Who Are The True People of God? Part 1
Important note: It is imperative that you watch this video from beginning to its end.
Introduction
Who Are The True People of God? – Although Stephan Joubert is adept at communicating valuable biblical insights, he notably fails to implement those insights in practice when addressing the more profound issues related to biblical eschatology, especially also those related to the true people of God.
This includes events such as the Rapture, the seven-year tribulation period referred to as Jacob’s Trouble (Jeremiah 30:7), the Second Coming of Christ, and the Millennial reign of peace which will be established by Christ on Earth when He returns at his Second Coming.
To clarify this enigma, it must be said that Stephan Joubert repudiates any eschatological events apart from the Second Coming of Christ. His outright rejection of the Rapture, the Seven-Year Tribulation, also known as Jacob’s Trouble (Jeremiah 30:7), and Jesus Christ’s Millennial reign of peace on the earth underpins his adherence to the heretical concept of Replacement Theology.
Joubert is an amillennialist who believes that the Kingdom of God is already on earth and that children and lambs and wolves and cows and bears are already lovingly, allegorically and imaginatively frolicking together with lions and basilisks in all the capitals of the world (Isaiah 11:5 -9).
Of course, he might dismiss them as nothing more than symbols. Perhaps he ought to reflect on his own image in the mirror and acknowledge, “My wife is indeed fortunate to be married to such an attractive symbol.” There is no need to be angry; I am merely using my imagination, as Stephan encourages us to do.
In a recent article on his ekerk titled “Respect is not my Right – It’s a Lifelong Command,” (4/11/2024) he fervently argues for the necessity of respect, echoing the sentiment of Aretha Franklin’s famous song, “All I’m askin’ is for a little respect.”
While he vigorously supports the principle of respect, he does not shy away from being disrespectful to God, His Son, and the unassailable promises they made to their true people, the twelve tribes of Israel.
In another article, “Treat the Bible with Respect” (26/2/2024), Stephan Joubert seeks to overturn the biblical understanding of the curses in Genesis 12:3. He suggests that the divine curses on those who curse Abraham and his physical descendants, specifically his true people, the twelve tribes of Israel, are cancelled out by the latter part of verse 3, which proclaims that God blesses all nations of the earth.
To bless or curse Abraham is to bless or curse Abraham’s God. Although the third part of the blessing pertains to Jesus Christ, by whom all the families of the earth are blessed, it still cannot refer to salvation alone because not all the individuals of those families are or will be saved.
If this blessing embraced everyone within those families (nations), we would have had to accept universal salvation that is out of sync with Matthew 7:13-14. Therefore, this blessing must be seen in a broader context of showing mercy and kindness to both the righteous and unrighteous, as Matthew 5:45 succinctly declares.
However, the opposite is also true that those who do not love Jesus Christ are cursed (1 Corinthians 16:22) which proves that even in Christ the blessings and curses of the first part of Genesis 12:3 are not annulled.
So, Joubert’s warped, corrupt, insane, evil and wicked imagination tells him that you can persecute God’s people, the Jews, gas them in Nazi concentration camps, torture them, rape their wives and daughters to a bloodied pulp, kidnap their babies, shoot innocent women in their faces, lynch them in public places, and call them murderers of Jesus Christ, and still be blessed by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, according to the latter part of verse 3 in Genesis 12. Only a fundamentally warped intellect could arrive at such an interpretation of the Bible, and yet he incessantly takes pride in having explored all “the other texts.”
Joubert exhibits no biblical discernment whatsoever, as well his followers who believe him to be an outstanding biblical scholar and teacher. It would be advantageous for him to cease his operations and dismantle (“im scheitern”) his church, as he is accumulating God’s righteous judgments for both himself and his congregation of ekerk.
To reinforce his argument, he refers to Paul’s statement in Romans 4:11, which reads,
“He received the sign of circumcision, a seal or confirmation of the righteousness which he had by faith while [he was still] uncircumcised—this was so that he would be the [spiritual] father of all who believe without being circumcised—so that righteousness would be imputed to them.”
Paul explicitly highlights “imputed righteousness” as the blessing Gentiles receive when they trust Jesus for their salvation, demonstrating that they have Abraham as their spiritual father in faith, rather than through a physical lineage.
You cannot apply the blessing of “imputed righteousness” via Abraham to “all the nations of the earth” for the simple reason that not all the nations’ individual entities will be saved (Matthew 7:14). Therefore, the blessing of all the nations of the earth as mentioned in Genesis 12:3 must be viewed in a wider context than just redemption as we shall see a bit later.
The New Testament provides additional insights into the curses. In 1 Corinthians 16:22, Paul emphasizes,
"Those who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ are to be accursed. Maranatha!"
In Galatians 1:8-9 he extends this curse to Jesus Christ’s doctrines when he says,
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
How can anyone say “I love Jesus” while they curse his people, the Jews?
It stands to reason that by cursing Abraham and his physical descendants, one is essentially cursing Jesus. He clearly stated that salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22), the chosen people of God, whom Stephan Joubert has disregarded as non-existent (“im scheitern”).
Paul never preached a doctrine so vile as Replacement Theology that warrants the double curse in Galatians. Joubert would have to do a few extremely difficult flip-flops to prove that Paul’s dictum in Romans 4:9-11 applies to all the nations.
In this regard, Stephan Joubert’s attempt to associate Paul’s statement in Romans 4:9-11 with Genesis 12:3 is unwise.
To clarify, I would like to reiterate my previous question: “The blessing of all nations, as mentioned in Genesis 12:3, should be viewed in a broader context than just redemption.”
How can God without reservation offer blessings to all nations if individuals within those nations are not regarded as righteous solely through faith in Jesus Christ? God’s decision to bestow blessings or impose curses on all nations is not contingent upon redemption or damnation.
God does not say, “I will bless all nations if every individual within them believes in my Son and attains salvation.” The sole criterion for receiving blessings or curses is based on how the nations treat His people.
The fact that God will convene all nations in the Valley of Jehoshaphat to pass judgment on them because they have scattered His heritage, Israel, among the nations and divided his Land to form a two-state solution (Joel 3:2), emphasizes its prophetic implications and proves without any doubt that the last part of the passage “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” does not annul God’s curses in the first part, as Joubert likes to think.
Of great importance is to recognize God’s emphatic claims: My people, My heritage Israel, and My land. The judgment of the nations in the Valley of Jehoshaphat hinges on the continued existence of His people, His heritage, and His land.
Simple logic says “No people equals no heritage or Israel, and no land equals no Jehoshaphat judgment.” As we shall notice later, Stephan Joubert tries to change a geographic land in the Middle East with a universal and borderless spiritual kingdom that supposedly is already on earth.
He might be able to clarify how a group of foolish nations can partition or divide an invisible spiritual place that resembles a kingdom without borders.
A valid question that may shed some light on this matter is: “Which group has a greater representation among Nobel Prize recipients—Jews or Gentiles?” The answer reveals that Jews are significantly larger in number among Nobel laureates.
Although they constitute merely about 0.2% of the global population, they represent approximately 22% of all individual Nobel Prize winners. Their achievements span various disciplines, including Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Medicine.
In contrast, gentiles, who make up the majority of the world’s population, have a larger total number of Nobel laureates; however, the proportion of Jewish laureates is strikingly high when considered in relation to their population size.
Determining a precise count of inventions credited to Jewish individuals is not that easy; however, their remarkable contributions to science, technology, and other fields are undeniable.
Jewish inventors and scientists have played crucial roles in a multitude of revolutionary discoveries and innovations, such as Jonas Salk’s development of the polio vaccine and Albert Einstein’s advancements in physics.
Their contributions extend across various fields, showcasing a profound legacy of brilliant intellectual and scientific accomplishments. It is indeed amazing.
As recently as yesterday, December 1st, Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and the future ambassador to Israel wrote in the conservative Washington Examiner:
“Modern Israel has given us the mobile phone, the drip irrigation system, the USB thumb drive, many of the most effective cancer killing drugs in use, voice mail, video on demand, and cherry tomatoes. America’s relationship with Israel is not merely organizational, it’s organic.
The entire world with all its diverse nations would undeniably have been a much poorer place to live in if God had not blessed his people, the true people of God, so that they could be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Their most profound blessing is the Old and New Testaments. The majority of the books in the Bible were written by Jewish authors while only two, Luke and Acts, were written by a Gentile named Luke.
Even Balaam, a pagan diviner and soothsayer employed by King Balak of Moab to pronounce a curse upon Israel, the true people of God, stated:
“How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the LORD hath not defied?” (Numbers 23:8).
However, our distinguished Professor—perhaps more accurately described as a Professing Christian—appears to possess insights that surpass those of Balaam, who was explicitly warned by God in a vision against cursing Israel, the true people of God at the behest of King Balak.
Professing Stephan seems to be aware of matters that eluded Balaam, including the total destruction of the ten tribes of Israel, the true people of God and the subsequent transfer of all their forfeited blessings and promises to the church of believers, including the promise concerning their designated land, albeit in a spiritualized context.
The author of this article intends to elaborate further on Stephan Joubert’s unbiblical amillennialism and his questionable allegorizing of Scripture in due course.
An Imagination as Big as The Sunken Titanic
One should not underestimate Stephan Joubert’s vast biblical knowledge. He thoroughly knows his Bible. The only hiccup in his knowledge of the Bible is that he interprets it using his imagination.
He once said at a Mosaïek Kerk Conference of Johan Geyser (who daringly calls Revelation “God’s Dream”),
“You need an imaginary world. Don’t you think that if you start reading the book of Revelation, not as the book of little prophecies that you can pick out with a little tweezer, but as the story that will open up your imagination, what will happen? We need imagination if we want to understand. Use it well. God gave it to you.”
The term “imagination” is mentioned 14 times in the Bible, and in each instance, it carries a negative connotation, consistently associated with an evil heart and wickedness. Stephan Joubert takes pride in asserting with a smile that his ekerk is continually moving forward and progressing in alignment with the Bible.
However, he contradicts the warning found in Jeremiah 7:24, which states:
"But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward."
Joubert demonstrates a deep disregard for biblical prophecy by dismissively comparing it to a trivial game involving tweezers, when he jokingly says that many Christians like to pick out little prophecies with little tweezers. Yet he constantly insists that God’s word must be read with the necessary reverence and respect.
How on earth can you do that when you continually malign his prophecies and trample them underfoot? I urge you to listen attentively, Mr. Joubert. The scripture in 2 Corinthians 1:20 declares that –
"all the promises (and prophecies) of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us."
Therefore, your negative remarks regarding God’s prophecies represent a serious defamation of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:29).
It is of the utmost importance that someone alerts Joubert that his evil and wicked imagination referenced in Scripture will not grant him access through the pearly gates of heaven. I can confidently guarantee him that.
A More Unreasonable Replacement Theology
The theory of replacement theology, which holds that the collective believers, identified as the body of Christ, have supplanted the twelve tribes of Israel as the chosen people of God, is a notion that warrants serious scrutiny.
The most alarming danger lies in a more unreasonable Replacement Theology, originating from a scandalous alteration of Scriptural texts.
Stephan Joubert consistently emphasizes to his audiences the importance of maintaining a comprehensive understanding of the Bible which is, of course, sound advice. He advises against the practice of isolating one or two verses, as this approach can lead to a distorted interpretation, particularly concerning Israel as the people of God, in his view.
However, not only is Stephan Joubert culpable for his own admonition, but he also conspicuously modifies Scripture to support his viewpoints. At the outset of his video titled “Who are the real people of God? Perspectives from the Old and New Testament,” he makes a rather unusual statement regarding Isaiah 47:1.
“In the present context, it is evident that numerous individuals are inclined to reference various texts concerning contemporary Israel in 2024. I am reminded of Isaiah 47:1, which emphasizes that God is the protector of Israel at this time, leading to a plethora of citations asserting that in 2024, Israel is under divine protection.
However, the focus of the discussion is not on the validity of these claims. The pertinent question arises when one considers the texts pertaining to Israel: what about the other texts?
While Isaiah 47:1 affirms God’s protection, a thorough examination of the Book of Isaiah reveals a stark and severe judgment pronounced upon the people of Israel as early as the 8th century BC.
For instance, in Isaiah 1:3, God, through Isaiah, states, “An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know me; my people do not understand what I am doing.” Subsequently, the Lord describes the punishment inflicted upon them, leaving no part of their bodies unscathed.
Furthermore, the Lord addresses the leaders of Israel, likening them to Sodom, urging them to heed His teachings: “Listen to what the Lord says, you people of Gomorrah. What is the multitude of your sacrifices to me?” and the discourse continues from there.”
Firstly, I would like to clarify that Isaiah 47 verse 1 does not, in any way, support the notion of God’s divine protection over Israel amid the present ongoing conflict on seven different fronts, following the tragic events of October 7th, 2024, which resulted in the murder of over 1,400 Jews in Israel.
Isaiah 47 comprehensively outlines the downfall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 BC, occurring over 150 years prior to the actual event. The Babylonians, who had taken Judah captive, would ultimately find themselves in captivity.
Therefore, Joubert’s efforts to connect Isaiah 47 verse 1 to God’s protection of present-day Israel in 2024 is totally offbeat, and reminds of his massive Titanic imagination.
An Unreliable False Teacher’s Venomous Attack on The People of God
Stephan Joubert deliberately steers clear of certain eschatological terms, including “prophecy,” “Rapture,” and “Millennial Kingdom.” In doing so, he not only positions himself as a false teacher but consistently as an unreliable one.
An unreliable false teacher, as described in the Bible, is akin to –
"children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14).
To summarize, he struggles to determine whether God is capable of foreseeing events many years into the future and imparting this knowledge supernaturally to His prophets, as referenced in Isaiah 46:9-10, or whether prophecy is simply a form of divination.
In the first video from a series of eight called “Revelation revisited in Corona time” he says,
While Revelation is recognized as a prophetic book, it is vital to understand prophecy in its proper context. It does not involve foretelling future events. A prophet does not proclaim, “I know what is destined to happen there.” Such a claim would be classified as divination. The clarity of biblical prophecy is evident. In Deuteronomy chapter 18, God specifies that the words spoken by a prophet must be fulfilled within his own generation.
A generation is generally understood to last between 20 and 30 years, which effectively discredits Joubert’s interpretation of biblical prophecy. As previously highlighted, Isaiah prophesied the fall of Babylon 150 years in advance, which translates to roughly five generations. This diminishes the credibility of Joubert’s one-generation prophecy prerequisite, likening it to the naive beliefs of a child easily swayed by ever changing doctrines.
Additionally, Joubert’s admittance that Isaiah 47:1 signifies God’s protection of present-day Israel further refutes his assertion that biblical prophecy must be fulfilled within a single generation.
If we accept Joubert’s interpretation of Isaiah 47:1 as evidence of God’s ongoing protection of Israel, it must be seen as a prophecy that is currently being fulfilled. No one, not even our unreliable false teacher, can contest that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is performing miracles in one of the smallest countries in the world.
It is nothing short of a divine miracle that over 26,000 + rockets, missiles, and drones were launched from Iran and its proxies towards Israel within a single year, resulting in minimal or no damage. Some of these missiles were intercepted while others fell in open uninhabited areas or did not explode.
Nevertheless, Joubert promptly brushes aside these facts with a casual shrug, stating:
“The merits of these facts are not important for our discussion now. The question is, when one quotes texts referencing Israel in the Bible; what about all the other texts?”
The inquiry about the other texts is indeed significant. Ironically, Joubert fails to apply his own standard when examining the Bible. He haphazardly overlooks key scriptures that clearly affirm Israel as God’s chosen people, thereby discrediting Replacement Theology as a shameful disgrace.
Given that Isaiah was authored in the 8th Century BC, the elapsed time until 2024 amounts to 2032 years. If we accept a generation as 30 years, this results in an approximate total of about 68 generations, 67 generations more than Joubert’s one-generation prophetic rule.
I sincerely hope that you now grasp the rationale for my designation of Stephan Joubert as more than just a false teacher; I consider him an unreliable false teacher who is misleading thousands of his followers.
The ethos of ekerk: Advancing towards wisdom (Sophia) in the Scriptures.
Stephan Joubert frequently avails himself of opportunities to highlight his and ekerk’s firm resolve to remain faithful to the doctrines of the Bible. Regardless of his persistence in attempting to do so, he invariably falls short and neglects to reference crucial Scriptural passages that highlight the absurdity of Replacement Theology.
He says in the beginning of his video, “Who are the real people of God?”
My objective is not to investigate current beliefs about who God’s authentic people are or to engage in philosophical musings on the subject.” (With a confident smile, he continues), “True to the ethos of ekerk, we consistently refer to the Bible and reflect on what God thinks about His people from a biblical perspective.”
In order to be fully aligned with the ethos of ekerk, it is imperative to review the Bible, the Word of God, to determine if Stephan Joubert’s ekerk loyally approaches the Scriptures in a way that is both Godly, respectful and in accordance with biblical doctrine.
Is the ethos of Ekerk in harmony with the doctrine of the True People of God’s Promised Land?
Joubert is quite an expert in skillfully balancing two opposing views without losing his footing. He acknowledges that, as per Isaiah 47 versed 1, God is safeguarding the Jewish nation currently in Palestine.
However, he refutes the idea that they are the exclusive inheritors of the land known as Israel. In effect, he declares that while the Jews in Palestine are under the protection of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their presence there is not warranted, as they no longer possess a Promised Land that was once granted to them through a solemn promise in the Old Testament.
As a result, he adopts the international antisemitic implications linked to the designation “Palestine,” which is closely akin to the pro-terrorist clarion “From the river to the sea Palestine must be free.”
Oh, he would never admit to such a horrendous outcry which calls for the complete annihilation of the nation of Israel. Why would he want to do such a heinous thing when he has already obliterated the ten Northern tribes who allegedly had been annihilated by the Assyrians around 722-720 BC?
He enthusiastically maintains that a considerable disparity exists between the Old and New Testaments in relation to land ownership. In his own words, he derides the holiness of God’s Name and callously mocks the covenantal promises extended to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their progeny, the true people of God.
He argues that a major change occurred when the focus of land ownership transitioned from “land-fulness” to “landlessness” for the new people of God. Joubert should contemplate the creation of his own dictionary, as he is constantly generating new ’Biblical vocabulary.’
Has he never come across “the other text” Ezekiel 20:44? It is possible that he has, considering his own guideline that one should avoid the selective citation of Bible verses without a comprehensive understanding of the entire biblical narrative.
A reminder of the contents of Ezekiel 20:44 would probably do him some good and help him to genuinely understand the awesome significance of God’s Name, although I doubt it. So, Mr. Joubert, for the sake of a sound interpretation, let us summarize it in its proper context.
In the words of the prophet Ezekiel, God reminds the descendants of the entire house of Jacob (Israel; verse 5) of their ongoing rebellion and idolatry, which has been prevalent since their release from bondage in Egypt. This occurs even after He has sworn an oath to guide them to their Promised Land. Let us now proceed to the passage beginning at verse 39.
“As for you, O house of Israel,” thus says the Lord God: “Go, serve every one of you his idols—and hereafter—if you will not obey Me; but profane My holy name no more with your gifts and your idols.
For on My holy mountain, on the mountain height of Israel,” says the Lord God, “there all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, shall serve Me; there I will accept them, and there I will require your offerings and the firstfruits of your sacrifices, together with all your holy things.
I will accept you as a sweet aroma when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you have been scattered; and I will be hallowed in you before the Gentiles.
Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for which I raised My hand in an oath to give to your fathers.
And there you shall remember your ways and all your doings with which you were defiled; and you shall loathe yourselves in your own sight because of all the evils that you have committed.
Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I havedealt with you for My name’s sake, not according to your wicked ways nor according to your corrupt doings, O house of Israel,” says the Lord God.”
The text inevitably recalls the passionate intercession of Moses found in Exodus 32:10, during which God threatened to destroy the entire nation of Israel in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, suggesting instead the creation of a new nation through Moses.
Unlike Moses, recognized as the humblest man in history, who pleaded with God to refrain from consuming the nation of Israel for the sake of His Name, the advocates of Replacement Theology demonstrate a disregard for His Name.
They claim, indiscriminately, that God has replaced Israel with another entity, which they contend is the church. Which church? The Roman Catholic Church?; The Dutch Reformed Church?: The Reformed Church?; the Baptist Church?; the NAR Church? Which church?
In Isaiah 48:9-11 God emphatically states,
“For My name’s sake I will defer My anger, And for My praise I will restrain it from you, So that I do not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.”
As previously noted, God’s dealings with His people, separate from the church, serves to protect the sanctity of His Name among the nations and to affirm to the world that He is the only true God, with no equal.
If God is unchangeable, as He has been in the past, is in the present, and will be in the future, then His promises, particularly those directed towards Israel, are in equal measure irrevocably enduring.
The assertion made by Replacement Theologians that the church has supplanted Israel is a profound affront to His Name, establishing a precedent for unbelieving nations to exhibit similar disrespect. This is further supported by the unchanging truth that “. . . all the promises of God in him (Jesus Christ) are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20).
One should take careful note of the phrases, “ALL THE PROMISES OF GOD” and “UNTO THE GLORY OF GOD BY US.” The reference to “us” in this passage signifies all authentic believers.
This indicates that anyone who denies or alters the promises of God is incapable of glorifying Him and is, therefore, a false Christian who subscribes to another Jesus; a Jesus who evidently does not embody ‘ALL THE PROMISES OF GOD.’
God does not waver or engage in duplicity concerning His promises; He is wholly reliable and faithful. Allow me to repeat that: God remains steadfast and unwavering in His commitments, never resorting to betrayal or deceit regarding His promises. Anyone who believes or even slightly suggests that He is, are not saved.
The principal issue facing Joubert is his propensity to minimize the significance of the divinely ordained name of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), In his misgivings of belittling God’s Name, Joubert declares that God is not a Jew. With this, he once again makes himself guilty of the flagrant disregard of “the other texts.” In this connection, the following texts are in question which emphasize the Jewishness of God (Jesus Christ).
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22) (All who deny this have no idea what they worship).
Then one of the elders said to me: Don't cry; behold, the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has prevailed to open the book and break its seven seals. (Revelation 5:5). (All those who deny this do not know the gospel either. Even more, they must also deny the literal interpretation of Revelation, like Stephan Joubert who reads Revelation with his imagination).
He tends to focus excessively on God’s righteous judgments, while purposefully disregarding the elements that illustrate God as the merciful Restorative God who will eventually bring His people back to Him and reestablish the remnant in a correct relationship with Him. This matter will be discussed in greater depth in the following section of this article.
Is the ethos of Ekerk in harmony with the doctrine of divine marriages?
You may have noticed that I chose to use the plural “marriages” instead of the singular “marriage” to illustrate the relationship between Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom, and the church, or Body of Christ, as His Bride as well as the marriage relationship between God the Father and Israel, the true people of God.
The authentic followers of Christ Jesus, the redeemed Jews and Gentiles, are united in Him as the Bride of Christ. He will be their everlasting husband when the marriage of the Lamb is completed in heaven following the Rapture, as stated in Revelation 19:7.
Is it reasonable and justifiable to derive from Scripture that God the Father has a wife distinct from the Bride of His Son, Jesus Christ? Clearly, those who subscribe to Replacement Theology would not entertain such an idea, as they assert that both Jewish and Gentile believers have been joined into one Bride in their Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. and basta with the rest of “the other texts”.
Furthermore, they would reject the claim that the nation of Israel is God the Father’s wife, based on their belief that Israel no longer exists. Therefore, God the Father must have broken his marital vows to Israel (divorced her) and reassigned them to the Bride of Christ.
This scenario would inevitably result in the unacceptable result where both the Father and the Son share the same spouse, which would invoke the admonition found in Romans 7:3, given that God is eternal and does not experience death.
Did God the Father enter into any marital commitments with Israel, and if so, when did this occur? Before we explore these inquiries further, it is essential to consider another question: has Stephan Joubert ever violated, or would he ever consider violating, the marital vows he exchanged with his wife during their wedding ceremony, witnessed by trustworthy individuals?
I believe he would not, as Stephan Joubert is a dependable and faithful husband. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that he might have been the sole individual in that assembly who, upon bringing an adulteress before Jesus, would have presumptuously insisted that she be executed immediately, saying, “Pardon me Sir, but I am entitled to take up a stone and end her life, for I have never sinned.”
I can only speculate that Jesus would respond by asking, “Have you never gazed upon a woman with lust in your heart?” to which Joubert might arrogantly reply, “Oh, that? That is not an act of adultery in my view, as it has always remained merely a figment of my imagination. So, pê wê to you, Lord.”
In light of this, Stephan Joubert’s continuous and hostile assault on God’s chosen wife with huge rocks would likely manifest as follows: Joubert would proclaim,
“You contemptible creatures scoundrels. You scumbags. Look at yourselves. You have been the most infamous adulteress since the dawn of time.
You are no longer worthy of existence. We, the most pure and obedient church that has ever existed, have been granted, by your former spouse, all the promises you have scorned and trampled underfoot.
We have now inherited the unseen Kingdom Now of God on earth, which was once your promised geographical territory in the Middle East.”
A mere flicker of Joubert’s imagination is sufficient to recognize the alleged legitimacy of this exchange of promises. “Therefore, onward and forward to the Word of God, and good riddance to bad rubbish.” I’m sorry, the author of this article made a slight mistake. Joubert has never called the Jews “bad rubbish.” Instead, he respectfully calls them the murderers of Jesus Christ.
Stephan Joubert emphatically denies that Israel is God’s wife. He is quick to inquire, “What of the other texts?” but consistently fails to adhere to his own principle regarding “the other texts.”
He rarely mentions the additional texts that clearly indicate Israel’s status as God’s wife. Instead, he decisively avoids these passages and cites only one text to support his claim that God simply adopted Israel.
For instance, he incorrectly refers to Genesis 6:5, which ironically rebukes his evil and wicked imagination, rather than citing Exodus 6:5 from the 1983 Afrikaans translation. Someone so inaccurate with textual references cannot be trusted when advising audiences against selecting specific texts while omitting others.
Some of the other texts Stephan Joubert deliberately overlooks which confirm that Israel is God’s wife are the following:
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: (Jeremiah 3:14)
For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. (Isaiah 54:5)
The 1933/1954 and 1983 English translations of the Bible use the words “for I am Lord over you” while the KJV correctly translated the Hebrew as “married to you”. In Jeremiah 31:32, God affirms his marital relationship with Israel when the Lord once again swears allegiance to Israel as her husband. Stephan Joubert and Jan van der Watt who did “Die Boodkskap” translation of the Bible, translated verse 32 as follows, “It did not even matter to them that I loved them as a man loves his wife”. It is nowhere near as the Hebrew renders the verse.
At least it’s way over the top to compare God’s perfect love with a man’s imperfect love for his wife. The verse cannot be used in the comparative sense of the word, with “as” preceding it. Christ’s standard for the husband-wife relationship in a marriage is that the husband should love his wife as He loves the church, (Ephesians 5:25) and not the other way around as Stephan Joubert and Jan van der Watt put it in their “Die Boodskap,” “It did not even matter to you that I loved you as a man loves his wife.”
It is clear that they fely compelled to mention something about a marriage between God and His people since they are both knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew and thus know what the word ‘Ba al’ means. The Berean Strong’s Lexicon defines ‘Ba al’ as follows.
The Hebrew verb “ba al” primarily means “to marry” or “to have dominion over.” It conveys the idea of ownership or lordship, often used in the context of a husband’s relationship to his wife, or a master’s dominion over property. The term can also imply a covenantal relationship, as seen in the marriage covenant.
Has God the Father Divorced His Wife (Israel), The True People of God?
Many Christians see Jeremiah 3:8 as God’s final and irrevocable dismissal of Israel as his chosen people and the transference of all their promised blessings, including the Promised Land, to the church.
The Book Hosea beautifully presents a picture of God having received back to Himself some of his wayward people, as the promise in Jeremiah 3:14 indicates:
“and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”
Hosea was given an unusual directive from God to marry a woman of questionable character and to father children with her, whom he was instructed to name Jezreel and Loruhamah.
This was to signify that God would no longer bear the burden of their sins related to idolatry and promiscuity, and He would completely remove them. The name Loruhamah translates to “not-loved.”
Nevertheless, the latter part of the name (Ruhama) suggests that God’s love for Israel (the ten tribes) would only be temporarily withdrawn. Ruhama, derived from the verb “raham,” conveys deep feelings of compassion, pity, and mercy akin to those a parent has for a child, as illustrated in 1 Kings 3:26, Psalm 103:13, and Isaiah 49:15, which speaks of the restoration of the Northern Ten Tribes of Israel. It was at Mount Sinai that God first revealed Himself as “el-Raham.”
Once she had completed the weaning of her daughter, Loruhamah, she became pregnant again and delivered a son, whom they named Loammi, meaning “You are not my people, and I am not your God.” In a surprising turn, the very next verse, verse 10 of chapter 1, indicates that God is eager and cannot wait to announce some awesome news to Israel.
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land (sprout forth from the ground after having been sowed by God): for great shall be the day of Jezreel. (Hosea 1:10-11).
Joubert acknowledges the significant revival and return to God illustrated by the prophet Hosea concerning the Northern Kingdom (Ten Tribes), yet he casually remarks, “The prophet Jeremiah wasn’t very impressed with Hosea’s message of revival.”
He emphasizes in the video that the Northern Kingdom of Ten Tribes was utterly destroyed when the Assyrians conquered them in 722 BC, never to rise again. They are non-existent. They have vanished into thin air.
Joubert dramatically depicts their demise with the German term “im scheitern,” signifying a complete shattering into pieces. James, the brother of Jesus, must have relinquished the leading of the Holy Spirit and instead inspired Stephan Joubert to teach his YouTube followers that the Jews murdered Jesus. James wrote:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1).
According to Stephan Joubert, James, a servant of God the Father, and Jesus Christ must have lied, when he wrote this to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Unfortunately for James, he didn’t have the “what-about-the-other-texts” insight of Stephan Joubert to guide him in the truth that the twelve tribes to whom he wrote was actually the two remaining tribes, Judah and Benjamin, plus the symbolic ten of the non-Jewish church that represents a vast number of believers.
I wrote a comment on his first video stating that if it were true that the Jews murdered Jesus, he should thank them because if they hadn’t he would still be in his sins and irreversibly on his way to hell. He instantly deleted my comment.
He seems to permit only those comments that offer praise and favourable remarks about him. It may be beneficial for them to consider the passage that states, as spoken by Jesus:
“Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets” (Luke 6:26).
It again proves that Joubert will never learn to honour his own rules of reading the Bible, especially “the other texts.” While we are on the topic of “Has God the Father divorced his wife?” it would be good to inspect the word “betrothed in Hosea 2:19. Let’s read from verse 16.
And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi (my husband); and shalt call me no more Baali.
For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies." (Hosea 2:16-19).
The term “betrothed” in verse 19 signifies far more than simply reconciling differences. It symbolizes a fresh start, reminiscent of the early days of courtship between God the Father and Israel, the true people of God, as the book “Song of Songs” so magnificently and beautifully depicts it.
Furthermore, this betrothed relationship will allow Israel to experience His generous loving righteousness, justice, compassion, and unwavering faithfulness for all eternity.
In contrast, consider Stephan Joubert’s imaginative interpretation of “im scheitern,” which refers to the total destruction of the ten tribes by the Assyrians in 722 BC, leaving the two Southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin, the only survivors of God’s wrath and judgments.
He is compelled to accept this absurdity as truth. If God had completely annihilated the Southern kingdom of two tribes, which was equally sinful and idolatrous as the Northern kingdom, as He did with the latter, the entire world would have been deprived of a Savior.
Prophecies in the Old Testament and the facts in the New Testament show that Jesus Christ emerged from the tribe of Judah and not from the Church.
One of Stephan Joubert’s key arguments supporting the notion that only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin have remained intact is his citation of Paul, who was a member of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1).
He proclaims that these two tribes have now come to represent the Israel of God, contending that the Jews currently residing in Israel do not constitute God’s people but rather are descendants of the synagogue of Satan, responsible for the crucifixion and murder of Jesus.
If we acknowledge Paul’s affirmation that God has not forsaken Israel, as proven by his descent from the tribe of Benjamin which serves as a tangible illustration of God’s unwavering faithfulness (Romans 11:1), it follows that Stephan Joubert should acknowledge that God also did not eradicate the ten tribes of the Northern kingdom, given that three of Jesus Christ’s disciples descended from two of the ten tribes.
Both James and John were from Zebulun, while Bartholomew came from the tribe of Naphtali, another tribe within the Northern kingdom. As previously noted, Stephan Joubert is a shyster, as he does not adhere to his own standards and indiscriminately overlooks all “the other texts.”
Land-fulness or Landlessness?
It is crucial to understand that the book of Hosea conveys God’s righteous judgments regarding the Northern Kingdom, which includes the ten tribes that broke away from the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin in 930 BC, during the reigns of Kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam, with Samaria as its capital.
The marriage of Hosea to Gomer, a woman of ill-repute, was ordained by God to illustrate the Lord’s deep anguish over the ongoing idolatry and rejection He experienced from His covenant people, Israel.
In chapter 2, verses 2 through 23, the Lord vividly conveys this sense of betrayal, drawing a parallel between their idolatry and that of an unfaithful wife who pursues other lovers.
In at least thirteen of the fourteen chapters, God expresses profound compassion intertwined with righteous indignation regarding the unrelenting infidelities of the Northern kingdom.
This fractured relationship prompted God, as the husband, to inform Israel, His wife, that “She is not my wife, and I am not her husband.” Some may mistakenly interpret this statement as a divorce declaration; however, this interpretation is improbable given the context of Hosea’s act of redeeming Gomer for 15 shekels of silver and a lethech of barley.
This gesture illustrates God’s enduring love and His desire to restore Israel, his true people, even against the backdrop of their betrayals. Ultimately, the Lord’s goal is to mend the relationship rather than break it (verses 14-23).
God frequently used afflictions as a means to draw fallen Israel back to Himself. Isaiah 26:9b states:
"when Your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness."
Likewise, Hosea 5:15 reinforces this idea:
"I will go and return to my place, until they acknowledge their offense and seek my face; in their affliction, they will seek me early."
The strong emphasis on “they will” highlights God’s unwavering assurance that they will seek his face for their salvation.
Despite the clear indications of restoration, Stephan Joubert consistently highlights the punitive sections of God’s judgments and sadly disregards, whether deliberately or inadvertently I do not know, “the other texts” that undeniably speak about restoration.
It is important to observe that in Hosea, the wordplay involving the sowing of seed and the soil (physical ground) of the Promised Land illustrates that Stephan Joubert’s theory, which posits that God has disinherited Israel of her geographical land to grant it to the church in the form of a groundless and borderless universal kingdom, is purely a product of his imagination, which he claims is a gift of God.
Fancy that; God bestows upon people the ability to harbour wicked and sinister imaginations (Genesis 6:5; Isaiah 5:20), which leads them to envision that Israel has lost her husband (ishi) due to a perpetual divorce, thereby confirming the notion that the ten tribes are, in fact, non-existent even to the present day?
Joubert’s dismissal of the ten-tribe revival in Hosea and his contention that Jeremiah was unimpressed by it, can be attributed to his skepticism regarding biblical prophecy.
His belief that a prophecy must be realized within a single generation, or else it is considered a form of divination, prevents him from recognizing the truth that God employs not only justice and punishment but also restoration in his dealings with Israel.
God, who fulfills His promises over many thousands of years, demonstrates that time is inconsequential in His divine plan, a fact that will become evident as we explore the significance of the name “Jezreel”.
The Day of Jezreel
The phrase “Day of Jezreel” in Hosea carries great prophetic significance, which probably accounts for Stephan Joubert’s decision to ignore a mention of it in his video. His deliberate failure to mention “The Day of Jezreel” is likely due to the term’s alleged failure to conform to the biblical standard of biblical prophecy that must, according Joubert, be fulfilled within a generation. This supposedly avoids any implications of divination.
Joubert would most likely argue that the prophetic significance of the “Day of Jezreel” was already fulfilled in ca. 841 BC at a place called Jezreel where Jehu, the tenth king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, massacred Jezebel and Ahab’s descendants.
Jehu’s reign of terror culminated in the assassination of King Ahaziah of Judah and some of his family members (2 Kings 9:27-28). This egregious act incurred God’s wrath, as it was viewed as an attack on the royal lineage of King David, and of course his divine descendant, Jesus Christ.
The dynasty of King Jehu came to an end in 752 BC when Shallum, the fifteenth king van die Northern Kingdom of Israel, assassinated Zechariah, the fourth of Jehu’s descendants. God’s judgment on King Jehu and his ultimate downfall is a display of divine justice.
God is Sowing His True People Back in Their Promised Land
From here onwards I would like to extend an invitation to my audience to embark on a journey with me, exploring the magnanimous and profound saving grace of God amidst his righteous judgements as it is revealed through the interplay between the words, “bow” and “sow.”
This is not a kind of Joubert-journey which he claims is not “about the Bible” but “from without the Bible” and yet endlessly neglects “the other texts” or passages in the Bible. His boastful and repetitive claim throughout all his videos is nothing else than a basilisk egg filled with sheer imagination.
While Jehu dutifully fulfilled God’s decree in killing King Ahab and Jezebel’s for their Baal worship in the Valley of Jezreel, a deed that received divine approval (2 Kings 10:30), his baseless fervour and duplicity resulted in God’s anger being unleashed upon him.
The proverbial saying ‘power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’ which conveys the opinion that, as a person’s power increases, their moral sense diminishes, fits Jehu like a glove.
Although Jehu’s initial deeds can be viewed as an execution of divine judgment, his later conduct reveals a pronounced aspiration for political dominance. The bloody coup he orchestrated, and the ensuing consolidation of his power were motivated not only by a feigned desire for religious reform but also by a determination to secure his own political aspirations.
Although Jehu put an end to Baal worship, he neglected to remove the golden calves created by Jeroboam in Bethel and Dan. These calves were a key representation of the chief idolatry in Israel, indicating that Jehu’s hypocritical efforts at religious reform were not thorough and were rather selective.
God disclosed to Hosea that the collapse of Jehu’s dynasty would coincide with the decline of the Northern Kingdom, as He would shatter Israel’s military might in the Valley of Jezreel, which means “God sows” or “God is sowing.”
In contrast to Professor Stephan Joubert’s avowal that God entirely eradicated the Northern Kingdom when the Assyrians invaded Israel between 734-722 BC, thereby transforming it into a mere province of their empire (2 Kings 15:29; 17:3-5), the breaking of the bow does not signify the annihilation of the nation itself, but rather the destruction of its military capabilities.
God sowed death, and mayhem in the Valley of Jezreel when He reluctantly poured out his wrath and indignation on the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Nonetheless, the day will dawn when God promises,
“And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God” will come to fruition (Hosea 2:23).
As you may have noticed, this is completely at variance with Stephan Joubert’s teaching in his two YouTube videos, “Who are the real people of God?”
The Almighty God states, “I will sow her (Israel) unto me in the earth.” Joubert interjects, “You are mistaken. Have you forgotten that you have already sown your new Israel, the church, into your unseen, borderless, and universal Kingdom that exists on earth right now? I advise you to withdraw your flawed conclusion. I have already blocked Tom lessing from my YouTube channel. If you’re not careful and recant, you will be next.”
Indeed, Stephan Joubert completely barred God from his ekerk site from the very beginning of its creation years ago. It happened when his imagination became his god thinking it was a gift of God. It may be a gift from god spelled with a small letter (2 Corinthians 4:4).
The God of Restoration in Action
While Stephan Joubert contends that the Northern Kingdom of Israel has been annihilated, it is essential to recognize that God has pledged to restore them during a time of restoration and blessing, in accordance with the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as detailed in Genesis 12:3, 22:17, and 32:12.
The Israelites, both from the North and the South, will be as countless as the sand on the seashore and will no longer bear the designation of “not my people.” Instead, they will be called “sons of the living God.” The division that arose between Judah and Israel during the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam will be a thing of the past when Jesus Christ reunites them under the perfect Davidic Ruler, the resurrected David from the Tribe of Judah.
Jesus will take his place on the throne of his father David in Jerusalem, ruling with a firm hand during his Millennial age of peace, as referenced in Luke 1:28-32 and Psalm 2. The beautiful imagery of the reunification of Judah and Israel is depicted as two sticks becoming one in Ezekiel 37:15-28.
An Unconditional Covenant
A follow-up question would be: What connection does the offerings in God’s covenant with Abraham have with the cross of Christ? Firstly, it must be said that it was not a bilateral covenant where both God and Abraham passed through the pieces of the sacrificial animals laid on either side of the sacrificial corridor. It was a unilateral covenant. Jesus’ Tetelestai (“It is finished”) on the cross shows unequivocally that his sacrifice was a unilateral sacrifice in which no one else had a part, not even Joubert’s so-called Christ murderers.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:18).
Both are uniquely God-inaugurated, and God-fulfilled covenants. It means that man had no part in the redemptive plan of God throughout history. When God entered into the everlasting covenant with Abraham, which foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, He placed Abraham into a deep sleep, thereby designating Himself as the sole pledger and protector of the covenant.
This establishes the covenant as unconditional, impervious to revocation, reversal, or annulment, irrespective of any failures on the part of Abraham or his descendants. The existence and continuation of the covenant are not reliant on the faithfulness of Abraham or his progeny (the twelve tribes) but are solely dependent on God’s fidelity.
Any failure on God’s part to uphold His covenant with Abraham and his descendants would indicate a lack of truthfulness and reliability. It is for the sake of His Name, rather than any unique merit of Israel compared to other nations, that He has consistently upheld His covenant.
Replacement Theology is fundamentally flawed, wicked and evil as it not only denies the divine marital relationship between God the Father and the nation of Israel but also implies that God is unfaithful to His promises. The church can only be regarded as the new Israel and the recipient of the promises outlined in the Abrahamic Covenant if it can be proven that the covenant is conditional or if the promises are understood in a spiritualized format.
Stephan Joubert is particularly adept at interpreting the book of Revelation through a spiritual lens. He advocates for a reading of Revelation that transcends the mere identification of individual prophecies, suggesting instead that it should be viewed as a story that can enhance one’s imaginative capacity.
May I remind you of what he said about Revelation?
“You need an imaginary world. Don’t you think that if you start reading the book of Revelation, not as the book of little prophecies that you can pick out with a little tweezer, but as the story that will open up your imagination, what will happen? We need imagination if we want to understand (Revelation). Use it well. God gave it to you.”
The most insidious aspect of his interpretation of Revelation lies in his spiritualized reading of chapter seven. He elevates the literal 144,000 sealed servants, comprised of 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes, into a celestial vision of a vast multitude from every nation. His perilous disregard for “the other texts” is as troubling as his intentional exclusion of the phrases “and after this” found in Revelation 7:1 and 7:9, which indicate that these are sequential and distinctly seperate events that should not be conflated symbolically.
Conclusion
- There is no doubt that Stephan Joubert belligerently demeans the Name of God by –
- Presenting Him as unreliable and unfaithful to his promises, suggesting that all God’s promises are not yeah and amen in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20).
- Presenting himself as a reliable biblical scholar who thoroughly knows his Bible because he faithfully takes his folllowers on a sacred journey with him, not to speak about the Bible but to speak the truth from without the Bible, including all “the other texts.”
- Presenting Bible prophecy as short-term predictions not exceeding a generation because all prophecies that are not fulfilled within a generation are divination.
- Presenting to his audiences a form of divination in developing their imagination, defining it as it is a gift of God whilst God defines it as wicked and evil.
- Presenting to his audiences an altered, spiritualized edition of the Bible whilst the Bible itself warns,
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19).
May God have mercy on his pitiful soul and those of his followers who praise him for his heretical teachings.
