First off I want to make clear that unlike the likes of Chuck Missler and Chris White, I do believe the Lost Tribes have a role to play in The End Times.
What I want to object to here is the various variations of Two House theology that are predicated on tying Genesis 48 and Ezekiel 47 into Romans 9-11.
Now I am NOT a Darby style Dispensationist, I absolutely do believe that Gentile Believers are grafted into Israel. But I also believe in the Uniqueness of The Church, we certainly have special promises that didn't exist for Pre Cross Believers.
Now there are some among these like Rob Skiba who will make clear they don't actually think you have to be a biological descendant of Abraham to be saved. The problem is Romans 9-11 doesn't mention this third category he's imagined of Israelites who became Gentiles, it has just the two Olive Trees and the only grafting in mind is from the Gentile Tree to the Israel Tree, no implication of a past grafting going the other way.
What people overlook in Ezekiel 37 is Ephraim and Judah also have friends who are joined to them. They correlate to the Gentiles Grafted in in Romans 9-11, not Ephraim. Translations have a tendency to obscure this. But it's significant that Ephraim and Judah both have companions, not just Ephraim.
We are grafted into Israel, but not into one of the original 13 Tribes. We are a 14th Tribe. In Ezekiel 47 we are Yahuah-Shammah.
Rob likes to declare there is no such thing as a Gentile believer, and that Gentile means "out of Covenant". The problem is he's accepting the very thinking Paul dedicated this Epistle to refuting. Paul calls some of the believers reading this epistle Gentiles in 11:13.
This idea of Jews using a term like Gentile or Goyim to refer to all Non Jews in a way that excludes them is something that appears in The New Testament because it developed during the Intertestimental period, but it does NOT exist in The Hebrew Bible. The problem is translations have gone and inserted it into the Hebrew Bible.
So the Hebrew word Goyim/Goyi which means Nation/Nations often gets translated in the KJV and other English Bibles as Gentiles or Heathen. Then people will use their Strongs and see that same word is also nations and concludes Nations=Gentiles. The problem is it's really the other way around. The actual Hebrew words for foreigner or alien are usually translated stranger. And a word study of Stranger shows that being one was never a barrier to salvation or citizenship, but being one spiritually was not good.
To prove this we can start with Genesis 12 when God first makes his promise to Abraham. In verse 2 he says "I will make of thee a Great Goyi". In Chapter 35 verse 11 God tells Jacob. "be fruitful and multiply; a Goyi and a company of Goyim shall be of thee".
But the clincher is Exodus 19:6, at the giving of the Covenant. "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy goyi. These are the
words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."
So no, Goyim does not meant "out of Covenant".
When Jesus said he came only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, He meant the Jews. He spoke during His ministry to those Jews who were spiritually Lost. But John's Gospel also says at the beginning His own received Him not so the opportunity to be grafted in came to the Gentiles.
Through out The New Testament both Jesus and Paul were opposing this xenophobic attitude towards "gentiles" that had developed. Romans 1 verses 18-32 is a rhetorical rant. If you actually find yourself cheering on that rant, you are the problem. Because the rest of the Epistle is dedicated to refuting everything said in that rant. There is definitely real sinful behavior in mind there, but it's the Reprobate doctrine Baptists build on this passage that Paul is declaring wrong.
In the verse that is describing a very specific kind of male Homosexual activity. The word translated "Against Nature" is "Para Phusis" a technical Greek term that has it's origins in Plato's proto Gnostic Cosmology laid out in Timaus. It is also used by Philo, a contemporary of the NT era but also slightly older (he wrote some works at least as early as 10 AD) who was a Hellenistic Jewish Philosopher greatly influenced by Plato. Whether or not he was the first Jew to use the term we can't be sure.
This exact same phrase is what Paul uses in Romans 11 to describe Gentiles being grafted in "unatrually" into the Tree of Israel. That is God doing something, totally rejecting the notion that doing something "unatrual" is inherently a Sin. In fact it is the Sin nature that is natural.
So clearly everything about Paul's intent here was people who in no way Naturally descended from Jacob being grafted into Israel. Nor are they being let in because of some mystical loop hole. So I don't care if the corrupt Septuagint uses almost the exact same phrase translated "Fullness of The Gentiles" in Genesis 48.
Paul does use a Genesis Patriarch as a type picture of the Gentiles he is talking about, that patriarch is Esau, he quotes the same Esau reference found in Malachi with the intent of refuting how Calvanists view that verse, but regardless Calvanists still don't get it. I don't think it's a coincidence that many Ancient traditions hint at Edom becoming Rome. Since Skiba believes in Jasher, he should be even more certain of that then me, because of it's Zepho story.
Some might also seek to take Jesus reference to a Fruitful Nation as a reference to Ephraim meaning Fruitful. Jesus was speaking Hebrew, but Ephraim strictly mean double fruit, what Jesus would have said was likely closer to Ephrath/Ephratah location in Judah, which Psalm 132 identifies with Zion, and New Jerusalem is the Heavenly Zion.
It's funny because Two House theology usually takes offense at using Judah/Jew and Israel as synonyms, and insist IF Israel is ever used of one Kingdom it's the North. Except in Romans 9-11 where there Israel means Judah and the Lost Tribes are the Gentiles.
Besides Dan I fully reject the theories of the Lost Tribes going West. The Biblical clues all take them East,(Follow Up Post). And many wonder where in Revelation is the return of the Lost Tribes because their bias is to look West. I see it quite clearly in Chapter 16 after the pouring out of the Sixth Bowl, the Kings of The East (and some from all four corners because today everyone is scattered somewhat) are gathered together at the Hill of Megiddo, a Northern Kingdom territory.
I believe the temporary partial spiritual blindness Israel is under includes the Lost Tribes, it's not just Judah.
Let's compare the two Asian nations where it is currently the most Legal to be a Christian, and thus easiest to document and observe The Gospel's success there. My studies of the history and DNA evidence lead me to conclude South Korea probably has little if any Lost Tribes ancestry, and mainly descends from Javan. But Japan I think had a very strong case for being a Lost Tribe.
In South Korea 30% of the Population is Christian, most of them some form of "Protestant", their capital has 11 of the world's 12 largest Christian Congregations and they're second only to America in sending out missionaries.
Japan is only about 1% Christian and most of those are Catholic. But none the less looking at the minority of the minority can be fascinating just as it is to look at the Messianic communities in Judah. Japan has a Non-Church Movement that is like the House Church movement but goes back to the 1800s predating the current American House Church movement. And a spin off of that is the Makuya movement, which is essentially a Japanese Hebrew Roots movement of sorts. Japan also has 3 Mormon Temples while the more Christianity friendly South Korea has only 1. Which I make note of simply because Mormonism also has an Israelite Identity emphasis in it's theology.
So Japan like Israel has a spiritual blindness but also a remnant. The DNA evidence for the Japan theory overlaps with argument for Tibet and Burma, Y Chromosome Haplogroup D.
And then I also see Lost Tribes descendants in the Kurds and possibly many other populations of Iran. The Kurds are most Sunni Muslin when Iran is mostly Shia Muslim.