Feb 23


The Mystery of the Gentiles, by Ted Weiland ?
This book was read at the behest of brother Dennis, who felt that it would clarify various terms for me, such as defining exactly who a Jew, Israelite and Gentile was. The object of the book was to persuade the reader that 1. Who we call Jews today are actually Kazars and Edomites, 2. Who we call Gentiles in the Bible are actually Israelites who have taken over Europe. 3. The promises of salvation in Scripture remain limited to Israelites. The first chapter introduces the topic by suggesting that this is a mystery in Scripture that few people have noticed. It also suggests that most of us have misread Scripture by not taking care of terminology. Chapter 2 engages in defining the Jew according to Ted. Annoyingly, Ted repeatedly reminds us that the Jews do not necessarily refer to the Israelites of the Northern or Combined kingdom. Chapter 3 introduces the idea that the current Jews living in the state of Israel are actually Kazars or Edomites. Chapter 4 suggests that the biblical Israelites have become a subset of the “Gentiles”, gentile being also referred to in Scripture as the Nations. Chapter 5 further labors over trying to define the gentile, accusing translators with inconsistency in the translation of goyim and ethnos, yet always admitting that those words are used to refer to different things at different times. Chapter 6 attempts to offer a biblical argument that when the Scripture discusses promises to Israel, it could not possibly refer to a “spiritual” Israel, i.e., to non-Israelites who have faith in Christ. He even ventures that no non-Israelite would ever be predestined to the called (bottom of p. 51), thus negating the possibility of any non-Israelite being saved, and contradicting his arguments in the 2nd appendix. Chapters 7 & 8 offers Wieland’s interpretation of Romans 11 and Ephesians 2. Chapter 9 argues that the whole of Europe was actually occupied by migrations of the 10 “lost” tribes of Israel, thus affirming that the covenant to Israel related to Europe and not to other “nations” that were “non-Israelite”. Chapter 10 again resurrects the argument that the current Israelis are actually Edomites. It is hard to know where to start with a critical review of this book. The scholarship is so bad, so poorly argued, so inconsistent that it defies imagination. I was careful to look up a number of his quotes, such as to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which one may access on-line, to realize that the text is definitely NOT confirming the arguments of Weiland, but only presenting a number of theories of who the Jews are. Weiland presents nothing novel, in that British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism has been around at least two hundred years, and has failed in all aspects, historically, scripturally, logically, philologically, and experientially as a reasonable explanation of the definition of the Jew and the Gentile. Weiland demonstrates the danger of a little knowledge, and his amateurish use of Hebrew and Greek betrays a pitiful ignorance of language and translation demands. Weiland speaks in a very demeaning style, which is necessary for him in order to attempt to persuade somebody else of his preposterous claims. In his Scripture quotes, he routinely inserts his own definition of pronouns [the house of Judah], [the house of Israel], etc., which defies plain reads of the quoted Scripture. Weiland is an example of forming a theory, and then forcing history and Scripture to fit that. This has been done too many times, and the results are disastrous. In Wieland’s case, he is forced to conclude that “non-Israelites”, i.e, Africans, Asians, etc. do not share in the same covenant promises of the Israelites. Yet, to Wieland’s embarrassment, the Koreans, and African nations are exploding with Christians. Perhaps, Wieland would argue that they are lesser Christians that found in Europe and America. In summary, this book was so bad that it was a struggle to read. I pity the poor souls that actually believe this rubbish.

Add comments

One Response to “The Mystery of the Gentiles”

  1. Uncle Dennis says:

    A few corrections and comments on the review of Weiland’s book:

    “1. Who we call Jews today are actually Kazars and Edomites, 2. Who we call Gentiles in the Bible are actually Israelites who have taken over Europe. 3. The promises of salvation in Scripture remain limited to Israelites.”

    This is not actually what Weiland is trying to say. 1. Khazars and Edomites constitute a large fraction of the people who are called Jews today and it is not known what fraction of Jews are Israelites; 2. “Gentiles” is a word used in scripture translation that should be translated “nations” for both Hebrew (goyim) and Greek (ethnae) and that the word is used in scripture to refer to both Israelites and non-Israelites; 3. It is through the Israelites that salvation comes to the world and they are the people whom Jesus called his disciples to go to first. Subsequent history shows they did.

    The etymology of the word “Jew” as translated in scripture better renders it as “Judean” and refers to those living in Judea, whether Judahite or not. The word appears in use for those living there after the Babylonian exile. That is how Weiland uses the word.

    “Chapter 3 introduces the idea that the current Jews living in the state of Israel are actually Kazars or Edomites. ”

    The Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern and Central Europe are descendants of Ashkenaz, the father of the Turks. The Khazars were a Turkish people living at the top of the Caspian Sea at the time they converted to Judaism. Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe, goes into the details of their history. These Jews are “false Jews” and are not Israelites. Neither are the many Edomites who came into Judaism in Judea at the time of John Hyrcanus.

    “Chapter 5 further labors over trying to define the gentile, accusing translators with inconsistency in the translation of goyim and ethnos, yet always admitting that those words are used to refer to different things at different times.”

    The meanings of “nations” is not arbitrary. What is inconsistent in the translations is the arbitrary selection of either “nations” or “gentiles” for a word that simply means “nations”. By introducing “gentiles” much confusion is created because readers suppose that “Gentiles” means “non-Israelites” when it sometimes does not. When the non-Israelite meaning is absurd (“Abraham was the father of many Gentiles” for instance) then “nations” is inserted. Why? There is no logic to the use of “Gentile” in the translations. None. The word “Gentile” comes not from Greek or Hebrew but from the Latin gentilis, referring to anyone who was not a Roman citizen. Thus in its proper use, Jesus was a Gentile but Paul was not. Weiland is trying to draw attention to this vast confusion. Few others in the church are but remain under it instead.

    “Chapter 6 attempts to offer a biblical argument that when the Scripture discusses promises to Israel, it could not possibly refer to a “spiritual” Israel, i.e., to non-Israelites who have faith in Christ.”

    The church is not Israel. To say otherwise is theology, not biblical fact. Weiland does not consider the church to be Israel as some theologies today would have it. He points out quite factually that the people to whom certain claims were made were Israel. Israel is a nation of people that consists of the descendants of Jacob. Weiland points out this simple, basic fact of OT scripture. To further muddy the linguistic waters by trying to use the word to mean the church instead is simply disingenuous. It is a form of propaganda. Most of the church are Israelites but not all. (This is one point on which I agree Weiland might be going too far.)

    “Chapter 9 argues that the whole of Europe was actually occupied by migrations of the 10 “lost” tribes of Israel, thus affirming that the covenant to Israel related to Europe and not to other “nations” that were “non-Israelite”.”

    This is an important historical fact. The absurd historical conclusion that Israel just faded away leaving only the Jews might have appealed to rational minds two centuries ago before the Middle East was dug up by archaeologists and before Sharon Turner wrote his book on the origin of the English, but no longer. The evidence that Israel is what has been called the Caucasians is far too strong to omit. If Israel, as properly called in scripture, is alive, well, and (as God promised) numerous today, then it hardly passes to try to call the church “Israel”. This merely adds to the existing confusion Weiland is trying to reduce.

    “Chapter 10 again resurrects the argument that the current Israelis are actually Edomites. It is hard to know where to start with a critical review of this book.”

    And Khazars. Start with the historical facts. Most of them could not be contained in one book such as Weiland’s. Yet his main point about “Gentiles” is supported by them. Read Koestler and and archaeologist Ray Capt who went through the Assyrian tablets in the British Museum and found the links between upper-kingdom Israel and the Sacae (Saxons).

    “The scholarship is so bad, so poorly argued, so inconsistent that it defies imagination. I was careful to look up a number of his quotes, such as to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which one may access on-line, to realize that the text is definitely NOT confirming the arguments of Weiland, but only presenting a number of theories of who the Jews are.”

    On the contrary, Weiland is fairly rigorous, but you have to follow what he is saying rather than read theological objections into it. I have also looked at his quotes and do not find anything out of order IF you stick with his main assertions.

    “Weiland presents nothing novel, in that British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism has been around at least two hundred years, and has failed in all aspects, historically, scripturally, logically, philologically, and experientially as a reasonable explanation of the definition of the Jew and the Gentile.”

    To be more precise, the nature of this failure is that it contradicts cherished theological ideas that some people are unwilling to give up in the face of historical revelation of facts they would prefer to overlook.

    “Weiland speaks in a very demeaning style, which is necessary for him in order to attempt to persuade somebody else of his preposterous claims. In his Scripture quotes, he routinely inserts his own definition of pronouns [the house of Judah], [the house of Israel], etc., which defies plain reads of the quoted Scripture. Weiland is an example of forming a theory, and then forcing history and Scripture to fit that.”

    I did not find his style to be demeaning but to be fairly objective. He is trying to argue to certain conclusions and does make explicit the meaning of scripture relative to those conclusions. So do the “Church is Israel” people. The difference is that Weiland has historical support while the older spiritual-Israel theory is, like the Tuebingen theologian’s higher criticism, the best that could be made up before the vast revelation of history in the last two centuries. It is high time for a theological update based on facts dug out of the ground.

    “Yet, to Wieland’s embarrassment, the Koreans, and African nations are exploding with Christians. Perhaps, Wieland would argue that they are lesser Christians that found in Europe and America. In summary, this book was so bad that it was a struggle to read. I pity the poor souls that actually believe this rubbish.”

    This is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I agree that Weiland pushes the exclusivity of salvation to Israel too far, but to ignore the rest of the book is to miss the point of the book. I pity that.

Leave a Reply

*

preload preload preload