A Hittite shall not enter the congregation of the LORD, foreverDeu 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:
This is God's Law as described in the Torah which constitutes the first five books of the Holy Bible and is word for word in the Koran. As proof that this is a racial and not a religious prohibition, the prior Scripture specifically prohibits mamzers in the same way:
Deu 23:2 A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Strong's Concordance defines the Hebrew word mamzer, which is Strong's #4464, as:
As further proof that this is a racial prohibition, God loved David so much that he made him king of both the House of Israel and the House of Judah, yet He still punished the king of all of Israel for permitting Uriah the Hittite to be an officer in his army, as well as to marry the Israelite woman Bathsheba:
2Sa 11:3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And [one] said, [Is] not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
By Israelite law, Bathsheba's marriage to a Hittite was never recognized by God, and if they'd had children, they would never have been permitted into the congregation of the LORD. Yet there was always the possibility that the child who was conceived by Bathsheba during her marriage to a Hittite would have been a Hittite, which would have made the purity of the holy seed questionable:
2Sa 12:19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
God made sure the holy seed was preserved. Did God's Law change by this Scripture? Nope:
"Sons of Jacob" are all the Israelites, including both the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Did Christ intend to change, abolish, or "fulfil" this provision of God's Law as carefully detailed in The Torah?:
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? By no means: but we establish the Torah, Romans 3:31
Note that judeochristians convert "fully preach" into "fulfil", which they then claim means that Christ did abolish the Torah, even though not even He had such authority, nor desire, nor ability, and even though it would have been in direct conflict with His other words. Furthermore, the same Greek word "pleroo" is translated as "fully preached" in other Scripture:
Rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Naturally, Paul didn't claim that he "abolished" or "fulfilled" the gospel of Christ--he claimed that he fully preached it. So why would entire churches presume that the same word used by Matthew would have exactly the opposite meaning and claim that Christ "fulfilled" The Torah even though such a presumption would be in serious conflict with God's Law and every other word spoken by Christ? Why would they continue to ignore God's mission statement to Christ, and Christ's commandment to His Twelve Disciples, to go only to the House of Israel, the ten northern tribes?:
The confusion was created by misrepresenting the following Scripture:
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Paul himself would be astounded at the authority to countermand God's Law, The Torah, and Jesus Christ that the judeochristian churches gave him with their misapplication of the above Scripture. Obviously, Paul wasn't preaching gender equality when he said "there is neither male nor female". Nor did he intend to include in the congregation of the LORD the mamzers who claimed to be "jews". Nor did he address his remarks to Hittites, Amorites, Egyptians, Canaanites, Moabites, Arabs, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans of Africa, Indians, goddess worshipers of South America, nor any other non-Israelites, all of whom to this day follow their own religions and none of whom are genetic descendants of Jacob [read: Israelites].
What "promise" is Paul referring to here, and who are the heirs? It's the everlasting racial covenant God made with Abraham through Jacob:
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee [Abraham] and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:7
What kind of a covenant did God make? An everlasting covenant. Who were the heirs to this everlasting covenant? The racial descendants of Jacob. Are ALL of the racial descendants of Jacob guaranteed a free trip to heaven. Absolutely not:
Mat 7:14 For narrow is the gate, and constricted is the way that leads away into life, and few are the ones finding it.
Were all descendants of Abraham heirs to the everlasting covenant God made with Abraham? No. Paul himself notes that Abraham was not married to his slave Hagar who bore Abraham's son Ishmael who was thus not his heir, whereas Abraham's son Isaac was born because of God's promise and was Abraham's heir:
Gal 4:22 It says that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman, the other by a free woman. Gal 4:23 His son by the slave woman was born in the usual way, but his son by the free woman was born as a result of God's promise.
Were all of Isaac's descendants heirs to the promise? No, God hated Abraham's grandson Esau and excluded all his heirs from the covenant:
(Mal 1:3) Was not Esau Jacob's brother? says the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals. (Rom 9:13) As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau."
Did Paul have the authority to convert this everlasting racial covenant that God made with Abraham through Jacob into a "spiritual" covenant by simply claiming "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"? No. And he didn't try to, either. The judeochristian churches who try to assign such authority to him not only commit blasphemy of the holy spirit, insult The Torah and Jesus Christ, but they cut Paul short and ignore who Paul's audience was. Paul wasn't writing to the entire world. He was writing only to Israelites, and only those who lived in Galatia.
He was telling Israelites that there was more to Christianity than merely being a descendant of Jacob. He was making the already narrow gate even narrower, not opening up the house of Israel to all mamzers. To give Paul higher authority than God, Jesus Christ, and the Torah is to make a LIAR of Christ when He commanded His Twelve Disciples to avoid the house of Judah, jews, Hittites, Moabites, Assyrians, Canaanites, Hamites, Ashkenazis, Egyptians, and even those Israelites who lived Samaria which had been taken over by Edomites [read: descendants of Esau].
There are half a billion Arabs today who are descendants of Abraham through Ishmael who do follow the Torah which is the basis for the Koran, but they are not heirs to this everlasting racial covenant God made with Abraham. The only heirs to this promise referred to by Paul are the 1 billion Israelites who to this day are the only ones who both follow and comprehend The Holy Bible. Nobody else does.
House of Israel
November 6, 2003