1998 Watchman's Teaching Letters

Watchman's Teaching Letter #1 May 1998


Anyway I hope I can get this teaching letter out once a month. I am in the process of starting a teaching ministry. Since I came down with a heart attack February 6, 1998, I have dedicated the rest my life (at least what there is of it) to full time writing for the Almighty. I really don’t expect to make any money at this endeavor as people simply do not like to support truth. My objective, therefore, in doing this is to at the least cover part of my cost from donations. There is more cost involved in something like this than a lot of people think. You, of course, can see the paper with the writing on it, but that is only a minor part of it. There are things like computers with the extra hard and software that go with it like printers and programs etc. And copiers which can consume a lot of toner. A sheet of paper 8½ x 11 cost about one cent but the toner when printed on both sides can cost up to ten cents. I personally have thousands of dollars invested in reference books (especially Identity books).



This brings up an interesting and important question. I will now give you the very best answer to this question I ever heard in my life. One time I heard an old line fundamentalist minister who made the best statement I ever heard how to tithe your increase. He said you should support the one that told you the truth, so I promptly withdrew my support from him and have never been sorry since. Anyway, I consider his advice on tithe the very best I have ever heard! So, then, start applying this to your life. If you think Oral (God’s going to kill me) Roberts is proclaiming the “truth”, then support him. If you think Benny (the kike) Hinn is telling the truth, then support him. I think it is simply amazing how people (people who really can’t afford it) open up their pocket books wide and literally throw their money at them. So if you think Benny Hinn is doing it, then open your wallet wide and generously enrich him. Now maybe you think Pat (the Jew lover) Robertson is the ultimate of all “truth”, and if you do, then make out your Last Will and Testament to him. He needs all your money for spare parts for the jet airplane that the Israeli (lie) gave him. Besides he is our enemies best friend. To be sure, according to Robertson, it would be blasphemous to support the Two Seed-line Racial Identity Right Wing who is supporting Yahweh’s “truth.” Now this is always the way true Israel has been — they have all kinds of money to support the liar’s message like Ted R. Weiland, Charles (what is he?) Weisman, James Bruggeman, Stephen E. Jones, Pete Peters and the likes of them and will hold very tight purse strings for anyone teaching “Two Seed-line Racial Identity” which is the opposite of “Universalism.”

Today, Tuesday, April 21, 1998, I am writing from my hospital room. Lately I have had some blood pressure bouts. It seems that I can be going along very nicely — then have a slight dizzy spell with a few heart flip-flops with my blood pressure going as high as 210/115 and a pulse of 137 without any warning. Of course, you know it never acts up while the doctor is around. Anyway, I made up my mind that I was not going to sit idly by in this hospital room and do nothing. There was a paper place mat under my food tray about 14” by 20”, so I asked the nurse for a pencil and that is how I am getting my writing done. So whether I ever recover much to do my writing, it’s going to be done whether it’s liked or not. It’s going to be the truth. There is an old saying that a lie can be in the saddle and two miles down the street before truth can get its boots on. This is because our people love to be lied to. It is almost impossible to sell truth — you can’t even give truth away! So now we know why Israelites literally throw their money at the Roberts, Hinns, Robertsons, Weilands, Weismans, Jones, Bruggemans and the like and close their purse strings to “Two Seed-line Racial Identity.”

(I should mention at this point, and today is Friday April, 24,1998, that I have discovered that the medicine that is causing my blood pressure surges is Lipitor, a cholesterol lowering drug. I have not taken it for two days and my blood pressure is doing fine. This is the second time I stopped it and the blood pressure leveled off both times.)



I have become aware recently that Yahweh wants me to feed His sheep. I guess that makes me some kind of a Pastor. I really don’t like to accept that title, but if I am feeding His sheep, that is what I am. I don’t really encourage anyone to call me by that title, but would rather be called a teacher and researcher of Scripture. I promise you, though, I will not teach anything other than the truth. I will not write anything other than what I can prove or document, otherwise I will tell you that it is alleged or an opinion. At this point in time, I only have about 110 names, addresses and telephone numbers on my Rolodex of Two Seed-line Identity people. I feel that I should build this list to about 400 to 500 active names. If you have any names of especially Two Seed-line Racial Identity people, I would appreciate it if you would send me their names (by their permission, of course). Also the name list will be kept confidential. I hope to support this “teaching letter” by donations if I can.

I am formatting this teaching letter so it can be saved in a standard note book. As I continue publishing these  “Watchman’s Teaching Letters, they will be formatted in such a way as I can put several issues into a comb binder (maybe a year’s worth at a time).

As you know (or maybe you don’t know), I have already written three articles: Research Papers Proving Two-Seedline Seduction Of Eve, Book Review Of Stephen Jones’ The Babylonian Connection and Universalism or Racism, A Critical Review of James Bruggeman’s History of The Doctrine of Universalism. I was told that these articles were the most in-depth comprehensive studies ever done on the subject of Genesis 3:15. I was also told that I slammed the door shut forever on “One Seed-line.” With these Watchman’s Teaching Letters, I hope to bring out Scriptural truths that other writers and teachers overlook and avoid because of their complexity. This I will promise you; this will be no ordinary run-of-the-mill teaching letter. Therefore, my first “Teaching Letter” will be on the topic: 



The story of Judah starts in Genesis 29:35 where it says: “And she (Leah) conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah, and left bearing.”

Before we go very far, there is a side subject in this section of Scripture which we need to consider. Now I know that most of you who are reading this know this story well and for those who do not know it well, I will just have to go around you on this one, Sorry. We are aware that in verse 30 of this same chapter of the fact that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. Well this set up a contest of sorts to see which one of Jacob’s wives could bare him the most children. Of course Leah with the birth of Judah was way out in front of Rachel. It seems that Rachel had a conception problem and it wasn’t because Jacob wasn’t giving her her share of attention. It must have been known in those days that a problem with conception was because the wife did not relax during intercourse. It seems that Reuben came to Rachel’s aid in Genesis 30:14-15 which says:

“14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son’s mandrakes. 15 And she (Leah) said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son’s mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he (Jacob) shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes.”

We can tell by this that Rachel wanted quite badly the mandrakes that Reuben had found in the field. Now I don’t see Rachel giving up a night with Jacob unless she had something in mind with the mandrakes. Therefore let’s see for what mandrakes are used. Here is what the Nelson’s New Bible Dictionary has to say about mandrakes, page 1006

“Mandrake. A fruit-producing plant with dark green leaves and small bluish-purple flowers. The mandrake grew abundantly throughout Palestine and the Mediterranean region. The yellow fruit of the mandrake was small, sweet-tasting, and fragrant. It had narcotic qualities and may have been used medicinally. The fruit of the mandrake was also referred to as the ‘love apple.’ It was considered a love potion (Gen. 30:16).”

The alleged “abundance” is disputed by most others who claim it was rare, the variety being nearer the reason since it was avidly sought after, and treasured, e.g. Rachel’s purchase of it for a night with Jacob and Leah. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume K-Q, pages 256-7 also indicates “The fruit ripens to a bright yellow in May, about the time of the wheat harvest.” (Gen. 30:14) I know that Genesis 30:22 says that Yahweh opened Rachel’s womb, but was it with the mandrakes that He did this? Scripture, being inspired by Yahweh, we must consider that every part of it is for a specific relevant, and important reason relative to the whole of the Scriptural message.

This whole question of the mandrakes brings up a lot of questions, but before we start asking these questions, there is another source which I would like to quote from. This source is: The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 66:

“Mandrake. Mentioned 5 times in Genesis 30, and once in Song of Solomon 7:13. Mandrake is generally accepted to be the ‘love apple.’ The mandrake was obviously rare, and was supposed to have aphrodisiac properties. The old-fashioned name of the tomato (Solanum esculentum) was love apple. It is thought that the mandrake is Atropa mandragora, which is like the deadly nightshade, and therefore a member of the same family. This plant bears yellow fruits, somewhat smaller than the tomato, and has an ‘acquired’ pleasant taste. Because of its ‘sex’ reputation, it is called by Arabs ‘a devil’s apple.’ The description in Genesis of Rachel’s conversation with Leah certainly gives the impression that the mandrake was thought to be a love potion. Its near relation, Atropa belladonna, is, of course, the source of Atropine, an important medicinal drug. The Royal Horticultural Society’s dictionary names the plant Mandragora officinarum, and describes the fruit as a globose berry. It gives the alternative name as ‘devil’s apple.’ This plant has a large tap root; it produces leaves like a primrose, and blue or greenish-white flowers similar to those of the potato. The yellow plum-like fruits invariably lie in the middle of the rosette of leaves, rather like the eggs of some bird in a nest. There is little doubt that its amorous properties are pure superstition, but the plant is certainly found in Palestine. ...

“Its  ‘amorous properties’ may be ‘pure superstition’, nevertheless the mandrake is a narcotic. The first question that I would like to ask is this: What did Reuben, a five and a half to six year old boy at the time, want with the mandrakes? Maybe he wanted to smell them or use them to play marbles with. I would rather think that Leah had been using them all along and that is why she was getting pregnant so often; and that she had instructed Reuben to bring them to her if he found any. She probably was out in the field about six weeks before the mandrakes were ripe and said to Reuben something like this: ‘Reuben, here is a plant that is known as mandrake they are not ripe yet, but when you see the berries turn yellow, pick some and bring them to me like mother’s good little boy’.”

Please note verse 14 again as it definitely states that Reuben brought them to his mother. It is obvious from the Scripture that when Rachel saw Reuben bringing Leah the mandrakes, she immediately recognized how Leah was getting pregnant so often. This likely explains why Rachel was so willing to give up a night with Jacob in order to obtain the mandrakes from Reuben. Or is it possible that Leah, really loving her sister but not showing it outwardly, had instructed Reuben to pick the mandrakes so she could offer them to Rachel for her conception problem?

Well, probably, at this point, you are asking: What does all this have to do with Judah? — It has everything to do with Judah! Well, while we are on the subject of the mandrakes, let’s go back to the garden of Eden and the seduction of Eve. Is it possible that the serpent (Satan) offered Eve a narcotic mandrake or a narcotic potion made from the mandrake to intoxicate Eve so her normal instinct to resist sexual advances would be diminished while at the same time her normal sexual desires would be aroused? Let me explain, for a moment, what causes the sexual instinct in both men and women to be aroused and probably in all other creatures. In a study made in recent years, (I remember reading about it, but can’t remember where), it stated that the body makes small amounts of opium and during intercourse this opium is released to produce the pleasurable sensation one gets during this time. Actually there are opium receptors in the brain that receive this opium. You can see why, then, when someone takes a large amount of opium, there is such an over-sensation of ecstasy with a  violent withdrawal. You might say that anyone who likes sex is an opium addict of sorts. Maybe Eve did partake of an apple, the “devils apple!”

While we are considering this “devil’s apple”, let’s consider another reference to the mandrake. What I have in mind is the comic strip series known as “Mandrake the Magician.” I am not sure if it is a person character by the name of “Mandrake” who is a “magician” or if it is a “magician” with a “mandrake.” This is a very unusual name for a comic strip series and I will tell you why. The word for “serpent” used in Genesis 3:1, 2, 4, 13, and 17 is 5175. When you go to the Strong’s Concordance it will tell you it is from 5172. When you check 5172 it means whisper, magic spell, generally to prognosticate, an idiom for certainly, an idiom for divine, an idiom for enchanter or one who uses enchantment, to learn by experience, idiom for indeed and diligently observe. In other words the “serpent” was a “magician.” Another form of magic is to hypnotize. Did the serpent of Genesis 3 have this power and did he use it on Eve? These are good questions for under hypnosis there is a powerful control by suggestion. As a matter of fact, people are mass hypnotized by television everyday — its called subliminal suggestion. This is the definition for subliminal: “below the threshold of consciousness or apprehension; specifically involving or using stimuli that become effective subconsciously by repetition.” I would say that any method of suggesting something to someone to their subconscious without the subject person’s conscious knowing about it would be a form of hypnotism. There are many many forms of hypnotism. Did the “serpent” (Satan) use a form of hypnotism on Eve? If we can just picture this master magician in our minds using a narcotic drug and hypnotism to overcome Eve’s resistance along with deceptive words, then we can begin to understand the mental and physical seduction of Eve. And, What does this have to do with Judah? It has everything to do with Judah!

Now let’s review Genesis 3:15 again for it is the main theme of Scripture. As a matter of fact, without an understanding of Genesis 3:15, it is impossible to understand the Bible and it is impossible to understand the monetary, political, religious and racial war that is going on today.

“And I will put enmity (hatred) between thee (Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed (offspring) and her seed (offspring); it (the woman’s offspring) shall bruise thy (Satan’s offspring’s head), and thou (Satan’s offspring) shall bruise his (the woman’s offspring’s) heel.”

Today this enmity (hatred) is evidenced by the “Jew’s” hatred for the true White Israel peoples inasmuch as they are doing everything they can to kill in wars, crossbreeding with the other races and whatever, while at the same time, there is a hatred among many true White Israelites aimed toward the "Jews” exactly as Genesis 3:15 prophesied. This enmity (hatred) is especially evident being directed by the "Jews" toward Germany, and likewise the German people in turn hating the "Jews." If you are not aware of it, the German people just happen to be of the tribe of Judah. This is what it has to do with Judah!!!!! Why, then, is there enmity in the "Jews" toward Germany? Its simple; Judah holds the SCEPTRE!!!!! THE JEWS WANT TO USURP THE SCEPTRE. Now you know what World Wars I and II were all about. “One Seed-liners” totally miss this important fact, and most other important facts of history as far as that goes! It should be mentioned here that the Irish and Scots are also of the tribe of Judah! Let's read Genesis 49:10:

“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and to him shall the gathering of the people be.”

Now if there ever was a Scripture taken out of context, this is one of them! Most interpret this as meaning when “Christ” (Yahshua) came the first time. There could be no greater mistake than interpreting this passage in this manner! Let's check out the word “Shiloh”, Hebrew word #7886 in the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, page 818:


(1) Tranquillity, rest; .... This power of the word seems to be that which it has in the much discussed passage, Gen. 49:10, “the scepter shall not depart from Judah .... until tranquillity shall come, and the peoples shall obey him (Judah). Then let him bind,” etc.; i.e. Judah shall not lay down the scepter of the ruler, until his enemies be subdued, and he shall rule over many people; an expectation belonging to the kingdom of the Messiah, who was to spring from the tribe of Judah. ....


(2) (“place of rest”), [Shiloh], pr. n. of a town of the Ephraimites, situated on the mountain to the north of Bethel, where the holy tabernacle was set for some time. ....


The implications here are: there will be no rest for Ephriam (the ten northern tribes which comprise White America and other related peoples today) until “Messiah” comes and the “enemy” is destroyed and His peaceful Kingdom is set up. This means that Judah will rule until Messiah comes the second time. Watch the Royal Line in England — because of race-mixing among the Royal Line, it can’t last much longer! This is something else “One Seed-liners” cannot understand because the Royal Line is polluted with “Cain's Satanic seed” and the Royal Line is of Judah! Now we know more about Judah. This passage has nothing to do with the first coming of Yahshua except He was of the House of David of the Line of Judah. He didn’t establish peace at His first coming, but He will the next time, but only after the enemy has been totally destroyed to the last man, woman and child (Malachi 4:1 ... “shall leave neither root nor branch.”) — and only the “Two Seed-liners” know who that enemy is!



The next time we find Judah is when he and his brothers were conspiring against Joseph to kill him. Actually both Reuben and Judah took action which prevented the murder of Joseph. Reuben suggested that they throw Joseph into a pit and let him starve to death. No doubt, Reuben was thinking that he would go back later and free Joseph from the pit. Judah made a really brilliant move at this point and started to show his superior quality for leadership and decision making. Judah knew the other brothers wouldn’t buy Reuben’s plan knowing Reuben would just go back and free Joseph. Judah’s plan was much superior to Reuben’s. Judah realized there was a very deep rift developing in the family and the only way to save Joseph’s life was to get him clear out of the country away from his brothers. Here is how Judah handled it, Genesis 37:26-27

“26 And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother? 27 Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh, and the brethren were content.”

Now if that wasn’t making the best of a bad situation, I don’t know what could be. Judah, though, not liking Joseph’s dreams, the coat of many colours and Joseph being a stool pigeon informing on his brothers, yet brought out the basic instinct of our people reminding his brothers that Joseph was “our brother and our flesh.” You can say whatever you want to about Judah, but you have to admit, when the chips were down, Judah had a very keen sense for leadership and understood what kind of action to take. It goes on to tell that they sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. Being that Benjamin was too young to be in on this conspiracy, at this time, that left 10 brothers to divide the money between. That would be two pieces of silver each. Do you ever wonder what they might have spent it on? Some might single Judah out for selling Joseph for twenty pieces of silver comparing him to Judas Iscariot and how he sold Yahshua for thirty pieces of silver, but there is no comparison here. This was a family matter and the ten brothers shared in it equally. There are some people who like to point a finger at Judah and call him a Jew — how absurd.



Now we come to the most complex part of Judah’s life. It is found in the 38th chapter of Genesis. Unless we understand this portion of Judah’s life, it confuses our outlook on the whole Bible. In fact, all of the details of this portion of Judah’s life are not found in our Catholic (Universal) canonized so-called “Bible”, so I will be quoting from some other sources. Let's read Genesis 38:1-26:

“1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her. 3 And she conceived and bare a son; and he called his name Er. 4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan. 5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him. 6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that/spanAddress style= he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also. 11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house. 12 And in the process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah’s wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. 14 And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. 16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) 17 And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? 18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. 19 And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. 20 And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman’s hand: but he found her not. 21 Then he asked the men of the place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. 22 And he returned to Judah and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place. 23 And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her. 24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. 25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets and staff. 26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous (lawful) than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son, And he knew her again no more.”

There is a lot more to this phase of Judah’s complex life and I will get into that with my next letter. I promise you, it will be different from anything you have ever heard before! Well, at this point, I must close with this “Teaching Letter.” I can send four pages front and back plus a list of materials which I will be handling for the minimum 32 cent postage rate. As I go along, there will be more items added to the list of materials. Be sure to contact me if you are not on my mailing list and you would like to receive this “Teaching Letter.” If you have any topics of interest along the lines that I am teaching, I would like your input. I am always interested in researching further into these things. So if you have any constructive comments, let me know. I may not be able to answer all of your letters, but I will take notice of your comments. After all, we are all in this thing together. We are in a war, and we better well know who is the enemy! This is no time to be sending false signals as are some! 

  (Revised 2-14-2001)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #2 June 1998


            This is the second in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you did not get my first letter #1; 5-98, please send me $2.00 and I will send you a copy. All back issues will be $2.00 each. I will continue to use the same format that I started with. As I told you in my first teaching letter, this is a new ministry for me. I will continue to get this Teaching Letter out each month, Yahweh willing. I will also be writing booklets from time to time which I will offer you as I complete them. I have one that is almost ready but I want to do a little touchup on it before I present it. I have another one in the works for which I believe you will be excited.

At this point in time, I am getting my blood pressure surges under control, and if all goes well, I will be writing for some time to come. I am thinking of purchasing a new or good used copier as the one I presently have was not made for the long runs like I have been doing. The copier I now have is a good one but was only designed for personal and limited office use. 

Now Continuing The Topic:


First of all, I would like to apologize for some typos in my first Teaching Letter. On page 8, I spelled “vail” as “vial.” Actually I was trusting the spell check on my computer on this one and goofed up. The modern spelling would be “veil” meaning something to cover the face. Actually I had it correct when I first typed it, but let the computer misguide me. The word “vail” is in the modern dictionary and means: “to lower; let sink or fall down; also a sign of respect or submission.” I really am in need of a good proofreader. I proofread my writings the best I can but don’t get all the mistakes. If you find some of my typos, please bring them to my attention, as you the reader, can serve as a proofreader for me!

On page 7 of my Teaching Letter #1, I was telling how the ten brothers, after they had sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver, divided it between them making two pieces of silver for each one. I also mentioned and asked what they might have purchased with this money. Well in further research on this I found that the money wasn’t divided evenly among the ten brothers and I also found what the brothers spent the money for. In The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, in “The Testament Of Zebulun”, chapter 1, verses 17 to 20, pages 244-5, we read this:

“17 For in his (Joseph’s) price I had no share, my children. 18 But Simeon and Gad and six other of our brethren took the price of Joseph, and bought sandals for themselves, and their wives, and their children, saying: 19 We will not eat of it, for it is the price of our brother’s blood, but we will assuredly tread it under foot, because he said that he would be king over us, and so let us see what will become of his dreams. 20 Therefore it is written in the writing of the law of Moses, that whosoever will not raise up seed to his brother, his sandal should be unloosed, and they (the dead brother’s widow) should spit in his face.”

Now that we are on the subject of the levirate law, let’s look into it further as it has everything to do with the story of Judah too! If we want to know more about the levirate law, we will have to read Deuteronomy 25:5-9, and we will do that shortly. After we read this passage in Deuteronomy, you will begin to see just how important the passage from “The Testament Of Zebulun” is to make Deuteronomy understandable. This will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that “The Testament Of Zebulun” should have been in our present Bibles today! Now Deuteronomy 25:5-9:

“5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger (strange Israelite): her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let the brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. 8 Then the elders of the city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.”

Now we can understand when we read in Ruth 4:8 which says:“Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.”

By the way, it should be mentioned that Seth raised up seed to his murdered brother, Abel. Seth’s very name means “substitute”, #8352 “in the stead of another.” It should be pointed out that Seth was a “substitute” for Abel, not Cain! Only Seth was a true blood brother to Abel, therefore a “substitute!” Only Seth could raise up seed to Abel! Here we are again, right back to “Two Seed-line!” Anyway I thought I would clear up the matter of how the twenty pieces of silver were divided between the brothers and how the money was used to buy sandals (and the symbolic meaning of the sandals). As I told you before, this is not going to be just the run-of-the-mill Teaching Letter, and you will be able to see this as we continue on.




The same holds true for The King James or any other version of the Bible. The only way you can get the true message is by going back to the original languages. If you are reading everything it says in the English and taking it literally , I guarantee you are not getting the true meanings. For an example of how you might get the wrong meaning from the Pseudepigrapha books let’s take a passage out of The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, “Testament Of Levi”, chapter 1, verse 14:

“And by thee (Levi) and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every race of men.”

This is obviously a mistranslation of the text for we know that Yahshua came to redeem His kinsmen only. I went into this in depth in my booklet Universalism Or Racism, A Critical Review Of James Bruggeman’s History of the Doctrine of Universalism. To prove that this passage is not saying “saving every race of men”, we are going to go to the Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, page 337 under the word “race” which says:

“... com. a way, path, road; the course of the sun: Ps. xix. 5.”

... m. a race, running: Eccles ix. 11.”

You can turn to your Strong’s Concordance and look up the word “race” and it is only found in the Bible four times: Psalm 19:5; Ecclesiastes 9:11; 1st Corinthians 9:24 and Hebrews 12:1 and it is never used in a racial sense as a race of people! Not even once! Therefore the translator(s) of The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden didn’t have a Hebrew or Greek word for “race” meaning people to translate from. I don’t have an original manuscript, so I can only guess what it should have been. This one thing I know, though, it shouldn’t have been: “saving every race of men.” (More on the word race in future lessons.) I would say that this verse should read something like this and its just an educated guess:

“And by thee (Levi) and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every seed of Adam.”

The translator(s) make this same mistake several times in the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” and this should be considered when reading them! The term “race” is used once again in “The Testament of Levi”, chapter 3, verses 37-38, page 230:

“37 ... Beware of the spirit of fornication; for this shall continue and shall by thy seed pollute the holy place. 38 Take therefore to thyself (Levi) a wife without blemish or pollution, while yet thou are young, and not of the race of  strange nations.

Here the translator did a little bit better, but, again, probably shouldn’t have used the term “race.” It probably should have been translated “and not of the seed of strange nations,” I don’t know about you, but I think this last verse 37 is outstandingly good. Probably, though, Weisman, Stephen Jones, Weiland, Bruggeman and Peters would object to this, mamzer baptizers that they are! Well, you might say: What does this have to do with Judah? It has everything to do with Judah! Just hang on and in a little while we will be getting back to Judah.




In the last teaching letter, I got on the subject of “mandrakes.” Before we go back to the subject of Judah, let's consider another passage in "The Testament Of Issachar", chapter 1, verses 3-11, 16-19, 22-23, pages 241-2:

“3 I (Issachar) was born the fifth son to Jacob, by way of hire for the mandrakes. 4 For Reuben my brother brought in mandrakes from the field, and Rachel met him and took them. 5 And Reuben wept, and at his voice Leah my mother came forth. 6 Now these mandrakes were sweet-smelling apples which were produced in the land of Haran below the ravine of water. 7 And Rachel said: I will not give them to thee, but they shall be to me instead of children. 8 For the Lord hath despised me, and I have not borne children to Jacob. 9 Now there were two apples; and Leah said to Rachel: Let it suffice thee that thou hast taken my husband: wilt thou take these also? 10 And Rachel said to her: Thou shalt have Jacob this night for the mandrakes of thy son. 11 And Leah said to her: Jacob is mine, for I am the wife of his youth. ... 16 Nevertheless for the mandrakes I am hiring Jacob to thee for one night. 17 And Jacob knew Leah, and she conceived and bare me, and on account of the hire I was called Issachar. 18 Then appeared to Jacob an angel of the Lord, saying, Two children shall Rachel bear, inasmuch as she hath refused company with her husband, and hath chosen continency (self-restraint in sexual activity). 19 And had not Leah my mother paid the two apples for the sake of his company, she would have borne eight sons; for this reason she bare six, and Rachel bare the two: for on account of the mandrakes the Lord visited her. ... 22 Because of the mandrakes, therefore, the Lord harkened to Rachel. 23 For though she desired them, she eat them not, but offered them in the house of the Lord, presenting them to the priest of the Most High who was at that time.”

Well, this puts a lot more light on this matter of the mandrakes. I think that after all these considerations of the matter (at least it is my viewpoint) that Leah had been using the mandrakes all along. I believe further that Rachel, seeing the mandrakes being brought by Reuben to his mother Leah, envied Leah of them whereupon Rachel offered a night with Jacob to Leah for the mandrakes. I believe that Rachel pondered for some time considering the use of them, but changed her mind and gave them as an offering to Yahweh with a prayer that if He didn’t intercede for her barrenness, she simply would never have any children whereupon Yahweh opened her womb. The main point I wanted to get out of this mandrake story was the possibility that Satan may have used a narcotic drug like the mandrake to seduce Eve. Now there are some that don’t believe that a fallen angel like Satan could have the ability to have sexual intercourse. Let's read another passage in "The Testament Of Reuben" in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, chapter 2, verses 18-19, page 223:

“18 For thus they allured the Watchers (fallen angels) who were before the flood; for as these continually beheld them, they lusted after them, and they conceived the act in their mind; for they changed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them when they were with their husbands. 19 And the women lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven.”

No doubt, we might have some translation problems here as I would rather believe that the “Watchers” appeared to the women when they were not with their husbands. You can see from this that it would have been no problem, then, for Satan to have had changed himself into the “shape” of a man and had sexual intercourse with Eve. By the way, if you want to know more about the Watchers, read the Book of Enoch. The Book of Jude (Jude 14) speaks of Enoch as an authentic prophetic writer; therefore, Why isn’t the Book of Enoch a part of our Bible today?

There has been a lot of controversy about the Book of Enoch, whether it is authentic or not. The Book of Enoch was well known to the New Testament writers. It was well known by Jews and Christians alike during that period of time. However, from the second century A.D. on, it was rarely mentioned in Jewish sources. Then in the fourth century it fell into disfavor in the West, being stigmatized by Jerome as apocryphal. My source on this is: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 104. The pagan Council of Nicaea with half pagan Constantine the Great followed later by a so-called (Saint) Jerome appropriated the Book of Enoch to the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha types of books (false or hidden) and that has been the position of the “Church” as a whole ever since. Well with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940’s and the early 1950’s, it put a bright new shining light on the Book of Enoch. I will now quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 2, page 310 about this:

“... Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the text of I Enoch was best preserved in the Ethiopic Manuscripts, twenty-nine of which are known. Most of these contain the complete work, sometimes together with certain Biblical or Apocryphal books. Within this group of Manuscripts, two text types are distinguishable. The Ethiopic Manuscripts are late, however, the earliest belong probably to the 16th century.

“Portions of the book have also been preserved in Greek. Two Manuscripts dating from the 8th century or later were discovered in 1886-1887 in a Christian grave at Akhmim, Egypt, and preserve chapters 1-32:6 and 19:3-21:9. Syncellus (c. A.D. 800) preserves 6:1-10:14; 15:8-16:1 and 8:4-9:4 in duplicate form. The Vatican Manuscripts preserves 89:42-49 and Egyptian papyrii containing chapters 97-104 and 106-108 were published by Bonner in 1937. Some quotations from Enoch, especially from 106:1-18 are preserved in Latin.

“The Scrolls from Qumran now appear to provide the best representatives of the original text of the Book of Enoch, however. About ten fragmentary Manuscripts of the work in Aramaic were found in Cave IV. Five of these correspond roughly to Book I and Book IV of the work. It appears that these sections together with the last chapters of the book once formed a separate work. Book III, the astronomical section, is represented by four Aramaic Manuscripts which provide a more intelligible text than any others available to this time. The beginning of  Book V is represented by one Manuscript. It may have circulated as a separate work as well. Support for the suggestion comes from a fragmentary Greek Manuscript found among the Chester Beatty-Michigan papyri. The fact that there are no fragments of Book II may be due to accident or it may be that this too was a separate composition not known to the Qumram community.

“It seems probable that the continued study of the evidence from Qumram will alter our estimates of the Book of Enoch somewhat.”

What an understatement this last paragraph is! With the Book of Enoch, we can understand how angel beings can change themselves into the form of men and seduce women. Now I am sure that Ted R. Weiland, Charles Weisman, Stephen E. Jones, James Bruggeman and Pete Peters has told you all about this; Right? — No they have NOT!!!!!  And you may ask: What does this have to do with Judah? — It has everything to do with Judah!

While we are still on this subject of seduction, I would like to quote you one more passage from The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, Fourth Book of Maccabees, chapter 8, verses 8; 22-23, pages 196-7:

“8 And indeed it were fitting to inscribe these words over their resting-place, speaking for a memorial to future generations of our people:







“22 I was a pure maiden, and I strayed not from my father’s house, and I kept guard over the rib that was builded into Eve. 23 No seducer of the desert, no deceiver in the field, corrupted me; nor did  the false, beguiling Serpent sully (soil, stain, tarnish, disgrace, defile) the purity of my maidenhood; I lived with my husband all the days of my youth; but when these my sons were grown up, their father died.”

It sounds here like this elderly lady of Israel understood the physical seduction of Eve! Sully meaning: to soil, stain, tarnish, disgrace and defile cannot get much more physical than that! Nonsense to theWeiland’s, Weisman’s, Stephen Jones’, Bruggeman’s and Peters’ concept of mental seduction of Eve! And, What does this have to do with Judah? It has everything to do with Judah!

In the next part of this Judah story, I am going to take from another article I wrote previously about this Judah matter. I will be cutting and pasting part of that article into this one. Some of you may have read some of this before, but it needs to be gone over again if we really want a comprehensive understanding of Judah. So you can understand what this next part is all about, I will give you a short story of how all of it got started. On October 4, 1996, I went to Louden, Tennessee at the Piney Ruritain Community Center for the Feast Of Tabernacles. There were four speakers scheduled to speak: James P. Wickstrom, Richard Hoskins, Paul Burnham, and a fellow by the name of Scott Vaught. All the speakers did quite well except this Scott Vaught who was supposed to be an expert in Paleo Hebrew. Listed third on the billing was this person by the name of Scott Vaught and this was his credentials: “Constitutional Delegate of Arkansas, student, teacher, and researcher of Paleo Hebrew, our ancestral native tongue, for over 15 years.” As I was to learn later, Scott Vaught was a fountain of misinformation of a monumental degree. As I listened in amazement, he spewed out one vial of poison after another.




When Scott Vaught started his presentation, I noticed that he started to talk about two different Jerusalems and two different Bethlehems. He wasn’t talking about an old Jerusalem and a new Jerusalem but two Jerusalems and two Bethlehems in Palestine. As he continued to lecture, he pointed to a map of that area which was set up and pointed out where these two Jerusalems and Bethlehems were (or at least used to be). I was later to discover he had a motive for the two sets of cities. He said that the present day Jerusalem was an old Canaanite city and was never a part of Israel or that Israel never occupied it. He further stated that there was never a person which existed as David. His main thrust was to exclude Judah from being part of Israel. He further explained that Judah’s wife, Tamar, was a Canaanite whore and therefore was in the bloodline of Yahshua (Christ). He further stated that Ruth was a Moabite and therefore that would also make Judah’s bloodline impure. His postulation was that Yahshua was of the house of Joseph, not of the house of Judah. He said that he had worn out either four or five Bibles finding out all of this and that he sat on this great “revelation” for a year before he decided to announce it to the world. He further said that David and Jonathan were homosexuals because the Scriptures said that David loved Jonathan. He indicated that all of Judah turned out bad and that they are now the Jews of today. He further indicated he could prove all of this with Paleo Hebrew. I believe the older style Paleo Hebrew is great, but I wonder where he found these old ancient manuscripts from which to read the Paleo Hebrew. I would rather believe that he is using the same old corrupted Masoretic and Septuagint texts and trying to convert them into Paleo Hebrew. If this is what he is doing, I recommend that he set on his findings a lot longer than one year; like maybe forever would be better! Well I am one half German plus Scottish and Irish and all of these came from Judah and Tamar. Scott Vaught was then therefore calling my grandmother a Canaanite whore!I couldn’t just sit idly by and let him get away with that, Could I? — and I didn’t! So I wrote an article and exposed him for what he was! What we are going to do here is take each one of these teachings of Scott Vaught one at a time and prove what he is saying is false. You say, “Why don’t you take this to Scott Vaught and tell him to his face?” I already have! The first one that we are going to work on is proving that Tamar Was Not A Canaanite! Before we do this we really should read the entire 38th chapter of Genesis. We did this in the Teaching Letter #1; 5-98. If you don’t have a copy of Teaching Letter #1, review Genesis chapter 38 now and then return back to this point.




At this time we are going to quote from chapter 1 of a book entitled “All Of The Women Of The Bible” by Edith Deen published by Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, Copyright, 1955. We will be quoting pages 41 to and including 44. This will also be a critical review of this section of chapter 1 entitled, “Tamar”— “She Hath Been More Righteous Than I.” This will also serve to get us acquainted with the story of Tamar. Scott Vaught’s accusation was that Tamar was a Canaanite whore. With the help of this article from this book we can get started on that charge of offense:




“Though events centering around Tamar’s life are quite confused and intolerable, according to today’s moral standards, her actions were consistent with the standards of morality prevailing in the primitive era in which she lived.

“The Genesis account of Tamar serves a dual purpose. First, it is one of the Bible’s best examples of the levirate marriage law. This was the ancient custom of marriage between a man and the widow of his brother required by the Mosaic law when there was no male issue and when the two brothers had been residing on the same family property. The law, of course, takes its name from the noun levir, meaning a husbands brother. Second, this Genesis account of Tamar gives us the Bible’s most graphic picture of how a quick-witted widow of early Israel protected herself and her family rights.

“Tamar, not a wicked woman at all, plays a meaningful role in Old Testament history as the mother of Pharez, ancestor of King David. When she had lost two husbands, both of whom were brothers, and was refused the remaining young brother, she still had the courage to demand her rights to motherhood by law. What did she do? After her mother-in-law’s death, she turned to the father of her husband. The legitimacy and courage of her action are implied in every move she makes.

“Scripture does not mention Tamar’s parentage or place of birth but proceeds to introduce her by saying that her first husband Er ‘was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him’ (Gen.. 38:7). Next she became the wife of his brother Onan, who ‘displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also’ (Gen. 38:10).

“This union of Tamar with Onan shows the perfect working of the levirate law, devised to retain the ownership of property within the family as well as to prevent the extinction of the family line. After her second husband’s death, Judah advised his daughter-in-law Tamar to remain a widow at her father’s house until his third son Shelah came of age. But fearing that Tamar possessed a sinister power, and that Shelah might die too, Judah delayed this third son’s marriage with Tamar.

“A considerable time elapsed and then Judah’s wife died. The love of offspring, still deep in the heart of Tamar, caused her to plan how she might seek her rights in motherhood from her father-in-law Judah. Since he had denied her his third son, Shelah, she sought a way to force him to accept his responsibility as guaranteed to her by the levirate law.

“When Tamar heard that Judah was soon to be in the hills of Timnath with his friend Hirah, the Adullamite, at great personal risk she set upon a plan of her own. It was sheep-shearing season, and many guests would come from the surrounding country. Tamar planned to be there, too, but under a disguise, so that Judah would not recognize her as the widow of his sons.

“She removed her garments of widowhood, put on a veil to hide her face, and ‘wrapped herself,’ probably in a colorful and becoming festival robe.

“Since Tamar’s name was the same as that of the stately tropical tree of Bible lands, we can assume that she was a tall, sturdy woman with a graceful carriage, one who would command attention wherever she went. This time she chose to stand by the side of the road where Judah would pass by.

“Not recognizing this woman with the veil-covered face as the widow of his two sons and thinking she was a harlot, Judah made advances to her and said, ‘Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee’ (Gen.. 38:16).

“Clever woman that she was, she said, ‘What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?” (Gen.. 38:16).

“And he said, ‘I will send thee a kid from the flock.’ And she said, ‘Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?’ And he said, ‘What pledge shall I give thee?’ And she said, ‘thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand.’ And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him (Gen.. 38:17-18).

“The unscrupulous actions of Judah, with whom Tamar was here involved, and the noble actions of Joseph, whom Potiphar’s wife tried to involve, present a striking contrast. Some commentators conjecture that is why the story of Potiphar’s wife immediately follows that of Tamar.

“Tamar now turned homeward, carrying with her the signet, bracelet, and staff that had belonged to Judah. Then she removed her veil and put on again the garment of widowhood. A short time afterward Judah sent the kid by his friend Hirah, who had been with him at Timnath for the sheep-shearing. And Judah requested that his more personal possessions be returned when the kid was delivered.

“When Hirah entered the town where Tamar lived, carrying with him the kid, he asked for the harlot who had been by the side of the road, but the men told him there was no harlot in the place. This is the best evidence we have that Tamar was not a prostitute but a self-respecting woman, determined to outwit a man and demand her right to children, according to the laws of the time.

“About three months later (Gen.. 38:24), Judah received word that his daughter-in-law was ‘with child by whoredom.’ This phrase suggest the malicious gossiper who had carried tales to Judah. Angered at this report, he ordered that his daughter-in-law be brought forth and burned, for that would have been the penalty if the report were true (Lev. 20:14). But when Tamar came before Judah, holding his signet, bracelets, and staff, she asked, ‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these?’ (Gen. 38:25).

“Judah could not deny their ownership and admitted, ‘She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more’ (Gen.. 38:26). The last phrase is evidence enough that Tamar was not a promiscuous woman. She had merely acted according to the laws and rather heroically at that; and we can be confident she had exonerated herself, and that Judah had absolved her of all guilt.

“Trice denied a child by a rightful husband, Tamar now gave birth to twins by Judah. Like the twins of Rebekah, there is a detailed account of the appearance of the elder Pharez, who became inheritor of the family birthright. Afterward his brother Zarah was born with the ‘scarlet thread upon his hand’ that the midwife had tied there. The story of the birth of Tamar’s sons depicts clearly a woman in travail and the birth of twins.

“In the story of Ruth, another widow who also came to motherhood through the levirate law, we find worthy mention made of Tamar, who bore a child to Judah. Other Tamars follow her, one the ‘fair sister’ (II Sam. 13:1) of Absalom and the other the woman of ‘fair countenance’ (II Sam. 14:27) who was the daughter of Absalom. Could it be that they were namesakes of their courageous ancestress, who would not be deprived of her rights of motherhood?” (Underlining emphasis mine in the paragraphs above.)

While the above quotations from the book, All Of The Women Of The Bible, are good, I believe that they can be improved upon. I will be doing this in the next lesson. This is not the end of this story of Judah by far — we will be spending quite some time on it. I promise you, we are not going to complete this story of Judah in just a few lessons as it is a long and complicated story.

Again I would like to say to you: If you want to receive these Teaching Letters on a regular basis, please send me your name and address along with some of your friends. And, too, a little support on your part would go a long way to help. Some of the 32 cent postal stamps on this present mailing to you were donated by some of our incarcerated political prisoners who know their Identity as Israel and understand the importance of the “Two Seed-line” message.

   (Revised 2-14-2001)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #3 July 1998


            This is the third in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you have not received my first letter #1; 5-98 or my second letter #2; 6-98, please send me #2.00 for each letter you do not have. All back issues will be $2.00 each. Unlike a news letter, these teaching letters will not go out of date. Since my teaching letter of 6-98, I have purchased a new copying machine with an automatic collator and this is going to make my job of teaching much easier and save more time for study and research. Also, I published a special “Supplement Teaching Letter, June 16, 1998”, proving that “Universalism” is a Jewish doctrine (you will not want to miss this supplement issue). If you want a copy of that issue, it will be $2.00 also. I will be keeping master copies of all my issues in my files and they may be ordered at anytime. You will find my teachings are going to be after the fashion and an extension of the teachings of Bertrand L. Comparet and Wesley A. Swift.  

Now Continuing The Topic:


With this issue, I would like to present a study in connection with Tamar: “What’s In A Name?”, (meaning Tamar’s name). 


At this time, let’s go into the falsity of calling Tamar a “Canaanite”, let alone a “Canaanite whore”, for she was neither a “Canaanite” nor a “whore.” There is more to studying than pointing to a geographic area on a map and saying that all the people in that area are Canaanites. This is what Scott Vaught did, and this is what many unqualified teachers like him do. As you know, people are portable, and you simply cannot pin them down to a point on the map. This is how many people pretending to be qualified Bible teachers make the mistake of claiming that Ruth was a Moabite. We will also be going into this thing about Ruth being an alleged Moabite later. It is therefore necessary to realize that people migrate from area to area because of weather changes or they are displaced by wars and many other reasons. You can see, then, it is necessary to take time frames and migration into account. This is something which Scott Vaught and others like him do not do. This is an example of how we are getting so many false teachings in Israel Identity today. This is an example of some of the same kind of reasoning we are getting from people like Ted R. Weiland, Stephen E. Jones, James W. Bruggeman, Charles Weisman etc. At this time, let’s check the Scriptures and determine Tamar’s origin once and for all. It is found in the Book of Jasher, chapter 45, verse 23 and it reads thus:

“And in those days Judah went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born, Er.”

But first here, in the case of Tamar, we are going to consider the meaning of her name. Tamar is #8559 in the Strong’s Concordance: “8559 Tâmâr, taw-mawr ’; the same as 8558; Tamar, the name of three women and a place:- Tamar.” It is also necessary to consider #8558 as it also refers to her: “8558 tâmâr, taw-mawr’; from an unused root meaning to be erect; a palm tree:- palm (tree).”

This meaning “erect” or “palm tree” may not seem like much of a portrayal of this name, Tamar, when we first think of it, but let’s take what we have here and go to a good thesaurus and look up all of the synonyms we can find in English to see what all this can mean. One of the first synonyms we find is “upright. Can we then say that Tamar was an “upright” woman? “Erect” means not leaning or laying down, not inclined or bent, but “upright. It can also mean “exalted”, to rank high in character and honor. Is not the idea of being elevated in rank or character a good attribute? It appears that this lady, Tamar, had something going for her, that she was not just another run-of-the-mill ordinary person, she was something special! It appears that the term “exalted” is not out of line for this lady Tamar. Another word for “erect” can be “dignified. “Dignified” means stateliness and nobility of manner, serenity of demeanor and gravity (solemnity of manner or behavior; dignified reserve). Are we starting to develop a portrayal in our minds of what kind of a lady this Tamar was? That she was a common whore is absurd! It appears that this lady, Tamar, was a woman to be looked up to, not down on!

Another word for “erect” is “distinguished” which means conspicuous for qualities of excellence, celebrated, eminent and famous. It is starting to look like we have quite a lady in this Tamar. Another meaning for “erect” can be “ennoble”, which means to make honorable, having or indicative of excellence or dignity and characterized by or displaying superior moral qualities. It appears that we have no ordinary lady in this woman. Another synonym is “honorable” which means worthy of honor or respect, having eminence or high rank; illustrious (brilliantly outstanding). Are you beginning to see that these Hebrew words have a lot more meaning than it would first appear? “Honorable” can also mean a strong sense of what is right, high standards of conduct including “chastity” in women. “Well”, you say, “This woman Tamar proved that she was of low moral character!” However, I believe, after we have reexamine her story very carefully, we will find otherwise!

Now to go on with these synonyms: Another word for “erect” is “honest.” “Honest” means not given to lying, cheating and stealing, acting honorably and justly, being trustworthy, also characterized by openness, sincerity, being frank and having integrity. I don’t know about you, but what I am beginning to see in this Tamar, I like. Another quality for this “erect” woman is being “conscientious”, which means being scrupulous (careful, thorough and painstaking). It seems that Tamar was a “meticulous” lady, a stickler for details. Do you know any ladies like that? I’ll bet they ain’t Hottentots or Canaanites! (And I don’t apologize as Messiah called non-Israelites “dogs”, Mark 7:27.) Also the word “erect” suggests “just”, a word which means adhering to a Name=false63false SemiHidden=/span high moral standard, upright, honest, equitable, well-founded, substantial, fitting and proper. I think we are getting to know this “erect” woman, Tamar, a little better. You say: “This was a terribly immoral thing she did with Judah!” Let’s examine her story further, since the significance of her true role has been ignored.

Another word for this woman is “scrupulous” which means cautious in action because of a wish to do right. This woman, Tamar, had “scruples. Another word to describe “erect” is “true. Being “true” means faithful to friends, promises or principles; loyal and steadfast. Nothing false or erroneous about this Tamar! Another word here for “erect” could be “glorious” or full of or deserving glory, renowned or illustrious, also resplendent or beautiful. One can almost envision this beautiful woman, Tamar. Another word here for “erect” is “grand” which means noble or dignified in character or manner, majestic, stately. Another synonym for the word “erect” would be “elevated. And Scott Vaught has the audacity to claim that “Tamar” was a common Canaanite whore!

Another word for “erect” could be “lofty” which means elevated in character, quality and style. We’re not talking about a two bit whore here! Another word is “sublime” meaning characterized by elevation, nobility, grand, solemn (highly serious). Another description is “superb” meaning very good, supremely fine or outstanding. This lady, Tamar, stands head and shoulders like a palm tree above other women. Another “erect” term could be “inspired” which means to influence by example or be an inspiration for other women to follow. This lady Tamar was really a woman to be looked up to , a woman perceived as different, set apart, outstanding.

Another term that could be used for “erect” is “eminent” which means high in station, merit or esteem; distinguished; prominent. “Prestigious” is another term that could be used for “erect” meaning having a high estimation in the eyes of people. “Integrity” is another word that might be used for “erect” meaning uprightness of character; unimpaired or sound. It can also mean the state of being whole; entire (nothing lacking). I don’t know about you, but I think we have a real true Adamic woman here, not a hook nosed slimy Canaanite kike. Another word for an “erect” or “upright” person could be “illustrious” meaning notably or brilliantly outstanding; greatly distinguished; renowned. When we get into the final story, you will understand why Tamar is all of these things.

I could go on and on with this thing about Tamar’s name but I will mention some of the other words, terms and synonyms I found and then go on to other things. These are: “illustrious”, “notable”, “great”, “prominent”, “renowned”, “proper”, “faithful”, “appropriate”, “suitable”, “fitting”, “worthy”, “pure”, “meticulous”, “resolute”, “steady”, “ardent”, “loyal”, “genuine”, “constant”, “right”, “veracious”, “legitimate”, “majestic”, “royal”, “stately”, “magnificent”, “splendid”, “towering”, “lofty”, “gorgeous”, “impressive”, “sound”, “salient”, “remarkable”, “confident”, “sincere”, “superior”, “reliable”, “trustworthy”, “admirable”, “commendable”, “meritorious”, “virtuous”, “beneficial”, “mannerly”, “neat”, “unadulterated”, “undiluted”, “unmixed”, “principled”, “righteous”, “chaste”, “intelligent”, “authentic”, “certain”, “consistent”, “staunch”, “immovable”, “precise”, “determined”, “resolute”, “fervent”, “glowing”, “keen”, “reliable”, “capable”, “competent”, “qualified”, “comely”, “decent”, “respectable”, “clean”, “presentable”, “apt”, “delicate”, “refined”, “pleasant”, and “stunning”. Do you think this lady, Tamar, was something special?


To sum up the situation, we can say that Tamar was a person of good character, of superior rank, worthy of respect inasmuch as she was correct and proper being legally and morally right. She was a woman of scruples being ethical and of a noble and spiritual nature. She was a woman of completeness adherent to a code of values, and a woman of perfection widely known and honored. She was a woman having a fixed purpose, firm in position and sure of movement. A woman worthy of esteem, an entire woman, healthy and fit, free from foreign matter (racial contamination or corruption). A woman neat and orderly conforming to a standard of right behavior, devoted to right principles, acting or being in accord with what is just or moral, extremely careful in attending to details being very meticulous. She was a heedful woman understanding the situation at all times, conscientious and aware of the Law of what was right or wrong to Yahweh, dependable and reliable to do the right thing when necessary. She was a loyal woman in fact as in appearance, a genuine woman tried and true. She was unchangeable (immutable), strict and exacting, firmly fixed and settled and in agreement with fact and reality. She was unyielding in purpose, truthful when necessary, mentally alert, well-balanced, and took authority of her actions. She was characterized by warmth of feeling, ardent and filled with passion, fair in complexion, attractive in appearance and like a palm tree, standing “erect” and “upright” in impressive dignity above the other trees. I would like Mr. Scott Vaught to know right here and now, Tamar was no Canaanite whore as he has alleged!!!!!!

Now for another version of the story of Tamar. This is from a book, Far Above Rubies , by Isabel Hill Elder. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is studying the Israel Identity truth. A copy of this book should be in every racially conscious Israel home. This would have been a good book for Scott Vaught to read, for if he would have read it, he may not have made so many stupid statements. I am going to quote pages 32 to 35 of chapter 5. This will give us, again, more insight into the story of Judah and Tamar. This is not the end though, for later I am going to go into each facet of this story, and when we have examined it thoroughly, I believe you will be amazed at the end result.


TAMAR (Gen. 38)


“Judah, fourth son of Jacob and Leah, in direct disobedience to the Hebrew unwritten law of marrying within their own race — as so signally demonstrated in the cases of Isaac and Jacob in obtaining wives of their kindred in Haran — married a woman of Canaan.  [This racial law is written.]

“Three sons were born to them, and as the mother in those ancient times had entire charge of the children, these sons were brought up in the ways of the Canaanites and without the respect for morality which ever marks the worshipper of the true God.

“Judah had long since realized his mistake in marrying a woman of Canaan, and determined that his sons should have wives of his own race. A Hebrew lady with a Hebrew name, TAMAR, the daughter of Aram (signifying palm tree), was chosen by Judah for his eldest son, Er, who was the nephew of Abraham.

“These sons appear to have been addicted to all the sins and wickednesses of the Canaanites. First, Er died shortly after his marriage, and the next son, Onan, refused to obey the Hebrew Law of the next eldest son by marrying his brother’s widow.

“Judah became alarmed when Onan died; we are told that the Lord ‘slew him also’. Judah now feared to give Tamar to his youngest son, Shelah, ‘lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did’. Judah returned Tamar to her father’s house, there to await his pleasure; in the meantime his Canaanite wife, Bathshua, died.

“Tamar, in the belief that her father-in-law, Judah, would marry a second time a woman of Canaan, determined to remedy the racial descent problem in her own person. A relative of the Jacob household, and well aware of the necessity for racial purity in that House, Tamar embarked upon a course which would prevent Judah’s immediate descendants being other than Hebrew, and a very self-sacrificing course it was.

“It was masterly strategy which brought about the meeting of Judah with his daughter-in-law by the wayside, as recorded in the 38th chapter of Genesis, and the pledges given by Judah, with which he was later confronted, put all denial beyond peradventure.

“Thus by Tamar’s self-sacrificing action, the royal enclosure within the House of Judah was saved from contamination by forbidden blood stock. Tamar was well aware that in taking the course she did to preserve the purity of her race in the House of Judah she ran the risk of being burnt by fire, and it was not until she was brought forth to receive this punishment by her unsuspecting father-in-law’s command that she revealed the true state of affairs. ‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, the bracelets, and staff.’ The signet, or ring, was the emblem of power and authority; the bracelet was the cord, usually of gold, from which the signet was suspended, and the staff, which also signified the sceptre, emblem of authority as head of the tribe.

“In the family records which were handed down from father to son, Tamar would learn of the care exercised to preserve purity of race; she would learn that her great ancestor, Noah, ‘was a just man and perfect in his generations’ from Seth. The word Tamar means whole, flawless.

“Twin sons were born to Tamar and named Pharez and Zarah. Pharez became an ancestor of our Lord.

“Shelah, the youngest son of Judah and Bathshua, became quite an important House in Israel, but was disqualified by Divine intervention because of his spurious birth, from becoming an ancestor of the Redeemer of Israel.

“Judah, in his ‘Story of Tamar’, states that he lived a good and pure life until he met Bathshua, the Canaanite. ‘I said to my father-in-law, I will take counsel with my father, and so will I take thy daughter. And he was unwilling, but he showed me a boundless store of gold in his daughter’s behalf; for he was a king. And he adorned her with gold and pearls and caused her to pour out wine for us at the feast. And the wine turned aside my eyes, and pleasure blinded my heart. And I became enamoured of her and I transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and the commandment of my fathers, and I took her to wife. And the Lord rewarded me according to the imagination of my heart, inasmuch as I had no joy in her children.... I turned aside to Tamar, and I wrought a great sin ... for I gave my staff, that is the stay of my tribe; and my girdle, that is, my power, and, my diadem, that is, the glory of my kingdom.

“’And indeed I repented of these things. Wine revealeth the mysteries of God and men, even as I also revealed the commandments of God and the mysteries of Jacob my father to the Canaanitish woman, Bathshua, which God bade me not to reveal. ... For the sake of money and beauty I was led astray to Bathshua the Canaanite ... For even wise men among my sons shall they mar, and shall cause the kingdom of Judah to be diminished, which the Lord gave me because of my obedience to my father. For I never caused grief to Jacob my father; for all things whatsoever he commanded I did. And Isaac, the father of my father, blessed me to be king of Israel, and Jacob further blesses me in like manner. And I know that from me shall the kingdom be established.’ ...

”’For the sake of money I lost my children, and had not my repentance, and my humiliation, and the prayers of my father been accepted I should have died childless. But the God of my fathers had mercy on me because I did it in ignorance.... And I learnt my own weakness while thinking myself invincible.’

“Of the four women mentioned in connection with the ancestry of our Lord: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, Tamar is the first to have the honour of taking a definite step for racial purity, and it was indeed a great tribute which Judah paid in his pronouncement, ‘She hath been more righteous than I’ (Gen.. 38:26). (Underlining emphasis mine.)

1 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Judah), p. 57, trans. by R. H. Charles, D.D., D.Litt.

Now wasn’t this quote from the book Far Above Rubies by Isabel Hill Elder about Tamar better than All Of The Women Of The Bible by Edith Deen in lesson #2? While both articles had something to contribute, this later one was much the better of the two. While both articles had something to contribute, there is still more to be said about this story. The only way we are going to completely understand this story is break it down into its component parts and analyze it as the story develops. As the story develops, we will have to take every aspect of the Law into account as this story is guided much by the Laws of Yahweh.




It mentions in Genesis 38:1, “Judah went down from his brethren.” Now this was a very serious mistake on the part of Judah to leave his own kind. Any time we go slumming with the Hottentots or cat and dog eaters, it is going to lead to problems! (Again I don’t apologize, Mark 7:27). Anyway, here is Judah and he goes down to this Canaanite slum to the house of one Hirah, an Adullamite. There Judah meets an enticing female (we really can’t call her a lady), the daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah, Genesis 38:2. Now before we go any farther with this story it is mandatory that we identify what a Canaanite is or we will miss the whole point of the story. Here is where people like Ted R. Weiland, Stephen E. Jones, James W. Bruggeman, Charles Weisman etc. get into trouble, as they just do not identify the subject they are talking about! It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to identify the origin of the Canaanite at this time. If you will go to Genesis 15:19-21, you will find they were made up of “Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” These were all intermixed and generally called “Canaanites.” The first mentioned are the “Kenites”, who are the descendants of Cain #7014 & #7017. The Kenizzites are the descendants of Esau Edom. The Rephaims are descendants of fallen angels. From this you can begin to see what a bastard race these Canaanites were and are. With the Kenites, these people had the bloodline of Cain who was fathered by Satan himself. Well, this Canaanite wife of Judah had the Satanic blood of Cain in her, and she was related to the serpent of Genesis 3:13-15. Once we understand this fact, we can begin to comprehend the plot of the story.




The story all started in ages past in the heavens when Lucifer and a third of the angels followed him in rebellion against Yahweh. Then Yahweh placed his own son and daughter in the Garden of Eden. At this point, Lucifer decided he must destroy the sons and daughters of Yahweh before they could grow great in the earth. Lucifer decided also that he must plant seed (children) of his own in the earth to counter the children of Yahweh. Therefore he (Satan) must seduce Eve and cause her to have children by him. Lust played only secondarily in this matter, as to produce progeny of himself was his main goal. Ever since that time he has been breeding up his own kind, while at the same time, trying to kill or crossbreed down the children of Yahweh. This is why, at every critical period of history, Satan’s children are right there ready to do Satan’s bidding. That is why Herod (an Edomite-Canaanite) descendant of Cain and Esau was Johnny-on-the-spot to kill all the little boy children in order to kill the promised Messiah. Remember? — it was Rachel who was weeping for her children, not Leah. Herod wanted to kill the heir to the house of David who would have been of Judah who was mothered by Leah, but he ended up killing a lot of Benjamite children instead. Remember? — Rachel had two sons: Joseph and Benjamin? When you come to understand that there is a war between Yahweh’s children and Satan’s children, then, the events of history become evident. Right now Satan’s children are trying to crossbreed Yahweh’s children out of existence and you don’t have to look very far to see it (and you have to be blind if you don’t see it). Well. the story of Judah, here, is one of those stories that happened at a critical time in history.

Knowing that this Bathshua was a Canaanite Satanic descendant of Cain and what her motives naturally would be because of her Satanic nature, let’s see how the story develops as we continue. From what I have been able to find, Judah was only about 15 to 16 years old when he meets this daughter of the Canaanite (although the Testament of Judah 1:51 says that he was 20). It may have been a four year process of acquaintance. Anyway, at this age he would have the body of a man and the mind of a child. He was live bait for this Canaanite bitch (and a bitch she proved to be)! Think of this story in the reverse of Satan seducing Eve — in this case it is Bathshua seducing Judah! This is a critical point in history as Judah was to be the seed-line from which the Messiah would come and one of Satan’s children (Bathshua) was right there to try to defile that seed-line. That is why Yahshua told the Scribes and Pharisees, John 8:44:

“Ye are of your  father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

Let’s now take a look at the trap that was set for Judah by these Satanic people. It was more than Bathshua, as her father was in on it too. We will read from the “Testament of Judah” of the Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, chapter 1 verses 51-53, and then chapter 2, verses 17-18:

“51 I was twenty years old when this war befell. And the Canaanites feared me and my brethren. 52 And I had much cattle, and I had for chief herdsman Iram the Adullamite. 53 And when I went to him I saw Parsaba, king of Adullam; and he spake unto us, and he made a feast; and when I was heated (drunk and sexually excited) he gave me his daughter Bathshua to wife. .... 17 And I knew that the race of the Canaanite was wicked, but the impulse of youth blinded my mind. 18 And when I saw her pouring out wine, owing to the intoxication of the wine I was deceived and took her although my father had not counselled it.”

Again we have more in the “Testament of Judah”  3:3-10:

“3 Since I also gloried that in wars no comely woman’s face ever enticed me, and reproved Reuben my brother concerning Bilhah the wife of my father, the spirits of jealousy and of fornication arrayed themselves against me, until I lay with Bathshua the Canaanite, and Tamar who was espoused to my sons. 4 For I said to my father-in-law: I will take counsel with my father, and so will I take thy daughter. 5 And he was unwilling, but he showed me a boundless store of gold in his daughter’s behalf; for he was a king. 6 And he adorned her with gold and pearls, and caused her to pour out wine for us at the feast with the beauty of women. 7 And the wine turned aside my eyes, and pleasure blinded my heart. 8 And I became enamored of and I lay with her, and transgressed the commandment of the Lord and the commandment of my fathers, and I took her to wife. 9 And the Lord rewarded me according to the imagination of my heart, inasmuch as I had no joy in her children. 10 And now, my children, I say unto you, be not drunk with wine; for wine turneth the mind away from the truth, and inspires the passion of lust, and leadeth the eyes into error.”

You can see here that it was not only Bathshua, but her father also who was in on this conspiracy. Had this conspiracy worked, there would have been no Messiah. And if we don’t see this last point, we miss the whole story. What we have, in this instance, is one more case where the children of Satan are doing the work of their father to destroy the children of Yahweh. This war has been going on now for about 7500 years. You will also notice, like all Canaanites, this father of Bathshua had plenty of gold like a typical Canaanite merchant “Jew.” Now that’s a good start, but there is more.

Well Judah ended up having three children by this Canaanite Bathshua: Er, Onan and Shelah. Just to show you how much of a bitch this Bathshua was, Genesis 38:3 tells us that Judah named the first child Er and when the next child (Onan) was born, Bathshua named it, Genesis 38:4. This tells us that she was taking over the head of the household and usurping Judah’s rightful place as priest of the family. From this point on, this Canaanite bitch was running the show, and we will see just how she manipulated it.

Well, these three sons grew up and it came time for them to find a wife. Judah knew the rules, but in spite of this he went to the house of Shem to find a pure White woman for his half-breed son Er. That sounds like the problems we are running into today — Where are we going to find wives and husbands for all of these half breeds of today’? Of course, like Judah, we will try to find a nice White girl for them, Right? And if we oppose that idea we will be politically incorrect, Right? I’ll bet that Judah never told Elam (Tamar’s father) the whole story or Elam would have never given his pure White daughter, Tamar, for Judah’s half-breed son Er. Because the Canaanites were some relation to Ham, the White son of Noah, maybe he passed Er off as being White (you know, one of those almost white Canaanite “Jews”).

Now what we have to know next in this story is the fact that Bathshua (Judah’s wife) wanted her sons to marry among her race and this explains a lot of what happened later in this story. The Canaanites were a very low moral people and Bathshua taught her sons the lowest forms of immorality. At last, the day came for Tamar to become Er’s wife and we will pick up the story in the Book of Jasher, chapter 45:24-27 (this gives a better description than in the KJV):

“24 And Er came to his wife Tamar, and she became his wife, and when he came to her he outwardly destroyed his seed, and his work was evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord slew him. 25 And it was after the death of Er, Judah’s first born, that Judah said unto Onan, go to thy brother’s wife and marry her as the next of kin, and raise up seed to thy brother. 26 And Onan took Tamar for a wife and came to her, and Onan also did like the work of his brother, and his work was evil in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also. 27 And when Onan died, Judah said unto Tamar, remain in thy father’s house until my son Shiloh (Shelah) shall have grown up, and Judah did no more delight in Tamar, to give her unto Shiloh (Shelah), for he said, peradventure he will also die like his brothers.”

Let’s take this same passage from the King James Version for comparison. It would be Genesis 38:6-10:

“6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to they brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.”

If this is true, consummation of the marriage was never completed meaning that Er did not legally become Tamar’s husband. Judah not knowing about Er (verse 8) “said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brothers wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” Well this is what is supposed to be done under the Law. Every move that is done here is according to the Law. You cannot understand Tamar’s position unless you understand the Law. Then in verse 8 Onan objects because he wants his own seed rather than his brother’s. Why? Because Onan wanted the birthright so that the inheritance would pass through him. This half-breed Canaanite “Jew” had his eye on the money. Now Onan was so adamant about this situation that he withdrew himself before completing consummation (coitus interuptus), thus Yahweh killed him too. Onan, a half-breed, because of his Cain-Satanic-Canaanite nature, had no respect for the laws of his father’s Mighty One. To this day, this act is called “onanism.” Be this as it may, I would rather believe Yahweh killed Er and Onan to protect Tamar. Now this is getting interesting as neither Er nor Onan could be considered Tamar’s rightful husband before Yahweh. She was never really married to either one because there was no consummation in either case. Now this sets the stage for the rest of the story. We are simply told here that Judah sent Tamar back to her father’s house until Shelah would be grown up. When Shelah was grown, Bathshua wanting all of her sons to marry Canaanites took charge and married Shelah off to a Canaanite and then she died. “The Testament of Judah” bares this out, chapter 2, verse 19 when Judah says:

“And while I (Judah) was away she (Bathshua) went and took for Shelah a wife from Canaan.”

You can tell from this act alone what kind of a bitch Bathshua was. We have to give Bathshua, Judah’s Canaanite wife, credit here for two things though: (1) she married Shelah off to another Canaanite and (2) she died. After this the King James Version says, Genesis 38:12:

“And in the process of time the daughter of Shuah (Bathshua) Judah’s wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.”

Well, this brings up some very interesting situations about this story that most Bible students have never considered. They are:


The contract to furnish seed from one of the son’s of Judah for Tamar to have children was a total breach of contract on Judah’s part!


Through the death of Bathshua, Judah’s wife, Judah was a free at large eligible widower.


As neither Er nor Onan properly consummated their marriages with Tamar, she was still in essence a virgin!!!!!




The first thing we must understand is that Tamar knew Yahweh’s Law. Therefore, it is important to consider her behavior from the viewpoint of her knowledge of the Law. At this point, in her life, Tamar realized she had no future without Judah’s children to carry on his kingly line. Nevertheless, she was just as happy not to have children by any of these half-breed Canaanites. Tamar, no doubt, breathed a sigh of relief when Shelah, last half-breed son of Judah, was married off by Bathshua to her own kind. But now that was all over, and if she were going to act, it would have to be now or never. At this point, there was only one way that Judah could live up to his promise, and that would be if Judah himself were to father Tamar’s children, thereby acting in accordance with the Law. Now she considered, if she were to have children by Judah, it would be in accordance with the Law inasmuch as they were both pureblooded eligible spouses for marriage, and the most important thing, the children would be of pure blood. Thus, Tamar very quickly embarked upon a very dangerous plan of action, for if her bold plan didn’t work, Tamar was a dead daughter-in-law by the very Law she acknowledged. How would you like to face being burned at the stake? This took a woman with real guts to take the action she did. In reality, Tamar was no ordinary woman. Where are today’s Tamars whose only purpose in life is to beget and raise children of their own kind.

Tamar knew that Judah had been deprived of his sex life for some time as a result of Bathshua’s death and knew of Judah’s drinking problem when he got together with the boys, especially during sheep shearing season with his old Canaanite friend Hirah the Adullamite. Tamar took everything into account, especially the Law and then she took action. I believe the rest of the story here is very beautiful how she handled each detail — how she obtained his signet, bracelets and staff as pledge to keep her position safe.

I am real proud of Tamar as she is my Grandmother, I don’t know how many times removed, but had she not done what she did, I wouldn’t be here and I also wouldn’t be writing this Watchman’s Teaching Letter. I am especially proud to share Tamar, my Grandmother, with Yahshua Himself as we both have a common ancestor in her. Everyone who is of German, Scottish or Irish descent have Tamar for a Grandmother. I am not a bit ashamed of Tamar for what she did. It is only regrettable that she was forced to cohabit twice with those half-breed Canaanites, and I thank Yahweh that He slew both of them forthwith. Actually, Tamar is one of the most exalted women in Scripture, and one of my favorites.

There is one more thing we should take into account with the story of the birth of Pharez and Zerah. Now with the birth of Pharez and Zerah in Genesis 38:29-30, Pharez is counted as Judah’s firstborn and Zerah as Judah’s second in line. It is obvious that the first two Canaanite children by Judah were not counted. In other words, Er was not counted as the firstborn nor was Onan counted as second, for in Genesis 38:29-30, Pharez is counted as Judah’s firstborn and Zerah as Judah’s second born. For some reason, Shelah continued to be counted as third-born. Evidently, with the death of Er and Onan, it left open the first and second positions for Pharez and Zerah.

I believe, with this Watchman’s Teaching Letter, you will never look at the story of Judah and Tamar in the same light again. If you listen to most of nominal Christianity, they will hypothesize what they consider to be Tamar’s immorality. I am here to tell you it was just the opposite! The reason most people come to the conclusion that Tamar’s action was immoral is because they don’t study deep enough or just listen to someone else and their opinion.

In the next teaching letter I will go farther into the story of Judah. It will not only be the story of Judah and his personal life alone, but the life of his descendants. There are a lot of twist and turns with Judah, so there will be a lot to talk about. But what we know for now is: Judah was and is a very important tribe in Israel, as it is the tribe from which our Redeemer came! Without the Tribe of Judah, there would be no Salvation for Israel! — Without Tamar there would be no Tribe of Judah!

Now, how many Bible teachers are bringing you truths you need to know such as you have just read? Can you now see why I claim my teachings are an extension of Bible researcher and former attorney Bertrand L. Comparet and Dr. Wesley A. Swift?

    (Revised 2-14-2001)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #4 August 1998


This is the fourth in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you have not received any of my previous letters (#1, #2, and #3) please send $2.00 for each back issue you would like to have. If you really have a desire to learn the Scripture’s deepest hidden truths, you will not want to miss any of these back issues. I also want to take the time to thank all of the people who are helping to support this ministry! 

Now Continuing The Topic:


In the first three issues, we learned much about Judah’s personal life. Judah had a very complex entangled and complicated life. There are few who have ever really mastered the subject of Judah and some of the statements by different commentators about his life and tribe (especially his relation with Tamar) are spurious and totally out of order. With this issue, we are going to turn from Judah’s personal life and direct our attention to his descendants, the Tribe of Judah. If you thought Judah’s personal life was complicated in the previous studies, you haven’t seen anything yet! From Judah we get the highest and most wonderful of blessings, and at the same time, a terrible and vexing curse. 


Like the old saying, we have good news and we have bad news. Let’s take up the good news first. To do this we will have to go to the 49th chapter of Genesis where Jacob, just before he dies, prophesies the destinies of each of the tribes of his family. For Judah, Jacob prophesied this, Genesis 49:8-12:

“8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee. 9 Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10 The scepter 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. 11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.”

There is enough in this passage to fill several books, but for now I want you to notice the prophecy of both the first and second comings of Yahshua the Messiah. In His first coming our Redemption is accomplished — In His second coming, we will be redeemed from our enemy along with many other things. What I wanted to do here is to point out how, in Judah, there is great blessing. While in Judah there is great blessing, on the other hand, Judah represents a great curse.

As I have pointed out before, Satan and his children intrude (that is: horn in, butt in, chisel in, cut in) at every critical era of history. Because the Messiah was to come through Judah, Satan and his children intrude or direct their attack at Judah. Satan made his first attack in seducing Eve, trying to adulterate Yahweh’s pure Seed-line. Bathshua, in her Satanic inbred nature, attacked Judah personally by seducing him to corrupt the pure Seed-line of the promised Redeemer. If you don’t understand the war of the seed-lines, you miss the whole theme of the Scriptures. Well, the Satanic forces, through the descendants of Cain, would once again attack Judah. This attack came and can be found in 1st Chronicles 2:55 which reads thusly:

“And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came from Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”

At first sight this may not appear much like an attack on the Tribe of Judah, but let’s take a good look at it. What do we have here? The entire 2nd chapter of 1st Chronicles from the end of verse 3, starting with verse 4 is the pure genealogy of Judah with one exception. Everything from the end of verse 3 to and including verse 54 is a genealogy of the true descendants of Judah. Then in verse 55 we have added on to Judah’s genealogy some descendants of Cain! How do we know this? The word Kenite in verse 55 above is #7017 in the Strong’s Concordance and means descendants of Cain. Well, why are Cain’s descendants listed here under Judah’s genealogy? Its the same old story, they are trying to horn in and pollute the Seed-line of Judah so they can destroy the bloodline of the Messiah. If you don’t understand the two seed-lines, you just cannot understand the Bible and what it is all about. I will now prove who these Kenites were and where they came from. To clear up this situation, I will quote some of the research I did on this in my booklet, Research Papers Proving Two-Seedline Seduction Of Eve. These are references out of standard commentaries and I didn’t use all the references that I have on this. I will use bullets to indicate what I lifted from my booklet:



At this time, quoting from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782:


“KENITES ... meaning (metalworkers, smiths).  Clan or tribal name of semi-nomadic peoples of South Palestine and Sinai. The Aramaic and Arabic etymologies of the root gyn show that it has to do with metal and metal work (thus the Hebrew word from this root, ‘lance’). This probably indicates that the Kenites were metal workers, especially since Sinai and Wadi ‘Arabah were rich in highgrade copper ore. W. F. Albright has pointed to the Beni Hassan mural in Egypt (19th century B.C.) as an illustration of such a wandering group of smiths. This mural depicts thirty-six men, women and children in characteristic Semitic dress leading along with other animals, donkeys laden with musical instruments, weapons and an item which Albright has identified as a bellows. He has further noted that Lemech’s three children (Genesis 4:19-22) were responsible for herds (Jabal), musical instruments (Jubal), and metal work (Tubal-Cain, or Tubal, the smith), the three occupations which seem most evident in the mural.”



2nd quote from the same article:


“The early monarchy. During this period a significant concentration of Kenites was located in the southern Judean territory. This is clear from 1 Samuel 15:6 cited above and also from David’s relations with them.”



3rd quote from the same article:


“Postexilic references. In 1 Chronicles 2:55 the families of the scribes living at Jabaz are said to be Kenites. Apparently, during the kingdom and exile periods, certain Kenites had given up nomadic smithing and had taken on a more sedentary, but equally honorable profession of scribe.”



Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 114, has this to say about the name of the Kenites:


“The etymology of the name suggests that they were smiths or artificers, a theory which is supported by their association with the Wadi ‘Arabah, where there were copper deposits which had been worked by the Egyptians since the middle of the 3rd millennium.”



 Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 181, we have more on the name of the Kenites:


“The name Cain is generally taken by Semitic philologists to mean ‘smith’, and regarded as the patronymic of the Kenite clan of smiths.”



The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible has this to say on Kenite, page 293:


“The families of the scribes — either civil or ecclesiastical officers of the Kenite origin, who are here classed with the tribe of Judah, not as being descended from it, but as dwellers within its territory, and in a measure incorporated with its people.”



The Matthew Pool’s Commentary On The Holy Bible has this to say on the Kenites, volume 1, page 778:


“The Scribes; either civil, who were public notaries, who wrote and signed legal instruments; or ecclesiastical ... and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but because they dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them. Which dwelt, or rather, dwelt;  Hebrew, were dwellers. For the other translation, which dwelt, may seem to insinuate that these were descendants of Judah, which they were not; but this translation only signifies their cohabitation with them, for which cause they are here named with them.”


Here is where these Pharisees, Sadducees and SCRIBES which Yahshua pointed out as being of their father the devil came from. When He said to them in Matthew 23:35 and John 8:44:



Matthew 23:35:


“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.”



John 8:44:


“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”


Now that we have proved that the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees of Yahshua’s time were descendants of Cain fathered by Satan himself (except for a few proselytes), we are faced with another problem. That problem being there are many in the Identity message who are proclaiming there is no Satan or devil! This is a very serious teaching and needs to be exposed. Those people teaching the “Jews” are a religion rather than a race are aiding and abetting these Satanic “Jews”. The “Jews” just love to be identified as a religion rather than a race. The “Jews” are made up of many races, but they have one common denominator, and that is they all have the race of Cain’s Satanic blood in them. I will now quote from The Hidden Tyranny which is called “The Rosenthal Document.” Harold Wallace Rosenthal, in a lengthy interview opened up and bragged about the Jewish position. At one point he said this:

“We can live among other nations and states only as long as we succeed in persuading them that the Jews are not a distinct people, but are the representatives of a religious faith who, therefore, constitute a ‘religious community,’ though this be of a peculiar character. As a matter of fact, this is the greatest of our falsehoods.”

So you just keep telling everybody that the “Jews” are a religion rather than a generation, (race) of vipers, and you will be helping their Satanic cause. Believe me, Ted R. Weiland, Stephen E. Jones, James W. Bruggeman and Charles Weisman are helping the “Jew’s” cause. Well, just keep sending them your money and they can continue to help the “Jews” some more! Don’t forget Pete Peters too! We will address this very serious false doctrine of no Satan at this time.




There was a booklet entitled Satan Dispelled by a person with a pen name of Kalamos. This 46 page booklet was widely distributed by Sheldon Emry of America’s Promise of Phoenix, Arizona. Probably many of you have this booklet in your library. I am not going to dwell on this booklet very long, but I want to give you an example of how phony it is. We will go to the first unnumbered page entitled “Publisher’s Comment” and quote a small section as follows:

“I was particularly interested in a study of ‘the devil’ in Jude 9, which was a problem to me. A few hours of reading, studying, and discussion not only cleared the passage for me, but gave me the joy and delight of a better understanding of the Scripture and of God Himself, so greatly needed today. See Appendix A.”


Well, let’s go to Appendix A, on page 40:




“Yet Michael, the archangel [chief messenger] when contending with the devil [adversary] he disputed about the body of Moses durst not bring against him a railing accusation but said. The Lord [Yahweh] rebuke thee [Jude 9].


“This is not to be taken as having reference to the physical body of Moses any more than the physical body of Christ is referred to in 1 Cor. 12:27-30. Moses’ ‘body’ here was the selected group of men ‘of ability’ (Ex. 18:21) serving as judges over the people under the supervision of their chief messenger (agent), Moses. Verse 9 of Jude obviously refers to Num. 16, where Korah disputed with Moses regarding Moses’ authority. Korah was the ‘devil-adversary’ of Jude 9.”


Here is a good example of a person getting a brainstorm and setting up a false premise. This passage (Jude 9) has nothing to do with 1st Corinthians 12:27-30, Exodus 18:21 or the person of Korah named above.. To show you what Jude 9 is really all about, I am going to quote from two commentaries on the subject:



Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 1519:

“9, Michael, the archangel — Nowhere in the Scripture is the plural used, ‘archangels’; but only one, ‘archangel.’ The only other passage in the New Testament where it occurs, is 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Christ is distinguished from the archangel, with whose voice He shall descend to raise the dead; they therefore err who confound Christ and Michael. The name means Who is like God? In Daniel 10:13 he is called ‘One (Margin, the first) of the chief princes.’ He is the champion angel of Israel. In Revelation 12:7 the conflict between Michael and Satan is again alluded to, about the body of Moses — his literal body. Satan, as having the power of death, opposed the raising of it again, on the ground of Moses’ sin at Meribah, and his murder (execution) of the Egyptian. That Moses’ body was raised, appears from his presence with Elijah and Jesus (who were in the body) at the Transfiguration: the sample and earnest of the coming resurrection-kingdom, to be ushered in by Michael’s standing up for God’s people.”



The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 1488:

“9. Jude amplifies his plea for reverence by citing the apocryphal story of Michael and the devil, taken from the pseudepigraphical Assumption of Moses. Although Jude quoted both this book and Enoch, it is not a supportable inference that he ascribed canonical status or historicity to them.”


What this last statement is saying is: because the pagans at The First Ecumenical Or General Council Of Nicaea, A.D. 325 didn’t approve of the above mentioned books they were not included in their “Canon.” Anyway, the person who wrote this “Publisher’s Comment” didn’t know what they were talking about on the subject of Jude 9 as it has nothing to do with 1 Cor. 12:27-30, Ex. 18:21 or the person of Korah. The rest of the book is in the same vein and not worth any more comment, but I can assure you it has a lot of holes of the same nature in it. Of course, she mentions that Pastor Sheldon Emry of Phoenix, Arizona, had some influence on her thought. It is also interesting, on the last page (46) is advertised for sale at $4.00 a “Concordant Literal New Testament” translation. This is where Stephen E. Jones and Micheal Wark got their Universalism from! The full name of that outfit was the Concordant Publishing Concern, 15570 West Knochaven Drive, Saugus, California, 91350. So we know, at this point, that Sheldon Emry along with Stephen E. Jones were not only one seed-liners, Universalists, but also no Satan proponents. This should give you a pretty good idea where all the garbage is coming from.




I am now going to quote a short passage from Charles Weisman’s lecture which he gave to “disprove” the Two Seed-line doctrine. Weisman gave this lecture at a Pete Peters’ camp retreat, so we can know just where Peters stands on this issue as he praised the work of Weisman very highly. When you listen to the words of Charles Weisman on this subject, you are hearing the same words of Stephen E. Jones, Ted R. Weiland and James Bruggeman for they can all be lumped into one basket, if you have heard one of them on this subject, you have heard them all. That is why James W. Bruggeman printed Ted R. Weiland’s disgusting article, “Eve: Did She? or Didn’t She”, in Bruggeman’s Kingdom Journal in the Spring issue, 1998. This is what Charles Weisman had to say about Satan:

“...Now the identifying of this serpent with the term Satan or devil can be somewhat confusing since these terms can be ascribed to many different things. First, such as the angel of God was a Satan against Balaam, Numbers 22:22. David was a Satan or advisory to the Philistines, 1st Samuel 29:4. People are called devils who are slanderers, 1st Timothy 3:11. And people are called devils who are called false accusers, Titus 2:3. Judas was called a devil. Peter was called a Satan. The terms devil and Satan are used to refer to evil in general, or to sin, or to the enemy. Corrupt political religious systems or authorities are called Satan. Man’s lust or carnal nature can be called the devil. Thus these words, devil and Satan, are not given one singular meaning in usage throughout Scripture; nor is the word serpent. But that is how Christendom has always treated them and interpreted them. So, even though these words, devil and Satan, were applied to this serpent of Genesis 3:15, which is now destroyed, they are applied to many other things as well. Thus the terms, devil and Satan, are still used, and still can be used as well as the term serpent. But they cannot be used in reference to the serpent of Genesis 3:15 still existing.  So whatever this serpent was, it is at an end; or at least its power is certainly at an end. ...”




To clear up just what these terms, Satan, devil, serpent and old dragon mean, I am going first to The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 5 Q-Z, and quote from their article on Satan on page 282:

“1. References to Satan. 1. In the Old Testament. Without the article the Hebrew term Satan has the general meaning of ‘an adversary,’ ‘an enemy.’ Thus in 1 Samuel 29:4 it is used of David as a possible enemy in battle; in 1st Kings 11:14, 23, 25 it designates political adversaries to Solomon; in Numbers 22:22 it is applied to the angel of the Lord who opposed Balaam. In Psalm 109:6 it is used of a human accuser. With the article, ‘the Adversary,’ it becomes a proper name and denotes the personal Satan.”

I will next quote from Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, page 866, published by “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.” On this particular subject, they do a good job   they do have a few areas where they know what they are talking about and this is one of them because there are many other sources that agree:

“SATAN [Resister] In many places in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word sa-tan’ appears without the definite article. Used in this way, it applies in its first appearance to the angel that stood in the road to resist Balaam as he set out with the objective of cursing the Israelites. (Nu 22:22, 32). In other instances it refers to individuals as resistors of other men. (1Sa 29:4; 2 Sa 19:21, 22; 1 Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25). But it is used with the definite article ha to refer to Satan the devil, the chief Adversary of God. (Job 1:6; ftn; 2:1-7; Zec 3:1.2). In the Greek Scriptures the word sa-ta-nas’ applies to Satan the Devil in nearly all of its occurrences and is usually accompanied by the definite article, ho.

Now I will quote another witness on this from The Pictorial Bible Dictionary published by Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, page 755:

SATAN (satan; Hebrew satan, Greek Satán or Satanás, an adversary), the chief of the fallen spirits, the grand adversary of God and man. Without the article the Hebrew word is used in a general sense to denote some one who is an opponent, an adversary; thus, the angel who stood in Balaam’s way (Num. 22:22); David as a possible opponent in battle (1 Sam. 29:4); a political adversary (1 Kings 11:14). With the definite article prefixed it is a  proper noun in Job 1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2, designating Satan as a personality. In Psalm 109:6 the article is lacking, and reference may be to a human adversary (cf. AVS ‘an adversary’), but it is generally conceded that in 1 Chronicles 21:1 the word is a proper name without the article. The teaching concerning evil and a personal devil finds its full presentation only in the New Testament. In the New Testament the term Satan, translated from the Hebrew, always designates the personal Satan (but cf. Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33). The malignant foe is known in the New Testament by a number of other names and descriptive designations. He is frequently called ‘the devil’ (Greek diábolos), meaning the slanderer (Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:2; John 8:44; Eph. 6:11; Rev. 12:12 etc.). (‘Devils’: in KJV and ERV is properly ‘demons’). Other titles or descriptive designations applied to him are ‘Abaddon’ or ‘Apollyon’ (Rev. 9:11); ‘Accuser of the brethren’ (Rev. 12:10); ‘Adversary,’ Greek antídikos (1 Pet. 5:8); ‘Beelzebub’ (Matt 12:24); ‘Belial’ (II Cor. 6:15); ‘the deceiver of the whole world’ (Rev. 12:9); ‘the great dragon’ (Rev. 12:9) ‘the evil one’ (Matt. 13:19, 38; 1 John 2:13; 5:19); ‘the father of lies’ (John 8:44); ‘the god of this world’ (II Cor. 4:4); ‘a murderer’ (John 8:44); ‘the old serpent’ (Rev. 12:9); ‘the prince of this world’ (John 12:31; 14:30); ‘the prince of the powers of the air’ (Eph. 2:2); ‘the tempter’ (Matt. 4:5; 1 Thess. 3:5).”




You can see from all of this, we have to know if the article is there or if the article isn’t there to understand if it is speaking of Satan himself, or if, it is just used as a figure of speech. This bring us back to our high school days and those long dull exercises of the English language. To refresh your memory on what an article is, I am going to quote from a set of books entitled Practical English published by Career Institute, Volume 1, section 2, page 6:

“The words a, an and the are adjectives although in grammar they are called articles. The word the is called the definite article. The words a and an are called the indefinite articles. When we say, the book on the table, we are pointing out a particular book on a particular table. When we say, I have a book, no specific or particular book is indicated.”

The World Scope Encyclopedia, volume 1, under Article says: “Article ..., in grammar, one of a class of limiting adjectives, which embrace the adjective elements, a, an and the. A is used before consonant sounds and an before vowel sounds; both are called indefinite articles, because they refer to any one of two or more objects. The is called the definite article.”

The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, page 1933, has this to say about what an article is: “article A special form of adjective. ‘The’ is called the definite article. ‘A’ and ‘an’ are indefinite articles.”

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1948 edition, volume 1, page 357, says this of Article: “Article, in grammar, a part of speech used before nouns to limit or define their application. In the English language a or an is the indefinite article (the latter form being used before a vowel sound) and the the definite article. The English indefinite article is really a modified form of the numeral adjective one; so the German ein and the French un stand for the numeral and the article. There are traces in various languages showing that the definite article was originally a pronoun; thus the English the is closely akin to both this and that. The Latin language has neither the definite nor the indefinite article; the Greek has the definite; the Hebrew and Arabic definite article was prefixed to its noun, while on the other hand, in the Syriac and Chaldee it was affixed to the noun, as it is in the Icelandic. In the Scandinavian language the definite article is appended to the end of the word as hus-et, the house. There is no article in Russian.”

Why is it so necessary to stress the use of the article, when we study the Scriptures? For one reason, if we don’t know about the use of the article, whether it is there or absent, we cannot know what the Scriptures are saying. Not only do we have to know what the article means in English, but we have to understand the article in Hebrew and Greek. With the definite article, the Scriptures are speaking of a genuine personal devil or Satan. Now there is one language which the Bible was translated into which doesn’t have an article and that is Latin. Does this create problems? — you bet it creates problems. In the book, Latin For Americans, First Book, published by The Macmillan Company, page 413, says this: “Article — definite (the), indefinite (a, an). There is no word in Latin for ‘the’ or ‘a’.”

It is now a pretty well known fact that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic (a form of Hebrew), then translated into Greek, then Latin, then German and English. Question: how did the German and English translators know where to include the article and what kind of an article to use if they were coming directly off the Latin? Are you beginning to see how important it is to go back to the original languages? And one of the most important things we have to do when we go back to the original languages is to recognize the article and we have the article in both the Hebrew and the Greek. The difference can be the difference between a real genuine personal devil or someone who is acting like a devil. This is exactly how Charles Weisman, Stephen E. Jones, Ted R. Weiland and James W. Bruggeman are confusing the issue and promoting a no devil doctrine. In all of their teachings (what I have heard and read of them), I have never heard them mention the word article one time or even try to explain what it means in the Scriptures. I think they really don’t know — they all probably missed school the days that the English teacher was explaining articles.




I am now going to show you how you can quickly recognize an article in the Scriptures (especially the Old Testament), but first I must tell you a story. Everything in history has a reason and Yahweh has worked out history for the advantage of His people. I am going to talk here just a little bit about the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. After the exploits of Alexander the Great, most of the territory he conquered became a Greek speaking people. In Alexandria, Egypt there was a faction of Greek speaking “Jews.” These Greek speaking “Jews” decided they needed a Greek translation of the Old Parchments. I will not go into the details here how they finally accomplished their Greek translation, but when it was finished, it became known as the Septuagint (the seventy or LXX). Here is the important part: when they translated from the Hebrew and Chaldee into Greek, they changed the Hebrew and Chaldee articles into Greek articles and we still have them that way in our Bibles today! I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, but many of the words in our Old Testament are in Greek and the definite article is part of those Greek words. The definite article word “the” is the same in the Old Testament as it is in the  New Testament — it is the Greek word #3588. In fact every word “the” in the Old Testament is this Greek word — you can check it in the appendix of the Strong’s Concordance and you will find it to be so. So when you read the serpent in Genesis 3:1, 3, 4, 13, 14, you can know that it is the definite article with the exception of passages like “the serpent of brass” in Numbers 21:9 as an example.

Let’s take a look at this Greek word #3588 in the Strong’s Concordance:


3588. ho,ho; (masculine) including the feminine,

          ἡ he,hay; and the neuter,

         τό to,to, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted in English idiom): the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.


You can see, here, sometimes the definite article can also be this, that, one, he, she and it. Most often, though, the definite article from the Greek is the word the in the English. It seems that we always have to have some exceptions to the rule. You will also notice that the definite article is sometimes there without the word the.

I hope I don’t lose you at this point, but we have to go a step farther when speaking of an article. Articles are a type of adjective that changes or modifies the meaning of a noun (name of an object or person). The next thing we must consider is that there are two kinds of nouns: (1) a common noun and (2) a proper noun. Common nouns are like book, chair, table, desk, city, ocean, lily, tiger etc. Proper nouns are like John Adams, Daniel Morgan, Lake Michigan, Lake Louise and Satan in the Scripture. As a general rule, proper nouns are capitalized and common nouns are not. In English, proper nouns (which include personal names), do not need word “the”, (the definite article), in front of the noun to make it mean a definite particular person, place or thing. A personal name is a proper noun and is already definite in the English, and is capitalized to indicate it is a proper noun. But in Greek, the proper noun can have the definite article before the proper noun. Such examples are the Michael, the Isaac, the Tamar, the Herod, the John, and when translated into English is just simply Michael, Isaac, Tamar, Herod or John. That is why, in the Bible, it will say: the devil, the serpent or Satan in English.

Now Let’s read Revelation 12:9 in English, and I will put the Greek article in bold type:

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, (the adversary) which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

In the Greek, it reads a little differently and the article is a little different than in English (this is from the Emphatic Diaglott — Green’s Interlinear reads very similar.)— let’s take a look at it:

“And was cast the dragon the great, the serpent the old, the one being called accuser, and [the] adversary, the one deceiving the habitable whole, was cast into the earth, and the messengers of him with him were cast.”

Actually there are twenty four forms of the Greek article. The forms we are most interested in here are the basic ὁ, ἡ and τό shown in the Greek word #3588 from the Strong’s Concordance above. The ὁ is Masculine, the ἡ is Feminine and the τό Neuter. In Greek you will find the ὁ with the name of a man, the ἡ with the name of a woman and the τό with the name of a place or object other than man or woman. Our purpose, in this lesson, is to prove with the Greek definite article there is a genuine person known as Satan. At this time, it should be pointed out that in the Greek there is no indefinite article, only the definite article. In the book, New Testament Greek Study Aids by Walter Jerry Clark, it is explained like this:

“The Article. Also closely related to the noun is the article. ‘If it is desired to represent the thing designated by the noun as particular or known, we may use the article’ (Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar). In English we have both the definite article (‘the’) and an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). Greek, however has only the definite article and is therefore referred to simply as ‘the article.’ There are two general rules which it will be helpful for us to know when dealing with the article. These are: the presence of the article denotes the noun as a definite or particular in some sense, and the absence of the article indicates the noun as either indefinite or qualitative. There are exceptions and qualifying circumstances to these rules, but these are the simplest and most common uses of the article.”

Charles Weisman, in his tirade, tried to make it appear that all passages with the word devil or Satan were just a figure of speech. The only way you are going to be able to determine if it is a real person or a figure of speech is to go to the original language. You are not going to get it wholly out of the KJV or any other Bible. I am not an expert in the Greek language, but with the aid of the Emphatic Diaglot, Green’s Interlinear and the Greek to English Interlinear by George Ricker Berry, I can read the Greek definite article wherever it is in the New Testament in its twenty four forms . And for the New Testament, at least, I have to admit that the Emphatic Diaglott is the better of the three even if it is published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Maybe you could find one in a used book store if you want to start studying the article in the Greek language. I really recommend the Emphatic Diaglott to get started.

Now, we will look at a few Scriptures to determine if the definite article is there or not. We already did Revelation 12:9. We will next look at John 8:44 and I will put the definite article from the Greek in bold type:

“Ye are of your father (the father the accuser) the devil, and the lust of your father (of the father of you) ye will do. He was a murder from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie (the falsehood), he speaketh of his own (of the own): for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

Jude 9: “Yet (the) Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”

Luke 10:18: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan (the adversary) as lightning fall from (the) heaven.”

Matthew 12:26: “And if (the) Satan cast out (the) Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his (º feminine the) kingdom stand? (Isn’t that interesting? Satan’s kingdom is a feminine kingdom!)”

Matthew 4:1: “Then was (the) Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”

I could go on and on and give you thousands of examples of where the Greek article is and where the Greek article isn’t, but now I will give you a couple of examples where there is an absence of the Greek article. This will be an example of the word Satan. Because the Greek article is not present in the following passages when speaking of Satan, the word Satan should not be capitalized. In almost every Bible I found (and I have about 50 of them) in every case Satan was capitalized. I did find, though, two Bibles which did not capitalize the word (in this case) “satan”. These translators understood the significance the absence of the Greek article.

The New American Bible by Thomas Nelson Publishers © 1976, Matthew 16:23:

“Jesus turned on Peter and said, ‘Get out of my sight, you satan! You are trying to make me trip and fall. You are not judging by God’s standards but by man’s’.”

The Saint Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible, OT, (Confraternity-Douay, & NT, (Confraternity Version — a Catholic Bible) © 1950, 1952,1954 and 1963, Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33:

Matthew 16:23: “He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me satan, thou art a scandal to me; for thou dost not mind the things of God, but those of men’.”

Mark 8:33: “But he, turning and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, saying, ‘Get behind me, satan for thou dost not mind the things of God, but those of men’.”

But you may ask: “What does this have to do with Judah?” — It has everything to do with Judah! We can know from this lesson that there is a real and personal Satan — that Satan seduced Eve in the Garden and produced Cain — that the descendants of Cain are literally devils in shoe leather. As a result, we have Satan himself and his children, the “Jews!” We can know this for certain by understanding the article! Not only this, but we can know that these devils attached themselves to the Tribe of Judah and thank Yahweh that only a small fraction of Judah mixed with these Canaanite devils. Thus we have the good figs of Judah and the rotten figs of Judah! This story of Judah is getting more complicated as we continue.

For those who want to get started right away on the Greek article, I am going to include the following chart to make it easier to recognize it in all of its forms. You will want to hang on to this chart as all the Greek interlinears do not give you this information on how to recognize the article. With this chart, you will not only be able to recognize the article, but what form the article is in. Once you learn about and how to read the article, it’s going to be a little harder for some of these religious shysters to put something over on you. There may be some of you who might want to go on to learn to read and speak the Greek language. Learning the Greek article is a good place to get started. If, though, you never get beyond the stage of recognizing the article, you will have mastered much of your Bible.

Note: The chart was only included with the original lesson. There are many Greek study books where this information can be found.

   (Revised 2-14-2001)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #5 September 1998


This is the fifth in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you have not received any of my previous teaching letters, please send $2.00 for each back issue you would like to have. These teaching letters are not just the average run-of-the-mill type of letter. If you really want to learn the Scripture’s deepest hidden truths, you will not want to miss any of these back issues. These teaching letters will not go out of date. They will be just as informative ten yeas from now as they are today. Again, I want to thank all those who are helping to support this ministry. The last issue, I sent out over 150 mailings and I keep getting new names almost daily. If you know anyone who might want to receive this teaching letter, be sure to send me their name and address. I am sure you are not getting the teaching from anyone else that I have been presenting to you. How many preachers or teachers have explained the Greek article to you before? I have been around church for 62 years and have studied many Identity teachers in the last twenty years and I have only heard one Identity teacher mention the Greek article on one cassette tape, and that was Dr. W. G. Finlay from South Africa. 

Now Continuing The Topic:


In the last issue, I explained how Judah became a great blessing and also a vexing curse. In this issue we are going to consider the blessing of Judah. To do this, we will have to again read Genesis 49:8-12:

“8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee. 9 Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10 The scepter 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. 11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.”

As I said in the last issue, there is enough in this passage to fill several books. I am not going to attempt to write several books on this passage, but I hope to cover some of the main points with this lesson. I am not sure I can get it all finished in one lesson, but however many lessons it will take, I will do it. This passage simply cannot be passed up without some extensive comment.




Why is Judah singled out for this particular position in Jacob’s family? After all, the first born male is supposed to receive the position of ruler, priest and the inheritance or the birthright. Then why is Judah, the fourth born of Leah, chosen as the ruling tribe? When we run into problems like this, we must go to the basic law that governs the situation. The Law on this is found in:

Exodus 13:1, 2, 11-15: “1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Sanctify (set apart) unto me all the firstborn whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast, it is mine. ... 11 And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it here. 12 That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh out of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord’s. 13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.”

Exodus  22:29: “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the first born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.”

Numbers 3:13: “Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be; I am the Lord.”

Luke 2:23: “(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.)”

To give you some idea of the importance of the meaning of “firstborn” from the Scripture, I am going quote from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 2, page 540:

“First-Born .... (meaning first in sequence to be born or, figuratively, first in rank, preeminent). Normally the word means the older son (Exod. 6:14; 11:5). He enjoyed prerogatives over his brothers, like receiving the father’s blessing (Gen 27:1-4, 35-37), preferential treatment by the father (43:33), respect as leader among the brothers, (37:22), and a double portion of the inheritance, twice what any other son received (Deut 21:17). The first-born might barter away his rights, as Esau (Gen 25:29-34), or forfeit them for misconduct as Reuben, by incest (35:22; 49:3, 4; 1 Chron 5:1). The Lord claimed first-born of men and animals for Himself (Exod 13:1-16). Such animals were sacrificed and such sons redeemed, since God did not tolerate child sacrifice as in heathen customs (13:11-15). Levites as a group were designated for special service to the Lord in lieu of the first-born (Num 3:12, 13; 8:16-18). In the New Testament, Jesus is called the first-born son of Mary (Luke 2:7), who was a virgin before His birth but who had other sons after Him (Mark 6:3 cf. John 7:5).” (There are two schools of thought whether Mary had “other” children later.)

I would like to further quote on this subject of “first-born” from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 271:

“... As the first strength of the father, he became the next head of the family (or clan or tribe), and embodied the soul and character of the social group, becoming responsible for its continuance and welfare. As such he acted with a certain authority, felt a greater responsibility (cf. Reuben; Gen. 37:22), and received a preferential treatment (cf. Gen. 43:33). As his Birthright he had claims on the family Blessing (cf. Gen. 27:1-4, 35-37) and received a double portion of the family inheritance.”


From all of this, we should see there are three key positions of the first-born. They are in this order:


The ruler of the family after the father dies.


The priest of the family after the father dies.


The double portion of inheritance to keep the family members together and see to their needs (especially the mother if still living) after the father dies.


Since we have some basic ideas about how the Hebrew family functions, let’s take a look at Jacob’s family and how the inheritance was distributed accordingly. Reuben, the first born of Leah was in line as ruler of the family, priest of the family and the double portion of inheritance. But Reuben completely disqualified himself for all three of these benefits of being firstborn. Consider what this man lost in the space of a few moments of uncontrolled lust. Reuben could have been the ruling tribe from which the Redeemer would come. Reuben could have been the high priest with all of his children holding the offices thereof. Just consider the blessings that went to Joseph with all the riches of the earth which could have been Reuben’s also. Let’s read what Jacob had to say of Reuben in Genesis 49:3-4:

“3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. 4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.”

Here is the story of Reuben’s sin against his father as recorded in the “Testament Of Reuben”, The Lost Books of The Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, pages 221-222: chapter 1, verses 6-8, 37-40:

“6 And behold I call to witness against you this day the God of heaven, that ye walk not in the sins of youth and fornication, wherein I was poured out, and defiled the bed of my father Jacob. 7 And I tell you that he smote me with a sore plague in my loins for seven months; and had not my father Jacob prayed for me to the Lord, the Lord would have destroyed me. 8 For I was thirty years old when I wrought the evil thing before the Lord, and for seven months I was sick unto death. ... 37 For had I not seen Bilhah bathing in a covered place, I had not fallen into this great iniquity. 38 For my mind taking in the thought of the woman’s nakedness, suffered me not to sleep until I had wrought the abominable thing. 39 For while Jacob our father had gone to Isaac his father, when we were in Eber, near to Ephrath in Bethlehem, Bilhah became drunk and was asleep uncovered in her chamber. 40 Having therefore gone in and beheld her nakedness, I wrought the impiety without her perceiving it, and leaving her sleeping I departed.”

You can plainly see, here, that Reuben was totally disqualified for the positions of ruler, priest or to receive the blessing. It was necessary, therefore, to appoint others of Jacob’s sons for these positions. Let’s take a look and see how this process worked and how Judah was chosen for the position of ruler. As a general rule, once the first-born is disqualified the position would go to the second son and on down the line. Since Reuben was no longer qualified as first-born, the position of chief ruler of the family would pass to the second born of Leah, or Simeon. Lets now see what Jacob had to say about Simeon. We are really going to have to include Levi along with Simeon as Jacob treated them both equally in his prophetic destiny of his children. We will now read Genesis 49:5-7:

“5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. 6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. 7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.”

You can see from this that Jacob didn’t consider Simeon or Levi as good candidates for the important position of chief ruler of the family. They simply didn’t possess the cool head it takes to properly make qualified decisions at critical times. For more on Simeon, let’s read from the “Testament of Simeon”, The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, page 224, chapter 1, verses 5, 7-15:

“5 Moreover, I became strong exceedingly; I shrank from no achievement, nor was I afraid of ought. For my heart was hard, my liver was immovable, and my bowels without compassion. ... 7 For in the time of my youth I was jealous in many things of Joseph, because my father loved him beyond all. 8 And I set my mind against him to destroy him, because the prince of deceit sent forth the spirit of jealousy and blinded my mind, so that I regarded him not as a brother, nor did I spare even Jacob my father. 9 But his God and the God of his fathers sent forth His angel, and delivered him out of my hands. 10 For when I went to Sheckem to bring ointment for the flocks, and Reuben to Dothan, where were our necessaries and all our stores, Judah my brother sold him to the Ishmaelites. 11 And when Reuben heard these things he was grieved, for he wished to restore him to his father. 12 But on hearing this I was exceedingly wroth against Judah in that he let him go away alive, and for five months I continued wrathful against him. 13 But the Lord restrained me, and withheld from me the power of my hands; for my right hand was half withered for seven days. 14 And I knew, my children, that because of Joseph this had befallen me, and I repented and wept; and I besought the Lord God that my hand might be restored, and that I might hold aloof from all pollution and envy and from all folly. 15 For I knew I had devised an evil thing before the Lord and Jacob my father, on account of Joseph my brother, in that I envied him.”

There are three passages in the next chapter of the “Testament Of Simeon” worth quoting, page 225. chapter 2, verses 4, 10, 13-15:

“4 Now Joseph was a good man, and had the Spirit of God within him: being compassionate and pitiful, he bore no malice against me; but loved me even as the rest of his brethren. ... 10 Therefore was Joseph comely in appearance, and goodly to look upon, because no wickedness dwelt in him; for  some of the trouble of the spirit the face manifesteth. ... 13 For I have seen it inscribed in the writing of Enoch that your sons shall be corrupted in fornication, and shall do harm to the sons of Levi with the sword. 14 But they shall not be able to withstand Levi; for he shall wage the war of the Lord, and shall conquer all your hosts. 15 And they shall be few in number, divided in Levi and Judah, and there shall be none of you for sovereignty, even as also our father prophesied in his blessing.”




At this point, in this lesson, we know that Simeon is out of the picture as a successor for Reuben as ruler, priest, or receiving the double blessing. We also know, at this point, that Levi is ruled out, at least as a ruling tribe. We will get back to Levi later. You can see here that this story gets more complicated as we go along, but it will all make sense in the end. The main point to realize is: Judah was next in the line of birth for the position of chief ruler and he had all the necessary qualities needed for the position, thus Jacob gave him his blessing in that regard. We now have the position of sovereignty solved but the positions of priest and the double blessing of inheritance still remain.




I think it is generally understood, in Israel Identity, that Joseph received the blessing (the double portion of inheritance). But, why Joseph? — he was the 11th born of Jacob. While Joseph was the 11th of Jacob, he was first-born of Jacob by Rachel. Now we know that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, so it would seem that this would be the reason for Jacob giving Joseph the blessing. It would be a logical and proper move on Jacob’s part, but I think there was more to it than that. Let’s see what all Joseph got as a result of receiving the blessing, Genesis 49:22-26:

“22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall. 23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: 24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:) 25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breast, and of the womb: 26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.”

Another passage which helps clear up the matter of Joseph getting the blessing is found in 1st Chronicles 5:1-2:

“1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. 2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s:)”




Just because one was the firstborn and was eligible for the double portion inheritance didn’t mean that this inheritance was all scot-free. By getting the double portion meant some responsibility along with it. To show you this, I am going to quote from Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary by Ronald F. Youngblood, page 598:

“INHERITANCE ... In ancient Israel the property of a deceased person was usually distributed according to law or tribal custom. Written wills were rarely used. The real and personal property of a father was normally divided among his sons. A larger amount, usually a double portion, went to the eldest son, who assumed the care of his mother and unmarried sisters. The birthright of the firstborn son could be denied only because of a serious offense against the father, as in the case of Reuben (Deut. 21:15-17; 1 Chr. 5:1). The sons of concubines normally received presents of personal property. If there were no surviving sons, the inheritance went to daughters. The daughters had to marry within the tribe, however, or lose their inheritance. If a man died childless, his estate was received by his brothers or his father’s brothers (Num. 27:9-11).”

The reason I say Joseph earned the double blessing of inheritance is because he took care of the entire family, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers along with nephews and nieces, besides his immediate personal responsibility for his own wife and children, and you can’t get any more responsible than that!

While Joseph was doing all of this for his family, remember how his brothers had treated him by becoming jealous and plotting to murder him? Remember how they sold him into slavery? I would like to read to you some excerpts from the “Testament Of Joseph” out of The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, to show you some of the other trials Joseph had to go through, starting with page 259, chapter 1, verse 4:

“4 I have seen in my life envy and death, yet I went not astray, but persevered in the truth of the Lord. 5 These my brothers hated me, but the Lord loved me: 6 They wished to slay me, but the God of my fathers guarded me. 7 They let me down into a pit and the Most High brought me up again. 8 I was sold into slavery, and the Lord of all made me free: 9 I was taken into captivity, and His strong hand succoured me. 10 I was beset with hunger, and the Lord Himself nourished me. 1I I was alone, and God comforted me. 12 I was sick, and the Lord visited me: 13 I was in prison, and my God showed favour unto me; 14 In bonds, and He released me; 15 Slandered, and He pleaded my cause; 16 Bitterly spoken against by the Egyptians, and He delivered me; 17 Envied by my fellow-slaves, and He exalted me. 18 And this chief captain of Pharaoh entrusted to me his house. 19 And I struggled against a shameless woman, urging me to transgress with her; but the God of Israel my father delivered me from the burning flame. 20 I was cast into prison, I was beaten, I was mocked; but the Lord granted me to find mercy in the sight of the keeper of the prison. ...”


Tormented By The Egyptian Woman


“25 How often did the Egyptian woman threaten me with death! 26 How often did she give me over to punishment, and then call me back and threaten me, and when I was unwilling to company with her, she said to me: 27 Thou shalt be lord of me, and all that is in my house, if thou wilt give thyself unto me, and thou shalt be as our master. ... 31 And I sought the Lord early, and I wept for the Egyptian woman of Memphis, for very unceasingly did she trouble me, for also at night she came to me under pretence of visiting me. ... 33 And for a time she embraced me as a son, and I knew it not; but later she sought to draw me into fornication. ... 44 And again, at another time she said unto me: If thou wilt not commit adultery, I will kill my husband by poison; and take thee to be my husband. ... 49 And afterward she sent me food mingled with enchantments. 50 And when the eunuch who brought it came, I looked up and beheld the terrible man giving me with the dish a sword, and I perceived that her scheme was to beguile me. ... 62 Then, accordingly seizing and opportunity, she rushed unto me while her husband was yet without, and said unto me: I will hang myself or cast myself over a cliff, if thou wilt not lie with me. ... 70 At last, then she laid hold of my garments, forcibly dragging me to have connexion with her. 71 When, therefore, I saw that in her madness she was holding fast to my garment, I left it behind, and fled away naked. 72 And holding fast to the garment she falsely accused me, and when her husband came he cast me into prison in his house; and on the morrow he scourged me and sent me into Pharaoh’s prison. ... 74 And often hath she sent unto me saying: Consent to fulfil my desire, and I will release thee from thy bonds, and I will free thee from the darkness. ... 80 For when I was in her house she was wont to bare her arms, and breast, and legs, that I might lie with her; for she was very beautiful, splendidly adorned in order to beguile me.”


Joseph Refused To Put His Brothers To Shame


Chap II, v5: “My brethren knew how my father loved me, and yet I did not exalt myself in my mind: although I was a child, I had the fear of God in my heart; for I knew that all things would pass away. 6 And I did not raise myself against them with evil intent, but I honoured my brethren; and out of respect for them, even when I was being sold, I refrained from telling the Ishmaelites that I was a son of Jacob, a great man and a mighty. ... 9 And when I came to the Indocolpitae with the Ishmaelites, they asked me , saying: 10 Art thou a slave? And I said I was a home-born slave, that I might not put my brethren to shame. 11 And the eldest of them said unto me: Thou art not a slave, for even thy appearance doth make it manifest. 12 But I said that I was their slave. ... 43 Now after four and twenty days came the Ishmaelites; for they had heard that Jacob my father was mourning much concerning me. 44 And they came and said unto me: How is it that thou saidst that thou was a slave? and lo, we have learnt that thou art the son of a mighty man in the land of Canaan, and thy father still mourneth for thee in sackcloth and ashes. 45 When I heard this my bowels were dissolved and my heart melted, and I desired greatly to weep, but I restrained myself that I should not put my brethren to shame. ...”


The Selling Of Joseph And His Non-retaliation To His Brothers


“53 And straightway she sent a eunuch to the Ishmaelites, and asked them to sell me. 54 But since the eunuch would not agree to buy me at their price he returned having made trial of them, and he made known to the mistress that they asked a large price for their slave. 55 And she sent another eunuch saying: Even though they demand two minas, give them, do not spare the gold; only buy the boy, and bring him to me. 56 The eunuch therefore went and gave them eighty pieces of gold, and he received me; but to the Egyptian woman he said: I have given a hundred. 57 And though I knew this I held my peace, lest the eunuch should be put to shame. 58 Ye see, therefore, my children, what great things I endured that I should not put my brethren to shame. ... 61 And when my brethren came into Egypt they learnt that I had returned their money unto them, and upbraided them not, and comforted them. 62 And after the death of Jacob my father, I loved them more abundantly, and all things whatsoever he commanded I did very abundantly for them. 63 And I suffered them not to be afflicted in the smallest matter; and all that was in my hand I gave unto them. 64 And their children were my children, and my children were their servants; and their life was my life, and all their suffering was my suffering, and all their sickness was my infirmity. 65 My land was their land, and their counsel my counsel. 66 And I exalted not myself among them in arrogance because of my worldly glory, but I was among them as one of the least.”

After Jacob’s death, the brothers of Joseph thought that maybe Joseph would try to get even for all that they had done to him. After all, with Jacob gone, there would be no longer a father’s influence over the family. The brothers knew that if Joseph had any wrath saved up for them, this was the time it was going to be made manifest. At this time, the brothers well knew what they rightfully had coming to them. To understand this, let’s read Genesis 50:15-21:

“15 And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will peradventure hate us, and will certainly require us all the evil which we did unto him. 16 And they sent messengers unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died, saying, 17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him. 18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold we be thy servants. 19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.”

At this point, we can understand that the position of chief ruler went to Judah and the blessing went to Joseph. Now we have to investigate what happened to the priesthood. I am sure most of your know that Levi received the priesthood, but let’s see how it happened. Remember that Jacob said of Levi, Genesis 49:7, I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel? This prophecy was fulfilled, exactly as described, with the Tribe of Levi. Because there in more information in the “Testament of Levi” in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, than there is in the KJV, I am going to quote excerpts from it starting on, page 226, chapter 1, verse 5:

“5 And I was young, about twenty years of age, when with Simeon. I wrought vengeance on Hamor, for our sister Dinah. 6 And when I was feeding the flocks in Abel-Maul, the spirit of understanding of the Lord came upon me, and I saw all men corrupting their way, and that unrighteousness had built for itself walls, and lawlessness sat upon towers. 7 And I was grieving for the race of the sons of men, and I prayed to the Lord that I might be saved. 8 Then there fell upon me a sleep, and I beheld a high mountain, and I was upon it. 9 And behold the heavens were opened, and an angel of God said to me, enter. 10 And I entered from the first heaven, and I saw there a  great sea hanging. 11 And further I saw a second heaven brighter and more brilliant, for there was a boundless light therein. 12 And I said to the angel, Why is this so? And the angel said to me, Marvel not at this, for thou shalt see another heaven more brilliant and incomparable. 13 And when thou hast ascended thither, Thou shalt stand near the Lord, and shalt be His minister, and shalt declare His mysteries to men. and shalt proclaim concerning Him that shall redeem Israel. 14 And by thee and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every race of men (The word ‘race’ to mean people cannot be found in Scripture — it should be ‘every nation of Adam’) 15 And from the Lord’s portion shall be thy life, and He shall be thy field and vineyard, and fruits, gold and silver. 16 Here, therefore, regarding the heavens which have been shown to thee. 17 The lowest is for this cause gloomy unto thee, in that it beholds all the unrighteous deeds of men. 18 And it has fire, snow, and ice made ready for /emtext-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in/emthe day of judgment, in the righteous judgment of God; for in it are all the spirits of the retributions for vengeance on men. 19 And in the second are the hosts of the armies which are ordained for the day of judgment to work vengeance on the spirits of deceit and of Beliar (Satan). Chap. II, v.5 The light of knowledge shalt thou light up in Jacob, and as the sun shalt thou be to all the seed of Israel. And there shall be given to thee a blessing, and to all thy seed, until the Lord shall visit all the Gentiles (Israel Nations) in His tender mercies for ever. 7 And therefore there have been given to thee counsel and understanding, that thou mightest instruct thy sons concerning this;... 10 And He said to me: Levi, I have given thee the blessings of the priesthood until I (Yahshua) come and sojourn in the midst of Israel. 11 And the angel brought me down to the earth, and gave me a shield and a sword, and said to me: Execute vengeance on Sheckem because of Dinah, thy sister, and I will be with thee because the Lord hath sent me.”

You should notice, this puts a whole different picture on what happened at Shechem than we have heard before. I wonder if Levi ever told Jacob of his vision and the command of the angel to execute vengeance on Sheckem? Lets face it, there is more to the story than has been told about this among ordinary sources. You will notice in the 49th chapter of Genesis that Jacob picked a replacement for the chief ruler and the blessing, but never picked a replacement for the priesthood! Yahweh picked Levi for the priesthood and the story is here in the “Testament Of Levi.” Lets continue on with it in chapter2:

“12 And I destroyed at that time the sons of Hamor, as it is written in the heavenly tablets. 13 And I said to him: I pray thee, O Lord, tell me Thy name, that I may call upon Thee in a day of tribulation. 14 And he said: I am the angel who intercedeth for the nation of Israel that they may not be smitten utterly, for every evil spirit attacketh it. 15 And after these things I awaked and blessed the Most High, and the angel who intercedeth for the nation of Israel and all the righteous.”

Let’s now take a look at what these Hivites (ancestors of today’s “Jews”) had in mind for all the females of this Hebrew race which Jacob came from! And the Jews are still doing it to our women today! Now continuing at chapter III, verse 6:

“6 But I saw that the sentence of God was for evil upon Sheckem; for they sought to do to Sarah and Rebecca as they had done to Dinah our sister, but the Lord prevented them. 7 And they persecuted Abraham our father when he was a stranger, and they vexed his flocks when they were big with young; and Eblaen, who was born in his house, they most shamefully handled. 8 And they did to all strangers, taking away their wives by force and they banished them. 9 But the wrath of the Lord came upon them to the uttermost. 10 And I said to my father Jacob: By thee will the Lord despoil the Canaanites and will give thee their land to thee and to thy seed after thee, 11 For from this day forward shall Shechem be called a city of imbeciles; for as a man mocketh a fool, so did we mock them. 12 Because also they had wrought folly in Israel by defiling my sister. And we departed and came to Bethel.”

Evidently these Hivites were relates to the people who Abraham and Isaac ran into when they went to Egypt to avoid the famines which each experienced during their day, Genesis 12:10-20 and Genesis 26:1-11, and in each case these people would have violated Sarah and Rebekah respectively as this latter Hivite did to Dinah. Now let’s see how Yahweh Himself makes Levi the priest of Israel. Continuing in verse 14:

“14 and I saw seven men in white raiment saying unto me: Arise, put on the robe of the priesthood, and the crown of righteousness, and the breastplate of understanding, and the garment of truth, and the plate of faith, and the turban of the head, and the ephod of prophecy. 15 and they severally carried these things and put them on me, and said unto me: From henceforth become a priest of the Lord, thou and thy seed for ever. 16 And the first anointed me with holy oil, and gave to me the staff of judgment. 17 The second washed me with pure water, and fed me with bread and wine even the most holy things and clad me with a holy and glorious robe. 18 The third clothed me with a linen vestment like an ephod. 19 The fourth put round me a girdle like unto purple. 20 The fifth gave me a branch of rich olive (symbol of Israel). 21 The sixth placed a crown on my head. 22 The seventh placed on my head a diadem of priesthood. and filled my hands with incense, that I might serve as priest to the Lord God. 23 And they said to me: Levi, thy seed shall be devided into three offices for a sign of the glory of the Lord who is to come.”

Finally in the “Testament Of Levi” it explains how Levi is confirmed to hold the offices of priest. We will read chapter III, verses 31-34:

“31 And after two days I and Judah went up with our father Jacob to Isaac our father’s father. 32 And my father’s father blessed me according to all the words of the visions which I had seen. And he would not come with us to Bethel. 33 And when we came to Bethel, my father saw a vision concerning me, that I should be their priest unto God. 34 And he rose early in the morning, and paid tithes of all to the Lord through me. And so we came to Hebron to dwell there.”

I don’t know how much plainer it could be than this with Jacob paying his tithes through Levi. This proves that the matter of Levi being the priest was settled long before Genesis 49. Also the story of Tamar proves that Judah had the signet, bracelets and staff (the ruling symbols of his tribe) long before Genesis 49. And I am sure that the matter of Joseph getting the double blessing was also settled much before Genesis 49. There is one more passage that I want to quote from the “Testament Of Levi”, chapter III, verses 37-38:

“37 And each day he was instructing me, and was busied on my behalf before the Lord, and said to me: Beware of the spirit of fornication; for this shall continue and shall by thy seed pollute the holy place. 38 Take, therefore to thyself a wife without blemish or pollution, while yet thou are young, and not of the race (non-kindred) of strange nations.”

As I said before, the word “race” as a group of people cannot be found in either the Old or New Testament. If you go to the Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies by William Wilson (which will take you from an English word to a Hebrew word), page 337, there are only two references to the word “race” and it means “path” in one place and “running” in the other. And if you go to An Expository Dictionary Of The New Testament Words by W. E. Vine (which will take you from an English word to a Greek word), page 244, the word “race” means “a contest” or a “racecourse.” It also says for “race” (kindred) see “kind.” The word “race” in English can be used to denote people of different ethnic groups, so it would be proper in English to say the “ race of Adam.”


[Revision note made 2-9-2001,: The research which I did on the word “race” is correct. While the word race does not appear in either the Old or New Testament, there are other words which imply race, and should be translated as such. 1 Peter 2:9 and  Isaiah 49:6 are good examples. Almost three years after I had written this teaching letter, I was challenged on this. I checked in The American Heritage Dictionary, which is a dictionary that traces most all of the European languages back to the Indo-European family of languages. Under “race” #1, is says “French, group of people, generation, perhaps ultimately from Latin ratio, a reckoning, account. See ratio.” … “Ratio: Relation in degree or number between two similar things; rate.” It would appear the word “race” might be a comparison. If this is true, the word “race” may be an offshoot of the Latin word “ratio” meaning “rate.” They do sound somewhat alike.]




In the Old Testament of the KJV, nothing is mentioned of the Levitical priesthood until Moses is born of a Levite father and mother, Exodus 2:1-2. It seems that one Amram took him Jochebed, his father’s sister to wife and she bare him Aaron and Moses, Exodus 6:20. Nothing more is said of setting up the descendants of Levi to the Levitical priesthood until Numbers 3:6-13:

“6 Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto them. 7 And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle. 8 And they shall keep all the instruments of the tabernacle of the congregation, and charge of the children of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle. 9 And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given into him out of the children of Israel. 10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. 11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; 13 Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

Numbers 3:12 also affirms, along with The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs from the Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, that the Levites were chosen instead of the first born — the first born being Reuben. The KJV does not state it in that way, but that is the reason. If Reuben hadn’t disqualified himself, his children would have had the priesthood instead of Levi. This does not mean that the first born male of each family in Israel is not still the ruler, priest and responsible for the care for any widowed mother or unmarried sisters if he is capable. He is still to receive his double portion by Yahweh’s Law.


Watchman's Teaching Letter #6 October 1998


This is the sixth in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you have not received any of my previous teaching letters, please send $2.00 for each back issue you would like to have. These teaching letters are not just the average run-of-the-mill type of letter. If you really want to learn the Scripture’s deepest hidden truths, you will not want to miss any of these back issues. On my last mailing, I ran into a problem with the post office. On Thursday, August 27th., I dropped 100 of my monthly letters in the outgoing mail in the evening after the post office had closed. The next day, when I was in the process of mailing out more material, the clerk at the window informed me that they had all of my 100 letters in a box and they were all overweight and I would have to add 23 cents of postage to each one of them. I had tested all of my mailing on my Pitney Bowes counterbalanced scales at home, and I was sure I was under one ounce. Even the post office’s special digital scales showed I was under an ounce in testing. I finally checked the weight of 100 unprinted pages against the weight of 100 printed pages and a difference of 5% showed up (enough to make my letters overweight). After much checking, I found that the toner on the paper adds about 5% to the weight of the paper. I tried to find a lighter weight paper, but was not able to find anything lighter than 20 lb. that I could use. My only other alternative was to reduce the size of page 5. After much figuring, I found by reducing my fifth page 21.6 square inches, I could get down to an ounce. I finally decided on cutting a legal size page (14x8.5 in.) in half, and that reduces the fifth page 34 square inches which should be enough to keep the letter under an ounce. You will notice a difference, as a result of this, with this letter.

Again, I want to thank all who are helping this ministry with donations and orders. I am not quite breaking even yet, but everything you are doing helps. Much of my material is going into prisons, and, of course, prisoners are unable to donate or purchase any of my materials. I am getting requests continually from prisoners for my Watchman’s Teaching Letter. The prisoners who are getting my letters are copying them and sharing them with other prisoners. They use them in their devotional meetings, what little they are allowed to meet. A few prisoners were sending me 32 cent stamps as a donation, but the prison officials stopped that (and very quickly). I can’t get cassette tapes or charts into the prisons, only written materials of a limited size.


Now Continuing The Topic:



In this issue, we are going to consider another angle on Judah. If I would have continued my usual chronological study of Judah, I would have eventually gotten to what we are going to study in this lesson. I feel it is important to skip ahead because I received a letter from a man (I won’t say who he is) saying that the Sephardim Jews may be of the satanic seed-line, but the Ashkenazi cannot be as they were only “converted” to Judaism. I thought about what he had said, and I said to myself, “I wonder how many other people may be under this false allusion?” Well, you say, “What does this have to do with Judah?” — It has everything to do with Judah! It has everything to do with Judah because the Jews falsely claim to be of Judah (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). With this lesson, we are going to prove that the Ashkenazi Jews are just as satanic as the Sephardim. If you have not read Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe, you will have some catching up to do. Also, if you have not read my Research Papers Proving Two-Seedline Seduction Of Eve (that the Jews are descendants of Cain), then, you have more catching up to do. Basically, Arthur Koestler does a very good job of proving the Khazars of  Khazaria were converted to Judaism, but he does not include all of the facts. With this lesson, we are going to consider some of these missing facts.





Before I go into detail, on the subject we are about to consider, I would like to give you a short overview concerning the Khazars. You will notice the word Khazar is spelled various ways, so don’t let that confuse you as we go along. To get this short overview of this subject, I am going to quote from the Collier’s Encyclopedia of 1985:

“KHAZARS [kaza’rz], a seminomadic tribe of Turkish or Tarter origin who first appeared north of the Caucasus in the early part of the third century. In the seventh century the Khazars conquered the kingdom of the Bulgars. They built up a strong and prosperous state, which attained its greatest size in the ninth century, when it extended from the Crimea to the middle Volga and westward to the Dnepr (Dnieper) River, including the city of Kiev. The Khazars developed some important commercial cities and carried on trade between Russia and Constantinople. The khaghan or ruler of the Khazars was also the religious head of the state. Tolerant of other religions, the khaghan welcomed thousands of Jews from Asia Minor and the Byzantine Empire, as well as many Muslims and Christians. These three religious groups vied with one another to convert the Khazars, who had a primitive, idolatrous belief. In the eighth century (700’s) Khaghan Bulan decided in favor of the Jews and accepted Judaism for himself and for his people, but the Khazar state continued religious tolerance. It was finally overthrown in A.D. 965 by a coalition of the Christian Russians and the Byzantines. The Khazars soon disappeared, either fleeing to Central Asia or intermingling with other peoples in southern Russia. The last vestiges of the Khazars in the Crimea were destroyed by the Greeks and Russians in 1016.”

The important thing to note in the quote above is the part I underlined, “the khaghan welcomed thousands of Jews from Asia Minor and the Byzantine Empire.” You have to understand that these Jews who were swarming into Khazaria were the Sephardim which were expelled from Jerusalem in 70 A.D. These were Jews that can be traced back to Cain. We are going to go into detail how these Jews from “Asia Minor and the Byzantine Empire” happened to migrate to Khazaria. To show how the Khazars were converted to Judaism by these Asia Minor Sephardim Jews, we will use the Jew’s own history books and let them tell you in their own words. We are going to start by quoting The History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz, volume III (of a set of 7 volumes), pages 138-140:


(The “Jew’s” Own Words)


“The heathen king of a barbarian people, living in the north, together with all his court, adopted the Jewish religion. The Chazars, or Khozars, a nation of Finnish origin, related to the Bulgars, Avars, Ugurs or Hungarians, had settled, after the dissolution of the empire of the Huns, on the frontier between Europe and Asia. They had founded a kingdom on the Volga (which they called the Itil or Atel) at the place near which it runs into the Caspian Sea, in the neighborhood of Astrakham, now the home of the Kalmucks. Their kings, who bore the title of Chakan or Chagan, had led these warlike sons of the steppe from victory to victory. The Chazars inspired the Persians with so great a dread that Chosroes, one of their kings, found no other way of protecting his dominions against their violent invasions than by building a strong wall which blocked up the passes between the Caucasus and the sea. But this ‘gate of gates’ (Babal abwab, near Derbend) did not long serve as a barrier against the warlike courage of the Chazars. After the fall of the Persian empire, they crossed the Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean peninsula, which bore the name Chazaria for some time. The Byzantine empires trembled at the name of the Chazars, flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians, and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to pay them as an annual tax a sword and a fine skin for every household. With the Arabs, whose near neighbors they gradually became, they carried on terrible wars.

“Like their neighbors, the Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The Chazars became acquainted with Islam and Christianity through the Arabs and Greeks, who came to the capital, Balanyair, on matters of business, in order to exchange the products of their countries for fine furs. There were also Jews in the land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives that had escaped (723) from the mania for conversion which possessed the Byzantine Emperor Leo. It was through these Greek Jews that the Chazars became acquainted with Judaism. As interpreters or merchants, physicians or councelors, the Jews were known and beloved by the Chazar court, and they inspired the warlike king Bulan with a love of Judaism.

“In subsequent times, however, the Chazars had but a vague knowledge of the motive which induced their forefathers to embrace Judaism. One of their later Chagans gives the following account of their conversation: The king Bulan conceived a horror of the foul idolatry of his ancestors, and prohibited its exercise within his dominions, without, however, adopting any other form of religion. He was encouraged by a dream in his endeavors to discover the proper manner of worshiping God. Having gained a great victory over the Arabs, and conquered the Armenian fortress of Ardelib, Bulan determined to adopt the Jewish religion openly. The Caliph and the Byzantine emperor desired, however, to induce the king of the Chazars to embrace their respective religions, and with this intention sent Bulan deputations with letters and valuable presents, and men well versed in religious matters. The king thereupon arranged for a religious discussion to take place before him between a Byzantine ecclesiastic, a Mahometan sage, and a learned Jew. The champions of the three religions disputed the whole question, however, without being able to convince one another or the king of the superior excellence of their respective religions as compared with the other two. But as Bulan had remarked that the representatives of the religion of Christ and of Islam both referred to Judaism as the foundation and point of departure of their faiths, he declared to the ambassadors of the Caliph and the Emperor that, as he had heard from opponents of Judaism themselves an impartial avowal of the excellence of that religion, he would carry out his intention of professing Judaism as his religion.”

I don’t know how much of the above quotation you understand, but I want to repeat the part I underlined as it is important in understanding what is going on here:

“There were also Jews in the land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives that had escaped (723) from the mania for conversion which possessed the Byzantine Emperor Leo. It was through these Greek Jews that the Chazars became acquainted with Judaism. As interpreters or merchants, physicians or councelors, the Jews were known and beloved by the Chazar court, and they inspired the warlike king Bulan with a love of Judaism.”

Now we have to find out what was going on in the Byzantine Empire in 723 A.D. and what “Emperor Leo” had to do with it. To understand this we will go to pages 122-124 of this same book, The History Of The Jews, by: Heinrich Graetz, volume III (of a set of 7 volumes):

“At about this time the Jews of the Byzantine empire were subjected to severe persecution, from the effect of which they did not for a long time recover, and this, too, at the hands of a monarch from whom they had least expected hostile treatment. Leo the Isaurian, the son of rude peasant parents, having had his attention drawn by the Jews and the Arabs to the idolatrous character of the image-worship which obtained in the churches, had undertaken a campaign with the intention of destroying these images. Being denounced, however, before the uncultivated mob as a heretic and a Jew by the image-worshiping clergy, Leo proceeded to vindicate his orthodoxy by persecuting the heretics and the Jews. He issued a decree commanding all Jews of the Byzantine empire and the remnant of the Montanists (Christians looking for Yahshua’s return in their day) in Asia Minor to embrace the Christianity of the Greek Church, under pain of severe punishment (723). Many Jews submitted to this decree, and reluctantly received baptism; they were thus less steadfast than the Montanists, who, in order to remain faithful to their convictions, assembled in their house of prayer, set fire to it, and perished in the flames. Such of the Jews as had allowed themselves to be baptized were of the opinion that the storm would soon blow over, and that they would be permitted to return to Judaism. It was, therefore, only outwardly that they embraced Christianity; for they observed the Jewish rites in secret, thereby subjecting themselves to fresh persecutions. Thus the Jews of the Byzantine empire pined away under unceasing petty persecution, and for a time they are hidden from the view of history.

“Many Jews of the Byzantine empire, however, escaped compulsory baptism by emigration. They quitted (left) a country in which their forefathers had settled long before the rise of that Church which had so persistently persecuted them. The Jews of Asia Minor (Byzantine) chose as their home the neighboring Cimmerian of Tauric peninsula (the Crimea), whose uncivilized inhabitants, of Scythian, Finnish and Sclavonian origin, practised idolatry. These Alani, Bulgarians and Chazars were, however, not jealous of men of other race, and of a different belief who settled in their vicinity. Thus, side by side with the Jewish communities which had existed from early times, there arose new communities on the shores of the Black Sea and the Straits of Theodosia (Kaffa), and in the interior, in Sulchat (Solgat, now Eski-Crimea), in Phanagoria (now Taman), and on the Bosporua (Kertch), which lies opposite. From the Crimea the Greek (Byzantine Jews) spread toward the Caucasus, and the hospitable countries of the Chazars on the west coast of the Caspian Sea and at the mouth of the Volga (Atel). Jewish communities settled in Berdaa (Derbend), at the Albanian Gates, in Semender (Tarki), and finally in Balanyiar, the capital of the land of the Chazars. By their energy, ability and intelligence, the Greek-Jewish emigrants speedily acquired power in the midst of these barbarian nations, and prepared the way for an important historical event.”

What we have in the above quote on pages 122-124 are a large number of Sephardic (Cain satanic) Jews migrating from Asia Minor of the Byzantine Empire into the land of the Khazars. There were thousands, if not, tens of thousands of these Sephardic descendants of Cain in this migration! The conversion of king Bulan was in 740 A.D. and then the mixing of the Sephardic and the Ashkenazi started to take place. They have now had 1,275 years to mix the blood of Cain among themselves making them all satanic.

Let’s consider another Jewish source on this subject from, The History Of The Jews, by Paul Goodman (Revised And Enlarged By Israel Cohen), pages 87-89:

“The Chazars. The Jewish forces in Babylonia had been fatally weakened by the decay and final extinction of the venerable and universally received dignities of the Prince of the Captivity and the Gaonate; the Karaites had created the first and only irreparable schism in the body of Israel (Jews); the once tolerant and enlightened caliphs had begun to persecute the unbelieving Jews and Christians with equal impartiality; even the Byzantine Empire Leo the Isaurian, being accused of ‘execrable’ Judaizing tendencies on account of his iconoclastic activities, cleared himself of all suspicion by subjecting the Jews to cruel persecution — yet these were only the labors preceding the birth of one of the greatest and most fruitful epochs of Jewish history. From widely different quarters, at the shores of the Euxine and the Gates of Hercules, on the banks of the Volga and the Guadalquivir, Judaism received unexpected accessions of strength, while on the Rhine also the old Jewish tree blossomed out with renewed splendor. ...

“Of greater consequence was the migration of the Jews along the trade routes of the Black Sea and the Volga. In this region lived the Chazars, a people of Tarter race, whose chagan, Bulan, together with his nobles, adopted the Jewish religion (about 740). From the scanty records that have been preserved of this Jewish kingdom of the Chazars, which subsisted for a period of about 250 years, it appears that it had its capital, Atel, near the present Astrakhan, on the Volga, while the Chazarian territory stretched all over the south of Russia. The incursions of the Chazars were so dreaded by the Persians that they built a great wall across the Caucasus to keep them away, while imperial Byzantium had to buy off their hostility by ill-disguised payments, and the Russian dukes of Kiev were forced to recognize the authority of the Jewish chagans of the Chazars by a fixed tribute. The country of the Jewish Chazars was governed in a spirit of exceptional tolerance, so that, for instance, the supreme court of justice was composed of two Jews, two Christians, two Mohammedans and one pagan to represent the Russians and Bulgars. The chagan Obadiah, the successor of Bulan, invited a number of Jewish teachers into his country, to instruct the people in the tenets of Judaism, and it was only the difficulties of distance and travel which kept this Jewish State from the general knowledge of the Jews. It was through ambassadors from Byzantium that Hasdai ibn Shaprut, a Jewish statesman at the court of Cordova in the middle of the tenth century, became acquainted with the fact of their existence. and it is to an extant correspondence he initiated with the chagen Joseph that we are indebted for our information regarding the Jewish Chazars. They maintained their power until the year 969, when Sviatoslav, Duke of Kiev, conquered the capital and territory of the Chazars. Many of them withdrew to the Crimea, which also became known as Chazaria, but their political power had gone, and they were lost in the mass of Jews and Karaits who had settled there and in southeastern Europe generally.”

Now we shall investigate the history that led up to the persecution of the Sephardim Jews which ultimately drove them massively into the Khazarian Empire. The next quotation will be taken from The Story Of Civilization: Part IV, The Age Of Faith, by Will Durant, pages 425-426:

“Leo III (Leo the Isaurian) derived his cognomen (surname) from the district of Isauria in Cilicia; according to Theophanes he was born there of Armenian parentage. His father moved thence to Thrace, raised sheep, and sent 500 of them, with his son Leo in the bargain, as a present to the Emperor Justinian II. Leo became guardsman of the palace, then commander of the Anatolian legions, finally, by the convincing suffrage of the army, emperor. He was a man of ambition, strong will, and patient perseverance; a general who repeatedly defeated Moslem forces greatly superior to his own; a statesman who gave the Empire the stability of just laws justly enforced, reformed taxation, reduced serfdom, extended peasant proprietorship, distributed lands, repopulated deserted regions, and constructively revised the laws. His only fault was autocracy.

“Perhaps in his Asiatic youth he had imbibed from Moslems, Jews, Manicheans, Monophysites, and Paulicians a Stoic-Puritan conception of religion that condemned the addiction of popular Christianity to image worship, ceremonialism and superstition. The Old Testament (Deut. iv, 15) had explicitly forbidden any ‘graven image of any figure, male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth.’ The early Church had frowned upon images as relics of paganism, and had looked with horror upon pagan sculptures purporting to represent the gods. But the triumph of Christianity under Constantine, and the influence of Greek surroundings, traditions, and statuary in Constantinople and the Hellenistic East, had softened this opposition. As the number of worshiped saints multiplied, a need arose for identifying and remembering them; pictures of them and of Mary were produced in great number; and in the case of Christ not only His imagined form but His cross became objects of reverence — even, for simple minds, magic talismans. A natural freedom of fancy among the people turned the holy relics, pictures, and statues into objects of adoration; people prostrated themselves before them, kissed them, burned candles and incense before them, crowned them with flowers, and sought miracles from their occult influence. In Greek Christianity especially, sacred images were everywhere — in churches, monasteries, houses and shops, even on furniture, trinkets, and clothes. Cities in danger from epidemic, famine, or war tended to rely upon the power of the relics they harbored, or on their patron saint, rather than on human enterprise. Fathers and councils of the Church repeatedly explained that the images were not deities, but only reminders thereof; the people did not care to make such distinctions.

“Leo III was offended by these excesses of popular faith; it seemed to him that paganism was in this manner reconquering Christianity; and he felt keenly that satire directed by Moslems, Jews, and Christian sects against the superstitions of the orthodox multitude. To weaken the power of the monks over the people and the government, and win the support of Nestorians and Monophysites, he assembled a great council of bishops and senators, and with their consent he promulgated in 726 an edict requiring the complete removal of icons from the churches; representatives of Christ and the Virgin were forbidden; and church murals were to be covered with plaster. Some of the higher clergy supported the edict; the lower clergy and the monks protested, the people revolted. Soldiers trying to enforce the law were attacked by worshipers horrified and infuriated by this desecration of the dearest symbols of their faith. In Greece and the Cyclades rebel forces proclaimed a rival emperor, and sent a fleet to capture the capital. Leo destroyed the fleet, and imprisoned the leaders of the opposition. In Italy, where pagan forms of worship never died, the people were almost unanimous against the edict; Venice, Ravenna, and Rome drove out the Imperial officers; and a council of Western bishops summoned by Pope Gregory II anathematized the Iconoclasts — image breakers — without naming the Emperor. The patriarch of Constantinople joined in the revolt, and sought by it to restore the independence of the Eastern Church from the state. Leo deposed him (730), but did him no violence; and the edict was so mildly enforced that when Leo died (741), most of the churches retained their frescoes and mosaics unharmed.

We will find some more information about the Jewish persecution that was going on as a result of the image breaking, at this period, from this same book, and we will quote again from The Story Of Civilization: Part IV, The Age Of Faith, by Will Durant, page 389:

“The Byzantine emperors continued for two centuries the oppressive politics of Justinian toward the Jews. Heraclius (628) banished them from Jerusalem in retaliation for their aid to Persia, and did all he could to exterminate them. Leo the Isaurian sought to disprove the rumor that he was Jewish by a decree (723) giving Byzantine Jews a choice between Christianity or banishment. Some submitted; some burned themselves to death in their synagogues rather than yield.”

I am having to present a lot of history here in order to make understandable the extent of the movement against the images and how it affected the migration of the Jews out of the Byzantine Empire and into the friendly area of Khazaria. It was a natural movement for the Sephardic to make as the Khazars were very tolerant with all religions. Not only was Leo the Isaurain involved with this anti-image movement, but it continued altogether for 120 years by him and his successors. In 120 years, there was a lot of time for a great number of these Sephardic Jews to move out of the Byzantine Empire. I am going to use another quote from the Manual of Universal Church History by the Rev. Dr. John Alzog, volume II (from a 3 volume work), pages 207-209, under the heading, “Byzantine Iconoclasts.” I wish to state here: although this comes out of a “universalist” manual, I do not promote universalism in any manner, shape or form. I use this reference for its historic value only!

“The origin of this deplorable controversy is usually ascribed to Leo the Isaurian, a rude and ignorant soldier, who rising from the humblest walks of life, finally succeeded, by the aid of the army, in reaching the imperial throne (A.D. 717). Having already employed violent measures to compel the Jews to receive baptism, and driven the Montanists to such a degree of desperation that they frequently resorted to suicide to escape his tyranny, he next turned his attention to the task of suppressing the use of images. He brought to the contest the fierce spirit of the law-giver of Mecca rather than the moderation of the one of Sinai, declaring ‘he could not endure that Christ should be represented under the form of a dumb and senseless figure, made of coarse material and bedaubed with vulgar colors’, and that such representations would shock both Jews and Mohammedans and repel them from Christianity. He therefore assumed the office of a self-constituted reformer of the Church, and set about putting an end to this superstition. He commenced by ordering Pope Gregory II to have the images and paintings on the walls of the churches raised sufficiently high to be beyond the reach of the embraces and kisses of the devout multitude, thus, as he thought, preventing profanation and removing the occasion of sin.

“Finding that his order was ineffectual, he published, in the year 726, in spite of the representations and protest of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and other theologians of the capital, an edict forbidding the veneration of statues, images and mosaics, and the branding of the practice as idolatrous.

“This edict was shortly followed by a second (C.A.D. 730) of a far more severe and sweeping character, ordering the complete destruction of all images throughout the Western Empire. No words can convey an adequate idea of the agitation and tumult which followed its promulgation. The question, unlike any abstruse definition of a dogma, or authoritative solution of a subtle point of metaphysics, was within the comprehension of the multitude, and bore directly upon their religious life and devotional habits. It has been said that if an order were issued at the present day (1872), commanding the breaking and destroying of all the statues and images of the Blessed Virgin set up along the country highways and metropolitan thoroughfares of any Catholic country of Europe, no such revulsion of feeling would take place as that which followed the promulgation of Leo’s edict.

“The soldiers charged with its execution were treated with every sort of indignity, and frequently lost their lives in endeavoring to carry its instructions into effect.

“Above the bronze portal of the imperial palace stood a magnificent image of Christ, which was held in great reverence by the people. According to Theophanes and Cedrenus, the destroying of this was the occasion of a popular tumult, in which many of the participants paid with their lives the penalty of their devotion. When a soldier of the imperial guard had placed a ladder against the gateway, for the purpose of taking down the image, a number of ladies collected around begged him to spare it for their sakes. But, instead of heeding their remonstrances and acceding to their wishes, he struck the face of the image a blow with his ax — an act which so wounded the religious sensibilities, and so excited the indignation of the ladies that, forgetting for the time the gentleness of their sex, and yielding to the fierce impulse of the moment, they drew the ladder from under the soldier’s feet, precipitated him to the ground, set upon and murdered him.

“The chief opposition came from the monks who supplied the images and the bulk of the people who entertained great reverence for them.”

I could go on with this subject about the images for a long time, but I think you can see by now the importance of these events in connection with the forced migrations of the Sephardic Jews out of the Byzantine Empire into the Khazar Empire. What is interesting in Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe, is the fact he only devotes a single phrase within one sentence about the persecution of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. This is the phrase found on page 16, “in defiance of Christian proselytizing by Byzantium.” Koestler is not completely honest with his presentation. He tells you a lot of truth, but leaves you with the impression that the Jews are a religion and not a race. The Jews are of many races, but they have one thing in common; they all have the blood of Cain flowing in their veins. I recommend that any of you who haven’t read his book to do so, but remember he has something to hide. Now on page 22, Koestler, for a moment leaves the cat out of the bag in describing the looks of some of the Khazars. Let’s read it:

“Lastly the Arab geographer Istakhri, one of the main Arab sources, has this to say: ‘The Khazars do not resemble the Turks. They are black-haired, and are of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars, [Black Khazars] who are swarthy verging on deep black as if they were a kind of Indian, and a white kind [Ak-Khazars], who are strikingly handsome.’ This is more flattering, but only adds to the confusion. For it was customary among the Turkish peoples to refer to the ruling classes or clans as ‘white’, to the lower strata as ‘black’.”

This does not add to the confusion as these dark haired swarthy Khazars describes the Sephardic Jews perfectly. I think that Koestler is, again, trying to throw you off the track. I would trust the Arab before I would trust Koestler. No doubt, after the Jew from Asia minor was among the Khazars long enough, he was also referred to as a Khazar. Again, on page 25, Koestler mentions a very adept famed rhetorician by the name of Priscus of the Byzantine Empire. Let’s read this comment:

“But Priscus also has anecdotes to tell about a people subject to the Huns whom he calls Akatzars — that is, very likely the Ak-Khazars, or ‘White’ Khazars (as distinct from the ‘Black’ Kara-Khazars).”

Now we will pick up another witness to this mixing of the Sephardim stock with the Ashkenazi stock. I am going to quote from an article out of The Forum, March 1926, volume LXXV, No. 3, entitled The Pedigree Of Judah, by Lothrop Stoddard (which I should point out is a better anthropologists than a Bible student) pages 16-18:

“The evolution of eastern Jewry is at once more obscure and more complicated. Their prosperity was gravely compromised by the Mohammedan conquest and conversion of Mesopotamia and Persia in the seventh century A.D. Harried and persecuted by Moslem zealots, the Jews grew restless and sought an avenue of escape. They presently found it to the northward in the plains of southern Russia, where opportunities beckoned them, perhaps more favorable than ever before in their history. Southern Russia was then occupied by the people known as the Khazars. Precisely what the Khazars were racially is a much disputed point. Probably they were predominantly of broad-headed Turkish stock from Central Asia, together with a strong strain of flat-faced, short-statured Mongoloids from still farther eastward. They certainly built up a flourishing state which derived its prosperity from its command of the overland trading-routes between the Near and Middle East, the Khazars being a mercantile town-dwelling folk. From the first they had been in contact class= describes the with the numerous Jews of the Caucasus, and the two peoples had got along well together. Soon the Jews of Khazaria became so numerous and influential that they made a cultural and spiritual conquest of their hosts. The Khazars became converted to Judaism and established what amounted to a Jewish state. This acted like a magnet to the whole of eastern Jewry, and one of those vast mass-migrations which have occurred several times in Jewish history took place. In the eighth century A.D. (700’s), Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Armenian-Caucasian area still contained the bulk of the world’s Jewish population. By the end of the tenth century (900’s) these lands were almost emptied of Jews. Lured to Khazaria as to the ‘Promised Land’, Jewry pushed northward from Asia into southeastern Europe, — swarming in by the hundred thousand, by sea, river, and by mountain trail.

“And during those two centuries was forged the Ashkenazic stock of to-day. This migration involved sweeping racial changes. In the first place, Jewry’s slow progress through the Armenian and Caucasian highlands implied a further admixture and strengthening of the Armenoid at the expense of the Semitic racial element. Then, once in Khazaria, extensive intermarriage with the converted Khazars resulted in a further influx of Turkish and Mongoloid blood. The result was a population prevailingly round-headed and thick-set, but with two outstanding facial types: the full-faced, hook-nosed Armenoid; and the flat-faced, squat- or pug-nosed Mongoloid, respectively. The Semitic type must have almost entirely disappeared. The consequences of this racial transformation were as unprecedented as they were far-reaching. Hitherto the base elements in Jewry’s ethnic make-up had been either Semitic or Armenoid, waxing and waning in relative importance from age to age, it is true, yet still always preponderant, no other racial element having been sufficiently important to shake their joint significance. Now, for the first time, radically new ethnic elements from Central and Eastern Asia, were injected into the Jewish blood, and injected in such volume as powerfully and permanently to alter the nature of the great mass of the Jewish people. The profound differences, not merely in physical appearance, but also in mentality and temperament, which exist between Ashkenazim and Sephardim are thus clearly explained. They are obviously due to almost complete differences in racial make-up. The Sephardim have for the past thousand years been breeding away from the old Armenoid toward the long-headed Semitic and Mediterranean racial types. The Ashkenazim, on the contrary, have not only been breeding away from the Semitic toward the Armenoid type, but have also taken up a great amount of Central Asian and Mongoloid blood which was unknown to ancient Jewry and which has never flowed in Sephardim’s veins.

“Great as is the present difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, however, it is not quite as great as the divergence eight hundred or nine hundred years ago, owing to certain minor modifications which have since taken place. The evolution of the modern Ashkenazim was not quite complete. By the eleventh century, the Khazar Empire, grown rich and warlike, collapsed before the assaults of its enemies, and the Jewish masses, again fallen on evil times, drifted slowly westward in search of better opportunities. Seeping across southern Russia, they began to appear in Poland. This movement was soon accelerated by the action of the Polish Kings. Intent on building up a strong state, the Polish monarchs welcomed the Jews in order to build up a middle class devoted to industry and trade. Immediately Poland became what Khazaria had once been,— a magnet of Jewish mass-migration. And these Jewish immigrants, though mainly from the east, came in lesser numbers, from the west as well. Western Europe had by that time become the scene of bitter anti-Jewish persecutions, so that, there also, many Jews heeded the welcome summons of the Polish Crown. Here, then, on Polish soil, the long-sundered branches of Jewry met once more. The immigration from Western Europe were, of course, Sephardim, and though too few in number materially to affect the Ashkenazic physical type, they did impose their superior culture and a debased form of their Germanic speech, which mixed with Hebrew, Slavic, and other linguisticelements, constitutes the present jargon known as Yiddish, employed by the Polish Jews to this day. The slight infusion of Sephardic blood gained during the Middle Ages, together with considerable Slovic blood picked up during their migrations through Russia and Poland, complete the racial evolution of the modern Ashkenazic stock in its present Polish home.”

There is a possibility that the Khazars may already have had some of Cain’s satanic blood flowing in their veins before the mass-migrations of the Sephardim Jews into Khazaria and the conversion of King Bulan. We learn from Genesis 15:19-21 that the Canaanites (Jews) were made up from ten different nations. The first mentioned of these nations were the “Kenites” who were descendants of Cain. The fourth mentioned are the Hittites. It is a pretty well accepted fact (even by standard Bible commentaries) that these ten nations mixed with each other to become commonly known as “Canaanites.” Knowing that the Hittites were among them, let’s take another quote from The Forum, March 1926, volume LXXV, No. 3, entitled “The Pedigree Of Judah”, by Lothrop Stoddard (which I should point out is a better anthropologists than a Bible student), page 12:

“Even more striking is the parallel between the ancient Hittites and a large proportion of the modern Ashkenazim. One cannot look at a Hittite sculpture without being struck by the ‘Jewishness’ of the face there depicted. The famous ‘Jewish nose’, with its peculiarly hooked nostril, is found to be not exclusively Jewish, but to have been shared by the ancient Hittites, and also by modern peoples of the West Asiatic Highlands. Many Armenians, Caucasians, and Anatolians to-day look so much like this type of Jew that it is practically impossible to distinguish them by their physical appearance.

“Here, then, we seem to have found two primal elements in Jewry’s racial make-up: an ancient cross between Semitic and Hittite-Armenoid stocks. Which was the original root? Almost certainly, the Semitic. The entire weight of evidence tends to show that the Jews were originally a tribe of nomadic Semites who migrated from the desert lands on the southward into Palestine,— geographically a borderland between Arabia and the West Asian Highlands. Here they encountered folk of Hittite-like stock and took up a certain amount of Hittite blood, though for a long time the Semitic strain must have predominated.”

Now that you have some understanding of the Jewish question, and understand that the blood of Cain is flowing in both the Sephardim and Ashkenazic branches of Jewry, take time and listen to some of the stupid statements made by people like Ted R. Weiland, James W. Bruggeman, Stephen E. Jones, Charles Weisman and Pete Peters and you will began to understand how false their teachings are. They will tell you that the Jews of “Christ’s” time were pure blooded Israelites. What more proof do you need to understand they are teaching you lies?!?! I could have gone on several more pages with documentation that the Sephardim and Ashkenazi continued to mix since the conversion of Bulan. Some of the Khazars went to Spain while many many Sephardim went to Khazaria. It is my deepest desire that this presentation will clear up this issue in your minds so you can get it out of the way and go on to deeper truths. Two Seed-line is the only truth concerning Jews. The most important thing you have to do is prove these things for yourself!


 (Revised 2-14-2001)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #7 November 1998


This is the seventh in a series of monthly teaching letters. If you have not received any of my previous teaching letters, please send $2.00 for each back issue you would like to have. These teaching letters are not just the average run-of-the-mill type of letter. If you really want to learn the Scripture’s deepest hidden truths, you will not want to miss any of these back issues. Because of the nature of these teaching letters, they will not go out of date, so you will want to keep them in a safe place where they won’t get lost. I want to thank all those who are helping to keep this ministry going financially. I am putting everything right back into the ministry that I receive in donations and sales, and I plan to continue operating in this way. 

Now Continuing The Topic:


In the last Issue, I showed how the Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews have been mixing for the last 1,275 years, since the conversion of King Bulan in 740 A.D., to spread the satanic blood of Cain among all of them. There is no such thing as a good Jew. You will remember that in lesson #4, I said that Judah became both a blessing and a curse. In this session, we are going to discuss the process of how Judah became a curse.




If you have not read lessons #2 and #3 along with my “Research Papers Proving Two-Seedline Seduction Of Eve”, I advise you to do so as it will help you in understanding the lesson we are about to study here. In lessons #2 and #3 we discussed Judah’s personal family life, and established the following:



Judah was entrapped by a Canaanite woman, Bathshua, into marrying her and having three half-breed children by her, Er ,Onan and Shelah.


Judah obtains a wife, Tamar (of pure Adamic blood), from the house of Shem for Er, but he ejaculates on the ground rather than consummate the marriage, and Yahweh kills him.


Judah gives Onan to Tamar as a levirate for Er, whereupon he does the same as his brother, and Yahweh kills him also.


Judah promises his third son Shelah to Tamar as soon as he reaches marrying age, and sends Tamar to her father’s house.


Shelah reaches marrying age whereupon Bathshua, his mother, marries him to a Canaanite woman causing a total breach of contract with Tamar and then Bathshua shortly dies.


Tamar being still a maiden and Judah an eligible widower, Tamar decides upon a very daring plan to trick Judah into supplying the seed to fulfill the contract by feigning to be a common whore and twin boys were born by this union of Judah and Tamar; Parez and Zarah.


We know what happened to Er and Onan, but what ever happened to Shelah? That is the topic of this lesson, for with Shelah, Judah became a curse. The half-breed Shelah and his Canaanite descendants became a very prominent family living among the Israelites, and it is very important that we understand what happened to him and his descendants. Even the best Bible students have never figured out what happened to this family. After this lesson, you will be among the very few who will know this fuller extent of the descendants of Shelah.

In Genesis 38:5, 11, 14, and 26, we are told of Shelah’s birth; Judah’s promise to Tamar to give Shelah in marriage to her; Tamar’s plan to avoid Shelah and choose Judah for a husband rather than Shelah; and Judah’s acknowledgment of his broken promise to give Shelah to Tamar. Let’s read these four passages:

“5 And she again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.”

“11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did.”

“14 And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.”

“26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.”

The next reference in the Bible concerning Shelah is found in Genesis 46:12 and reads thusly:

“12 And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul.”

In the next passage we are going to consider, there is a slight variation (or corruption) in the names of the descendants of Shelah. As we go along with this study, we are going to discover several variations (or corruptions) of the names of the descendants of Shelah. We will now read Numbers 26:20-21:

“20 And the sons of Judah after their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites: of Pharez, the family of the Pharzites: of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites. 21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.”

We should take particular notice here to the order in which Judah’s sons are mentioned. It is important to notice this because it presents a problem. The order in which Judah’s children were born was: (1) Er, (2) Onan, (3) Shelah, (4) Pharez and (5) Zerah. We know that Yahweh killed Er and Onan leaving Shelah to be the next in line for the birthright and also Tamar’s husband. But Shelah was bypassed completely and Pharez was considered the firstborn. This is why the midwife took special attention to mark the first one of the twins to be born. But like in the case of Reuben, when he was disqualified as firstborn of Jacob and Leah, the honor went to the firstborn of Jacob and Rachel, or Joseph. Evidently, when there was a different woman involved, and the original firstborn is dead or disqualified, the honor of firstborn went to the first born of the second union. You will remember that Ishmael was the firstborn of Abraham, but when Isaac was born to him by Sarah, Isaac was considered the firstborn. I only found one comment in all of my commentaries on the above verse which I don’t think is quite right, but I will use it anyway, and it was in A Commentary On The Holy Bible” by Matthew Pool, volume 1, page 320:

“The sons of Pharez were; though Judah’s grandchildren, are here mentioned among his sons, because they were put in the stead of Er and Onan, which died before.”

This may be true, but I would rather believe that Pharez simply was put in Er’s stead. It is rather interesting, though, after the three families of Judah are recorded in their birth order, only Pharez’s children are mentioned. I would say this is because Pharez’s children were in the royal line and this is the reason they were mentioned here in this passage. Going on now to 1st Chronicles 2:3-5 we have Shelah’s name mentioned at the beginning of a long chapter which includes verses 3 through 55. In this genealogy of Judah, it gets off to a bad start with Shelah and has a bad ending with the Kenites in verse 55. Everything in-between is the pure line of Judah. As I have covered the Kenites (the descendants of Cain) in my other writings, I will not go into that subject here although the Kenites are a very important subject and should be understood by all in Identity. We will only use verses 3 and 4 at this time:

“3 The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the Lord; and he slew him. 4 And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.”

Now we come to a very interesting passage concerning Shelah and his descendants. I will have more than the normal amount of comment on this passage. This passage will start to open up this subject of Shelah and we will be able to start to get a perspective as to what kind of people he and his descendants were and their manner of lifestyle. Before making any comments we will first read the passage, 1st Chronicles 4:21-23:

“21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were Er the father of Lecha, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea. 22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And these are ancient things. 23 These were the potters, and those that dwelt among plants and hedges: there they dwelt with the king for his work.”

You will notice here that Shelah and his household were known as producers of fine linen and were also potters. At this time I wish to read from a small pamphlet entitled “David’s Greater Son” written by Howard B. Rand concerning Shelah, page 6:

“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 (as we think of Jews today). The descendants of Shelah, who were workers in fine linen (1 Chronicles 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.”

I have done some research on this last statement of Rand’s that Shelah and his descendants moved into Ireland with the line of Zerah. What Rand is doing is assuming that because Shelah and his children are mentioned in 1sr Chronicles 4:21 as being famous for fine linen and the Irish also later becoming famous for their linen, there must be some connection. I have a lot of respect for Howard B. Rand’s writings, but I don’t believe everything he teaches. I believe this is one of the places where Rand goofed. I think I have everything Howard B. Rand ever put out in my library, and I value it very highly. To show you why I think Rand is wrong in this case, I will now quote from The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 12, page 294:

“Modern use of linen began in Europe in the 1600’s. Skilled Flemish and French workers who left their countries to escape religious persecution helped develop linen spinning and weaving in England, the Netherlands, and Germany. Linen fabrics from France, Belgium, and Ireland have become famous throughout the world.”

There you have it. Ireland learned the making of linen from the Flemish as an indirect result of religious persecution. Can you now see how dangerous it is to assume something like Rand did? There is obviously no connection between the linen business of the family of Shelah in Palestine and later in Ireland. Though there may be Shelanites in Ireland,  I have never, as yet, seen any historical evidence of it. If I ever do, I will write about it. In this lesson, we will find some of the places they did go though. We will start with Matthew Henry’s Commentary, volume 2, pages 846-847. Matthew Henry doesn’t have it entirely correct, but it will serve to give us a general view of what 1st Chronicles 4:21-23 is all about. As I quote from different sources, each source will contribute small items of evidence to help clear up the overall picture. Each source will also have a certain amount of error that we will have to overlook:

“That another is said to be the father of the house of those that wrought fine linen, v.21. It is inserted in their genealogy as their honour that they were the best weavers in the kingdom, and they brought up their children, from one generation to another, to the same business, not aiming to make them gentlemen. This Laadah is said to be the father of those that wrought fine linen, as before the flood Jubal is said to be the father of musicians and Jabal of shepherds, &c. His posterity inhabited the city of Mareshah, the manufacture or staple commodity of which place was linen-cloth, with which their kings and priests were clothed. ... That another family had had dominion in Moab, but were now in servitude in Babylon, v. 22, 23. ... It was found among the ancient things that they had the dominion in Moab. Probably in David’s time, when the country was conquered, they transplanted themselves thither, and were put in places of power there, which they held for several generations; but this was a great while ago, time out of mind. ... Their posterity were now potters and gardeners, as is supposed in Babylon, where they dwelt with the king for his work, got a good livelihood by their industry, and therefore cared not for returning with their brethren to their own land, after the years of captivity had expired. Those that now have dominion know not what their posterity may be reduced to, nor what mean employment they may be glad to take up with. But those were unworthy the name of Israelites that would dwell among plants and hedges rather than be at pains to return to Canaan.”

The next reference we are going to use will clear up this story of the descendants of Shelah a little more. This will give us more insight into the occupations they followed. It will also give us an idea to what geographic area they may have migrated. It is found in Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, page 386:

“23. These were the potters. They were probably brickmakers; perhaps potters also, who had their dwelling in low grounds, and fabricated the clay into pots and bricks that was digged up in forming fences in the king’s domains.”

For another reference, we will use The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 372. From Wycliffe, we will find that we have a problem of translation with the words “plants and hedges”:

“23. The Hebrew words for plants and hedges are better taken as place names: Netaim and Gederah. These were the potters ... they dwelt with the king. Archaeology has demonstrated the existence of hereditary guilds of potters during the divided kingdom (930-586 B.C.), with royal patronage, and using regular jar-stamps from generation to generation (R. A. Stewart Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (July and Oct., 1905), pp. 244, 245, 328, 329).”

From this, we can see they were actually leaving their trademark wherever they went. They had formed family guilds and didn’t let anyone else into their business. Today we would call this a closed corporation. We can also see from this that they were not attending to plants nor were they trimming hedges as this is evidently a mistranslation and should be names of places. With the curse of Cain on them, the plants and bushes would only die if they attended them. If you have any favorite plants, don’t ask a Jew to water them for you while you are on vacation, or when you get home they will all be dead! From Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, page 295, we get the following commentary on this passage:

“21-23. Posterity Of Shelah. 21. Laadah ... the father ... of the house of them that wrought fine linen — Here, again, is another incidental evidence that in very early times certain trades were followed by particular families among the Hebrews apparently in hereditary succession. Their knowledge of the art of linen manufacture had been, most probably, acquired from Egypt, where the duty of bringing up families to the occupations of their forefathers was a compulsory obligation, whereas in Israel, as in many parts of Asia to this day, it was optional, though common. 22, 23. had the domination in Moab, and Jashubi-lehem — ‘And these are ancient things’ seems a strange rendering of a proper name; and, besides, it conveys a meaning that has no bearing on the record. The following improved translation has been suggested: Sojourned in Moab, but returned to Bethlehem and Adaberim-athekim. These are the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera [and they] were potters employed by the king in his own work.’ Gedera or Gederoth and Netaim, belonged to the tribe of Judah, and lay on the southwest border of the Philistines’ territory (Josh. 15:36; II Chron. 28:18).”

The Revised Standard Version and The James Moffatt Bible probably have better renderings on 1st Chronicles 4:23, and they read as follows:

Standard Revised Version: “23 These were the potters and inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah; they dwelt there with the king for his work.”

The James Moffatt Bible: 23 This from an ancient archive. (These were the potters and inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah; they resided there in the service of the king.)

Next, I would like to quote this passage (1st Chronicles 4:21-23 from the NIV. I know there are some reportedly very bad things about the NIV, but in this passage, they got it right:

“21 The sons of Shelah son of Judah: Er the father of Lecah, Laadah the father of Mareshah and the clans of the linen workers at Beth Ashbea, 22 Jokim, the men of Cozeba, and Joash and Saraph, who ruled in Moab and Jashubi Lehem.  (These records are from ancient times.) 23 They were potters who lived in Netaim and Gederah; they stayed there and worked for the king.”

From all of this, we can see that the children of Shelah were in the textile trade of linen. Just like the “Jews” of today’ they controlled the production of fabrics, and in those days it was linen. The main building materials in that period of time was bricks, and the sons of Shelah (half Jews) were controlling that business also. Not only that, but they were in control of the making of dishes and clay pots to store food and water in. Also cups, jars. bowls, jugs, cooking pots, frying pans, lamps etc. They formed closed guilds (unions) and put their trade mark on every item they made. Not only were they doing this in Palestine, but they expanded to Moab and Babylon with their rule and industry. Next, I would like to take a short quote from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume K-Q, pages 848-849:

“Just as in the Hyksos renascence there had been a upsurge in both ceramics and metallurgy, so in David’s day iron came into its own along with improved ceramics. The Davided Kingdom — Iron II — saw a continuation in better wares and more forms as well as the introduction of wheel burnishing. ... Toward the end of that period, however, something entirely new appeared in ceramics. The modern factory techniques, which we use, were created at that time, and mass production appeared. The potter was using assembly-line techniques, standardizing his wares, staggering his sizes, and at times even using trade-marks. The new techniques permitted the use of cheaper clays, cheaper labor, greater volume production, etc.; and yet the quality of the work continued high. The days of Isaiah and Jeremiah witnessed an industrial revolution in various fields, but ceramics seemed to be the most progressive of all.”

Now a short quote from page 850 from this same book on the same subject:

“The cooking pot was constantly subject to accident and to the expansion shock of heat and cold. It therefore demanded special skill in manufacture; and in the days of the Davided Kingdom potters often stamped their trade-marks on the handles of the wide-mouth variety.”

At this point, we should be getting a better picture in our minds of the activities of these sons of Shelah. You may be wondering what connection is there between the making of linen cloth and pottery? Let’s use a further quote from this same book under the subject of pottery, “Miscellaneous ware” , Page 852:

“In the cloth industry cheap spindle whorls ... (II Sam. 3:29 [‘spindle’; KJV ‘staff’]; Prov. 31:19 [‘spindle’; KJV ‘distaff’], were sometimes made of pottery. The loom weights which were used in the weaving of cloth, when this industry was at its peak late in the Davided Kingdom, were almost always made of pottery.”

You can see from/sup, this that the sons of Shelah had both the pottery industry and the linen cloth industry all tied up in their hands monopolizing it entirely in a large geographic area (all the way up to Babylon). The next time in the Scriptures we encounter the descendants of Shelah is in 1st Chronicles 9:5. We are only turning a few pages in our Bible, but we are jumping many years into the future to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and the return of the Judean captives from Babylon. The first few verses of this passage look back upon the foregone genealogies, and tell us they were gathered out of the books of the kings of Israel and Judah. Mentioning Israel and Judah, the historian takes notice of their being carried away to Babylon for their transgressions. Then follows an account of the first inhabitants, after their return from captivity, that dwell in their cities, especially Jerusalem. Of the different ones that returned, in verse 5, we have this record:

“5 And of the Shilonites; Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.”

What we have to do next is find out who these “Shilonites” are. At this time, I am going to cite eight different references on who the Shilonites are:

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, volume 1, page 789:

“Or, Shelanites, as they are called from Shelah, Numb. xxvi. 20. Asaiah called also Maaseiah, Neh. xi. 5.”

Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, page 929:

“An alternate form (used in the plural) for the name of the family that sprang from Judah’s third son Shelah. — 1 Ch 9:5; Ge 46:12; see Shelah No. 2; Shelanites.”

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume R-Z, page 330:

“A designation of a nember of one of the Judean families returning from exile (1 Chr. 9:5; Neh 11:5). There are numerous differences in the names of the families listed in 1 Chr. 5:9; Neh 11:5. If ‘Shilonites’ refers to persons from Shiloh, they traced their ancestry back to a place in the northern kingdom. It is more probable that *"&-*:% in both passages should be vocalized ‘Shelanite’ to indicate a descendant of Shelah(cf. Gen. 38:5; Num. 26:20). (‘Shilonite’ in Scripture has two meanings: (1) Man from Shiloh and (2) Descendant of Shelah.)”

Nave’s Topical Bible, page 1269:

“Used apparently to denote a descendant of Shelah, 1 Chr. 9:5.”

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (1890), page 645:

Shilonites, The, are mentioned among the descendants of Judah dwelling in Jerusalem at a date difficult to fix (1 Chr. ix, 5). They are doubtless the members of the house of Shelah, who in the Pentateuch are more accurately designated Shelanites.”

The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary (1901), volume 3, page 1577:

The descendants of Judah through Shelah (1 Chron ix:5; Neh. xi:5); doubtless the same as the Shelanites (Num. xxvi:20).”

Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 1168:

“The references to Shilonites in Nehemiah 11:5 (NRSV) and 1 Chronicles 9:5 probably should be to Shelanites, to indicate a descendant of Shelah (Gen. 35:8; Num. 26:20).”

Unger’s Bible Dictionary, page 1015:

“The Shilonites are mentioned among the descendants of Judah dwelling in Jerusalem at a date difficult to fix (1 Chron. 9:5). They are doubtless the members of the house of Shelah, who in the Pentateuch are accurately designated Shelanites.”




We have now traced Shelah and his descendants through the Bible and have arrived at the postexilic period of about 460 B.C. At this point, Shelah had been with the tribe of Judah for about 1,400 years. These half-breed descendants of Judah with mostly Canaanite blood (which includes the blood of Cain) had been passing themselves off as Judah all this time. As a matter of fact, they are still passing themselves off as Judah today. Yes, they can point to Judah as one of their progenitors and claim him as their father, but they are Canaanites of the serpent’s seed-line of Cain. They represent, therefore, a curse to Judah. We will now take up the passage in Nehemiah where their names are mentioned (Nehemiah 11:5), and they are referred to as “Shiloni”:

“5 And Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Colhozeh, the son of Hazaiah, the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son of Shiloni.”

This passage represents some very serious problems that we need to clear up. If you will read earlier in this chapter, upon their return to Palestine from Babylon, certain of them as chief rulers were to live in Jerusalem. Then starting with verse 4, it names the families of Perez, (Pharez) Zerah and Benjamin that were to live and be rulers. Then verse 5 (above) included these sons of Shelah. Verse 6 makes it appear that all the families mentioned in both verses 5 and 6 are descendants of Perez (Pharez). In The James Moffatt Translation on verse 6, it reads this way:

“6 (the sons of Pharez who resided at Jerusalem were four hundred and sixty-eight in all, able-bodied men).”

You will notice Moffatt enclosed it in parentheses ( ) indicating that it may have been added at a later date and not in the original text. Most people reading this passage will assume that because it is speaking of Perez (Pharez) in verse 4 and then again in verse 6, that verse 5 are also the descendants of Perez (Pharez), and it is not so. The subject matter goes from Perez (Pharez) in verse 4 to Shelah in verse 5, and back to Perez (Pharez) in verse 6. It is interesting to note in The New English Bible, they place verse 6 ahead of verse 5. To make some sense out of this whole matter of verse 5, I am going to quote the comments from The Interpreter’s Bible, volume 3, page 773:

“5 Maaseiah (cf. Ezra 10:18), corrupted as ‘Asaiah’ in 1 Chr. 9:5, is descended from ‘Shelah,’ third son of Judah, by the Canaanite Shua (Gen. 38:2-5), but only the Peshitta properly identifies Shelah, Shiloni of the Masoretic Text and 1 Chr. 9:5 is the gentilic (from a clan) the Shilonite, ‘the man from Shiloh,’ which would be inappropriate since Shiloh lay not in Judah but in Ephraim, north of Bethel (cf. Judg. 21:19). Zechariah is one of the ‘Shelanites’ of Num. 26:20 and the word *1-:%, the Shilonite, must be revocalized as ‘the Shelanite.’ Baruch (+&9,, cf. 3:20) is corrupted to ‘first born’ ($&,,) in 1 Chr. 9:5, where the text is then deliberately abbreviated to ‘and his sons.’ Colhozeh: Cf. 3:15. Adaiah: Cf. Ezra 10:29, 30. Joiarib: Cf. Ezra 8:16. Hazaiah (‘The Lord Has Seen’) is found only here.”

You will notice that it speaks of the Peshitta here. You may have never heard of, or not be aware of, what the Peshitta is. It is the Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by George M. Lamsa. On the page before the preface, it says this, “Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated from the Peshitta, The Authorized Bible of the Church of the East.” Knowing now what the Peshitta is, and the fact that Lamsa translated Nehemiah 11:5 correctly, let’s read Nehemiah 11:5 from his version (Lamsa is a native of the two modern cities which speak Aramaic as their first language.) [Note made 4-28-2006: Though Lamsa did well explaining idioms, I no longer consider some of his premises correct. I still consider his translation of the following verse in effect useful]:

“5 Maasiah the son of Baruch, the son of Colhozeh, the son of Neriah, the son of Azariah, the son of Jonadab, the son of Zechariah, the son of Shelah.”

Now let’s compare some other Bible translations on this same verse:

The New Jerusalem Bible:

“5 and Maaseiah son of Baruch, son of Col-Hozeh, son of Hazaiah, son of Adaiah, son of Joiarib, son of Zechariah, descendant of Shelah.”

The New English Bible:

“5 and Maaseiah son of Baruch, son of Col-hozeh, son of Hazaiah, son of Adaiah, son of Joiarib. son of Zechariah of the Shelanite family.”

The New Century Version:

“5 There was also Masseiah son of Baruch, (Baruch was the son of Col-Hozeh, the son of Hazaiah. Hazaiah was the son of Adaiah, son of Joiarib. Joiarib was the son of Zechariah, a descendant of Shelah.”

The Good News Bible:

“5 Maaseiah, the son of Baruch and grandson of Colhozeh. His other ancestors included Hazaiah, Adaiah, Joiarib, and Zechariah, descendants of Judah’s son Shelah.”

I think we have proven this passage of Nehemiah 11:5 is indeed speaking about the descendants of Shelah. The next thing I want to do is compare three Scriptures in the King James Version, I think you will be amazed at the similarity of names. You will also see how some of the names were corrupted from one passage to another. I will do it in this order: (1) Nehemiah 11:5. (2) Ezra 10:18. (3) 1st Chronicles 9:5:


Nehemiah 11:5:

“5 And Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Colhozeh, the son of Hazaiah, the son of Adaiah, the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son of Shiloni.”


Ezra 10:18:

“18 And among the sons of the priest there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib and Gedaliah.”


1st Chronicles 9:5:

“And of the Shilonites: Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.


If the Maaseiah of Nehemiah 11:5, the Maaseiah of Ezra 10:18 and the Asaiah of 1st Chronicles 9:5 are all the same person,  the Shelanites of Shelah had worked their way into the Levitical priesthood. I am pretty sure that this Maaseiah did work his way into the Levitical priesthood. When the captives returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, there was a shortage of Levites for all the needed offices, so they substituted heads of families for priestly duties. There is so much history to cover during this period, there isn’t enough space in this teaching letter to cover it all here. I do expect to cover it in the next teaching letter though. This is a very critical era of history and all the ramifications must be considered. If you don’t understand this period of time, and all that was happening, you are not prepared to study the New Testament. In showing that Shelah was well established in the time of Nehemiah, you can be sure they were still well established in the time of the Messiah as Pharisees and Sadducees, which we know today as Canaanite Jews. Of course, this is only part of the background of the Jews as there are many other factors to consider.

In his book, Documentary Studies by Howard B. Rand, volume 1, page 415, we pick up more of the story of what was happening at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Rand says this:

“Certain ones, both of the house of Judah that had returned from Babylon and some of the priests intermarried with the Inhabitants of the land. These intermarriages were severely condemned by both Ezra and Nehemiah. These forbidden marriages were made with the Hittites and this in time produces a distinct racial type whom we call Jews today. In other words, the Jew as we know him today is not of pure Israel stock but, through the intermarriages in the day of Ezra and Nehemiah, has the blood of the Hittite in his veins. This intermarriage gave the Jew his dark hair and eyes and the facial characteristics by which he is known and recognized today. The origin of the Jew does not, therefore, antedate the return from the Babylonian captivity, but resulted from the admixture of Hittite blood after the return from Babylon to Palestine. Because the house of David was selected from the tribe of Judah many centuries prior to the time of these inter-racial marriages, there are no Jews as such in the house of David.”

Most of what Rand is saying here is correct. He either forgot or had never studied in depth how the Kenites (descendants of Cain) had intermixed with the Hittites and several other “ites” to make up the nation of the Canaanites. These Hittites Rand is talking about, had and still have the serpent blood of Cain in their veins. So you see, it does “antedate” this era of time. Add to this the admixture of the Shelanites, and we are beginning to get a definitive picture of the Jew.  It should be pointed out Shelah and his descendants were a separate house dwelling in Israel. He was half Judah and half Canaanite (of the “ites” including Cain). His mother, Bathshua, married him off to a female Canaanite which is probably one of the only good things she did in her entire life. Who did Shelah’s descendants marry? — Of course, more Canaanites. There were probably a few Israelites, just like today, intermarrying with them, but they were basically Canaanite. Let’s take a look at Ezra 9:1-2 and see who all of these “ites” were that the priest and Levites were having intermarriage with and were instructed to put them, with their children, away. And the blood of Cain was in all of these:

“1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priest, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy (set apart) seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.”

I had intended on finishing up this teaching letter on the topic of universalism, but I had my attention drawn to something more important. You can plainly see, there had been a change in attitude among these people returning from Babylon from separatist racism to universalism or these priest and people would not have been marrying strange wives as they were. I am only going to use one reference to show you how universalism got started at this period of time and it is found in the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 126:

“Before Jerusalem fell in 586 some of the Jews (Judeans) had become possessors of a spiritual truth not known anywhere else in the world, viz. that one God of perfect moral character ruled supreme over the whole universe. How many of the Jews (Judeans) knew this it is impossible to say. Of course they were a small minority, but they were either numerous enough, or strong enough in their convictions, to influence history. The great majority of the Jews (Judeans) held the traditional belief that Yahweh was a God of Israel alone. It is possible that even those who accepted the new universalistic truth did not realize that the two views were incompatible. Anyhow, it needed the destruction of the nation and the Temple to free the wider truth from its nationalistic shackles.”




Someone pointed out to me recently (I won’t say who) that not only did Judah marry a Canaanite, but Simeon married a Canaanite too, Genesis 46:10. I had been aware of this, but in the Book of Jasher, chapter 45, verse 2 it indicates that Simeon took Dinah his sister for a wife and they had five sons. It goes on to say in verse 3, “And he afterward came to Bunah the Canaanitish woman, the same is Bunah whom Simeon took captive from the city of Sheckem, and Bunah was before Dianh and attended upon her, and Simeon came to her, and she bare unto him Saul.” It also says in this same passage in the book of Jasher, chapter 45, verse 1, that Reuben took a Canaanite wife. This would make three sons of Jacob that took Canaanite wives. At least, this is the way it appears from the surface. I know I have pretty well cleared up the problem with Judah in his affair with a Canaanite woman which turned out all right in the end as the pure seed-line of Pharez and Zerah were uncorrupted. I covered Judah’s personal life in detail in lessons 1, 2 and 3.

As soon as this was pointed out to me, I decided that this matter of Reuben and Simeon along with Judah marrying Canaanites needed to be addressed, so I went right to work on it. I didn’t think I would find the answer so quickly. I checked the Hebrew word for Canaanite in both Genesis 46:10 and Genesis 38:2 and they were both the same word, #3669 in Strong’s. I checked in The Strong’s Concordance and found it could mean a (1) Canaanite or, (2) an inhabitant of Canaan. I next checked with the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament which said, “Specially this was the name applied to the inhabitants of the lower region ... on the sea shore, and the banks of Jordan; opposed to the inhabitants of the mountainous region”, and it showed a different Hebrew word for each one of these. Investigating this, I found it quite interesting, so I consulted Insight On The Scripture”, volume 1, pages 399-406 on the word “Canaan/Canaanite.” They put both of these names under the same heading. I found a very fascinating and important item on page 400:

“Canaan was evidently subject to some Elamite (and hence Semitic) influence and domination at this time, as indicated by the Biblical record at Genesis 14:1-7.”

I then went to page 701 of this same book and it said this of Elam: “ELAM 1. One of the five sons of Shem from whom descended ‘families, according to their tongues, in their lands, according to their nations’.”

I believe this should clear up the fact that all of the descendants of Israel were of pure blood except for Shelah. This is proof that there were people of Shem in Canaan at this early time for the sons of Jacob to find proper wives. In The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, The Testament Of Judah, II, verses 17,18, Judah definitely confesses to marrying a Canaanite, but in the “Testaments of Reuben” and the “Testament of Simeon”, no such confessions are recorded. In fact, The “Testament Of Simeon”, III, verse 3 says this:

“3 Then shall perish the seed of Canaan, and a remnant shall not be unto Amalek, and all the Canpadocians shall perish, and all the Hittites be utterly destroyed.”

If Simeon married a Canaanite as we usually think of the word Canaanite, would he have made a statement like this? If he did, he is saying her seed (his children) should perish! I don’t know why someone is always trying to prove that the Israelites mixed with other races like Moses marrying a black woman, or Ruth being of another race, or Joseph taking a wife of the land of Ham, and that today we are somehow all mixed-up with other races. I am getting tired and pretty well frustrated with the various so-called experts on the Bible who are proclaiming this!

 (Revised 2-14-2001)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #8 December 1998


This is the eighth in a series of teaching letters. If you have not received any of my previous teaching letters, please send $2.00 for each back issue you would like to have. These teaching letters are not just the average run-of-the-mill type of letter. If you really want to learn the Scripture’s deepest hidden truths, you will not want to miss any of these back issues. Because of the nature of these teaching letters, they will not go out of date, so you will want to keep them in a safe place where they won’t get lost. Again, I want to thank all of you who are helping to keep this teaching ministry going financially. All of your donations and purchases are deeply appreciated! As I no longer have an income and now depend on Social Security, you can imagine how precious each donation is (however small it may be). 

Now Continuing the Topic:


In the last issue, we traced Judah’s third son, Shelah, through the Bible. We traced the descendants of Shelah as far as Nehemiah 11:5. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah concerns themselves (many consider it one book) with race-mixing on a grand scale and we can be sure that Shelah was right in there taking part in it and promoting the idea. Shelah didn’t have anything to lose by this as he was a bastard from his beginning. With this lesson, we are going to continue from where lesson number seven ended. We left off with a person by the name of Maaseiah, who was a descendant of Shelah who was counted among the ruling families in Jerusalem at the time of Ezra and Nehemieh. This name Maaseiah may be important because there was a Maaseiah (a high priest) who took a strange wife and rather than get rid of her, he went to Mount Gerizim to officiate there among the Samaritians. Whether this is the same Maaseiah, I am not sure. But I am getting ahead of the story, so I will go back to the beginning and start over.




In his first year Cyrus, king of Persia, 538 B.C., issued a royal decree to the effect that the exiled Judeans were free to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the house of Yahweh (Ezra 1:1-4). It was a long and dusty trip which included 42,360 males besides slaves and professional singers carrying with them the temple treasures. They arrived at Jerusalem in time to celebrate the Feast of Booths in the seventh month, 537 B.C. The Persian appointed governor, Zerubbabel, of the house of David, soon organized the Temple rebuilding and ran into serious interference from local people, but it was completed 515 B.C. A second wave of exiles returned with the priest-scribe Ezra in the spring of 458 B.C., bringing additional items to decorate the temple at the authorization of King Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra 7:27. These treasures were valued at about $43,000,000 (Ezra 8:25-27).

Because of the walls not having been repaired since the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, Nehemiah obtained permission from Artaxerxes to go to Jerusalem to remedy the problem (Nehemiah 2:1-8). Nehemiah soon organized work groups and completed the rebuilding of the walls in 52 days. With the temple and walls rebuilt, there were not many people to occupy the city, so Nehemiah organized a plan to repopulate Jerusalem. It might appear that all is going well, but it is not! Before we go much further into this story, let’s consider the time frame into which it fits. We are getting into a period of time that nobody wants to talk about today, and this is the so-called inter-testament period. We are talking about a period of about 500 years, and some people want to flush it down the toilet as if it never existed. I contend that if you don’t know what happened during these 500 years, you really can’t understand the New Testament! This is equivalent to erasing all the history in our history books from Christopher Columbus until our present day, which amounts to a lot of history! There are a lot of people who are spouting a lot of opinions about the New Testament, who haven’t the slightest idea about this period of time! It’s like building a house without a foundation! If one so much as even brings up the subject of this period, they will very quickly respond, “Oh! that is all uninspired.” I contend this is one of the most important periods of time to understand in all of history. Five hundred years is a long time, it cannot simply be swept under the rug. Let’s take an overview of Jerusalem during this time.



The end of Judah as a nation.


The 70 year exile in Babylon.


The return to Jerusalem under Persian rule.


Reconstruction and reform under Persian rule.


A second temple built by the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim.


Jerusalem under the rule of Alexander the Great.


Jerusalem under the rule of the Ptolemies.


Jerusalem under the rule of the Seleucids, and the fight of the Maccabees against Greek paganism.


The Maccabees fight the Seleucids for freedom.


The Hasmonean period.


Jerusalem under Rome.


I found a short history of this period in Insight On The Scripture, volume 2, page 44-45:

“Hellenic and Maccabean Control. The changeover from Medo-Persian to Greek control came in 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great marched through Judea. The Greek historians make no mention of Alexander’s entry into Jerusalem. Yet the city did come under Greek domination, and it is reasonable to assume that it was not completely bypassed by Alexander. Josephus, in the first century A.D., records the Judean tradition that, upon approaching Jerusalem, Alexander was met by a Judean high priest and was shown the divinely inspired prophecies recorded by Daniel foretelling the lightning conquest by Greece (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 326-338 [viii, 4, 5]; Dan. 8:5-7, 20, 21). Whatever the case, Jerusalem seems to have survived the change in control free of any damage.

“Following Alexander’s death, Jerusalem and Judea came under the control of the Ptolemies, who ruled out of Egypt. In 198 B.C. Antiochus the Great, ruling in Syria, after taking the fortified city of Sidon, captured Jerusalem and Judah became a dominion of the Seleucid Empire (Compare Dan. 11:16). Jerusalem lay under Seleucid rule for 30 years. Then, in the year 168 B.C., Syrian King Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), in his attempt to completely Hellenize the Judeans, dedicated Jerusalem’s temple to Zeus (Jupiter) and profaned the altar by an unclean sacrifice (1 Maccabees 1:57, 62; 2 Maccabees 6:1, 2, 5). This led to the Maccabean (or Hasmonaean) revolt. After a three-year struggle, Judas Maccabaeus gained control of the city and temple and rededicated Yahweh’s altar to true worship on the anniversary of its profanation, Chislev 25, 165 B.C. — 1 Maccabees 4:52-54; 2 Maccabees 10:5; compare John 10:22.

“The war against the Seleucid rulers had not ended. The Judeans appealed to Rome for help and thus a new power came on the Jerusalem scene in about 160 B.C. (1 Maccabees 8:17, 18). Now Jerusalem began to come under the influence of the expanding Roman Empire. About 142 B.C., Simon Maccabaeus was able to make Jerusalem the capital of a religion ostensibly free from subservience to or taxation by non-Judean nations. Aristobulus 1, Jerusalem’s high priest, even assumed the title of king in 104 B.C. He was not, however, of the Davidic line.

“Jerusalem was no ‘city of peace’ during this period. Internal quarrels, fired and selfish ambitions and worsened by rival religious factions — Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and others — gravely weakened the city. A violent quarrel between Aristobulus II and his brother Hyrcanus resulted in Rome’s being called on to arbitrate the dispute. Under General Pompey, Roman forces besieged Jerusalem in 63 B.C. for three months in order to enter the city and settle the dispute. Twelve thousand Judeans reportedly died, many at the hands of fellow Judeans. It is in Josephus’ account of Pompey’s conquest that the archway across the Tyropoeon Valley is first mentioned. It served as a link between the eastern and western halves of the city and gave those on the western half direct access to the temple area.

“The Idumean Antipater (II) was now installed as Roman governor of Judea, a Maccabean being left as high priest and local ethnarch in Jerusalem. Later, Antipater’s son Herod (the Great) was appointed by Rome as ‘king’ over Judea. He did not get control of Jerusalem until 37 or 36 B.C., from which date his rule effectively began.”




This is interesting because Yahweh promised David that he would always have a descendant on the throne (Jeremiah 33:17). Did Yahweh lie? Let’s read this scripture because there are some that teach that Yahweh broke His promise.

“For thus saith Yahweh; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.”

Maybe these people teaching this got it from the Polyglot Bible published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, of London. I am next going to quote from the book, “Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright”, by J. H. Allen, pages 177-181 which will be quite lengthily:

“Indeed, it was so well done (Jeremiah’s prophecy), that the heretofore accepted authorities in theologic, historic and ethnologic matters have taught that the scepter, throne and kingdom of David were wiped out of existence, together with the house of David, excepting only another branch of the family of Josiah, who were carried away into the Babylonish captivity, of whom came Christ, the son of David, who according to the Scripture, must yet sit upon the throne of his father David. We will give but one example of that class of sophistical reasoning which has led the mind of the Christian world into this gross error.

“Take, for instance, the well-known and much-used Polyglot Bible, published by Samuel Bragster & Sons, of London. The compilers of this work (whoever they are we know not) give what is called ‘A summary view of the principal events of the period from the close of the sacred canon of the Old Testament until the times of the New Testament.’ According to the system of chronology which this work adopts, the overthrow of Zedekiah occurred in the year 589 B.C. This proposed summary begins after the return of the Judean people from the Babylonish captivity, but while they were yet under the dominion of the Kingdom of Persia; and when Artaxerxes Longimanus was the reigning king, who in his twentieth year commissioned Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, an event which happened according to the chronology used in 446 B.C.

“Then follows a brief record of the death and succession of kings, the rise and fall of dynasties, and the overthrow of kingdoms, powers, dominions and empires. But it is always shown conclusively that these ruling powers, whatever might be their nationality, were dominating the Judean people.

“The summary shows that Alexander the Great marched into Judea to punish the people for certain grievances which, in his mind, they had practiced against him as commander of the Grecian forces, and that God thwarted him in that purpose. It shows that when Alexander died the Grecian empire was divided among his four generals; that Palestine was given to Loamedon, one of those generals, and that it was soon taken away from him by Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, and they ‘rejoiced to submit to this new master’, and what the consequences were. It shows that they suffered under Antiochus Epiphanes, especially after a false rumor had been spread concerning his death, which they believed and rejoiced in and that in consequence of this rejoicing ‘he slew 40,000 persons, sold as many more for slaves, plundered the temple of gold and furniture to the amount of 80 talents of gold, entered the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed a sow upon the altar of burnt offerings, and caused the broth of it to be sprinkled all over the temple.’ No greater indignity than this could  have been put upon that people. The summary contains a truthful record of suffering after suffering, trouble after trouble, and indignity after indignity, heaped upon the conquered people, who during all those centuries were reigned over by their enemies the non-Israel nations; but not once does the record showno not for even one generationthat they were ruled by a prince of their own royal house.

“Finally, the summary ends as follows: ‘At length Antipater, a noble but crafty Idumæan, by favor of Julius Caesar, was made procurator of Judea, and Hyrcanus continued in the priesthood. After Antipater’s death, his son, Herod the Great, by the assistance of Antony, the Roman triumvir, and through much barbarity and bloodshed assumed the regal dignity; which authority was at length confirmed by Augustus Caesar. He maintained his dignity with great ability, but with the utmost cruelty, in his own family as well as among others, till the birth of Christ. In the interval he built many cities, and to ingratiate himself with the Jews, almost rebuilt the temple.

“His cruel attempt to murder the infant Savior is recorded by the evangelist; and soon afterward he died most miserably. After some years, during which the dominions of Herod were governed by his sons, Judea became a Roman province, and the septre departed from Judah for Shiloh was come (the italics are their own); and after having been under the government of Roman procurators for some years, the whole Jewish state was at length subverted by Titus, the son of Vespasian.’

“The sophistry in the use of those italicised words as employed by the compilers of that summary, is that they destroy the evident meaning of that prophecy to which they refer, the substitution of various sceptres — held by various kings, of various non-Israel nations, that have consecutively held dominion over the Judean people — for one particular Sceptre, which Yahweh promised should be held, only by some member of Judah’s family line, and which should not cease to be held by those of his posterity until Shiloh should come.



A sceptre did not depart from over the Jews when Christ came. Forty years after Christ had come and gone finds them still under the power of Rome. Shortly afterward they were dispersed and have since been scattered among all nations, where they remain unto this day, and are still being ruled over.


If the first coming of Christ was his Shiloh-coming, then Shiloh failed; for the people did not gather unto him.


Yahweh declares: ‘Judah is my law giver.’ According to this summary and other accepted evidence, Judah as Lawgiver departed from the Judeans 588 years before Shiloh came. Hence that unbridged chasm of nearly six hundred years stands like a gaping wound in the side of the Church of Jesus Christ, whenever she is compelled to show herself in naked honesty. The entire trend of this summary with its subtle reference to the prophecy in question seems to be that so long as the Judean nation was ruled over, no matter by whom, and held together as a province or state, this prophecy was vindicated; whereas such vindication conception, or use of those words, is only an attempt to hold together, by daubing with untempered mortar, an edifice which is tottering and tumbling.


“The most charitable construction which can be put upon such accommodating mollifying, weak and abortive efforts to vindicate the truth of Yahweh, is that the persons are ignorant of just some such vital point as the fact that Jeremiah was called and commissioned of Yahweh to build and plant anew the plucked-up kingdom of David.

All who claim that Christ has come as Shiloh are compelled to resort to just such distortions of the Divine Word as the one under consideration, in order to fill up that gaping hiatus of 588 years, from the overthrow of Zedekiah until Christ. Furthermore, after they have plastered over that gap to their own (questionable) satisfaction, they are still confronted with the fact that the Lord God did not give unto Christ the throne of his father David, nor cause him to reign over the house of Jacob — no, not even spiritually!”


We can safely sum up, then, that there was not a single king which was a descendant of David who ruled over Jerusalem or Judea for this space of time. As a matter of fact, Jerusalem and its outlying areas were ruled over by foreign nations during this period. Furthermore, Yahshua was never made a king during His lifetime and has not been made a king as of this writing. Yes, He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but He was riding an ass, not a white horse. Yes, they crowned Him with thorns, but that was in mockery. Yes, He was born eventually to become king of all Israel, but that is still in the future. We can crown Him king in our heart — and that is good — but His final coronation is yet to come. Yes, Yahweh was true to His word, and He did keep the throne of David in perpetuity, but I will get into that in another lesson.

Now we will get back to our story of the happenings during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The best history of this, I have found is in the series of  books, “History Of The Jews”, by Heinrich Greatz, volume 1, starting with page 355. I know that this is the history according to the Jewish viewpoint, but I believe you will have to agree with me, they did quite well on this era of history. I am going to quote excerpts from several pages. If it seems like I am changing the subject quite often, it is because I am skipping large portions of the text. I will be picking out the important parts and it will start to make sense after I have quoted some of the main portions. Again, this will be a lengthy quote.


“Cyrus sent an escort of a thousand mounted soldiers to defend the Judæans from the attacks of predatory tribes upon the way, and also to ensure their being able to take possession of Judæa. ... A great part of the country was inhabited by strangers; in the north were the Samaritans, or Cuthæans, in the south, the Idumæans. But these races were soon obliged to give place to the descendants of Judah, who with the tribe of Benjamin, returned to their ancient dwelling-places. ... From many countries to the east, west, south, and north, from Egypt, Phœnicia, and even from the Greek coast and islands, whither they had gone of their own free will or had been sold as slaves, Judæan exiles streaming back to crowd like children around their resurrected mother, Jerusalem. These new Judæan arrivals were accompanied by large numbers of strangers, both ‘great and small’, illustrious and obscure, who collected round them. They were received with rejoicing, for they all acknowledged the God of Israel, and were ready to follow His laws. These new proselytes not only added strength to the young community, but also inspired the settlers with greater self-reliance, who, with their own eyes, saw the words of the prophets fulfilled.

“At the approach of the seventh month, in which, according to law and custom, various festivals occur, the elders of the families among all classes in Jerusalem assembled, and marching under the command of their two leaders, the governor Zerubbabel and the high-priest Joshua, they proceeded to perform the first act of reconstruction — they erected an altar of stone. ...and, as in the days of King Solomon, cedar trees were procured from Lebanon; stone was brought from the mountains. ... Close to the boundaries of Judæa lived the mixed tribe of Samaritans or Cuthæans. These people had in part accepted the doctrines taught them by an Israelitish priest at Bethel, but they had also retained many of their own idolatrous practices. Quite unexpectedly, some of the Samaritan chiefs came to Jerusalem, with the request that they might be allowed to help in re-building the Temple, and also that they be received into the Judæan community. This seemed so important a matter to the Judæans, that a council was convoked to discuss the subject. The decision was against the Samaritans. Zerubbabel informed the Samaritan chiefs that their people neither would nor could be permitted to join in the re-building of the Temple. ... From that day the Samaritans began to develop a hostile spirit against the Judæans, which seemed to show that they had been less anxious to take part in the temple-service than to injure the community and to obstruct the re-building of the Temple. On the one hand, they tried to make those Judæans with whom they came in contact lukewarm toward the project of building the Temple, and, on the other, they persuaded Persian officials to interfere with its execution, so that the work ceased for fully fifteen years.”


As I said before, this is from a Jewish standpoint, and you can be sure the Samaritans indeed wanted to be part of the Judean community and help rebuild the Temple. Don’t let anyone ever tell you they didn’t want to be part of the rebuilding as they had been practicing the Hebrew religion for almost 200 years by this time. If Stephen E. Jones or James Bruggeman would have been there with their universalistic ideas, they would have welcomed the Samaritans to come right in and mix with the crowd. Now let’s get back to quoting excerpts from this book:


“It required the fiery enthusiasm of the prophets Haggai and Zechriah to set the work in motion. ... At last they roused the people to recommence their work. In four years (519-516 B.C.) the building was finished, and the Sanctuary was consecrated, amid great rejoicing, just before the Feast of Passover. ... The people had two leaders: Zerubbabel, of the royal house of David, and Joshua, the high-priest, of Aaronide descent. ... A circumstance in Zerubbabel’s favour was the people’s allegiance to the royal house of David. ... The prophet Haggai had called him the chosen favourite of God, His precious Signet-ring. But this in itself was an obstacle. It gave the enemies of the Judæans the opportunity to charge the community with the purpose of proclaiming him as the successor of David to the throne. On the other hand, the prophet Zechariah had proclaimed that the high-priest Joshua should wear the crown, ascend the throne, and effect the realisation of Messianic hopes. ... Peace could only be restored by the withdrawal of one of the two leaders: their joint rule could not fail to be the occasion of excitement and irritation. A choice had to be made between the two, and Zerubbabel was obliged to give way, the high-priest being more necessary than the king’s son. It is probable that Zerubbabel left Jerusalem and returned to Babylon, and thus the house of David retreated into the background.

“After Zerubbabel’s withdrawal, the leadership of the community was put into the hands of the high-priest Joshua, and after his death into those of his son Jehoiakim. ... The supreme command over the people does not seem to have been given to the high-priest, but to have been vested in a governor or administrator (Peckah), appointed over Judea either by the Persian kings or by the satraps of Syria and Phœnicia. This official does not appear to have lived in Jerusalem, but to have visited the city from time to time, where, seated on a throne, he heard and decided disputes. ... For, as some Judæans nourished the hope, held out by the prophets, that Judah might yet become a mighty power, to whom kings and nations would bow, the suspicion that the people were plotting a defection from Persia was not removed with the retirement of Zerubbabel. ... The enemies of the Judæans, particularly the Samaritans, did not fail to draw the governors attention to the disloyalty of the Judæans, and thus caused unfavourable decrees to be issued against them at court. ...

In order to free themselves, on the one side at least, from these constant troubles, the most distinguished Judæan families took a step that led in the end to mischievous complications. They approached the neighbouring peoples, or received the advances of the latter, in a friendly spirit, and as a proof of the sincerity of their feelings, they began to form connections by marriage. As in the days when the Israelites first occupied the land of Canaan, in the time of the Judges, the necessity for friendly intercourse with neighbouring tribes led to mixed marriages, so during the second occupation of Palestine by the Israelites, similar relations led to similar results. But the circumstances differed, inasmuch as the Canaanites, Hittites, and other original dwellers in the land practiced abominable idolatry, and infected the Israelites with their various customs, while the new neighbours of the Judæan commonwealth, particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were longing earnestly and sincerely to take part in the divine service at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The principal families determined to admit the foreigners into the community, and the high-priest, of that time, either Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the Samaritans and other neighbouring people, and even some members of the family of the high-priest formed such connections.

“The leader of the Samaritans at that time was Sanballat, a man of undaunted strength of will and energy of action, clever, cunning, audacious and persevering. He was an honest proselyte who believed in the God of Israel, and desired to worship in His Temple; but he determined, as it were, to take by storm the kingdom of Heaven. If he were not allowed a part in it voluntarily, he would seize it by force or by cunning.

“But not only the Samaritans, also the Moabites and Ammonites were among the people anxious to maintain friendly relations with the Judæans. Tobiah, the leader of the Ammonites, was doubly allied to the Judean families. He had married a daughter of a noble family of Arach, and a distinguished man, Meshullam, the son of Berechiah, had given his daughter in marriage to Tobiah’s son. But mixed marriages with Ammonites and Moabites were specifically prohibited by the Law, until the tenth generation after conversion. (No, the original text says to the tenth generation or forever!)

“The leaders of the Judæan community, the high-priest and others, who were not quite prepared to violate the law, doubtless eased their consciences by some mild interpretation of the text. ... A small number of the noblest families had kept themselves pure from mixed marriages, which they deplored as an infraction of the law and as a cause of deterioration of the Judæan race. More especially the singers, who were the cultivators and preservers of the Hebrew language and of its ancient, venerated literature, kept themselves clear of mixed marriages, ... but, as they were in the minority, their voices were not heeded. But when a leading authority appeared in Jerusalem from the land of exile, the minority cried out loudly against what had taken place, and a complete reaction followed, from which disagreeable complications necessarily ensued. ...

“In general the people who live during an important historical crisis are not aware of the changes occurring in themselves, in their opinions, their customs, and even in their language. Such a change imperceptible at first, but complete and effectual, took place in the Judæans during the first half of the fifth century. The transformation did not proceed from the community of Judæa, but from those who remained in the land of exile; it soon, however, penetrated to the mother-country, and impressed its stamp upon her. ... They kept themselves apart from all their neighbours, married only members of their own nation and were guided by the inherited Law as their rule of life.  Their absence from the mother-country served but to make them obey the more strictly the behests of the Law, which thus formed a bond of union that bound them together as members of one community. ...

“(Then speaking of Ezra), for he was a descendant of [the] high-priest. It was his ancestor Hilkiah who had found the book of Deuteronomy in the Temple, and by giving it to King Josiah, brought about great changes. He was also the great-grandson of that high-priest, Seraiah, who was slain by command of Nebuchadnezzar, and whose sons carried the Book of the Law to Babylon. Ezra had, therefore, the opportunity of occupying himself with the study of this book. But he gave it more attention than either his ancestors or his relatives had done. ... He began by applying it to himself, carefully obeying the laws regarding dress, diet, and particularly those bearing upon the festivals. ... As soon as he had determined upon the journey, he invited those members of his faith who might be willing to join him. The number that responded was a considerable one, including over 1,600 men, together with women and children, of distinguished families who had remained in the land of captivity. Amongst them was a great-grandson of Zerubbabel, a descendant of the house of David. Those who could not take part in the emigration gave Ezra rich gifts of gold, silver, and precious vessels for the Temple. It is an astonishing circumstance that King Artaxerxes (Longimanus) also sent presents for the sanctuary in Jerusalem, and that many Persian nobles followed his example. ... Not only did Artaxerxes grant Ezra permission to journey with his brethren to Jerusalem, but he also gave him letters to the satraps of the countries through which he passed, and to the authorities of Palestine. ... The arrival of Ezra with his numerous companions must have caused much surprise in Jerusalem (459-458 B.C.). They came provided with letters from the king, laden with gifts, and imbued with enthusiastic feelings.

No sooner had he assumed the ecclesiastical function, than the men of strong convictions who condemned intermarriages with surrounding peoples brought their complaints before him. Ezra was dismayed when he heard of these occurrences. The representatives of the people and of the Temple had, in contempt of the Law, connected themselves with the heathen. Ezra held this to be a terrible sin. For the Judæan or Israelitish race was in his eyes a holy one, and suffered desecration by mingling with the foreign tribes, even though they had abjured idolatry. According to Ezra’s reading of the Law, heathens who had accepted the Law might enter into the community; they were, however, not to be put upon the footing of equality with Israelites by birth, but were to live as a group apart. The Gibeonites, in former days the slaves of the Temple, who had accepted the Israelitish doctrines more than a thousand years before, were still kept distinct, and were not permitted to intermarry with the Israelites; and in Ezra’s opinion, the new proselytes from the heathen nations were to be treated in a similar manner. The connection with them ought not to be of an intimate character. ...

“The fear seized upon his whole soul; he rent his clothes, plucked the hair from his head and beard, and refusing all nourishment, sat until the afternoon, sorrowing and desolate because of this danger which threatened the life of the nation. ... One of those present, Shechaniah, touched by sympathy, uttered a weighty suggestion: ‘Let us make a covenant to put away all the strange wives, and such as are born of them.’ Ezra seized upon the idea at once; he rose and demanded that the heads of the families. who were present on that occasion, swear before the Sanctuary, and by their God, that they would repudiate their foreign wives and their children. That moment was to decide the fate of the Judæan people. Ezra, and those who thought as he did, raised a wall of separation between the Judæans and the rest of the world. ...

“Such members of the community as, in a moment of enthusiasm, had taken this vow, were now obliged to keep it. With bleeding hearts they separated themselves from their wives, the daughters of neighbouring tribes, and repudiated their own children. The sons and relations of the high-priest were forced to set an example to the rest. Those of the elders of the people who were the most ardent disciples of the Law formed a kind of senate. They issued a proclamation throughout Judah, commanding all who had been guilty of contracting mixed marriages. to appear within three days in Jerusalem, on pain of excommunication. A special court of enquiry was instituted for this one question. Ezra himself selected the members who were to make the needful researches to discover whether the Judæans had really repudiated their wives. So thoroughly was the work of this court of enquiry carried on, that all those who were living in the towns of Judæa separated themselves from their wives and children, as the inhabitants of Jerusalem had done. Still there were some, who influenced by family feelings, made some show of resistance.

“The severity with which this separation from all neighbouring tribes, Samaritans and others, had been effected led naturally to grave results. The raising of the wall of separation by Ezra and his party against those who were truly anxious to belong to the community caused much bitterness. They were to be separated for ever from the Deity they had chosen, and excluded from the Sanctuary in Jerusalem to which they had belonged. The decree of separation sent to them changed their friendly relations toward the Judæans to enmity. Hatred which arises from despised affection is always most bitter. The grief of the wives deserted by their husbands, and the sight of the children disowned by their fathers could not fail to awaken and to increase the animosity of those who were closely related to them. Unfortunately for the Judæans, Sanballat and Tobiah, two forceful and able men, were at the head of the party excluded from the community. Tobiah, the Ammonite, was related to several Judæan families. They had both accepted the Judæan teaching, and now they were both repulsed. Henceforth they assumed a hostile position towards Judæa; they were determined, by force and by intrigues to maintain their right of worshipping in the Temple and sharing in the faith of Israel. At first they probably took steps to restore their peaceful intercourse with the Judæans, and urged them to revoke their cruel decision. In Jerusalem, as well as in the provinces, there was a party which strongly disapproved of Ezra’s stern action. The well-informed among these differed with Ezra on the illegality of marriages with women who had, at all events outwardly, accepted the Law. Was Ezra’s severity justifiable? Did not the historical records contain many instances of Israelites having married foreign wives? (This last question is a Jewish question. They then bring up the question about Ruth! Same thing as many are doing today! But Ruth was an Israelite!) Let’s continue:

“But none of these representations (arguments) were of avail. Ezra and the reigning senate in Jerusalem insisted sternly upon the exclusion from the community of all people who could not claim Judaic descent, and who were therefore, not of ‘the holy seed.’ ... Ezra was, unfortunately, not a man of action; he could only pray and arouse the feelings of others, but he could not prevent many Judæan families from secretly abetting his opponents. On the other hand, Sanballet and his followers were men of decided character, full of virulent hatred towards their adversaries, and they took every opportunity of harassing their enemies. At last they even attacked Jerusalem. ... But no matter what it was that induced Sanballet and his followers to take warlike steps against Jerusalem, they were entirely successful. ... The result was that Sanballet and his followers made breaches in the walls of the city, burned the wooden gates, and destroyed many of the buildings, so that Jerusalem again resembled a heap of ruins. They, however, spared the Temple, for it was sacred in their eyes also; but it was nevertheless abandoned, and most of the inhabitants, having lost the protection of the city walls, left Jerusalem, and established themselves in other places, wherever they could find shelter. The Aaronides and Levites deprived of their income from gifts and tithes, left the Temple and sought other means of subsistence. ... Many noble families made peace with their neighbours, took back their repudiated wives, and contracted new connections with the stranger. (When you understand this last statement, you are beginning to understand what the Jews are made out of!!!!!)

“We are led to believe by our Bibles today that all of the people who had contracted foreign spouses during Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s time divorced them and repudiated the children they had by them, but this seems to be only part of the story, for they took back these divorced spouses and repudiated half-breed children and contracted more foreign mates. All we have to do is look around us today at multi-culturism, and it isn’t hard to imagine what was going on during this period in history. To understand better the mixture that was developing during this period, which we call Jews today, it might be well to further study the words Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, Sepharvaim, Jebusites, Girgashites, Canaanites, Amorites, Rephaims, Perrizzites, Hittites, Hivites Kadmonites, Kenizzites, Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Zidonians (Sidonians (Canaanite merchants)), and the Kenites who were and are the descendants of Cain. All these peoples represent a composite from which the Jews originated. Check out the following passages: 2 Kings 17:24; Deuteronomy 7:1; Acts 7:45; Joshua 12:7,8; 24:11,12; Nehemiah 9:8, 24; 13:1; Ezra 13:1; Psalm 78:55; Genesis 15:19-21: Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5: 23:23; Judges 3:5,6: 1 Kings 11:1; 2 Chronicles 8:7-10: Genesis 12:6.”

I had hoped to get into the subject of the second temple which was built at Mount Gerizim and some more activities that were going on during this time period, but it will have to wait until the next teaching letter.

 (Revised 2-14-2001)

Reissue of a Special Watchman’s Supplement Letter from 1998


Originally written for August 14, 1998, this paper was revised in February of 2001, with an Addendum on April 24, 2014.


A NEW VERY SERIOUS FIND IN PROPHECY: This is not my regular monthly teaching letter. I have been studying a subject lately which I think needs to be addressed. I have reservations about even getting into this subject as it has to do with prophecy. If I don’t write what I have discovered recently, I will be condemned, and if I do write about it and it is proved to be wrong, I will be condemned. I have discussed this situation with several people in the last few days and they are advising me to make what I have found known. Now right from the start, before I begin, I want you to know I am not a prophet! I don’t even pretend to be one. I have, though, studied much on the subject. I really never understood prophecy very much until I heard the fourteen audio tape series on Revelation by Bertrand L. Comparet. The sound on the tapes that I originally bought was so bad that I could hardly hear them. By running the signal through a good equalizer, clearing up the noise to some extent and using a pair of head phones, I could barely make out what was being said. The next thing I decided to do was to type out all of these tapes on paper. It took me several months to do this, but I finally got it done. I can tell you this: when you type every word out, as I did, you learn a lot more than just listening to the recordings. There were many words that I was unfamiliar with, and had to look up; many reference materials were reviewed to find out what he was talking about, and I researched people and places he named. There were words for which I could not find the spelling. I now own a much improved set of these tapes, but #13 needs a little work on it to make the sound a little clearer. I will probably offer this set of tapes sometime in the future on my study aids list. At the time, Comparet was the very best on prophecy I had ever heard. [Note: I no longer offer any audio recordings of any kind!]

Next to Comparet was a person by the name of William V. Fowler, and in 1980 his address was Rt. 3, Box 486-B, Coeur d’ Alene, ID 83814. He wrote a little booklet called End Time Revelation. This book was one of the very best I ever purchased for my library on prophecy. But in his book, he made a miscalculation on the fall of Babylon as a religious, political and monetary system which we still have with us today. He predicted that our present Babylonian system would fall in 1982. On everything else in his book he is pretty much correct and right on the money. I think that I have discovered his error in calculation which caused him to arrive at the date 1982. I suppose there were a lot of people who read his book and put him to considerable ridicule for nothing happening in 1982, and probably tried to debunk his whole work. I will tell you that I value this booklet very highly, and if I couldn’t get another copy, I would not part with it for any amount of money! Though there are many subjects in his book, I am going to zero in on this one in particular. In order for you to understand what it is all about, I will have to quote from pages 121 to 125. If you are unfamiliar with the rest of the prophecies in Daniel, you may not understand about this one. Fowler subtitles this section of his booklet:

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S MADNESS Daniel 4 is a proclamation made by Nebuchadnezzar confessing that, in fulfillment of a prophetic dream, he had been mad for a time, behaving like a beast and eating grass like an ox. However, there are certain peculiar features that do not fit in with this personal fulfillment of the prophecy.

In his dream Nebuchadnezzar had seen a tree that provided food and shelter for all; the beast of the field made their home under it, while the birds of heaven dwelt in its branches (Dan. 4:10-12):

“‘10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of the earth: 12 The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and it was meat for all: the beast of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.’

Then, by Divine decree, the tree was cut down, leaving only a stump in the earth, and ‘seven times’ were to pass over it (Dan. 4: 14-17):

“‘14 He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off the leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beast get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: 15 Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beast in the grass of the earth: 16 Let his heart be changed from a man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. 17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in his kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men’.

Daniel explained that the tree represented the king under whose rule all people and nations prospered. When the tree was cut down, this signified that Nebuchadnezzar was to become insane for a period of ‘seven times’, during which he would become like a beast, and eat grass like an ox (Dan. 4:20-25).

“‘20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; 21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beast of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: 22 It is thou, O king. that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth. 23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beast of the field, till seven times pass over him: 24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king: 25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beast of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.’

All this we are told, came to pass, and at the end of the set period Nebuchadnezzar returned to his right mind, and his kingdom was restored to him.

This explanation of the dream, however, is not entirely satisfactory. One peculiar feature left unexplained is that the stump of the great tree was to be left with a band of iron and brass (Dan. 4:15, 23).

“‘15 Nevertheless leave the stump of the roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beast in the grass of the earth ... 23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beast of the field, till seven times pass over him ....’

The stump or tree represents Babylon, the band of iron represents Imperial Rome, and the brass portion of the band represents The Grecian Empire. So the stump with the band represents three of the kingdoms that were to be cast down by the Sons of God. For some time I was wondering why just three kingdoms were represented here instead of four, (the other being Medo-Persia). Today my Father made it quite clear. All four kingdoms were to be destroyed by the Sons of God, and by the time of the end when the understanding of the vision was to be fully understood one of the kingdoms would already have been destroyed, that of the Medo-Persia, or the SILVER portion of the body of the beast.

History records that a nomadic tribe of people fought the Medo-Persia Empire for 800 years and weakened the empire so that finally it fell from within. We know that the Northern Tribes of Israel were these nomadic tribes. Therefore, one is down, leaving three to go. The rise of Mohammedism in ancient Persia today, Iran, does not mean that Persia is rising again, only Mohammedism.

A second peculiarity is the mysterious term used in regards to the time factor, namely, seven times. This is usually taken to mean seven years but, if that is what was meant, the prophecy does not say so. The context does not give the slightest hint as to how long a ‘time’ is in this connection, but just says that ‘seven times’ passed over him. Some scholars have assumed that a ‘time’ meant a literal year in this case the king was insane for 7 years, but this assumption can be proven to be erroneous. Nebuchadnezzar himself gives us a clue on one of his great cuneiform inscriptions in which he records 4 years as the period when he ‘did not rejoice ... did not build.’

In view of these peculiarities a number of scholars have regarded the prophecy as allegorical. The ‘seven times’ may represent the great prophetical ‘seven times’ which equals a period 2,520 years. In the book of Leviticus a period of ‘seven times’ of punishment would follow Israel’s apostasy from God. (Reference the Chapter on the Abrahamic Covenant), and we noted that this was a period in Bible Chronology of 2,520 years. A Bible ‘time’ means a year of 360 days of 12 zodiacal periods of 30 days. Bible students are aware that ‘days’ or prophecy must usually be read as ‘years’ especially when the national life of Israel is concerned. ‘I have appointed thee each day for a year’ was the time-measure given by the Spirit of God to Ezekiel. This agrees with the twelfth chapter of Revelation where by comparing verses 14 and 6 it is shown that a prophetic ‘time’ consists of 360 days, so that ‘a time, times and half a time’ is equivalent to 1260 days. The madness also may well represent the maladministration of the world by the Jewish powers. The ‘seven times’ indicate that there is a time limit placed on world powers. [underlining mine]

The great tree represents the Babylonian Empire. When Babylon displaced Egypt as the world’s greatest power, she took on the role of the great tree, and so Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘The tree that thou sawest ... It is thou, O King, that art grown and become strong” (Dan 4:20-22).

“‘20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; 21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beast of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: 22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.’

But immediately the tree was hewn down, the birds and the beasts were told to get away from under it, and only its stump was left standing in the grass while a period of ‘seven times’ passed over it.

In the original version the sentence passed on the tree was ‘... let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: Let his heart be changed from man’s and let a beast’s heart be given unto him....’ (Dan. 4:15-16):

“‘15 Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beast in the grass of the earth: 16 Let his heart be changed from a man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.’

Daniel explained that this meant, ‘They shall make thee to eat grass as oxen’ (verse 25), and finally, we are told that, ‘he was driven from me, and did eat grass as oxen’ (verse 33). Now grass in prophetic symbolism, represents the mass of the common people: ‘All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field’, wrote Isaiah (40:6-7). And again he says, ‘... surely the people is grass.’ (40:7). Consequently, Nebuchadnezzar’s peculiar behavior in eating grass symbolized the changed character of his empire. It was to be no longer a benevolent protector of smaller nations, as Egypt had been, but a predatory power, feeding on the common people.

That is, in fact, what all the great beast empires of the world have been. They were founded and established by military conquest whose main objective was to plunder, rob, and hold to ransom the common people of the weaker nations, and this was followed by the systematic collection of tribute or taxes from the conquered masses.

THE FALL OF BABYLON: The fifth chapter of Daniel gives an account of what took place in Babylon on the night when the city fell. Belshazzar, the king’s son, and co-regent in Babylon, was holding a feast, blasphemously misusing the gold and silver vessels taken from the temple of Jerusalem. Suddenly writing appeared on the wall, ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsim’ which Daniel interpreted, ‘God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.’

History records that the Medes and Persians gained entrance to the city by diverting the river Euphrates, so that the river bed became dry where it ran through the walls. In the Book of Revelation the final fall of the Babylonian system is heralded by the mystical drying up of the river Euphrates, ‘that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared” (Rev. 16:12) (Not just diverting the river, this final fall of Babylon the river will be dried up, and river will mean the race of people will be dried up).

Now it is interesting to note that the four words written in Chaldaic (Aramaic) when translated into Hebrew would read Minah, Minah, Shekel, Peres, which were Hebrew weights. The Gerah was the smallest weight, and the total of the above weights expressed in Gerahs, is 2,520 as shown below:


Mene Minah 1000 Gerahs

Mene Minah 1000 Gerahs

Tekel Shekel 20 Gerahs

Upharsin Peres 500 Gerahs

(Peres means ‘division’ – in this case, the division of the Minah, i.e. half a Minah). Thus we have the ‘seventimes’ period illustrated in a hidden form. The fall of Babylon was 539 B.C., subtracting that from 2520 we get 1982 when adding the one and one quarter years, conversion factor (from B.C. to A.D.) you come to the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness 1982 ....” [Back to myself]:

As 1982 came and passed and there was no fall of the Babylonian political, monetary and religious systems, William V. Fowler realized that he somehow had made a miscalculation in his understanding of this prophecy. In the later additions of his booklet he made a “Revising Statement” as follows:

REVISING STATEMENT: In the original works of this book I stated that the Kingdom of Yahweh might be established in 1982, give or take a year or two. .... It is my extreme joy to see into the time schedules and mysteries of Yahweh-Jesus. However I must confess the glass is not always clear, and man too often fills in that which he cannot clearly see. Forgive me for being guilty of this, but I praise my Father for that which he has allowed me to see.” [Back to myself]:

A NEW CHALLENGE FOR ME: A few days ago, I had reason to look up this book which I have had for a long time. I wasn’t really looking for this particular subject, but ran across it when I was looking for something else in his booklet. When I reread this passage above, the thought came to me: “I wonder where he went wrong in his calculation as his hypothesis seemed quite reasonable.” The idea kept nagging at me, so I finally decided to see what I could find, and see if there was some factor that wasn’t being considered. I started through my several reference books looking up everything I could find on Nebuchadnezzar (The 5 volume Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, the 4 volume Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, the 3 volume Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and a 2 volume work called Insight On The Scriptures, along with some other references). After I had read quite a bit on Nebuchadnezzar, I could see that I would have to check out everything I could find on Belshazzar. By this time I was finding out that Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, with a person known as Nabonidus as the direct son of Nebuchadnezzar. In other words the line went form Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus to Belshazzar. A very short statement from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, under “Belshazzar”:

Nebuchadnezzar is named as the father of Belshazzar (5:11, 18); this does not contradict the Babylonian text which refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus, since the latter was a descendant of the line of Nebuchadnezzar and may well have been related to him through his wife.

Finally, as I was reading about Nabonidus in Insight On The Scriptures (it's a long story), I found that there is a “Nabonidus Chronicle”, a clay tablet that can be found in the British Museum today. The story found on this clay tablet puts an entirely different light upon the time that Babylon officially came to an end. We do know the well recorded fact that the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon on the night of the feast of Belshazzar in 539 B.C. But according to the inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle, this was not the end of the fighting. Let’s read what is recorded on this clay tablet. This is from Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, page 460:

Although column 4 of the Chronicle is badly broken, scholars have concluded from what remains that the subject was a later siege of Babylon by some usurper. The first such siege of Babylon that followed Cyrus is thought to have been the uprising of Nebuchadnezzar III, who claimed to be a son of Nabonidus, Nidintu-Bel. He was defeated in the accession year of Darius I late in 522 B.C.E.”

With this newfound evidence, it makes it an entirely different ball game. Babylon, and especially the Nebuchadnezzar family, were not defeated completely until late 522 B.C. This would be the date that the “tree” would be fully fallen whose “stump” could begin to be passed over “seven times.” Let’s try this date out for size: 2,520 minus 522 = 1998 (1999+ adjusting for the B.C. to A.D. conversion plus other unknown factors). Have we or haven’t we arrived? Being my ministry’s first year, I really don’t know! I have presented the evidence and you will have to decide! One thing for sure, we don’t have very long to wait and see, do we?


There are three general views of interpretations of the prophecy of the book of Revelation (some say four).

The Preterist Theory.

The Historical Interpretation

The Futurist Theory.

The preterist view places all prophecy in the past and proclaims every prophecy was fulfilled in or prior to the year 70 A.D. They claim that the Second Coming of Yahshua has already happened among all the other foretold events in the Book of Revelation. Most scholars place the writing of the Book of Revelation about 93-96 A.D. Now if John wrote his book in 93 A.D., how could it all be fulfilled by 70 A.D.? The best definition I ever heard of a preterist, is one who was too lazy to study history. In his book, The Rapture Of The Saints, Rev. Duncan McDougall, M.A. explains the origin of the preterist theory:

Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit, started the idea that the Apostle John could not possibly foretell events which were to happen hundreds of years after his own time; that he was writing merely about what was happening in his own day, and that his Antichrist was probably the Emperor Nero or some other early persecutor. The theory has been adopted by German rationalists, and finds favor with the modernists in the churches today.”

The historical interpretation views Revelation as a panoramic view of history from the first century to the Second Coming of Yahshua the Messiah. As the Book of Revelation is written mostly in symbols, the key to understanding properly interpreted symbolism is to connect them with the historical events as they happen. The historical method can be the only true interpretation of the Book of Revelation. The reason the historical interpretation was repudiated is because, once the Bible was printed, it could be clearly seen that the Church of Rome, along with the pope, represented much of the fulfillment of John’s vision. This put the heat on the Church of Rome. To counter this heat, two Spanish Jesuit priests promoted the preterist theory and the futurist theory of Revelation. Alcazar promoted the preterist view and Ribera promoted the futurist view. The one put all prophecy in the past and the other projected all prophecy into the future. Today we have all kinds of preachers and teachers promoting both of these false views, and the people are really eating it up.

The futurist view projects all Bible prophecy into the future. They believe in a “rapture”, a future “antichrist”, that the Roman Empire will be reestablished, and either 3½ or 7 years of tribulation (they call it: “Daniel’s 70th week” or “half week”). In his book, The Rapture Of The Saints, Rev. Duncan McDougall, M.A. explains the origin of the futurist view:

Ribera, another Spanish Jesuit, went to the other extreme and propounded the theory that the whole Book of Revelation related to events to take place just at the time of Christ’s Second Coming, and therefore still in the future. The Antichrist was to be a World-Dictator who would appear at the end of this dispensation. ... For 250 years, from 1580 to 1830, the idea of an individual personal Antichrist to appear sometime in the future was the recognized teaching of the Church of Rome.”

Now if you are teaching anything other than the historical interpretation, you are carrying water for either Alcazar or Ribera, with the blessing of Rome! The futurists get their 3½ years of tribulation from Daniel 7:25 (They say this is the Antichrist and he will rule for three and a half literal calendar years of tribulation.):

Dan. 7:25 ‘And he shall speak great words against the most High, and wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time’.”

At this time, I will return to William V. Fowler’s booklet, End Time Revelation, p.127, and let him explain what this passage is all about:

SYMBOLICAL PROPHECIES: The second half of Daniel comprises four prophecies, each relating to particular places. The first two, in chapters 7 and 8 are symbolical, but the last two, in chapters 9 and 12 are in plain language. Both of the symbolical prophecies are concerned with ‘little horns’ representing powers that arise out of two of the beasts that represent great empires of history.

THE LITTLE HORN OF THE FOURTH EMPIRE, Chapter 7: Daniel had a dream in which he saw four great beasts, the fourth having ten horns among which an eleventh little horn sprang up. In the interpretation we are told that the four beasts represent four kingdoms or empires, and the ten horns are ten kings or kingdoms that arise out of the last empire. None of the empires are named but it is widely assumed that they are the same as the four empires represented by the parts of the metallic image in chapter 2. The four beasts, and the ten horns of the fourth beast serve only to introduce, identify and locate the little horn that forms the main feature of this prophecy. This clearly represents a person of power hostile to the children of Yahweh for we are told that it ‘made war with the saints’, and would prevail ‘for a time, two times, and a half a time’ (verse 25, R.S.V.). As we have previously shown, this is equivalent to 1,260 prophetic ‘days’ or years.

To identify the ten horns of the fourth beast which was the Roman Empire, one has but to examine history which records that ten kingdoms arose after A.D. 476 in the western half of the Roman Empire while the eastern half continued to flourish. History also reveals that Justinian at the head of the Eastern (Roman) Empire at Constantinople subdued three of the ten kingdoms which were established in the western half of the Roman Empire after the fall of Imperial Rome. These were the Vandals whose kingdom had been established in north Africa, the Ostrogoths who had established a kingdom in Italy, and the Alemanian kingdom north of Italy. ‘And he shall be diverse from the first, and shall subdue three kings’, (verse 24). Justinian, as head of the civil government, united the interest of the church and established the Temporal Power of the Papacy which clearly fulfilled the prophetic little horn by dominating Europe for 1,260 years until curtailed by Napoleon, (538 A.D. to 1,798 A.D.).

“‘And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws’, (Dan. 7:25). Justinian’s best known work was as codifier and legislator. He greatly stimulated legal studies, and set up a commission under Tribonian which issued the codex, the digest, and the institutes. (Originally introduced in Dec. 534 A.D., and completed in 538 A.D.). The second edition of the codex contained Justinian’s own laws known as the Novels (Novellae Constitutions). One need only read the utterance of Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth century and his immediate successors to recognize the fulfillment of speaking “great words against the Most High.” Study the history of the inquisition with its massacres, martyrdoms and every kind of persecution to substantiate this interpretation. (See Halley’s Bible Handbook, chapter on Church History, pp. 757-804).

If our understanding of the identity of the little horn is correct then it follows that the Papacy is represented in Dan. 8:20. “... they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end,” (Dan 8:26). The process is still continuing, and will only be completed by our Lord at His coming, when the kingdom ‘... shall be given to the people of the saints (Israel, white race) of the Most High’ (Dan. 8:27). This is reiterated in Rev. 19:20 when the false prophet (who is the head of the false ecclesiastical system, known today as the ‘Ecumenical movement’, probable heir of (Roman Catholicism) is defeated by Christ at His return, and cast into the ‘lake of fire’.” [Back to myself]:

I could go on and quote Fowler’s “The Little Horn Of The Greek Empire”, and “Mohammed Was The Little Horn” (more of Daniel’s prophecy), but the purpose here is to show that Daniel 9:25 has nothing to do with a “future Antichrist.” That just blew away the futurist view of the “mark of the beast”, so it must have a different meaning! ...

The main object of this Supplement Teaching Letter is to inform you of the critical period we may be in at this very time, and an understanding of what the seven times passing over of Nebuchadnezzar’s stump may mean. As I said before, I am not a prophet, and I can only study and research what the prophets prophesied. I have now placed this information in your hands and you will have to critique it for yourself. I don’t know if this might line up with the Y2K problem coming up or not. Remember what William V. Fowler said at the end of his statement, “when adding the one and one quarter years, conversion factor (from B.C. to A.D.) you come to the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness.” It would seem that the end of this Babylonian system could come sometime late this year or there might be a correction factor to figure in. Y2K may be irrelevant as the bottom might fall out of the economy before the year 2000.

(Note: 2-10-2001: There are still unanswered questions about Y2K. Are there still underground oil-line computer chips which may not be working and causing our present energy crisis? Also, the way the economy looks at the updating of this letter, it appears we might be going in for the plunge.)

The question in my mind is: Will the Jews bring in Gog and Magog to reinforce their control before the Y2K problem starts? Whether it is a complete world monetary crash caused by a top heavy economy, or a complete computer shutdown such as Y2K, the results would be the same. If the Jews are going to use the Mongolians to back up their power position, it would seem that they would make their move before the computers shut down. Since all shipping, railroad lines and dockyard loading facilities are run by computers, it would seem they would make their move before Y2K. (2-10-2001: Obviously they didn't make a move before Y2K.)

I have studied Ezekiel 38 and 39 extensively, and I can tell you there are translation problems. I am only going to point out one of these translation problems, at this time, and it is Ezekiel 38:9:

Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.”

If you will study the Hebrew in this verse, you will find it means they will come under cover (covertly) to enter the land. My scenario is they will be loaded aboard ships in container cars in Asia and be brought into the shipyards of our west coast and be transferred to railroad flatcars without being seen. They will proceed from Seattle, San Francisco and San Pedro California to Wyoming and converge near Flaming Gorge and the Green River, and make their way into the Rocky Mountains over the old Union Pacific railway near the old Oregon Trail, pretty much parallel to where Interstate 80 is today. Somewhere in this mountain pass, Yahweh will stop them. The reason I believe it might happen this way is because there is no other way they could get that many men and that huge amount of equipment into the country as described in these two chapters.

Most Bible scholars believe that this invasion will have to come from the north, or over the north pole (verse 15). The reason Ezekiel describes it this way is because at the time of his prophecy, Gog and Magog was located north of him. There is no way that Gog and Magog, with all their men and equipment, are going to march, drive or fly over the north pole! [End of 2-10-2001 comment]

ADDENDUM: April 24, 2014: The reader will notice that I wrote the above materials August 14, 1998 and February, 2001. This February, 2001 date would be seven months before the Twin Financial Towers were taken down on September 11, 2001. I am not going to conjecture how, or by whom they were taken down, but assert they very well may have fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a tree, when felled, “seven times” (2,520 years) would pass over the stump.

No sooner had the Twin Towers been taken down than there was an outcry to reestablish the Espionage Act of 1917, which in effect would abrogate the rule of law established by the framers of the United States of America’s Constitution. With the resulting Patriot Act, they loosened the chains of the United States of America’s Constitution to allow our leaders to become tyrants! Since 9/11, the three branches (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) are no longer restrained by the Constitution. [Now from the website “A Daily Independent Global News Hour” we read, in part]:


National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake faces 35 years in prison on espionage charges for alleged unauthorized ‘willful retention’ of five classified documents. ‘Espionage is the last thing my whistleblowing and First Amendment activities and actions were all about,’ Drake said recently in a public speech. ‘This has become the specter of a truly Orwellian world where whistleblowing has become espionage.’ According to The New Yorker, the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act of 1917 to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national security leaks more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous administrations combined. We play excerpts of Thomas Drake’s first public comments and talk to former Justice Department whistleblower, Jesselyn Radack ....

AMY GOODMAN: A new exposé by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker magazine has revealed more details about the Obama administration’s crackdown on whistleblowers. The article focuses on former National Security Agency analyst Thomas Drake, who’s being prosecuted for leaking information about waste and mismanagement at the agency. Drake was the source for a Baltimore Sun series on the NSA’s overspending and failure to properly maintain its large trove of domestic spy data.

Drake faces 35 years in prison for espionage but isn’t actually accused of spying. Instead, he’s accused of holding on to classified documents in his basement that he says he didn’t know were classified. His trial is set to begin next month in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

Overall, The New Yorker magazine reports, the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act of 1917 to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national security leaks more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous administrations combined. Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Hudson Institute said, ‘Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history even more so than Nixon.’

Drake received the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling last month. In his acceptance speech, he criticized the prosecution of whistle blowers.

THOMAS DRAKE: Truth tellers, such as myself, are those who are simply doing their jobs and honoring their oaths to serve their nation under the law of the land. We are dedicated to the proposition that government service is of, for, by the people. We emphatically do not serve in order to manipulate on behalf of the powerful, nor to conceal unlawful, illegal or embarrassing secrets from the public, because truth does matter. Truth may be inconvenient. It may cause embarrassment. It may threaten the powers that be and their unlawful activities, but it is still the truth. I have but this one life to live ....”

THOMAS DRAKE: I have already paid a frightfully high price for being a whistleblower. But worse still lies ahead of me. Although I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and faithfully upheld the law of the land over a public service career spanning more than 20 years, I now stand before you as a criminal defendant, with my own life and liberty very much at stake, in a public trial set to begin on 13 June in Baltimore, Maryland.

My case is centered on a government prosecution bent not on serving justice, but on meting out retaliation, reprisal and retribution for the purpose of relentlessly punishing a whistleblower. Furthermore, my case is one that sends a most chilling message to other would-be whistleblowers: not only can you lose your job, but also your very freedom.

The government made my cooperation with official investigations a criminal act. It is now apparently a federal crime to report illegalities, malfeasance, fraud, waste and abuse perpetrated by our own government. The government is making whistleblowing a crime. They are making dissent a crime, especially when it embarrasses the government and calls the government to account ....

The fact remains that the heart of my case rests directly on whistleblowing and First Amendment activities involving issues of significant and even grave concern in terms of government illegalities, contract and program malfeasance, as well as fraud, waste and abuse, protected by the Constitution, case law and statutes. And yet the government is censoring and criminally prosecuting protected communications I made in furtherance of government investigations, and doing so under the Espionage Act. Espionage is the last thing my whistleblowing and First Amendment activities and actions were all about. This has become the specter of a truly Orwellian world where whistleblowing has become espionage.”

AMY GOODMAN: That was Thomas Drake, who faces 35 years in prison for espionage. I want to talk about Thomas Tamm. He is the former U.S. Justice Department attorney who helped expose the Bush administration’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping program that intercepted private email messages and phone calls of U.S. residents without a court warrant. Thomas Tamm and Thomas Drake have a lot in common. They both blew the whistle on malfeasance and illegality at the National Security Agency. However, Drake still faces 35 years in prison, while Tamm is no larger the target of criminal inquiry. I asked Thomas Tamm recently onDemocracy Now why he believes the charges against him were dropped.”

THOMAS TAMM: I mean, it’s very difficult to prosecute someone such as myself, recognizing that what I did was reveal something that was against the law. And I also believe that it would have been a problem proving the case against me, because President Bush, the day after that article was published, basically acknowledged that the program existed. In fact, he almost seemed like he was proud of the fact that there was warrantless wiretapping, you know, to supposedly protect the country. In my opinion, he revealed more classified information than I ever did. And the bottom line is, as we mentioned earlier, I didn’t turn over any documents, I didn’t reveal any sources. And really, the bottom line is, I don’t think I ever broke the law.”

AMY GOODMAN: That was Thomas Tamm. Jesselyn, tell us why Thomas Drake is receiving such different treatment.”

JESSELYN RADACK: I think – I mean, interestingly, Thomas Drake landed on the government’s radar screen as part of the massive million-dollar ongoing leak investigation, that it launched after the publication of the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prizewinning story on warrantless wiretapping. I think, basically, you know, it defies any meaningful reason that people like Tom Tamm, who admitted to being sources for the Times, are not prosecuted – not that I want Tom Tamm to be prosecuted. Neither he nor Drake should be prosecuted. But it goes to why they’re going after Drake. And I think that they feel they need to bring home a scalp as a result of this sprawling investigation that has eaten up the time of five full-time prosecutors and 25 FBI agents. And it certainly is deserving of a little oversight by Congress and some auditing by the GAO. I think that’s why they’re going after Drake. I think they also like the Drake case because they can go after him without having to go after or implicate or target a reporter. I think that’s another reason. For whatever reasons, I mean, it really is perplexing why they’re doing this, why the Obama administration, in particular, is doing this.”

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, you have this differential treatment. Former Bush administration officials, if we all remember, John Deutch, the former CIA director, who had classified information at home, Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, both faced much less stringent punishment after taking classified documents home without authorization. Even Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, smuggled classified documents out of a federal building, reportedly by hiding them in his pants or his socks. What about this differential treatment?”

JESSELYN RADACK: Yeah, absolutely. You know, it’s selective prosecution and, I would argue, an abusive prosecution. First of all, you don’t I mean, you have people like Bob Woodward publishing books with much higher-level, tippy-top classified information, not [no audio]. And then you have other people who have taken home classified information, on purpose, who get a slap on the wrist. And then you have Tom Drake, who is alleged to have taken home classified information, but we’re talking about five very innocuous pieces of information that were only deemed to be classified after they were seized from his home and after the government did a forced classification review of them. I mean, it’s definitely selective and, I think, quite vindictive.”

AMY GOODMAN: Also from Jane Mayer’s explosive piece in The New Yorker, she quotes Mark Klein, the former AT&T employee who exposed the telecom company wiretaps, also dismayed by the Thomas Drake case. Mark Klein says, ‘I think it’s outrageous. The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies [got] immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.’ Jesselyn Radack?”

JESSELYN RADACK: Right, that is absolutely correct. Again, you would think as part of the ‘we’re going to look forward, not backwards, at wrongdoing,’ that that would preclude I mean, if that precludes going after the people who engaged in torture and warrantless wiretapping, then it really adds insult to injury to be going after a whistle [no audio] break, who blew the whistle on secret domestic surveillance programs that were selected over cheap, effective programs that had built-in privacy protections to protect U.S. citizens. And it sends a very chilling message to whistleblowers, on whose back Obama was elected. Obama was elected in part based on revelations that were brought forth by whistleblowers revealing torture and electronic eavesdropping. So it’s really a slap in the face that this is being done to Drake. But more than that, it’s the clanging of jail doors, because they’re trying to put him away for the rest of his natural life, which is completely unacceptable.

I urge everybody to take a closer look at this case. And we have a petition on change.org just type in ‘Tom Drake’ calling for some desperately needed congressional oversight here, because there has been none.”

.... JESSELYN RADACK: I was an ethics attorney at the Justice Department, so I’m really laughing over the last segment about John Ashcroft now being an ethics counsel for Blackwater. But I had advised not to interrogate a U.S. citizen without his counsel, and parenthetically, not to torture him. I didn’t think my advice was particularly radical, but the Justice Department sought to put me under a criminal investigation and refer me to the state bars and put me on the no-fly list. However, that pales in comparison to what is being done to Tom Drake, who they’re threatening to imprison for telling the truth.”

AMY GOODMAN: And interesting, it was John Ashcroft, the attorney general, under whom you worked, who said he was given full access to an attorney, when in fact you understood that he was interrogated without an attorney, though his father said he had one for him.”

JESSELYN RADACK: All public records support that he did, in fact, have an attorney and that he was tortured and interrogated, even though he signed a plea agreement saying that he would never sue for being tortured. It’s clear that he had an attorney, and they were not allowing him access to James Brosnahan. That’s [the] name of the attorney who had been retained to represent him.

In a similar kind of way, Drake tried to cooperate with the government and tried to report high-level criminal wrongdoing at the NSA. And again, instead of investigating that criminal wrongdoing that led to one of the greatest scandals of my generation, instead they have chosen to go after Tom Drake, Tom Tamm, Russell Tice, people who were blowing the whistle on that misconduct, although people who engaged in it have gotten off scot-free, and laws have been passed to protect those lawbreakers.” [From USA Today we read in part]:


When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the government’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence veterans breathed a sigh of relief.

Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.

For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.

To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime ....” [Back to ,myself]:

HOW 9-11-2001 MAY BE A MILE-MARKER IN PROPHECY: It only seems reasonable that Daniel’s prophecy of “seven times over the stump” of Nebuchadnezzar would have both a starting and an ending date! If 9-11-2001 A.D. is that ending date, it would have more significance than we first imagined, for it appears at 9/11 that we White citizens of the United States of America, lost the protection that our Constitution affords us, for no longer are the three branches of our government subject to checks and balances as the framers’ intended. These being lost for the last 13 years, I doubt whether we’ll ever get them back before the Second Advent of our Redeemer, Yahshua the Christ. How long, and what kind of persecution we will have to suffer in the meantime, I do not know! The immediate future appears quite dim indeed, for the Obama administration renews these “emergency powers” every few months to make sure his “emergency powers” don’t expire! Jettison Babylon now, as time and means will allow!