bloodstream will we find the Jews. The origin of the Jews
does not in reality antedate the return from the Babylonian Captivity.
It will be helpful at this juncture to quote from the booklet entitled
Palestine: Center of World Intrigue.* Under the heading, "Use of
Terms," invaluable information is given:
"It is well here, perhaps, to clarify distinctions which should always be
made in the use of terms. Judah, as already pointed out, was
one of the twelve sons of Jacob and, in this
use of the term, it merely designates a man whose name was Judah. Later, the
families and descendants of each of the twelve sons of Jacob bore the name of
that son as a tribal distinction, so the posterity of Judah became known as the
tribe of Judah; that is, the families or clan of Judah.
"David's father's house was one of the families of this tribe. In selecting
David to be anointed King, God chose a family out of the tribe
of Judah to be separated from the clan of Judah and to become a
Royal House which was to furnish rulers for
His people.
The remaining families of the tribe of Judah became known
later on as the House of Judah. Thus, we see that the tribe of Judah was divided
into two houses: the House of David and the House of Judah.
"Three houses therefore emerged as the result of the selection,
separation and organization of the descendants of Jacob. The ten tribed Kingdom,
or House of Israel, consisted of ten tribes, each named after a son of Jacob.
Levi, the priestly tribe, remained separate from all of these
houses, for men of this tribe were scattered throughout all Israel officiating
in their priestly capacity among all the tribes.
"As will be shown later, Benjamin, one tribe of the House of Israel, was
loaned to the House of David and, along with the House of Judah, remained loyal
to the Throne of David when the rest of the House of Israel revolted, setting up
a government of their own at Samaria. This occurred at the time of the division
of the Kingdoms into the Northern Kingdom (House of Israel) and the Southern
Kingdom (House of Judah) in 970 BC." (Page 10.)
At the end of the seventy years of Babylonian Captivity, a
remnant of the House of Judah returned to Palestine, with the
tribe of Benjamin and some of the royal descendants of David as well as a few of
the tribe of Levi. This group constituted the Nation of the Jews, even though
they were not all Jews. The Benjamites were a separate tribe in
Israel; and therefore not Jews. The Royal Seed were of the House of David and
therefore not Jews. The Priests were of the tribe of Levi.
After the return from Babylon, certain ones of the House of Judah, and some
of the priests, intermarried with the inhabitants of the land and these
intermarriages were severely condemned by both Ezra and
Nehemiah (see Ezra 9 and 10; Nehemiah 13:23-29). While there were other
Gentile admixtures, these forbidden marriages were mainly
contracted with the Hittites, who had previously constituted an
influential Canaanite empire but whose power was largely lost when the Assyrian
Empire came into prominence.
In time this merging of Judaites with the Hittites produced a distinct racial
type called Jews today. In other words, the Jew as we know him
is not of pure Israel stock but, through intermarriages in the
days of Ezra and Nehemiah, has the blood of the Hittites in his veins. This
intermingling gave the Jew his dark complexion and perpetuated
the Hittite physiognomy, fulfilling the prophecy given through Isaiah:
"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their
doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The shew of their
countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they
hide it not. Woe unto their soul! For they have rewarded evil unto
themselves." (Isa. 3:8-9.)
The Septuagint translation is of special interest:
"Because Jerusalem is forsaken and Judea is fallen, therefore their tongues
concur with their transgression. They disbelieve the things relating to the
Lord. Because their glory is now humbled; and the shame of their countenance is
risen up against them: their sin therefore, like the Sodomites, they proclaimed
and openly avowed. Alas for their souls! Because they have counselled an evil
counsel against themselves, saying, Let us bind the just one,
for he is disagreeable to us; let them therefore eat the fruits of their deeds."
The far-reaching prophetic import of these words is now clearly understood,
for the just One whom they caused to be bound because His words were
"disagreeable" to them was none other than Jesus
Christ, who was their Messiah. The Jews forfeited their right to
nationhood by delivering up Jesus to be crucified. When Pilate, the Roman, saw
that he could do nothing with the Jews, he washed his hands of the matter,
saying:
"I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." (Matt.27:24.)
Pilate realized by that time that the outcome was inescapable:
"Then answered all the people [of Jewry], and said, His
blood be on us, and on our children." (Matt. 27: 25.)
Thus, Isaiah's statement was fulfilled to the letter: "They have rewarded
evil unto themselves." Throughout the Christian Era Jewry has attempted to
reverse the verdict brought upon each generation of Jews by the
deliberate acts of their forefathers, but without success. They have indeed
eaten "the fruits of their deeds."
After Jewry became well established as to territory, culture and religion,
there were further mutations of the bloodstream by racial movements. One took
place about 125 B.C., when the nation of the
Idumeans was absorbed by the Jews. Later, in the eight century,
the Khazars, a non-Semitic, Turko Finn, Mongolian tribal people
who, about the first century A.D. emigrated from Middle Asia to Eastern Europe,
were converted to Judaism and were also absorbed by the Jews.
None of the House of David was involved in all this. The genealogical table
of Christ clearly indicates this to be a true fact. Furthermore, the Bible
emphasizes that our Lord was of the House of David - not of the House of Judah -
and certainly not of the "mixed seed" represented in ' Jewry. Both Joseph and
Mary were of the House of David. Luke stated:
"The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of
David; and the virgin's name was Mary." (Luke 1:26-27.)
The opening sentence of Matthew's Gospel states: "The book
of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of
Abraham." Thus, Matthew positively asserts that he is giving the genealogy of
Jesus Christ. This, then, would be the ancestral line of Mary, the mother of
Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, is just as definite in stating
that he is giving the genealogical line of Joseph, whose father was Heli (Luke
3:23-38). We quote from the article entitled "Let the Truth Prevail," which was
published in DESTINY for April 1958 (pp. 85-87):
"We will concede, however, that two major problems arise for consideration in
regard to Matthew's genealogical table and these must
be resolved on the basis of all the evidence that can be brought to
bear upon them. In concluding the list given, Matthew makes this statement:
"'So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and
from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and
from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.'
(Matt.1:17.)
"Here is a positive check and there is no doubt but that there was a special
reason why Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to summarize his findings in
this manner. This becomes evident when we apply Matthew's check and discover
that, in the listing which appears in our English translations of the
Scriptures, there are indeed fourteen generations given in the first two
groups, but only thirteen generations given in
the third group.
"Added to this is the problem presented when it is stated in the
16th verse of Matthews Gospel that 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of
Mary,' whereas in Luke's Gospel it is stated that Joseph, the husband of Mary,
was 'of Heli'; that is, Heli was Joseph's
father. Obviously there is a discrepancy here.
"Let us look first at Luke's genealogical table. The Greek word huios,
translated 'son,' is not only used to designate a direct son of the parent. but
it has also been used to indicate immediate and near relatives. Therefore, where
the English translation of Luke 3:23 is given as 'the son of Joseph, which was
the son of Heli,' Biblical scholars contend it may be assumed
that this should be 'Joseph, which was the son-in-law of Heli.' But they
entirely overlook the fact that throughout this entire genealogical table giving
the father of each person named, from Joseph to Adam, the word huios is not used
once. Rather, the table reads: 'Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat,
which was of Levi, etc.'
Therefore, since the word huios, which might be translated 'son-in-law,' does
not appear at all with reference to Joseph's ancestry, the only correct reading
of these verses would be that in each case father and son are given; that is, if
Joseph was of Heli, then he was the son of Heli, just as it is
true that Seth was of Adam because he was the son of Adam. We challenge any
other handling of this account as illogical, irresponsible and deceptive.
"Since Heli was the father of Joseph, the husband of
Mary, (Luke 3:23) we must next deal with Matthew's genealogical table where
the wording appears:
'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary . . . '
(Matt 1:16)
How did this discrepancy occur? Added to this is the necessity to determine
why the third group includes only thirteen
generations instead of fourteen as indicated in Matt 1:17.
"All of this leads us to ask: Did Mary's husband and father both have the
same name? Is it possible that a copyist of the original manuscript, having in
his mind that Joseph was Mary's husband, as referred to in the 18th
and 19th verses, inadvertently inserted the word
'husband' where the word 'father' should have been
placed in the 16th verse? If this is so, the entire verse should
read:
"'And Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ.'"
"This at once resolves the problems involved in regard to
the genealogical tables given by Matthew and Luke, for Matthews table is the
genealogy of Jesus Christ, as he states, and Luke's is the genealogical line
Joseph, Mary's husband, as he states. There no longer a discrepancy concerning
the name of the father of Mary's husband, and, important, we have the
fourteen generations required for the third group as given in
Matthew 1:17. If it were correct to list Joseph the husband of Mary in the
16th verse, there would be only thirteen generations
in third group, but if the Joseph listed is Mary's father, then
there are fourteen generations.
For clarity's sake, we are reproducing the table that accompanied the article
titled "The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah which also appeared in DESTINY for
April 1958 (pp. 91-94):
First Second Third
Fourteen Fourteen Fourteen
"Abraham, Solomon, Shelathiel
Isaac, Rehoboam, Zerubbabel
Jacob, Abijah, Abiud,
Judah, Asa, Eliakim
Pharez, Jehoshaphat, Azor,
Hezron, Joram, Zadoc,
Ram, Uzziah, Achim,
Amminadab, Jotham, Eliud,
Nahshon, Ahaz, Eleazar
Salmon, Hezekiah, Matthan
Boaz, Manasseh, Jacob,
Obed, Amon, Joseph,
Jesse, Josiah , Mary,
David. Jeconiah. Jesus."
This conclusively supports Matthew's summarizing statement in the 17th verse
of the first chapter of his Gospel.
Therefore, having established the different branches and peoples descendant
from Judah it is preposterous to indiscriminately cover from one branch to
another. The David line is separate and distinct from the other branches of the
descendants of Judah and we repeat that there are no Jews in this
line.
Every one of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, by inference or by direct
mention refer to Him as of the House of David. The Prophet Isaiah informs us:
"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall
grow o of his roots." (Isa.11:1.)
The Prophet Jeremiah declares:
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a
righteous Branch and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment
and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall
dwell safely: and this is his name whereby shall be called. THE LORD OUR
RIGHTEOUSNESS." (.Jer.23:5-6.)
As recorded by the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation, Jesus announced of
Himself:
"I am the root and the offspring, of David and the bright and morning star."
(Re 22:16.)
There is no question but that Jesus Christ is of the House of David and
therefore, Jesus is not a Jew.
"The name designating the nation as the Nation of the Jews came into being
following the return of a remnant of the House of Judah and the tribe of
Benjamin from Babylonian Captivity where they had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
This nation was so designated because it became the nation of religion of the
Jews. That is, the term Jew in addition to designating a descendant of
forefather Judah, from then on applied to all regardless of race, who adhered to
the Jewish religion." (Pages 10-11.)
Therefore, the designation "Jew" not only applied to one of a certain race,
but it also designated a kind of religious belief. Even as early as Esther's
time, due to unusual events which had taken place in the Persian kingdom where
she became queen, the statement is made concerning the Persians:
"And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews
fell upon them." (Esther 8:17.)
Those Persians did not change their race, but they did change their religious
practices and went into the Synagogue to worship. Thereafter they became known
as Jews.
Accordingly, it is essential to recognize the fact that in the time of our
Lord upon the earth, as well as in earlier days, the word Jew had a twofold
application. While primarily it designated a racial type, it was also used to
express a religious belief. All those who worshipped in the Synagogue were
called Jews, regardless of their race. This was clearly brought out at the time
of Pentecost, for it is stated in the Book of Acts:
"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every
nation under heaven." (Acts 2:5.)
Then, in the 9th to 11th verses of the same chapter,
the nationality of those Jews is stated (even Arabians among
them) showing clearly that racially they were not Jews but religiously they were
devout men of the Jewish faith.
There was the occasion when Jesus went on His way to Galilee and passed
through Samaria, stopping at a well to rest. A woman of Samaria came to use the
well and ' Jesus asked her to give Him a drink of water. This astonished the
woman and she inquired:
"How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of
Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." (John 4: 9.)
To be continued.
We respectfully ask readers to use the following e-mail code by asking brief
questions for brief answers thank you.
Alex Cain
.
This introduces a question that admittedly requires clarification. Why do we
find, in New Testament, that the disciples of the who were Galileans (of the
tribe of Benjamin), and our Lord Himself, are called Jews? Let us quote again
from Palestine: Center of World Intrigue: