2008 Watchman's Teaching Letters

Watchman's Teaching Letter #117 January 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred and seventeenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. We are now in a series of lessons pertaining to Paul’s writings. In WTL #’s 112 & 115, I covered a lot of Scripture explaining what the Bible teaches concerning baptism. There are a lot of misconceptions about this subject, and it appears there is still a need to discuss the matter further. In WTL #112, I referred to several Scriptures where there were baptisms, but not a drop of water was involved. I cited Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 10:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Exod. 14:16; Eph. 5:25-27 & Col. 2:10-12 as examples. I challenge anyone to find water baptism in any of these passages!

The Bible does speak of water baptism, though, and in the Old Testament it is referred to as “washings”, and was practiced long before the time of John the Baptist. Being the son of a Levite, John had every right and authority to do so! John the Baptist was also aware that it wouldn’t be long until the mode of water baptism would be changed to Spirit baptism, and said as much at Matthew 3:11: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire ...”

 Then at Acts 1:4-5 Yahshua Himself commanded his disciples of this very same thing, saying: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” We might brush John the Baptist’s announcement aside as non-inspired, but what are we going to do with Christ’s Words? How much more evidence do we need to show clearly that water baptism does not wash away sins?

Christ wasn’t the last to give this admonition concerning the Holy Spirit. Later, Peter was given the same inspiration at Acts 11:15-16, where it states: 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of Yahshua, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Notice here the word “but” which can mean “rather”, “however” or “instead”. This was one of Peter’s traits – to remember something after-the-fact. Remember, it took Peter fourteen years to fully comprehend his four-cornered sheet-vision! The fact that Peter remembered Christ’s words concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a great admission on his part as it exposes Peter’s over-emphasis of water baptism, especially at Acts 2:38, (and he had to be told many things 3 times):

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” With this statement, Peter established a flawed criteria, a position for which he would later have to admit was wrong. To see that, it will be necessary to go to Acts 10:43-45: 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the ethnê also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Yes, Peter then went on to offer baptism by water, but this passage proves beyond all doubt that water baptism was not necessary for the remission of sins, nor was it essential for the receiving of the Holy Spirit! In other words, this passage nullified what Peter said at Acts 2:38! Yet, many today still hold to a powerless water baptism for the removing of sins! So not only were those of the circumcision “astonished”, but so was Peter.

It is no wonder that the Holy Spirit fell on these ethnê, [plural of ethnos, 1484, Nation] as Peter was preaching from the prophets concerning the attributes and sufferings predicted for Christ from Isaiah chapter 53. And this demonstrates the power of Yahweh’s Word with which we are to be washed and how water baptism is a poor substitute. Just read Isaiah 53 if you don’t think so. Peter didn’t realize it, but he was baptizing these ethnê with the washing of the water by the Word, and Yahweh honored it with His Spirit! I’m not trying to ridicule anyone who may have received water baptism in the past – I’m just trying to put it in its proper place – and that would be in the Old Testament with the other Temple rituals which were only shadows of things to come. Sure, John the Baptist baptized Yahshua Christ, and it was the proper thing to do for that era of time.

I would suggest that the reader once again compare Acts 2:38 with Acts 10:43-45, as the criteria of the two are entirely different. In the first, Peter recommends water as a cleansing agent, and in the latter the cleansing agent is Christ’s suffering and bleeding, as portrayed by Isaiah chapter 53. The reason Peter and his entourage of the circumcision were so “astonished” is because they had formed a faulty premise based upon man’s reasoning of how they thought this matter should be. We should be just as astonished today if we follow the criteria laid down by Peter at Acts 2:38. There is nothing more confusing today than to review the creeds of the various Baptist denominations! Not that there aren’t many good, well-meaning folk among them. If one will make a comparative study of their belief system(s), one will discover they can hardly agree on anything. They even go to the extreme of using circumcision, as found in the Old Testament, to support their theories on the subject. For instance, one can ask a thousand Baptists what age one should reach to be baptized and one will get a thousand answers. If they would just study Acts 10:43-45 in its proper context and ascertain how Peter and those of the circumcision were “astonished”, they might become “astonished” also. “Astonished” because at Acts 10:43-45, water baptism was not essential on Yahweh’s part to impart His Holy Spirit. Otherwise, Yahweh would have waited until after water baptism to impart His Holy spirit. It all boils down to which was more important, Peter’s words at Acts 2:38 or Yahweh’s action at Acts 10:43-45? What it amounts to is: Yahweh didn’t follow Peter’s criteria! Nor should we! This shows the danger of not studying the entire context of the Bible, and instead simply majoring in one passage.

After the Holy Spirit had fallen on these ethnê to whom Peter was preaching, he, as an afterthought, said at Acts 10:47-48: 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Yahshua. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” From Peter’s words here it should be clearly evident that it was not essential to be baptized with water to receive the Holy Spirit! Yet, that is the view of the Baptist churches. In the following chapter at Acts 11:17, Peter explained what had happened with the ethnê receiving the Holy Spirit: 17 Forasmuch then as Yahweh gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Sovereign Yahshua Christ; what was I, that I could withstand Yahweh?” If Peter understood that he couldn’t “withstand Yahweh”, who are we to insist that they should first have received water baptism, and after that the Holy Spirit? But that is what we are doing when we adhere only to Acts 2:38! And to cling only to Acts 2:38 while neglecting Acts 10:43-45 is to “withstand Yahweh”! Peter couldn’t have stated it better, and by making such a statement, he was admitting he had been wrong!

Those who hold that there are two baptisms should consider Eph. 4:4-6 which states: 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Master, one faith, one baptism, 6 One singular-Elohim and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” There is more to this passage than I wish to go into at this time, but you will notice there is only “one baptism”. Which is it: water baptism or Spirit baptism?

As there is but one baptism, so too, there is but one gospel which Gal. 1:8-9 makes quite clear: 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Any gospel that proclaims two separate baptisms would fall into the category of “any other gospel”, bringing the curse of this passage down upon the head of anyone, once receiving light concerning this matter.

PROBLEMATIC ORIGINS OF BAPTISM

 

The origins of baptism present some problems. From the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. A-C, page 464 under the heading “Baptism [Sacramental View]” and subtitle “Biblical basis” ¶4, we read in part: “Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms and given the new meaning attached to the promise of Christ. Daily ablutions were common in pagan circles and even the Jews practiced a regular baptism for proselytes ...” To demonstrate that the bad-fig-jews were also practicing water baptism, I will reproduce an edited excerpt from my essay Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #8:

 

“JEWISH” PROSELYTIZING

 

This is another aspect which should be delved into concerning the cursed bad-fig-Judaean nation at the time of the Messiah. Without this understanding, it is difficult to comprehend the conditions surrounding the bad-fig-Judaean nation at that period. Once that view is understood and grasped, a very different view will be perceived. This is a topic which has not been addressed, at any length, by the clergy of nominal churchianity or, for that matter, among those who understand the Israel Identity message. It is paramount that we understand the complexities of that period, for if we don’t, we simply cannot fathom the elements which were coming into play during that time. Once we comprehend this, we will not be prone to make ludicrous statements such as those which Ted R. Weiland has spewed (vomited) out.

I will first introduce the general story and then present the documentation. First, let’s consider the Scripture where Messiah condemned the bad-fig-jews for their proselytizing, Matthew 23:15:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

In Matthew chapter 3, we are told of John the Baptist and his endeavor to prepare the way for the Messiah by baptizing and conversion. It seems here, according to the story, the Pharisees and Sadducees came and inquired of John what he was doing. Forthrightly, John informed the bad-fig-jews, he didn’t baptize “vipers”. Why were the Pharisees and Sadducees so interested in what John the Baptist was doing? Many may be unaware of the fact that the Pharisees and Sadducees were also baptizing their converts. The requirement to become a bad-fig-jewish proselyte was firstly, to be circumcised, and when the wound was healed, then, secondly, the candidate was baptized. The bad-fig-jews considered that when their candidate went down into the water he was a heathen, and when he came back up, he was an Israelite. This is fantastic, for a non-Israelite could be baptized thousands of times and it would not make him an Israelite! And just whom were these bad-fig-jews baptizing and making proselytes? Many were of the seven Canaanite nations. Now some excerpts from pages 55 to 63 from A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica volume 2, by John Lightfoot:

“Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation, are required ... That was a common axiom ... No man is a proselyte until he be circumcised and baptized ... [because none becomes a proselyte without circumcision and baptism] according to the judgment [or right] of the Sanhedrim ... If with a proselyte his sons and his daughters are made proselytes also, that which is done by their father redounds to their good ... A heathen woman, if she is made a proselytess, when she is now big with child,— the child needs not baptism ... for the baptism of his mother serves for him for baptism ... ‘If an Israelite take a Gentile child ... or find a Gentile infant, and baptizeth him in the name of a proselyte,— behold, he is a proselyte’ ... First, you see baptism inseparably joined to the circumcision of proselytes. There was, indeed, some little distance of time; for ‘they were not baptized till the pain of circumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound.’ But certainly baptism ever followed ... Secondly, Observing from these things which have been spoken, how very known and frequent the use of baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easy why the Sanhedrim,  by their messengers, inquired not of John concerning the reason of baptism, but concerning the authority of the baptizer; not what baptism meant, but whence he had a license so to baptize, John 1:25 ... For the admission of a proselyte was reckoned no light matter ... Proselytes are dangerous to Israel, like the itch ... When a proselyte was to be circumcised, they first asked him concerning the sincerity of his conversion to Judaism: whether he offered not himself to proselytism for the obtaining of riches, for fear, or for love to some Israelite woman ... As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism; and being placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the law. Which being heard ... he plunges himself, and comes up, and behold, he is as an Israelite in all things ...

“... But a proselyte was baptized not only into the washing-off of that Gentile pollution, nor only thereby to be transplanted into the religion of the Jews; but that, by the most accurate rite of translation that could possibly be, he might so pass into an Israelite, that, being married to an Israelite woman, he might produce a free and legitimate seed, and an undefiled offspring. Hence, servants that were taken into a family were baptized,— and servants also that were to be made free: not so much because they were defiled with heathen uncleanness, as that, by that rite ... becoming Israelites in all respects, they might be more fit to match [mate] with Israelites, and their children be accounted as Israelites. And hence the sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized. They were circumcised, that they might take upon themselves the obligation of the law; but they needed not baptism, because they were already Israelites. ... The baptism of proselytes was the bringing over of Gentiles into the Jewish religion ...” [“Sanhedrim” Lightfoot’s spelling.]

You can see from this, things at that period were not at all like we are led to believe. By-and-large the people of that bad-fig-jewish nation had so corrupted themselves genetically, there were hardly any pureblooded Israelites left among them. Here you have the facts laid out before you, so that it will save you a lot of homework on your part. All you have to do is verify them. It would appear the time has come for some who follow the teachings of anti-seedliners such as the likes of Ted R. Weiland to wake up and get the wax out of their ears. Here is substantial evidence that the anti-seedliners are not as informed as they pretend to be. Not only are the clergy of today blind to the conditions of that nation, but we have those in Israel Identity who have been trained in the Judeo-churchianty theological centers who aren’t much better. It takes a lot of time and effort, sweat and blood, to put research like this together. Furthermore, if one cannot see the parallel between what is going on today, with all of the mixed-racial marriages, just as the Judeans of that day were taking strange wives and strange husbands, one has to be blind! They were taking others in marriage who were often descended from the seven Canaanite nations. There were some pureblooded Benjamites who were still in Galilee, from whom Yahshua took all of His disciples except one, as there were some Essenes in Judaea. [end of excerpt taken from Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #8]

It is my hope that this is beginning to give the reader a better perspective of what kind of baptizing was going on during the time of Christ in Judaea.

While we are on the subject of baptism, we shouldn’t overlook the passage at Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Did Yahshua Christ really say these words? Mark 16:9-20 lacks original authority, as they are verses which were added a few centuries A.D. later to a gospel which (rightly or wrongly) was thought to be incomplete. Mark 16:16 does not indicate what it is that one “believeth not” for which he is “damned”, while 2 Thess 2:7-12 is very specific. Mark 16:16 leaves the reader completely in the dark as to whom, what, when, where, why or how. 2 Thess. 2:12, is much clearer where it says “That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” If one will read verses 7 through 12 of 2 Thessalonians, one will not be left wanting for understanding. Also, many of the false doctrines which are floating around today usually use the last 12 verses of Mark 16 for support!

But Mark 16:16 is not the only problematic passage on baptism to consider. There is also Matthew 28:19, where it says: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. This passage has also been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars some of the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. However, doubt exists among some whether they may represent verbiage in addition to what Christ actually said. Such evidence found at Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3, suggesting that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but only in the name of Yahshua Christ. Thus, it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with clear, fixed intent the last two verses of Matthew. Of course, those who maintain a trinity of gods rather than a singular-Elohim idolize these last two verses of Matthew. Mark 1:8 should come into play here where it says: “I [John the Baptist] indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Notice it DOESN’T say: “I [John the Baptist] indeed have baptized you with water: but He Yahshua shall baptize you again with more water”! But that is how the majority read it! So anyone since Pentecost who is relying on water baptism in the names of a trinity of gods to be significant for salvation is deceiving himself. It is simply amazing the number of people who still rely on water baptism as a foundation for their salvation!

If all of these misunderstandings aren’t bad enough, many use John 3:5 as support for water baptism where it says: “Yahshua answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Yahweh.” Many uninspired scholars understand these words as containing a reference to water baptism. Just how they do this is unclear, for if “water” implies water baptism and “Spirit” implies Spirit baptism, an erroneous claim for two baptisms is contrived. The “water” of this verse is simply the breaking of the water surrounding the child during the birth process; it has nothing to do with any kind of baptism! The “Spirit” in this verse is in reference to a race of people who had the Spirit of Yahweh breathed into them at Genesis 2:7. All non-Adamites have not this Spirit (and again, it shouldn’t be confused with Spirit baptism)! Had they only read the next verse 6, they would have understood that the “water” is the “flesh”. And while we are at it, Yahshua didn’t say at verse 3, “... Except a man be born again ...”, but rather “... Except a man be born from above ...”, which simply means to be born of the heavenly White Adamic race. That is why Paul was able to say at Rom. 8:16: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahweh.” How can water baptism “beareth witness” of anything? Again I will say, water baptism had its time and place in the Old Testament rituals, and those rituals were to continue until Yahshua finally made the ultimate sacrifice of Himself, as Daniel said at 9:26-27: 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall [Yahshua] Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince [Romans under Titus] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he [Yahshua Messiah] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the [Old Testament] sacrifice and the oblation to cease [with His own sacrificial death] ...” Now water baptism is in the same category as the sacrificial animals that were killed in the Temple. It was those ritual laws which were nailed to the cross. Therefore to continue Old Testament water baptism after Pentecost is superfluous. If we are going to continue water baptism, we need to go back and revive all of the Old Testament Temple rituals! The practice of water baptism was not immediately discontinued, but through the leading of the Holy Spirit Peter discovered and said: “... what was I, that I could withstand Yahweh?”

Some may conclude that I am bringing all of this forward assuming that I was never baptized with water, which is not true. I was baptized when I was about 12 to 13 years old by immersion in a river. But I look back on it now with a different perspective than the church I was going to at the time taught. There is one thing for sure, I can’t undo what has already happened! You see, I’m just as hard on myself as I am with others. And I wouldn’t recommend that anyone who was baptized in the past try to un-baptize themselves. Had we lived in Old Testament times, sure, it would have been the correct thing for any self-respecting Israelite to do.

I will now quote a passage from A History Of The Christian Church, pages 93-97, by Williston Walker on the subject of baptism. While it is not perfect in all respects, it will serve to verify some of the things which I have already addressed:

 

SECTION XIII. BAPTISM

 

“Baptism is older than Christianity. The rite gave to John, the ‘Forerunner,’ his name. He baptized Jesus. His disciples and those of Jesus baptized, though Jesus Himself did not. The origin of the rite is uncertain; but it was probably a spiritualization of the old Levitical washings. Jewish teaching, traceable probably to a period as early as the time of Christ, required proselytes to the Hebrew faith not merely to be circumcised, but to be baptized. It seems probable that John did not invent the rite, and simply used contemporary practice. It was a fitting symbol of the spiritual purification that followed the repentance that he preached. The mystery religions had equivalent rites; but so purely Jewish was that primitive Christianity to which baptism belongs, that it is inconceivable that they should have had any effect on the origin of the practice, though they were profoundly to influence its development on Gentile [sic ethnos] soil. Peter represents baptism as the rite of admission to the church, and to the reception of the Holy Spirit. As the sacrament of admission baptism always stood till the religious divisions of post-Reformation days. It so stands for the vast majority of Christians at present.

“With Paul, baptism was not merely the symbol of cleansing from sin, it involved a new relation to Christ, and a participation in His death and resurrection. Though Paul apparently did not think baptism essential to salvation his view approached that of the initiations of the mystery religions and his converts in Corinth, at least, held an almost magical conception of the rite, being baptized in behalf of their dead friends, that the departed might be benefited thereby. Baptism soon came to be regarded as indispensable. The writer of the fourth Gospel represented Christ as declaring: ‘Verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’ ... This conviction but deepened. To Hermas (115-140), baptism was the very foundation of the church, which ‘is builded upon waters.’  Even to the philosophical Justin (153) baptism effected ‘regeneration’ and ‘illumination.’ In Tertullian’s estimate it conveyed eternal life itself.

“By the time of Hermas and of Justin the view was general that baptism washed away all previous sins. As in the mystery religions it had become the great rite of purification, initiation, and rebirth into the eternal life. Hence it could be received but once. The only substitute was martyrdom, ‘which stands in lieu of the fontal bathing, when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.’ With the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.’ There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matt. 28:19.That text is early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching, and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).

“Regarding persons baptized, the strong probability is that, till past the middle of the second century, they were those only of years of discretion. The first mention of infant baptism, and an obscure one, was about 185, by Irenaeus. Tertullian spoke distinctly of the practice, but discouraged it as so serious a step that delay of baptism was desirable till character was formed. Hence he doubted its wisdom for the unmarried. Less earnest men than Tertullian felt that it was unwise to use so great an agency of pardon till one’s record of sins was practically made up. A conspicuous instance, by no means solitary, was the Emperor Constantine, who postponed his baptism till his deathbed. To Origen infant baptism was an apostolic custom. Cyprian favored its earliest possible reception. Why infant baptism arose there is no certain evidence. Cyprian, in the letter just cited, argued in its favor from the doctrine of original sin. Yet the older general opinion seems to have held to the innocency of childhood. More probable explanations are the feeling that outside the church there is no salvation, and the words attributed to Christ in John 3:5. Christian parents would not have their children fail of entering the Kingdom of God. Infant baptism did not, however, become universal till the sixth century, largely through the feeling already noted in Tertullian, that so cleansing a sacrament should not be lightly used.

“As to the method of baptism, it is probable that the original form was by immersion, complete or partial. That is implied in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. Pictures in the catacombs would seem to indicate that the submersion was not always complete. The fullest early evidence is that of the Teaching: ‘Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ Affusion was, therefore, a recognized form of baptism. Cyprian cordially upheld it. Immersion continued [to be] the prevailing practice till the late Middle Ages in the West; in the East it so remains. The Teaching and Justin show that fasting and an expression of belief, together with an agreement to live the Christian life were necessary prerequisites. By the time of Tertullian an elaborate ritual had developed. The ceremony began with the formal renunciation by the candidate of the devil and all his works. Then followed the threefold immersion. On coming from the fount the newly baptized tasted a mixture of milk and honey, in symbolism of his condition as a new-born babe in Christ. To that succeeded anointing with oil and the laying on of the hands of the baptizer in token of the reception of the Holy Spirit. Baptism and what was later known as confirmation were thus combined. Tertullian also shows the earliest now known existence of Christian sponsors, i.e., godparents. The same customs of fasting and sponsors characterized the worship of Isis.

“In the apostolic age baptism was administered doubtless not only by Apostles and other leaders, but widely by those charismatically eminent in the church. By 110-117, Ignatius, in the interest of unity, was urging, ‘it is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast.’ In Tertullian’s time, ‘of giving it, the chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons ... besides these even laymen have the right, for what is equally received can be equally given.’ In the Greek and Roman Churches baptism still continues [to be] the only sacrament which any Christian, or indeed any seriously intending person, can administer in case of necessity.

“The middle of the third century saw a heated discussion over the validity of heretical baptism. Tertullian had regarded it as worthless; and his was undoubtedly the prevalent opinion of his time. After the Novatian schism Bishop Stephen of Rome (254-257) advanced the claim that baptism, even by heretics, was effectual if done in proper form. His motives seem to have been partly the growing feeling that sacraments are of value in themselves, irrespective of the character of the administrant, and partly a desire to facilitate the return of the followers of Novatian. This interpretation was energetically resisted by Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and led to certain important assertions of the authority of the Roman bishop. The deaths of Stephen and Cyprian gave a pause to the dispute; but the Roman view grew into general acceptance in the West. The East reached no such unanimity of judgment.”

Williston Walker recognized that Paul didn’t esteem water baptism as essential, and Paul was the recipient of the hidden mysteries!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #118 February 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred and eighteenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. In this letter, we will continue to explore the writings of the apostle Paul. In the last WTL, #117 I tried to demonstrate how, during the transition period recorded in the book of Acts, Spirit baptism took precedence over water baptism. As for myself, I’m an advocate of baptism by the Word of Yahweh. I believe many overlook the power of the Word. In fact, Hebrews 4:12 states: “For the word of Yahweh is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Now I’ve never read where water baptism could compare with that. The blood is germinated in the marrow of the bone, and anything that can penetrate that deep can make a person physically ill. Yes, by quoting Scripture, one has a powerful weapon at hand! The purpose of this lesson will be to show the more important functions of the Word. In Paul’s epistle of 2 Timothy 3:16 we read: “All scripture is given by inspiration of Yahweh, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Thus we see there are four areas in which Scripture will assist us: (1) doctrine, (2) reproof, (3) correction, and (4) instruction in righteousness.

There is a category of people who consider they already have a perfect doctrine and need no reproof, correction or instruction. These type of people usually claim they speak directly with “God”, so there is no need to consult the Bible. I know of one man in Israel Identity whose mother had a dream that her son was Jesus Christ reincarnated, and as far as I know, he believed his mother’s dream and took that concept to the grave with him. Had his mother or he ever taken the Bible seriously, they both would have known better. Like the pope, such “infallible” people aren’t candidates for doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction! There’s nothing that turns me off any quicker than someone who wants to tell me all about who they were in several former lifetimes or about some near death experience.

There is a particular order for these four inspirational aspects. It’s not something that we pick up helter-skelter, jumping around all over the place; first doctrine, then reproof, then correction, and lastly instruction in righteousness. In other words, one cannot receive reproof before proper doctrine, nor can one receive correction before one receives reproof, not can one receive instruction in righteousness before one receives correction. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul’s writings have been arranged in this order in our Bibles: first doctrine, then reproof, then correction, and lastly instruction in righteousness. Not that he planned it that way, for he surely didn’t, but that is the order in which we find them today.

Actually, Paul’s first epistle was not the book of Romans, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was placed first among his letters. And being placed first, it is a book of doctrine. So if one desires to understand doctrine, start with Romans. It is not so much the order in which Paul wrote his various books, but the order in which they were finally arranged in our Bibles. In other words, the book of Romans does not chronologically start where the book of Acts leaves off, but doctrinally it does. As we learned before, the book of Acts is a book of transition, and what was true at the beginning of Acts was not necessarily true at the end. Therefore, the book of Romans is a book of doctrine whereas the book of Acts is not.

When one learns the Israel Identity message, one must wipe the slate clean of everything that he thought he knew, and start all over again. That is what I found to be necessary, and I did it! And the order for starting all over again is: first doctrine, then reproof, then correction, and lastly instruction in righteousness.

Now it’s kind of unique that all of Paul’s epistles to the assemblies, especially the seven that we’re going to discuss here, all fall into the category of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. But we will bypass 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Hebrews. We need to realize that all Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is a progressive revelation, and Paul’s letters are no exception. In other words, as we progress through the Old Testament into the New, Yahweh was always revealing something that the people back at the beginning didn’t know. As we make our way into the New Testament, Yahweh begins to reveal things that weren’t revealed in the Old, and this is especially true when we get into the apostle Paul’s writings.

This should show how beautifully our Bible is put together. Paul didn’t simply sit down and contemplate, “Now how can I write this, I’ll have to be able to put doctrine first, then I’ll have to somehow follow by addressing the area of reproof.” Surely, Paul never considered such a thing when he wrote his letters. Paul simply wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired him to write, and then sent his letters off to the various assemblies by courier, and the Spirit established the sequence. Paul used a lady named Phoebe to carry his epistle to the Romans, from Corinth to Rome. He sent some of his other letters via friends such as Titus and Timothy.

Gal. 1:17-18 records that Paul sojourned to both: (1) Arabia (i.e. east Syrian desert, (an extension of Nabataea) – not “mount Sinai of Arabia” at Gal. 4:25) and, (2) Damascus, consuming three years for his reeducation. Thence he journeyed to Jerusalem, after which he began his missionary journeys sometime around the early 40’s A.D.

Leaving Paul’s preparation for the Gospel, we turn to his books of Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians and Galatians. Romans was written about 56-57 A.D., while Paul was anticipating his arrival in Jerusalem (compare Acts 20:22 with Rom. 15:25, 31). Galatians was written earlier, around 54 A.D. 1st Corinthians was definitely written from Ephesus (16:8, 19) early in 55 A.D., and the 2nd book followed shortly after. Those four letters were written during his time of missionary travels. On his journeys he would expound to his followers out of the Old Testament, for as yet there was no New Testament. So, everywhere Paul went he had to simply speak the Word verbally, inasmuch as the Old Testament and his own revelations were his only sources.

Later we will examine 1st & 2nd Thessalonians which are at the very end of the seven letters to the assemblies, and they’ll be the ones that are the “instruction in righteousness”. But amazingly, even though they’re at the end of the line of the revelation given to Paul, these were actually written about 57-58 A.D. But even though the apostle Paul wrote these early, the Holy Spirit saw fit to place them at the end of his letters to the assemblies.

Then about 40 A.D., Paul began his missionary journeys up into Asia Minor around the city of Antioch in Syria. During those years, from 40 A.D. until he was imprisoned probably about 57 A.D., covering a period of about 17 years, he was constantly appealing to his kinsmen good-fig-Judaeans (not to be confused with the non-believing bad-fig-Edomite-Canaanite-jews) on the basis of the Old Testament, but he had by that time written Romans which is a book of doctrine. So even though Galatians was written earlier, the Holy Spirit put Romans in our New Testament exactly where it belongs because all Scripture is given and is profitable first of all for doctrine. Then the next two books that we’re interested in are 1st & 2nd Corinthians, which were written for the benefit of reproof. When examining the Corinthian letters, what areas do we find where they were in need of reproof? Among their many troubles, they had problems with immorality; they had dissension in the assemblies; they had divisions; they were having problems with legal matters with one another; they had contention with what they could eat and couldn’t. The assembly was just beset with all kinds of problems. So Paul had to give them reproof concerning these many things in the two letters of 1st & 2nd Corinthians. But all of these reproofs are still appropriate for us today. So up to this point we have Paul’s book of Romans for our doctrine and his two books to the Corinthians for our reproof.

We next come to the book of Galatians, and even though it was written earlier, it is the fourth in the order of the epistles to the assemblies. Now we find in Galatians a book written for our “correction”. But the question must be asked, for what reason did the Galatians need correction? The answer is: they were slipping off course by going back into legalism. So Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians to simply bring them back to the principle beliefs he had originally taught them. During his absence, teachers came from Judaea called “Judaizers”, and insisted that these ethnê believers could not be true Christians until they submitted to the ordinance of circumcision. Furthermore, they maintained that these Galatians must adhere to the rituals under the law of Moses. These naive Galatians then accepted their teachings just as enthusiastically as they had originally accepted Paul’s. Therefore, the purpose of the epistle to the Galatians was to combat such a vicious heresy: in which the work of Christ in His sacrificial death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection were considered insufficient for redemption. Paul then found it necessary to disprove the Judaizers’ claim that he was not a true apostle. They falsely maintained that since he was not one of the twelve original apostles, he must have received his teachings and doctrines second-handed from the other apostles. Paul then showed that he was in every way equal with the original apostles, for he received his doctrine in the form of revelations straight from Yahshua Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-19). Paul even found it necessary to rebuke the apostle Peter when there was a dispute whether he, as a Judaean, should be allowed to disregard the Mosaic law of eating with the unclean ethnê (Gal. 2:11-14). Yet Peter had done the same thing when he communed with Cornelius and his family. So we see that not even the apostles were immune to correction. For the Galatians, the threat of the Judaizers came to an end in 70 A.D. when the Romans (the seed of the woman) “... shall [and did] bruise Satan under your feet shortly ...” How do you like that (out of the book of doctrine), at Romans 16:20? But the seed of the serpent (Satan) is still around and in need of further bruising! So now we have Paul’s book of Romans for our doctrine, and his two books to the Corinthians for our reproof, and his book of Galatians for our correction. Did not Yahshua Christ Himself say, “... beware of the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees”? (Matt. 16:6).

So far we have considered Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians and Galatians concerning doctrine, reproof and correction. But now we reach a higher level (you might say a plateau) above Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians and Galatians, and when we reach the letter to the Ephesians we come to what is called the prison epistles. After Acts 28, while in prison, Paul wrote Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, and we’re going to have the same format that we had with Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians. Except when we get into Ephesians we are going to be at a higher level of doctrine. Philippians will be on a higher level of reproof, and Colossians will be on a higher level of correction. Now one will not comprehend all of this until we cover these latter three named epistles.

Before we start on the book of Ephesians there is one more segment of this unfolding of the epistles of Paul to the assemblies, and that is the 1st & 2nd Thessalonian letters. Momentarily, we should consider Acts 28:25-28, where Paul again observed that the bad-fig-jew nation was continually rejecting the Gospel, so he quoted Isa. 6: 9-10, where the prophet was commissioned to preach the word to a people dull of heart, deaf ears, and blind eyes, whereupon, Paul announced he was taking the Gospel to the ethnê (lost Israel nations). Then, while in prison, he wrote what we term his prison epistles of Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. These three epistles are just a jump-up, doctrinally in depth and understanding, above those we had back in Romans, the two Corinthians, and Galatians. Then we arrive at his letters that were written earlier, but in reality are final in their content, and those are 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, which also follow the format of doctrine, reproof and correction. Now we shall take up the topic of the instruction in righteousness. Again, it is on an even higher plateau than what we saw in his prison epistles, because at 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, where does the Word take us? The answer is to a higher plane both morally and spiritually. Remember 1st Thessalonians chapter 4, where they were admonished that they were to separate (sanctify) themselves from fornication (race-mixing) at verses 3 and 4! Surely that same thing should apply to us today, for are we not, as a people, engaging in interracial fornication on an unprecedented scale? (See “fornication” also at 1st Cor. 10:8.) That they should not defraud their brother, verse 6! Surely, we, by buying foreign products today, defraud our White brothers! That they keep their business among themselves and were to do labor with their own hands, verse 11! Again, this can apply to us today, for are we not sending our jobs to alien nations, and in turn purchasing those foreign-made products in order to save a few dollars? We really have to hate our White brothers to do such a thing! If we would refuse to purchase those foreign-made products, our jobs would return and the foreign-made products would vanish! They were also to look forward to a time of resurrection from the dead as also Yahshua Christ was raised, verses 13-17! If this isn’t instruction in righteousness (both past and present), I surely don’t know what IT COULD BE! Paul speaks of the “... righteousness of Yahweh ...” at Romans 1:17, yet that is not our topic here, rather it is the instruction in righteousness for man. Yahweh has no need for instruction in righteousness! There is no greater instruction in righteousness than keeping one’s genetics pure, for which reason Noah was also accorded the honor of being “righteous”.

The result of the instruction in righteousness can be summed up with the passage at 2 Thessalonians 1:4-6: 4 Consequently we ourselves are boasting in you among the assemblies of Yahweh, for your endurance and faith in all your persecutions and the afflictions which you are bearing: 5 a token of the righteous judgement of Yahweh, for which you are to be deemed worthy of the kingdom of Yahweh, for which you also suffer. 6 For indeed it is righteous with Yahweh to repay those afflicting you with affliction ...” (translation by William Finck).

It should be pointed out that not all books in all New Testaments are in the same order, with the exception of the writings of the apostle Paul. One will find sometimes in various copies of antiquity a different successive order for the books. In other words, New Testaments in libraries across the world are not always successively Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The four Gospels may be mixed-up in various combinations, as well the little epistles of Peter and John, as they’re not always in the same order we are familiar with. But every one of Paul’s epistles are always (in nearly every copy of the New Testament that’s available) in the same order that we have them. Now that should tell us that the Holy Spirit was in total control when the men who met (approximately 350 A.D.) to put the cannon of Scripture together formulating our New Testament. So be aware that Yahweh has always carefully brooded over these Pauline epistles, because they are of special importance for us today. Also be aware today of those who are proclaiming Paul’s epistles to be uninspired!

We now reach a higher plateau that goes even above Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians and Galatians, and when we arrive at the letter to the Ephesians we come to what are known as the prison epistles. At Acts 28, while in prison, Paul wrote Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, and as you will see we’re going to have the same format that we had with Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians. Except Ephesians will be on a higher level of doctrine, Philippians will be on a higher level of reproof, and Colossians will be on a higher level of correction. Here’s a book by book analysis:

 

            Romans                             Doctrine                             Ekklesia Ministry

            1st & 2nd Cor.                   Reproof                              Ekklesia Ministry

            Galatians                           Correction                          Ekklesia Ministry

            Ephesians                         Higher Doctrine                Prison Ministry

            Philippians                        Higher Reproof                 Prison Ministry

            Colossians                        Higher Correction             Prison Ministry

            1 & 2 Thess.                      Righteous Instruction      Ekklesia Ministry

 

What I was unable to show in 1st & 2nd Thessalonians is the fact that originally that ekklesia was established by Paul with the help of Silas. In a later phase of that ministry, Paul, understanding that the Thessalonians were not yet well grounded in doctrine, desired to return there, but was hindered by Satan. Consequently, he sent Timothy to complete the work he had begun. But one must remember that Timothy worked under Paul’s instruction. Because Paul’s ministry was cut short with the Thessalonians, and they began to form several eschatological misconceptions, it was necessary for them to receive some instruction in righteousness. Today eschatological misconceptions are running rampant throughout Christendom under many guises, and like the Thessalonians, we are desperately in need of instruction in righteousness. And like Noah, righteousness is purity of race! Today we are receiving very little righteous-racial teaching, but are being bombarded with unrighteous multiculturalism, even from the pulpits. Therefore, churchianity has bought Satan’s agenda hook, line and sinker!

An attempt will now be made to cover Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians in the short space we have here. These three represent a higher level of doctrine, reproof and correction respectively. The first of these three to be addressed will be Ephesians, where a higher level of doctrine will be expounded.

After Paul’s salutation, he drops a bombshell by informing the Ephesians that they had been chosen “before the foundation of the world.” How phony is all this business where we are told: “Because the [bad-fig] jews rejected Christ, Yahweh turned to the Gentiles.” Poor old God, can’t do anything right! The term “Gentiles” is an improper translation from the Greek ethnos into Latin, and should, in most cases, have been translated “nations” (representing the nations which the lost tribes of Israel in their dispersion had formed). Yes, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ancestors of the Ephesians, they were chosen before the foundation of the world! With this bit of higher doctrine, I’m sure Paul got their attention! Maybe we should use the same approach today! Peter understood this when he said at 1 Peter 2:9: “But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” And Peter wasn’t addressing the bad-fig-jews who were/are in actuality half-breed Canaanites! It is important to differentiate between the good-fig-Judahites of racially pure Judah and the half-breed bad-fig-jews of Jeremiah 24, or we will be completely confused. And wherever the term “Jew” is used in our Bible, it would be advisable to determine the context in order to understand which of these two categories it is speaking of! Also it would be well to analyze the term to determine if it is speaking racially, nationally, religiously, politically or geographically. For instance, Paul was a Benjamite whose nationality was Judaean and was living in Tarsus. Calling Paul a “jew” is highly inaccurate!

Some see a contradiction between what Paul announced to the Ephesians at 1:4 with Mark 8:34. They comment thusly: “On the one hand we have ‘whosoever will may come’, but on the other we have this verse in Ephesians that says you were chosen ‘before the foundation of the world’. It is impossible to understand that over here we have ‘whosoever will may come’, and over here we have chosen ‘before the foundation of the world’. The two are contradictory, so let’s leave it in God’s hands.” Had they read Mark 8:34-38 a little more carefully, they might have discovered the context of the two passages are entirely unrelated! After all, it’s not everyone who is called to be a disciple (Luke 14:26-27)! Paul is still correct at Eph. 1:4! Neither does the “whosoever” of Rev. 22:17 fit this.

Not only chosen “before the foundation of the world”, but “predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Yahshua Christ to himself” at verse 5. Also “redemption [purchased back] through his blood” at verse 7. This can only be referring to Yahweh’s divorce of Israel for unfaithfulness, where under the law one cannot remarry a former divorced spouse unless one of the divorced parties die. In the case of Israel, Yahweh decided to come in the flesh as Yahshua and died to satisfy the law, whereby He could remarry her. Therefore, Yahshua Christ died for the twelve tribes of Israel, and Israel alone! This is only a sample of the higher level of doctrine to be found in Ephesians!

The next one we will address is the book of Philippians which represents a higher level of reproof. Paul had founded the ekklesia at Philippi, but got into trouble for casting an unclean spirit out of a slave girl for which he and Silas were imprisoned. This, in turn, led to the conversion of a jailer and his family (Acts 16:26-34).

It is apparent from the language of the four chapters of this short book, that the Philippian people were some of the finest people that ever walked the face of the earth! But in spite of all their good qualities, they had a weak area for which they needed to be scolded. I’m not speaking of a light offense, or something trivial. I’m speaking of something that is very serious, and something for which we need that same reproof today. This wretched trait for which the Philippians were guilty is addressed by Paul at Phil. 3:2-3 where he states: 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship Yahweh in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Yahshua, and have no confidence in the flesh.” Where else in Scripture have we read of someone being referred to as a “dog”? The answer is, it was from Yahshua Christ Himself who had encountered a Canaanite woman who requested of Him to heal her daughter. Hence all bad-fig-Canaanite-jews are “dogs”, and that was to whom Paul was referring! In verse 2, he gave us three characteristics by which to identify them: (1) “Beware of dogs”, (2) “beware of evil workers”, and (3) “beware of the concision”. Then in verse 3, Paul described the difference between a bad-fig-jew and a true-blooded Israelite, where he said (and I will amplify it for understanding): “For we are the circumcision [made without hands], which worship Yahweh in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Yahshua, and have no confidence in the flesh[-born (rather than the White spirit-born)].”

Today we’re doing the same thing the Philippians were doing in their day, mollycoddling the bad-fig-jews! Answer me this: Is this a higher level of reproof, or isn’t it? Since showing how Paul warned the Philippians to beware of dogs, there are some who will start accusing Paul of being anti-Semitic. They’re accusing Paul of everything else, so they might just as well accuse him of that one too! I could probably cite several other marginal items in Philippians which might fall under the category of reproof, but I believe I’ve explained the major one. So a dog is a dog is a dog...!

This brings us to the book of Colossians, a book of higher correction. Colossians contains so many truisms and admonitions written by Paul that if all of them were covered exhaustively, they would fill volumes. All of Paul’s epistles are comparable to a fireworks display with Colossians being the grand finale, for with this epistle he really explodes on many subjects. The idea of correction is somewhat like launching a spacecraft to the moon. Once the craft is free of the effects of earth’s gravity, the next step is to make corrections in its trajectory. It is necessary for this process to take place early, or the craft might miss the moon’s orbit by thousands of miles. So it is correct, correct, correct, correct, as many times as necessary. It is also important for the spacecraft to make critical midcourse corrections. So likewise with Paul in his letter to the Colossians, it’s correct, correct, correct, correct! One of the major things for which the Colossians were in need of correction is found at 2:18, where Paul states: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.”

False teachers had infiltrated the ekklesia at Colossae, and were bringing in many heresies, among them the worship of angels. This ekklesia was established by Epaphrus and Timothy rather than Paul, but these two were under his charge.

William Finch addressed this with his The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4 in WTL #114 thusly: “Furthermore, it is also now possible to understand how Paul of Tarsus could blame angels for the world’s false religions, as is apparent at Col. 2:18 and 1 Cor. 10:20. Col. 2:17-19 reads in part: ‘... Whereas the body is of the Anointed, 18 let no one find you unworthy of reward, being willing with humiliation even in worship of the Messengers [angels]; stepping into things which one sees, heedlessly inflated by the mind of one’s flesh, 19 and not grasping the Head ...’, and the ‘worship of angels’ can in context only refer to the pagan religions which the Greek Colossians had at one time followed.” So one can clearly see just how dangerous a dilemma Paul was up against! And because Paul was in chains, he had to address it indirectly with his epistle rather than by personally going to them. But that turned out to be a blessing for us, as we can now be corrected by the same epistle, and a higher correction at that! As it turned out, Paul was more effective in prison than out. Had he gone personally to Colossae, he would have had the same message for them, but chances are we would have no record of it today for our admonition.

Another place where Paul uses correction for a guiding concept to keep the Colossians on a proper course is at 3:5, where he writes: “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”

I will amplify this verse for a better understanding: “Mortify therefore [subdue by abstinence, inflict pain on] your [sexual] members which are upon the earth; fornication [which is race-mixing], uncleanness [which is keeping company with the nonwhite races], inordinate affection [homosexuality], evil concupiscence [strong or abnormal desire or appetite for interracial sex], and covetousness [for the same], which is idolatry.” (cf. Numbers ch. 25)

To give the reader an idea of what is being said here I will use the following illustration: Would you build a brand new home and while it is still sparkling clean and the smell of newness is still in the air, then hook it to a sewer which would backup into it? One might even get a high-pressure sprayer and pump the effluent from the sewer and spray it all over the walls, ceilings and floors, along with the interior of the bathroom and all over the kitchen, in the cupboards and into the refrigerator, along with the bedding in the bedrooms. You wouldn’t do that, would you? But that is what one is doing when he invites a nonwhite into his home, social or business activities, or allows them to become intimately involved with a family member. These other races are sewer-people and Scripture categorizes them as “unclean”. The bad-fig-jews are sewer-people; the arabs and turks are sewer-people; the mexicans are sewer-people! And all the other two-legged unclean enosh creatures are sewer-people! Higher correction by Paul? You bet it is!

At Col. 1:12, Paul speaks of the Colossians as “... partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light ...” Thus, to be partakers of the inheritance would necessitate that they be some of the lost Israelites. Then in verse 13 it speaks of these lost Israelites being delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of Yahshua Christ. Then in verse 14 “... in whom we have redemption [a purchasing back] through his blood ...” Israel had been unfaithful to her husband, Yahweh, and sold themselves into sin. Therefore, Yahweh divorced them, and they became “not a people”, thus “darkness”.

Then at verse 21, it speaks of these divorced Israelites as aliens which the divorce accomplished: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.” Yahshua didn’t reconcile any bad-fig-jew sewer-people, but rather good-fig-Judahites and Israelites!

At Col. 2:8, Paul does some more correcting where he wrote: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Today, “the rudiments of the world” is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is Satan’s primary agenda, and 99.999% of the world’s population is following, and in favor of it. It’s become the popular thing to do! They can hardly wait until everyone is a sewer-person! Then at verse 11, Paul explains that the true-blooded Israelites are the “circumcised made without hands”, rather than the way the bad-fig-jews do it. Then at verse 14, Paul speaks about “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us ...” They didn’t have erasers back in those days, so they took their pen and kept scribbling until the entry was completely covered-up with ink. The particular ordinance which was against us regarded remarriage after once being divorced. Thus, by Yahweh coming in the flesh as Yahshua and dying, it satisfied that ordinance, canceling (blotting) it out. And anyone who claims that Yahshua died for “whosoever” accuses Him of committing adultery. Yahshua didn’t come to marry sewer-people! He was only married to Israel before, and He’ll only be married to Israel after! Sewer-people? You have to be kidding! And to advocate a trinity is to argue that Christ came to marry His Father’s former wife!

Then at Col. 3:11, we have a verse for which few understand the context. I will amplify it so we can comprehend the meaning: “Where there is neither Greek [Israelite] nor Judaean [Israelite], circumcision [Israelite] nor uncircumcision [Israelite], Barbarian [Israelite], Scythian [Israelite], bond [Israelite] nor free [Israelite]: but Christ is all, and in all.”

Then at Col. 3:18-22, Paul gives instructions for a correct family relationship of wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants and masters. Though we no longer have slavery, it would not be out-of-order to substitute employee for servant and employer for master, as long as they are pureblooded Israelites. In too many cases the bad-fig-jews have become our masters, for which I don’t see any reason to implement Paul’s directive as it concerns them.

You will notice here that I did not include 1st & 2nd Timothy, as it didn’t fit the format I was using. Not that the letters to Timothy are not important. Actually, Timothy was not entirely overlooked as I used 2 Timothy 3:16 for my format, and I will repeat it here: “All scripture is given by inspiration of Yahweh, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Much more could have been cited from Paul under these topics.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #119 March 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred and nineteenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. Once teaching letter #120 has been completed, it will mark ten years of publication. As I have stated before, when one learns the Israel Identity message, one must wipe their mind entirely clean of everything that he thought he knew and start all over again. With this lesson, we’ll consider just such a cleansing of the mind, where some fail to comprehend the true context of both Biblical and historical evidence. Really, there is no conflict between the two once certain evidence is reconciled. Some of the people who establish incorrect premises are those who advocate the Septuagint-only for the study of the Old Testament. While the Septuagint is a valuable tool, it isn’t perfect in all aspects, as some assert. One proponent of the Septuagint-only (whom will not be named here) took issue with William Finck on several topics. William intends to address several of those misconceptions once he is released from prison. (With this teaching letter, I will also tie-in this subject with the writings of the apostle Paul.) The following is a duplication of Finck’s letter, excluding the recipient’s name, to this Septuagint-only proponent, which cites only a few of the problems which could be addressed:

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4th February 08, Dear Sir, Greetings. I have your lengthy and critical letter of November 30th [2007] before me. I am not going to respond to the bulk of it at this point, although I am optimistic that if I chose to do so, I may have done so effectively. I only refrain because there seems to be deep fundamental differences in our beliefs, far beyond the use of labels and titles, especially concerning the Aryan peoples of Europe. Without resolving those deeper differences, nearly everything which follows is either irreconcilable, or not worth reconciling.

I knew when I had read your first letter that you were influenced by V.S. Herrell, whom both Clifton and I consider to be a man of many errors. I’m not necessarily referring to errors in translation, but fundamental errors in the interpretation of both history and prophecy. Neither shall I even begin to address these here. Our differences with Herrell are something which I’ve long hoped to address once I get out, and can get to a computer. That shall hopefully, be by the end of this year, and can’t be much later by any means.

One thing which I am writing to address here is your statement that “[my] ... insisting that Phoenicians were somehow Israelites ... is historically ridiculous and contrary to scripture”. You go on to cite Genesis chapter 10 as proof that Sidon, “the main Phoenician city”, was a Canaanite city, and you say that “since Phoenicia was a geographic term it [the LXX use of the term] poses no problem”. Here I shall discuss these statements.

The term “Phoenician”, and related terms, do not appear in ANY literature, or in any known inscriptions, before the time of Homer. Examining the term in Liddell & Scott, it is also a decidedly Greek term, with a clear etymology. It can be established that Homer wrote circa 690 B.C., and that the main event which he wrote about, the Trojan war, probably occurred about 1185 B.C. Homer being the first writer which we have to mention the Phoenicians, these dates are very important in understanding the context in which the label was applied.

You have cited Genesis chapter 10 to prove that Sidon was a Canaanite city. That is obvious, and indeed it was. So was Jerusalem, originally, and many other of the cities of Palestine later inhabited by Israelites. Homer mentioned Sidon, although he evidently never mentioned Tyre, at least in the works that we have. Other contemporary writers did mention Tyre, albeit in a later historical context than the Trojan war. Tyre is found in ancient Akkadian texts, where the old mainland city is called Ushu. The Genesis 10 account represents the Adamic world as it stood circa 3000 B.C., some time after the flood of Noah, according to the LXX chronology (of course), which puts the flood at circa 3245 B.C. Yet having cited Genesis, do you have faith in the subsequent books of the Bible?

In the LXX, at Joshua 19:28-29, we see that the borders of the land which fell to the tribe of Asher included “the Tyrians” and went “to great Sidon”. At Joshua 19:35, we see that Naphtali also inherited “the walled cities of the Tyrians” and “Tyre”. That Asher surely did occupy the coasts of their allotted territory is evident later, at Judges 5:17: “... and why does Dan remain in ships? Aser sat down on the sea-coasts, and he will tabernacle at his ports.” Here, in the context of “sea-coasts”, it was quite fair of Brenton to render διεξόδοις as “ports”. Elsewhere in Joshua and Judges, where the cities of Palestine from which the Canaanites were not driven out are listed, Tyre is not mentioned among them. Although Canaanite “Sidonians” are mentioned as having remained, at Judges 3:3, that does not mean that they were not displaced from the city Sidon, and it can surely be shown that Israelites did inhabit the city (i.e. 2 Kings [2 Sam. in the A.V.] 24:6, where Sidon is even distinguished from the Canaanite cities).

Now the Israelite conquest of the land of Canaan took place from approximately 1400 to 1350 B.C., in the main, and sporadically after that, and we know that pockets of Canaanites remained and were never entirely exterminated. Yet with the children of Israel occupying Tyre, Sidon, and the other towns of “Phoenicia” some generations before [the events about which] Homer wrote, just who were the “Phoenicians” that Homer wrote about?

Later, when the prophets forewarned Israel about the coming judgment, Tyre was lamented by Ezekiel. Tyre had supplanted Sidon as the “main Phoenician city” within a short time after the island city was built, which Josephus enables us to date to around 1240 B.C. Speaking to the “house of Israel”, Amos says “Therefore thus saith the Lord God; O Tyre, thy land shall be made desolate round about ...” (Amos 3:1, 11). Likewise, speaking to Israel, Micah says: “And thy cities shall be leveled, and parted among the Assyrians; and thy strong cities shall be parted from Tyre to the river ...” (Micah 7:12).

Tyre, the great “Phoenician” city, was indeed an Israelite city in its most glorious period, which the Greeks wrote of with awe. The “golden age” of Phoenicia corresponded with the very same time when the Bible tells us that Israelites inhabited those cities. Why, Sir, do you not believe the Bible? Surely your error is caused – at least in part – by the fact that the LXX translators in many places read “Canaanite” from the Hebrew text, and then errantly wrote “Phoenician” in Greek! Yet the term “Phoenician” exists nowhere at the time of Joshua or the Judges period, which the LXX translation followed by over a thousand years! For the LXX translators to have rendered “Canaanite” as “Phoenician” is misleading, at best. It is as if, for example, in translating Mayan texts from a thousand years ago, one should write “Mexican” wherever the name “Mayan” appears. Or, writing a history of the pre-Columbian Mohawk indians, one should call them “New Yorkers”! Surely you may see the false conclusions that this may lead one to believe. Another place where the LXX contains a similar gloss is at Judges 1:27, which contains the interpolation “which is a city of Scythians” in reference to Baethsan (or Beth-shan). Now it is well known, being recorded by the Greeks, that Scythians invaded Palestine in the late 7th century B.C., around the time of the fall of Nineveh, and for some time had a settlement at Beth-shan, which for this reason was called Scythopolis by the Greeks. Yet the LXX gloss would lead one to believe that perhaps Scythians dwelt in Palestine in the time of the Judges period! Such is quite impossible, since at that early time there were NO Scythians!

While “Phoenicia” was later used as a geographical term, and after the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations of Israel many of the inhabitants who remained in “Phoenicia” were indeed Canaanites, the famous Phoenicians of antiquity certainly were NOT Canaanites but Israelites. These ancient “Phoenicians” colonized Thessaly, Thebes in Greece, Crete, Cyprus, Cilicia, Caria and the famous city Miletus, Sicily, places in Italy, Sardinia, the coasts and river valleys of France and Spain, Britain, Ireland, and north Africa. Much of this colonization was done incrementally. For example, the Milesians had colonies throughout Europe, notably in Spain and Ireland, along the Danube river, and around the shores of the Black Sea. The Greeks and Romans consistently describe them as fair and blond. Famous Greeks such as Thales and Minos were called Phoenicians, a label which also clung to the Thebans. While it is very likely that the Phoenician colonists of Europe had some Canaanites among them, both slaves and merchants, it is certain that the Phoenicians of the colonizing period were indeed Israelites. If you still disagree with this, I challenge you to write a scholarly paper to refute it! Insisting that the ancient Phoenicians were Canaanites, and not Israelites, is to follow the jewish version of history, which allows them to continue masquerading as Israelites.

It may be of interest to note here that the early Greeks, those preceding the Hellenistic period, never used the terms “Israel”, “Judah”, et al. The Levant was called Palestine, or Phoenicia, or Syria, depending on the context. The Greek terms Τύρος (Tyre) and Συρία (Syria) were each derived from the same Hebrew term, TSOR, as even Rawlinson notes in his edition of Herodotus. Herodotus referred to the Judaeans (Judahites and others who had returned from captivity) as the “Syrians of Palestine”, even describing the pre-deportation battle between the Israelites and Egypt (cf. 2 Chron. 35:20 ff.), which he gave an account of in his histories.

You also follow the jews – as all mainstream academia does – by distinguishing “Indo-European” and “Semitic” languages. The jews have gone to great lengths to ensure that this distinction is maintained. Yet, aside from having suffered much distortion at the hands of the early Talmudists, the Hebrew language has all of the features which would enable it to be classified as Indo-European. There are also hundreds of Greek and Latin words, many of them quite rudimentary, which clearly have their origin in Hebrew. Off the top of my head I can supply ἀγορά, βῆμα, ἀγρός, ἥλιος, ταῦρος, ὅμηρος, χώρα, χόλη, and χάραξ; avarus, adorare, cavus, cupa, erectus, plaga, manere, massa, moneta, mutare, negare, terminus, and tumere. All of these, and many more, have counterpart Hebrew words, similar in sound and related in meaning. This is not a coincidence, and these are not “loan words”. I have also found cognates of some Greek words in Akkadian, another “Semitic” language (i.e. ἀνά, ἄνω, σιγή, σιγάω), and hope one day to be able to examine an Akkadian lexicon, in pursuit of other such words.

While there certainly were White men in Europe, other branches of the Adamic race who migrated out of the Near East – even beyond the points recorded in Genesis chapter 10 – long before Abraham’s time, that doesn’t mean that those early emigrants are the ancestors of the tribes we later know as Kelts, Germans, Scandinavians, or others who dwell in Europe now, although in part some of them may be. Just as the ancient gravesites of the Mohawk valley don’t really belong to “New Yorkers”, old graves found in Britain – such as the “Amesbury Archer” – don’t necessarily belong to the Kelts! For my part, I am quite certain that the primary ancestors of today’s Keltic and Germanic Europeans, along with those of the formerly White southern Europeans of Greece, Italy and Spain, were indeed the Hebrew Israelites of the Bible, whether Danaan Greeks, Phoenicians, Trojan Dardans, Dorian Greeks, or the Kimmerians or Scythians who emerged from the Assyrian deportations of Israel and Judah. I can debate the fact of these White migrations with anyone, including V.S. Herrell, using the Bible, the Classical poets and historians, and archaeological findings as my foundation. Generally, I stay away from modern history books, because they have all been unduly influenced by the thinking and assertions of the jews, and so their vision of the past is clouded.

Anyone looking for the origins of our Aryan race outside of the pages of the Old Testament, and outside of the ancient Near East, is deceived. The original Hebrews – our ancestors – along with their Persian, Aramaean, and Assyrian cousins – all Semites – were all wholly just as “Aryan” as we are. The so-called “Semites” of today are all truly Canaanites, each with various admixtures of several other races. Hence the term “arab”, a Hebrew word which means “mixed”.

Anyone claiming to be a Christian, who cannot find his ancestors in the Israelites of the Old Testament, is also deceived. The New Testament is a matter of prophecy (Jer. 31) and is a covenant of God made only with Israel. Christ came not for “Aryan man”, but for the descendants of the Old Testament Israelites – ONLY! But of course, the Israelites are indeed Aryan.

Unless we can agree on these basic precepts, Sir, we can agree on nothing which follows. While this situation may be unfortunate, unless you have read and can cite the Classics which I have read and do cite, and the books of ancient inscriptions, and see what they say firsthand, I do not understand how you could venture to either condemn or refute me. Simply reading Homer, Aeschylus and Virgil, and then the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian myths which are extant, should lead one to discover that all four cultures: Babylonian and Assyrian (both “Semitic”) and Greek and Roman (both “Indo-European”), have religious beliefs quite consistent with the Hebrew, with the addition of the pantheons of false gods, as the Hebrew Scriptures said that they had! On this note, I will leave this discussion until you choose to respond. I will make a few short remarks concerning some of the other points in your letter before closing.

I prefer to use the Hebrew word Y-H-V-H, Yahweh, the word which the LXX translators usually rendered Κύριος, rather than “Lord” – not because it is a proper personal name – I never said it was – but because it is formed from an ancient verb which in essence means ἐγώ εἰμί, or “I AM”. I thought that I made this clear in my first letter. When Josephus wrote that the word Yahweh could be spelled with four vowels (although he did not provide the word himself), he was writing in Greek, and he meant Greek vowels! So even though I know that you do not accept as much, we are closer than you think on this issue. It amazes me that you so wantonly slander Josephus, who was a full-blooded Levite and no Canaanite, as a “Judaizing kike”. While he had the misfortune of being born in Judaea (Galilee, actually) which had already rejected and crucified Christ, and having been educated as a Pharisee, many good men had been Pharisees. That doesn’t make any of them “kikes”. Your condemnation is far too harsh and without merit.

N.T. passages at Matt. 2:18 (Jer. 31[38]:15) and Matt. 8:17 (Isa. 53:4) are but two examples of quotes of the O.T. where the N.T. text is very similar to the Masoretic, and not the Septuagint. There are others, and not because of some chance occurrence in paraphrasing – the differences in the passages provided here are obviously due to reasons other than that. There are – like the Hebrew – many differences among various LXX manuscripts, enough that no LXX manuscript can possibly be selected and anointed as being representative of “the” inspired O.T. Furthermore, it is quite obnoxious of you to assert that any translation by men – no matter how learned – could be as perfect as the original words of the original language. While the Hebrew texts are indeed corrupted, and even before the LXX was translated, they still cannot be easily discarded, and there are many clear instances where their value is fully demonstrated. While the early Christian leaders naturally favored the LXX, since the apostles obviously used versions of it often, and since their whole world, for the most part, already spoke Greek, aside from the jews’ being generally and rightfully despised, it is nevertheless quite foolish to toss out all O.T. versions besides the LXX. The LXX certainly has its flaws, in areas not only of translation, but in the prophets, where much room is open to interpretation while translating, and where certain Hebrew idioms appear, which don’t translate so readily into the Greek and which the LXX renders poorly in places. It is a silly thing to hate all things Hebrew because of hatred for the jews. The jews are not Hebrew – they are Canaanite usurpers who have absconded all things Hebrew! In the same manner, they have taken grasp of and perverted all things “American” today.

Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls “Jewish”, in spite of what the jews claim. Rather, they are Judaean, and there is a difference. If you would read Josephus, and reconcile the history of Judaea with certain N.T. passages, such as are found in John 8 and Romans 9, you may realize as much. The jews descended primarily from the Edomite-Canaanite converts to Judaism, which is a corruption of the O.T. religion of the Israelites, which I prefer to label as Hebrewism. White Judaeans, true Judahites, Levites, etc., who accepted Christ had for the most part left Judaea by 70 A.D., and subsequently lost their identity as Judaeans. There is truly no telling whether the Qumran sect had any Canaanites among their numbers, or whether they were indeed Essenes, who seem to have been White separatists and also among the first Christians, or, if not, who else they actually may have been. Yet the Qumran sect seems to fit the description of the “fourth sect” among the Judaeans, as described by Josephus at Antiquities 18.1.1, 6 (or 18:1-25).

Your statements on the organization of the Christian community and the term ἐκκλησία do not disagree in substance – so far as I can perceive – with the things detailed in my essay “Misconceptions Concerning Paul and the ‘Church’”, found in Clifton’s Watchman’s Teaching Letters #’s 107 and 108, for March and April of 2007. With this I will close ... William Finck

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As I stated above, I will now tie-in this subject of the errant position of the Septuagint-only proponents with the writings of Paul. You are already probably wondering how I am going to do this. It should be apparent here that if one relies upon only the Septuagint for one’s study of the Old Testament, one will ultimately become confused with the question of who are the true full-blooded Israelites, and who are the usurping Edomite-Canaanites pretending to be Israelites. Surely this is a dangerous position! We have the same problem today with people who don’t understand the difference. Paul knew the difference, and so should we! In fact, most of the preachers in churchianity today are doing their damnedest to give our Israelite heritage to the Canaanite variety of bad-fig-jews. This is not to say that one should shun the Septuagint though, for it is also a valuable witness for arriving at the truth concerning many things.

Not only did Paul know the difference between a Canaanite and an Israelite, but Daniel also was aware of that fact, History Of Susanna vv. 55-57: “‘You have told a fine lie against your own life, for already the angel of God has received the sentence from God, and he will cut you in two.’ And he (Daniel) had him removed and ordered them to bring in the other [Canaanite]. And he (Daniel) said to him, ‘You descendant of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has beguiled you, and desire has corrupted your heart! This is how you have been treating the daughters of [the house of] Israel, and they yielded to you through fear, but a daughter of [the house of] Judah would not endure your wickedness’ ...” (Smith & Goodspeed). [Items in brackets mine]

Surely also, Jeremiah understood the difference between Canaanites and those of pure blood of the tribe of Judah at ch. 24! Speaking of the nation of Judaea, which by the time of Christ was mostly populated (but not all) by half-breed Canaanite-Judahites, Jeremiah prophesied at 19:11: “And shalt say unto them, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.” What is there about “cannot be made whole again” that we don’t understand? All of this happened in 70 A.D. when Titus fought against Judaea and laid siege to Jerusalem, destroying many of the seed of the serpent (half-breed Canaanites) of Genesis 3:15. Paul makes the connection and also predicted this at Romans 16:20 where he said: “And the God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly ...” Paul was predicting that the Romans would shortly besiege and destroy Jerusalem, along with Herod’s temple, a fulfillment of Jer. 19:11. This prophecy by Paul foresaw a fulfillment of the prophecy at Genesis 3:15; that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent. This could only mean that the Romans were of the seed of the woman, and the bad-fig-jews at Jerusalem the seed of the serpent (John 8:44).

You will notice that this is a prophecy to “Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem”. Yet further explanation is needed for the reader to thoroughly comprehend the importance of this passage. Jeremiah was not addressing all the twelve tribes of Israel, nor was he speaking of all of the original nation of Judah! We must not overlook the fact that the bulk of Judah had also been taken into the Assyrian captivity, never to return, and after Assyria left off with Judah, all that was left was the city of Jerusalem. It was, rather, addressed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, some of whom had mingled their blood with the Canaanites. Later, when the nation of Judah was taken captive into Babylon, most of pureblooded Judah would never return again, but follow in the footsteps of the ten northern tribes. After a remnant of the nation of Judah returnesans-serifDefaultText1d to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, even more admixture of the Canaanites was added to Judah. Nevertheless, many stayed racially pure. This race-mixing process continued more and more until, at the time of Christ, there remained only a remnant in the nation of Judah with the pure blood of Judah, Benjamin and a smattering of Levites. We must also fathom that the prophecy at Jeremiah 19:1-11 of the broken-bottle nation is just the opposite in nature to the prophecy given at Jeremiah 18:1-6 of the potter and the clay, which indicates that the house of Israel would be restored, unlike the remnant nation of Judah with its inhabitants of Jerusalem, condemned never to be revived. Yahshua Christ Himself reinforced Jeremiah 19: 11 by stating at Matthew 21:19, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever.” What is there about “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever” that we don’t understand? So both Christ and Paul are in agreement about the Canaanite-jew seed of the serpent falsely proclaimed today by nearly all of churchianity as being God’s chosen! Yes, they are chosen all right – chosen by their god, and father, Satan!

Time and time again, Paul came into contact with the Canaanite-jews, and time and time again they refused to believe that Christ was the Messiah. You may not be aware of it, but Paul launched his early ministry among the synagogues of the Judaeans. When Paul entered a new synagogue, he would always find several unbelieving Canaanite-jews with which he had to contend, but Paul also found a few believing Judahites of pure blood who gave him aid and comfort. It was only after Paul had gathered a nucleus of true-blooded Judahites that he finally took the Gospel to the lost ethnê (nations) of Israel. And in this process, Paul was whipped nearly to death several times, having been stoned and left for dead, beaten with rods, and suffering other adversities for the sake of the Gospel. The term “synagogue” can be found 34 times in the book of Acts, and not again until one comes to the book of Revelation, except for James 2:2 where the same Greek word translated as “assembly” in the A.V. Had Paul tried to enter the pagan temples with his Gospel message, he wouldn’t have been treated any better. So Paul depended upon those few scattered true-blooded Judahites which he usually found attending the synagogues. And once he had gathered a small nucleus around him, he established an ekklesia. Actually what Paul was doing was separating the Israel-sheep from among the Canaanite-jewish-wolves. So from city to city to city, Paul continued on his way doing exactly this, and all the while fighting a group of devils of the likes that run organized-crime in our Israel lands today. Paul could have gone from house to house knocking on doors to organize his several ekklesias, but by entering the various synagogues, he had a ready-made nucleus of a few pureblooded Judahites willing to help spread his message. It was just a matter of culling out the good figs from among the bad figs. Have you ever noticed how, when someone finds a new product he likes so well that he decides to start selling it? Have you also noticed how that person then goes first to his relations and friends to sell that product to them? Well, that is exactly what Paul was doing, and though few, he found his relations and friends in the synagogues in those days, and he needed to get them out, away from the proselyted-Canaanites.

Now Paul, when entering a new synagogue, couldn’t go in throwing his weight around like a bull in a china shop, but he had to be wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. And since he had been in the service of the devils at Jerusalem, he knew exactly what to expect from them – as he knew their every move and countermove. Had Paul not had this experience with these devils, they would have long since ground him up like hamburger. They almost did anyway. Now Paul could have gone into those synagogues and shouted out to them that some of the people are part Edomite and that Yahweh had an everlasting hatred for them, and he would have been telling them the truth, but Paul would deal with the Edomite question later at a proper place and time. And remember that Esau took wives of the Canaanites of the Hittite tribe. I simply don’t know what it is going to take to make our people understand that when Christ told the unbelieving-jews that they were not His sheep, that they were not genetic Israelites! When Paul said “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright” at Hebrews 12:16, he made it clear that Yahweh was not pleased with Canaanites of any genetic mixture. There are some people who can read Hebrews 12:16 and never see the Canaanite connection! Paul wasn’t looking for halfbreed Edomites in those synagogues, but pureblooded Israelites! Most people, when reading Acts, put all of those people in the synagogues into one basket, both the bad-fig-jews and the good-fig-Judahites of Jeremiah 24. Jeremiah had the good sense to place them into two different baskets, so why don’t we? And everyone knows that if one were to place a rotten apple into a basket of good apples, it isn’t very long until they are all rotten, and I do mean genetically! And all of Esau’s descendants were rotten apples, and Paul knew it.

Our purpose here is to compare how Paul discriminated Israelites from the Canaanites, and how the errors of the Septuagint confuse, by mistranslation, making Israelites to be Canaanites. This is the kind of damage that V.S. Herrell and company are spreading all around Israel Identity today. And it isn’t the least bit funny! There is much, much more to be brought forward concerning the Septuagint-only advocacy, but space does not allow it. Likewise, there is much, much more to bring forward on how Paul handled the topic of the Canaanites. The problem is, Paul didn’t call them Canaanites, but “dogs”, the Old Testament term for them. It is the same term that Christ used for the Canaanite woman who wanted her daughter healed. A female dog is a bitch, so the Canaanite woman’s daughter was a daughter-of-a-bitch. And had the Canaanite woman had a son, you know what he would have been called! And that is exactly what all Canaanites are. I have talked to some people who believe the term “canine” is derived from Canaanite, which might be a Hebrew idiom. My Junior Classic Latin Dictionary has “c|nis” meaning dog; hound; parasite; dog-star. It is interesting that in the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament under #3611, it indicated that fierce and cruel men are sometimes called dogs (Ps 22:17, 23). It also takes note that in the East, at the present day, Christians are called dogs by the Mohammedans. I am sure with many the feeling is mutual! Strong’s at H#3611 indicates: “(by euphemism) a male prostitute ...” Sodomites were also considered dogs, so we can see there are many shades of meaning for the term. One must remember that at Sodom they were committing both homosexual acts as well as going after “strange flesh”, which would be the mixing of races. Homosexuality, while repugnant, does not produce bastards such as Esau’s descendants, but going after “strange flesh” does! In the case of homosexuality, even a White person (both male and female) can become classified as a dog. What difference is there between the events we see going on in our day and what was going on in Sodom in Lot’s day? In Lot’s day it was localized to a couple of cities, but today it is prevalent worldwide! And who’s promoting it? Of course, the Canaanites! And they still measure up to be comparable with dogs. And churchianity continues to claim that the Canaanite-bastard-dogs are “God’s chosen people”!

In the next issue of the Watchman’s Teaching Letter, #120, we will look further into some of the tragic errors which the LXX translators brought about. Tragic, for even today they haven’t been corrected, and time and again several misleading conclusions are unwittingly repeated and passed along as fact. But don’t let this deter you from purchasing a LXX, for in other places it clears up much confusion. Just be very careful to avoid the misleading errors it contains! I am simply amazed at some of the conclusions arrived at by those who advocate a single Bible, and ignore all other evidence.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #120 April 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred and twentieth monthly teaching letter and completes my tenth year of publication, which I had pointed out in my last lesson that it would. I never dreamed ten years ago that my mailing list would reach 2450 by this time (2318 by E-mail plus 132 by regular mail). And in all of that time, I have not deviated one whit from Two Seedline doctrine, nor have I promoted even a shade of universalism, but hold a very strong non-universal position. Universalism is Satan’s agenda, not Yahweh’s, and those who fight against Two Seedline doctrine help Satan’s cause. Today, I would estimate that 99.999% of the people are following Satan’s agenda! That leaves very few who are on Yahweh’s side!

In the last lesson (#119), we discussed how in places in the LXX, the translators mistakenly rendered Phoenician as Canaanite, a horrible misinterpretation. While in many cases the Septuagint is a valuable tool, yet in other places it can be quite misleading. The original Phoenicians were Israelites, not Canaanites! Therefore, the object of lesson #’s 119 and 120 is to identify, with the help of Paul’s teachings, just who were/are Israelites and who were/are Canaanites. Like the occasions where the Septuagint rendered “Phoenician” as “Canaanite”, there appears also to be a problem with Joshua 2:1, where the famous Rahab is said to be a harlot. But again, this may also be a faulty rendering from the Hebrew into the Greek. And again, this may have come about by the Septuagint translators. In the A.V. this passage says at verses 1-3: 1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot’s house, named Rahab, and lodged there. 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country. 3 And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.”

Adam Clarke seems to have a better handle on this passage than other commentators. We need to know something of his background to qualify what he has to say: Adam Clarke was born at Mobeg in County Londonderry, Ireland, date not entirely certain, though his mother reputedly claimed 1760 while his father said 1763. His father was of English extraction, studied at the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and his mother was Scottish. Adam, as a boy, was dull, failing again and again, upon which his teacher told him that he should be a beggar all his life, to jeers from his classmates. This awoke him from his lethargy, and something snapped within him, and saying within himself, “shall I forever be a dunce?” he speedily resumed his task without missing a word. From this he became fond of reading. He then became interested in such works as the Eclogues and Georgics of Virgil, versifying the Psalms of David and other portions of the sacred volume. He soon conquered the whole of the heathen mythology and biography. Of Littleton’s Classical Dictionary he made himself complete master. Later he began to study astronomy and philosophy, believing them to be an aid to religion. He then became influenced with the Methodist sect and gradually worked himself into the ministry. In 1782 he preached his first sermon with a favorable impression from John Wesley. During a three-year appointment in the Norman Isles, he devoted all his spare time to the study of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syrian Scriptures, the Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagint, as found in Walton’s Polyglot, a copy of which he purchased for ten pounds. In 1788, Adam married Mary Cooke, who outlived him one year, and by whom they had six sons and six daughters.

Thus Adam became accomplished in several languages, the Greek Classics, and much history. While he was blind to his Identity as an Israelite, when he declares the meanings of various words one can be quite confident that he has them right. In his Commentary On The Bible, Adam Clarke has the following to say about Joshua 2:1-3, volume 2 of 6, pp. 10-12:

“NOTES ON CHAP. II, Verse 1. Joshua sent two men to spy secretly] It is very likely that these spies had been sent out soon after the death of Moses, and therefore our marginal reading, had sent, is to be preferred. Secretly – It is very probable also that these were confidential persons, and that the transaction was between them and him alone. As they were to pass over the Jordan opposite to Jericho, it was necessary that they should have possession of this city, that in case of any reverses they might have no enemies in their rear. He sent the men, therefore, to see the state of the city, avenues of approach, fortifications, &c., that he might the better concert his mode of attack.

A harlot’s house] Harlots and inn-keepers seem to have been called by the same name, as no doubt many who followed this mode of life, from their exposed situation, were not the most correct in their morals. Among the ancients women generally kept houses of entertainment, and among the Egyptians and Greeks this was common. I shall subjoin a few proofs. Herodotus, speaking concerning the many differences between Egypt and other countries, and the peculiarity of their laws and customs, expressly says:

Εν τοισι αἱ μεν γυναικες αγοραζουσι και καπηλευουσι· οἱ δε ανδρες κατ᾽ οικους εοντες, ὑφαινουσι. ‘Among the Egyptians the women carry on all commercial concerns, and keep taverns, while the men continue at home and weave.’ Herodotus in Euterp[ê], c. xxxv. Diodorus Siculus, lib. i., s. 8, and c. xxvii., asserts that ‘the men were the slaves of the women in Egypt, and that it is stipulated in the marriage contract that the woman shall be the ruler of her husband, and that he shall obey her in all things.’ The same historian supposes that women had these high privileges among the Egyptians, to perpetuate the memory of the beneficent administration of Isis, who was afterwards deified among them.

“Nymphodorus, quoted by the ancient scholiast on the Œdipus Coloneus of Sophocles, accounts for these customs: he says that ‘Sesostris, finding the population of Egypt rapidly increasing, fearing that he should not be able to govern the people or keep them united under one head, obliged the men to assume the occupations of women, in order that they might be rendered effeminate.’

“Sophocles confirms the account given by Herodotus; speaking of Egypt he says:–

Εκει γαρ οἱ μεν αρσενες κατα στεγας

Θακουσιν  ἱστουργουντες· αἱ δε ξυννομοι

Τα ᾽ξω βιου τροφεια προσυνουσ᾽ αει.

                                         Œdip. Col. v. 352.

“‘There the men stay in their houses weaving cloth, while the women transact all business out of doors, provide food for the family,’ &c. It is on this passage that the scholiast cites Nymphodoros for the information given above, and which he says is found in the 13th chapter of his work ‘On the Customs of Barbarous Nations.’

“That the same custom prevailed among the Greeks we have the following proof from Apuleius: Ego vero quod primum ingressui stabulum conspicatus sum, accessi, et de QUADAM ANU CAUPONA illico percontor.– Aletam. lib. i., p. 18, Edit. Bip. ‘Having entered into the first inn I met with, and there seeing a certain old woman, the inn-keeper, I inquired of her.’

“It is very likely that women kept the places of public entertainment among the Philistines; and that it was with such a one, and not with a harlot, that Samson lodged; (see Judges xvi. 1, &c.;) for as this custom certainly did prevail among the Egyptians, of which we have the fullest proof above, we may naturally expect it to have prevailed also among the Canaanites and Philistines, as we find from Apuleius that it did afterwards among the Greeks. Besides, there is more than presumptive proof that this custom obtained among the Israelites themselves, even in the most polished period of their history; for it is much more reasonable to suppose that the two women, who came to Solomon for judgment, relative to the dead child, (1 Kings iii. 16, &c.,) were inn-keepers, than that they were harlots. It is well known that common prostitutes, from their abandoned course of life, scarcely ever have children; and the laws were so strict against such in Israel, (Deut. xxiii. 18,) that if these had been of that class it is not at all likely they would have dared to appear before Solomon. All these circumstances considered, I am fully satisfied that the term %1&' zonah in the text, which we translate harlot, [after the LXX translators and the N.T. authors], should be rendered tavern or inn-keeper, or hostess. The spies who were sent out on this occasion were undoubtedly the most confidential persons that Joshua had in his host; they went on an errand of the most weighty importance, and which involved the greatest consequences. The risk they ran of losing their lives in this enterprise was extreme. Is it therefore likely that persons who could not escape apprehension and death, without the miraculous interference of God, should in despite of that law which at this time must have been so well known unto them, go into a place where they might expect, not the blessing, but the curse, of God? Is it not therefore more likely that they went rather to an inn to lodge than to a brothel? But what completes in my judgment the evidence on this point is that this very Rahab, whom we call a harlot, was actually married to Salmon, a Jewish [sic Judahite] prince, see Matt. i. 5. And is it probable that a prince of Judah would have taken to wife such a person as our text represents Rahab to be?

“It is granted that the Septuagint, which are followed by Heb. xi. 31, and James ii. 25, translate the Hebrew זונח zonah by πορνη, which generally signifies a prostitute; but it is not absolutely evident that the Septuagint used the word in this sense. Every scholar knows that the Greek word πορνη comes from περναω, to sell, as this does from περαω, to pass from one to another; transire facio a me ad alterum: damm. But may not this be spoken as well of the woman’s goods as of her person? In this sense the Chaldee Targum understood the term, and has therefore translated it  אחחא פונדקיתא ittetha pundekitha, a woman, a tavern-keeper. That this is the true sense many eminent men are of opinion; and the preceding arguments render it at least very probable. To all this may be added, that as our blessed Lord came through the line of this woman, it cannot be a matter of little consequence to know what moral character she sustained; as an inn-keeper she might be respectable, if not honourable; as a public prostitute she could be neither; and it is not very likely that the providence of God would have suffered a person of such a notoriously bad character to enter into the sacred line of his genealogy. It is true that the cases of Tamar and Bathsheba may be thought sufficient to destroy this argument; but whoever considers these two cases maturely will see that they differ totally from that of Rahab, if we allow the word harlot to be legitimate. As to the objection that her husband is nowhere mentioned in the account here given; it appears to me to have little weight. She might have been either a single woman or a widow; and in either of these cases there could have been no mention of a husband; or if she even had a husband it is not likely he would have been mentioned on this occasion, as the secret seems to have been kept religiously between her and the spies. If she were a married woman her husband might be included in the general terms, all that she had, and all her kindred, chap. vi. 23. But it is most likely that she was a single woman or a widow, who got her bread honestly by keeping a house of entertainment for strangers.

“Verse 3. The king of Jericho sent unto Rahab] This appears to be a proof of the preceding opinion: had she been a prostitute or a person of ill fame he could at once have sent officers to have seized the persons lodged with her as vagabonds; but if she kept a house of entertainment, the persons under her roof were sacred, according to the universal custom of the Asiatics, and could not be molested on any trifling grounds. A guest or a friend is sacred in whatever house he may be received, in every part of the east to the present day.”

From Adam Clarke’s research here, we can plainly see that we may very possibly have a mistranslation from the original Hebrew into the Greek. It is not entirely the use of the original root, but a corruption of the sense in which it was originally written. And as Paul was influenced by the Septuagint at Hebrews 11:31, and James at 2:25, they too, innocently followed a flawed translation not of their own making!

The Bible Knowledge Commentary says at Deuteronomy 23:18: “The words for prostitutes here indicate that prostitution in general was in view, not specifically temple prostitution. The word for female prostitute is zoÆnaÆh and the word for male prostitute is keleb_ (lit., ‘dog’). A vow was not to be paid with money obtained from this sinful practice. The payment of a vow allowed an Israelite to express his gratitude for God’s gracious provision in his life. Therefore to use money God did not provide in order to pay a vow was insincere and hypocritical. No wonder it was detestable to the Lord. (Other detestable things included idolatry, offering sacrificial animals with defects, and dishonesty ... Lending and charging interest ...)”

If a male prostitute is a dog, a female prostitute would be a bitch. And had Rahab been a woman of ill-fame (a bitch), the Israelites would not have saved Rahab and her family alive, let alone allowing her to become the lineal ancestor of Yahshua Christ! This is the kind of activity one would expect from Canaanites! Had Rahab been this kind of woman, every Israelite prostitute after that (male or female) could have used Rahab as an excuse for their own ill-behavior! But rather, the Israelites were given instruction by Yahweh to stone all those living such a lifestyle.

From the Hard Sayings of the Bible, page 323, we read: “But what about the label put on Gomer? Must we regard her as a soliciting prostitute? No, the term used in the Hebrew text is too restricted to mean that. The Hebrew text does not say zônâh, as if it were the intensive form. Instead it uses the plural abstract form of the same word, zenûnîm, thus referring to a personal quality and not to an activity.”

At Joshua 2:1, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says in part: “... sent. or, had sent. Shittim ... to spy secretly ... even Jericho ... harlot’s house. Though the word {zonah} generally denotes a prostitute, yet many very learned men are of opinion that it should be here rendered an innkeeper or hostess, from {zoon,} to furnish or provide food. In this sense it was understood by the Targumist, who renders it, {ittetha pundekeetha}, ‘a woman, a tavern-keeper,’ and so St. Chrysostome, in his second sermon on Repentance, calls her ... by which the LXX. render it, and which is adopted by the Apostles, is derived from ... to sell, and is also supposed to denote a tavern keeper. Among the ancients, women generally kept houses of entertainment. Herodotus says, ‘Among the Egyptians, the women carry on all commercial concerns, and keep taverns, while the men continue at home and weave.’ The same custom prevailed among the Greeks ...”

 Once we understand that the word should have been “zoon” rather than “zonah”, we can begin to see that Rahab either owned or had a concession on a combination hotel and restaurant. The problem is, when we are reading, we sometimes overlook all that is being said. Let’s continue by reading Joshua 2:4-6: 4 And the woman (Rahab) took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: 5 And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them. 6 But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.”

Well, what’s all this business about these “stalks of flax”? Wherever one can find stalks of flax, one will find linen and linseed oil not far away. These stalks of flax should tell us an important story, for it would suggest that Rahab’s family was in the business of manufacturing fine linen which would require growing, reaping by pulling the stalks up, roots and all, rippling or separating the seeds to make other products and obtain the lint, or flaxen fiber, from the boon or core of the stem. To obtain the lint, a steeping in water is required until the boon begins to rot, when it can be separated from the fiber by means of a scutching blade. It is next hackled, or combed, after which it can be spun into threads and woven into cloth. I’ll bet that Rahab had some of the finest bed sheets for her hotel and some of the finest tablecloths f class=span style=sans-serifor her restaurant! Not only that, but Rahab and her family would have been producing linseed oil used in painting and varnishing. Also an animal food called linseed cake which can be sold in solid cakes or meal. Other products are made such as oilcloth, painter’s ink, soft soap, and linoleum. Why else would there have been stalks of flax around?

In ancient times, sometimes when a woman’s husband died she had no means of making a living, but under the Israelite economy it was decreed that the needs of the widow would be provided for. This provision alone, if abided by, would remove the need of the widow from the necessity of resorting to harlotry. So there are two good reasons why Rahab was not a harlot in that sense of the Hebrew word. It appears from the text that she had a family who could provide for her, and a hotel business to help support her every need. Not only that, but it appears from the text that she was an excellent business manager, for she both helped devise a plan for the spies to get back across the Jordan river, and she was able to divert the king of Jericho from apprehending the spies. If one has ever had the opportunity of managing a business, they are familiar with the odd circumstances that occur occasionally, and how it takes a certain tact to deal with the various situations which come up when one is not prepared. But you will notice that Rahab had no problem, and was able to save both her family and herself.

Let’s now go to W.E. Vine in his Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old & New Testament Words under “to lie”: “Shakab also signifies ‘lying down asleep.’ The Lord told Jacob: ‘… The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed’ (Gen. 28:13). In Exod. 22:26-27 the verb denotes the act of sleeping more than the lying down: ‘If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down … [In what else] shall he sleep?’

Shakab can also be used to mean ‘lodge’ and thus refers to sleeping and eating. Israel’s spies lodged with Rahab: ‘And they went, and came into a harlot’s house, named Rahab, and lodged there’ (Josh. 2:1; cf. 2 Kings 4:11).” Had Rahab been a harlot, she probably would have been poor – too poor to have afforded a guest room.

And lest we overlook the most important part of Rahab’s story, let’s read Joshua 2:18, which is after Rahab had asked the Israelite spies to spare her and her family when they came to conquer the city: “Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father’s household, home unto thee.”

Please notice that the line by which the spies were let down was made up of scarlet thread. Either it was solid scarlet or had a scarlet thread woven in it. Good Bible scholars will always instruct one to find the first mention anytime a new subject is introduced, so let’s go back to the first mention of a “scarlet thread”. It is found at Genesis 38:28-30: 28 And it came to pass, when she [Tamar] travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. 29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. 30 And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.” What more evidence do we need to understand that Rahab was of the tribe of Zarah-Judah? Just how she and her family ended up in Jericho would be difficult to conjecture! Inasmuch as Joshua would have picked his best men for this mission to spy out Jericho, they would have immediately been aware of the significance of the scarlet thread, that it was an emblem of Zarah-Judah, and would have realized that Rahab was one of their own people. Had Rahab been a Canaanite whore, we can be quite sure that the spies wouldn’t have trusted her for two seconds! If Joshua’s spies couldn’t tell the difference between a hotel and a whorehouse, they wouldn’t have been very competent.

This puts an entirely different perspective on our story than one might imagine. For if Rahab were truly of the tribe of Zarah-Judah, and there can be little question that she was, then Yahshua Christ not only had the royal blood of Pharez-Judah surging through His veins, but also that of Zarah-Judah, and both of the twin brothers were royal. Isn’t it simply amazing how many times we can read these passages and not comprehend everything that is being said? Once we understand some of these things, we can determine just how far off base some of the various commentaries can be. For instance, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, on page 1065 says this about Rahab, in part: “Thus a Canaanite harlot became part of the lineage of King David out of which the Messiah came ...” Another comment is from Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament on Matthew 1:1: “Tamar was guilty of whoredom, yet God permitted her to be listed in the ancestry of Christ. Rahab was both a harlot and a foreigner. She was saved by her faith. Ruth was a Moabitess; and according to Deut. 23:3–6, she was excluded from the nation of Israel. Bathsheba was partner to David’s awful sin, yet God forgave her and permitted her to be one of Christ’s ancestors through Solomon. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound’ ...”

It is simply amazing how various commentators just delight in using the least valid reasoning to suggest that Yahshua Christ was somehow racially impure. You have just witnessed two cases in point. It’s like in a recent television program, where a liberal minister used the woman of Samaria at John 4:7-14 to support his erroneous theory on race. After reading the passage, he indicated that, with the woman of Samaria, Christ had broken the race barrier. Had he only examined the passage a little closer, he would have discovered that the woman of Samaria was actually an Israelite, for she said at verse 12, “Art thou greater than our father Jacob ...?” Therefore, Christ didn’t break any kind of a race barrier, but He enforced one, for it is very clear that the woman was an Israelite! That should also give us a clue to the racial background of the good Samaritan at Luke 10:33. These are simply two examples of a couple of Israelites who just happened to reside in Samaria at the time! There are even some in Israel Identity today who claim that race doesn’t really matter, while the truth is, race is everything, and only White Israelites can be Christians!

We can be assuredly certain that Yahshua Christ was 100% racially pure, with absolutely no admixture of any of the tribes of Canaan. That demands that every one of Christ’s ancestors were also racially pure! That means that Ruth was not a Moabite, nor was Rahab a Canaanite! The term “mulatto” means one of mixed-race. Mulatto is derived from the word mule. A mule is half horse and half donkey, therefore a mulatto is a half-assed person. And that is not swearing but stating a scientific fact. And as we travel around the country these days, we are seeing more and more half-assed people! The mexicans are half-assed people; the arabs are half-assed people; and the bad-fig-jews are half-assed people, but Christ is racially pure!

Getting back to our purpose to show how Paul handled this Canaanite problem in his writing, let’s see what he wrote at Hebrews 11:30-31: 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” Let’s now compare how William Finck translated this same passage in his The Letters Of Paul: 30 By faith the walls of Iericho fell, having been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the harlot172 did not perish with those who were disobedient, greeting the scouts with peace.” You will notice here that Finck has a note #172 for the term harlot, so let’s see what he says about it: “172. Some contend that the Old Testament Hebrew (Strong’s #2181) allows for Rahab’s having been some sort of ambassador, rather than a harlot. The Greek of the Septuagint, and use of the word πόρνη (4204) there, here, and at Jas. 2:25, allows for no such contention. ! has ‘Rahab, who is called a harlot’.”

There is positively no question that the language of the Septuagint is exactly as William Finck states, but did the Septuagint translators take from the Masoretic text a correct sense of the meaning of the word as Adam Clarke points out? I am sure that if William Finck discovers positive evidence of such an error in the future, he will add that to his note #172.

Let’s also compare what Paul wrote to that which James wrote at 2:24-25: 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” I checked to see what the Dead Sea Scrolls might have on Rahab at Joshua chapter 2, but they only have portions of verses 11 and 12, not verse 1. So any evidence from that source is presently nil. But let’s see what Josephus has on the matter at Antiquities 5.1.2:

“Now when he had pitched his camp, the spies came to him immediately, well acquainted with the whole state of the Canaanites; for at first, before they were at all discovered, they took a full view of the city of Jericho without disturbance, and saw which parts of the walls were strong, and which parts were otherwise, and indeed insecure, and which of the gates were so weak as might afford an entrance to their army. Now those that met them took no notice of them when they saw them, and supposed they were only strangers, who used to be very curious in observing everything in the city, and did not take them for enemies; but at even they retired to a certain inn that was near to the wall, whither they went to eat their supper; which supper when they had done, and were considering how to get away, information was given to the king as he was at supper, that there were some persons come from the Hebrews’ camp to view the city as spies, and that they were in the inn kept by Rahab, and were very solicitous that they might not be discovered. So he sent immediately some to them, and commanded to catch them, and bring them to him, that he might examine them by torture, and learn what their business was there. As soon as Rahab understood that these messengers were coming, she hid the spies under stalks of flax, which were laid to dry on the top of her house; and said to the messengers that were sent by the king, that certain unknown strangers had supped with her a little before sunsetting, and were gone away, who might easily be taken, if they were any terror to the city, or likely to bring any danger to the king. So these messengers being thus deluded by the woman, and suspecting no imposition, went their ways, without so much as searching the inn; but they immediately pursued them along those roads which they most probably supposed them to have gone, and those particularly which led to the river, but could hear no tidings of them; so they left off the pains of any further pursuit. But when the tumult was over, Rahab brought the men down, and desired them as soon as they should have obtained possession of the land of Canaan, when it would be in their power to make her amends for her preservation of them, to remember what danger she had undergone for their sakes; for that if she had been caught concealing them, she could not have escaped a terrible destruction, she and all her family with her, and so bid them go home; and desired them to swear to her to preserve her and her family when they should take the city and destroy all its inhabitants, as they had decreed to do; for so far she said she had been assured by those divine miracles of which she had been informed. So these spies acknowledged that they owed her thanks for what she had done already, and withal swore to requite her kindness, not only in words, but in deeds; but they gave her this advice: That when she should perceive that the city was about to be taken, she should put her goods, and all her family, by way of security, in her inn, and to hang out scarlet threads before her doors [or windows], that the commander of the Hebrews might know her house, and take care to do her no harm; for, said they, we will inform him of this matter, because of the concern thou hast had to preserve us; but if any one of thy family fall in the battle, do not thou blame us; and we beseech that God, by whom we have sworn, not then to be displeased with us, as though we had broken our oaths. So these men, when they had made this agreement, went away, letting themselves down by a rope from the wall, and escaped, and came and told their own people whatsoever they had done in their journey to this city. Joshua also told Eleazar the high priest, and the senate, what the spies had sworn to Rahab; who confirmed what had been sworn.”

From this it would appear that Adam Clarke was on target. That indeed Rahab had an inn and a restaurant, and was well-to-do enough that she didn’t need to resort to harlotry! A footnote at Antiq. 5.1.2 says in part: “... Nor was Josephus himself of any other opinion or practice, as I shall remark in the note on Antiq. 9.4.3. And observe, that I still call this woman Rahab, an innkeeper, not a harlot; the whole history, both in our copies, and especially in Josephus, implying no more ...” Josephus himself uses the term “harlot” eight times, but not a single occurrence in reference to Rahab.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #121 May 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-first monthly teaching letter and begins my eleventh year of publication. With this lesson it will be necessary to back up and review parts of lesson #’s 119 and 120, for there were important topics brought to the fore which call for further comment. This review will indirectly influence what we understand concerning the writings of the apostle Paul. In both of those lessons we saw there were serious mistranslations from the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint. As I stated in lesson #119, ‘Some of the people who establish incorrect premises are those who advocate the Septuagint-only for the study of the Old Testament. While the Septuagint is a valuable tool, it isn’t perfect in all aspects, as some assert.’ V.S. Herrell is an example of a person who advocates the Septuagint-only for such study. William Finck, writing to a Septuagint-only proponent explained to him: “Surely your error is caused – at least in part – by the fact that the LXX translators in many places read ‘Canaanite’ from the Hebrew text, and then errantly wrote ‘Phoenician’ in Greek! ... For the LXX translators to have rendered ‘Canaanite’ as ‘Phoenician’ is misleading, at best.” Later Finck explained: “While it is very likely that the Phoenician colonists of Europe had some Canaanites among them, both slaves and merchants, it is certain that the Phoenicians of the colonizing period were indeed Israelites. ... Insisting that the ancient Phoenicians were Canaanites, and not Israelites, is to follow the jewish version of history, which allows them to continue masquerading as Israelites.” Later, again Finck stated: “The LXX certainly has its flaws, in areas not only of translation, but in the prophets, where much room is open to interpretation while translating, and where certain Hebrew idioms appear, which don’t translate so readily into the Greek and which the LXX renders poorly in places.”

My summation to Finck’s exposé was: ‘It should be apparent here that if one relies upon only the Septuagint for one’s study of the Old Testament, one will ultimately become confused with the question of who are the true full-blooded Israelites, and who are the usurping Edomite-Canaanites pretending to be Israelites. Surely this is a dangerous position!’ All of this begs the question: How could the Septuagint translators have made so serious an error as to render “Canaanite” as “Phoenician”? Well, I will now give you my own opinion. The Greek Septuagint version was supposedly translated from the Hebrew approximately 250 to 200 B.C., and it is necessary for us to consider the history of Judaea at that time. By that time all of the ten northern tribes of Israel had gone into Assyrian captivity, along with about two-thirds of the southern kingdom of Judah. The remaining one-third of the Judah nation then went into captivity in Babylon with only a fraction returning to Jerusalem seventy years later. By the time the Septuagint was translated, Judaea was well on its way to becoming a multiracial nation of half-breed Canaanites, and the Edomites had long before migrated into southern Judaea, ceding Petra to the Nabatean Arabs.

From the New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition, under “Places and People” on Obadiah 1, we read: “In the sixth century bc, Edom itself was waning, as is revealed by archaeological sources. Towns were abandoned and populations shifted (cf. 1 Macc. 5:65). Arabs gained control of this geographical area between the sixth and fourth centuries bc (cf. Ne. 2:19; 4:7; 6:1). The Nabateans, in particular, displaced the Edomites, forcing some of them into southern Judah, which became known by the Hellenized name Idumea (1 Macc. 4:29), based on the Hebrew ‘Edom’.” At the time the Septuagint was translated, it is evident that many Canaanites and Edomites were occupying the former land known as Phoenicia along the coast of the Mediterranean, in what is known today as Palestine. The Judahites who translated the Septuagint obviously knew this and labeled the Canaanites and Edomites living there during their time by the Greek geographical term of Phoenicia, thus “Phoenicians”. It’s the same type of mistake we make today with Ruth being called a Moabite, during the judges period, because she came from a land once known as Moab before Moab was conquered and absorbed by the Amorites, and in turn, the Amorites were conquered and destroyed by the Israelites and then Moab was resettled by them during the Joshua period. It is recorded at Joshua 18:7 that half of the tribe of Manasseh, along with the tribes of Gad and Reuben, moved into the former land of Moab east of the Jordan. Therefore, Ruth was an Israelite lady living in a former geographic area known as Moab. While my theory of the Septuagint translators mistakenly rendering “Canaanite” as “Phoenician”, based on geographic area, may be conjecture on my part, there is absolutely no Biblical uncertainty that Ruth was genetically an Israelite! But to label racial Canaanites as Phoenicians and Ruth as a racial Moabite are both very serious errors.

Almost every Bible commentary takes the same position as the errant Septuagint; that the Phoenicians were Canaanites. Although they claim this time and again, they never once trace a single Phoenician to a Canaanite tribe or progenitor. Rather than use Bible commentaries on the subject of the Phoenicians, Bible dictionaries cover the topic much better. But use caution even when consulting a Bible dictionary. One of my many Bible dictionaries is Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary and here I will quote from pages 990-991:

“PHOENICIANS ... inhabitants of Phoenicia, the ancient nation along the Mediterranean Sea north of Palestine. The Phoenicians were known for their trade and commerce and their skill as a seafaring people. There were three major reasons why Phoenicia became a major trading power.

“First, the Phoenicians lived on a narrow strip of coastland. Thus hemmed in, they took to the sea in order to expand their economy, eventually becoming one of the most distinguished seafaring peoples in history.

“Second, the mountains that approach the Phoenician coast made travel by land unusually difficult; travel by sea was the logical alternative.

“Finally, the plentiful supply of pine, cypress, and cedar trees in Phoenicia made shipbuilding an ideal pursuit for the Phoenician people. The men of Byblos were noted shipbuilders (Ezek. 27:9), and the people of the Phoenician city of Sidon were experts at felling trees (1 Kin. 5:6).

“Phoenicia’s two major ports, Tyre and Sidon, were semi-independent city-states. Besides these two, several other Phoenician cities grew in influence as the merchant fleets brought wealth into the country. By its ‘golden age’ (about 1050-850 B.C.) the Phoenicians achieved their height of prosperity and influence. Phoenicia founded many colonies along shipping routes, so that Phoenicians lived in Crete, Cyprus, Sardinia, Sicily, North Africa (especially the important colony of Carthage), and even Spain.

“In the course of their travels, Phoenician merchants developed many skills that had a lasting influence on world culture. They are usually given credit for originating the alphabet and for pioneering the skills of glassmaking and the dyeing of cloth. Scholars believe Solomon’s Temple and many of its furnishings were based on a Phoenician design.

“Some archaeologists believe that the Phoenicians were extremely skilled in working with gold, iron, and copper, and that they were skilled jewelers. Also, Phoenician designs possibly inspired much of Greek, Assyrian, and Etruscan architecture.

“As the Assyrians began to dominate the ancient world in the eighth century B.C., Phoenicia’s influence declined. Phoenicia was progressively weakened in wars with Assyria during the seventh century B.C. In 585 B.C. the Babylonians, who had conquered Assyria only two decades earlier, laid siege to Tyre – the last remaining independent Phoenician city.

“After 13 years of siege (585-572 B.C.), the mainland city of Tyre was captured. There was also an island city of Tyre, which did not fall until 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great built a causeway over half a mile long in order to reach it. Alexander destroyed the city, but Tyre was later rebuilt. The city was an important outpost in the Greek and Roman period.

“Like its neighbor Israel, Phoenicia finally ceased to be an independent nation. It was dominated in turn by the Persians, Greeks, Seleucids, and Romans.

“Phoenician Religion. Phoenician gods were male and female representations of nature. Their primary god was called Baal. He combined the attributes of several other Phoenician deities, including Hadad, the storm god; Shamash, the sun god; and Resheph, god of the earth and the netherworld. The Phoenician goddess honored as the ‘great mother’ was called Ashtoreth. Additionally, Eshmun, the god of healing, was especially honored in Sidon.

“Connections with the Old Testament. When David completed the conquest of the Promised Land and made Israel the strongest power in the area, the Phoenicians under Hiram of Tyre (981-947 B.C.) became involved commercially with the Israelites (2 Sam. 5:11). The Phoenicians of Tyre helped supply materials and laborers for the building of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kin. 5:1-12). In later years, Solomon bought Hiram’s help by transferring ownership of large tracts of real estate in Galilee from Israel to Tyre (1 Kin. 9:11).

“The Phoenicians also helped the Israelites in Solomon’s kingdom to learn the shipping trade and to construct a merchant fleet that brought wealth to Israel (1 Kin. 9:26-28). Regrettably, Solomon fell under the influence of foreign religions later in his life.

“These problems included worship of the Phoenician idol Ashtoreth, the supreme goddess of the Sidonians (1 Kin. 11:1-8). His turning from the Lord [sic Yahweh] to the beliefs of people such as the Phoenicians [sic Canaanites] resulted in the division of the nation – an act of Judgment by God (1 Kin 11:9-13). ...

“Although the Bible mentions Phoenicia rarely [sic not at all], it [does] often refer to the major Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon. Isaiah (23:1-18), Jeremiah (25:22; 47:4), Ezekiel (26:2–28:23) and other Old Testament prophets predicted the judgment of God on Tyre and Sidon. This judgment came in large measure when the Babylonians captured these cities along with the rest of Phoenicia in the early sixth century B.C.

“Connections with the New Testament. Phoenicians were among those who came to hear Jesus [sic Yahshua] teach about the kingdom of God (Luke 6:17). After the death of Stephen, some Christians escaped persecution by going to Phoenicia, where they preached the gospel (Acts 11:19). The apostle Paul traveled through Phoenicia on more than one occasion (Acts 15:3; 21:2-3).”

While this may not be a perfect nor a complete assessment of the Biblical Phoenicians, you will notice that the Nelson editors didn’t once mention anything about the Phoenicians being Canaanites. When scrutinizing various sources on such subjects, one should always observe whether the author cites the Greek Classics, various histories and archaeological findings to support any of his conclusions. It should be noted from Nelson’s article that Solomon entered into many compacts with the Phoenicians under Hiram of Tyre. Had the Phoenicians been Canaanites, this would have been strictly forbidden under Yahweh’s law, and the prophets would have rebuked Solomon for any such covenant with them! Deut. 7:1-2 states: 1 When Yahweh thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when Yahweh thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” Had Solomon made any such unlawful agreement with any Canaanites to help build the Temple, Yahweh wouldn’t have allowed His Spirit to enter it, for it would have been an agreement with Satan! NO! The Phoenicians were definitely not Canaanites!

How could any Canaanites have accomplished such a feat as the Phoenicians did, as Herodotus records at The History, 4.42? The following is from The History, by Herodotus by David Grene, pages 293-296 & 668: “42. I am surprised, then, at those who have drawn the boundaries and made the divisions of Libya, Asia, and Europe. For the differences between them are great. In length Europe stretches parallel to both of them, and in breadth it seems to me incomparably broader. For Libya is clearly surrounded by the sea except for its boundary with Asia; it was King Necos of Egypt who, first of the men we know, proved this. When he had stopped digging the channel from the Nile into the Arabian Gulf, he sent off Phoenicians in merchantmen, bidding them, on their return journey, sail through the Pillars of Heracles till they came to the northern sea and so come back to Egypt. The Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea. When it came to be autumn, they would put in and sow the land wherever they happened to be in Libya in the course of their sailing and await the harvest there. Having gathered in their crop, they sailed on again. After two years of sailing, in the third year they rounded the Pillars of Heracles and came back to Egypt. And they declared (what some may believe, though I myself do not) that as they sailed round Libya they had the sun on their right.26

Then Grene’s footnote #26, at the bottom of page 296 reads: “26. This is one of the very striking pieces of information left us by Herodotus. There is now little doubt that these Phoenicians, sent by Necos, circumnavigated Africa, rounding the Cape of Good Hope. See, further, the end note to this passage.”

Then at page 668, Grene states with end note 4.42: “The very circumstance that Herodotus disbelieved, while faithfully mentioning, the Phoenicians’ report that they had had the sun on their right is excellent evidence of what they did. ‘The sun,’ say How and Wells, ‘in the southern hemisphere would actually be ‘on the right,’ so long as they sailed west, and from the Equator to the Cape of Good Hope the course would be south-west and then west, while on the return journey it would be slightly north-west’ (How and Wells, vol. i, p. 318). Herodotus for some reason makes no mention of the discoveries of the Carthaginians, at the beginning of chapter 43, but moves straight on to the abortive journey round Libya undertaken by Sataspes.

“The Zopyrus mentioned in this story is almost certainly a relative of the Zopyrus of book 3, chapters 153–60. It may even be the same man, serving now in the reign of the son instead of the father. The Zopyrus of book 3 had a grandson who deserted to the Athenians, and Herodotus may well have heard the story of the attempted circumnavigation from him.”

A footnote from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series, Vol. VIII, under the title “Homily VI. – The Creation of Luminous Bodies” states in part: “... i.e. throwing a shadow only one way at noon, - said of those who live north and south of the tropics, while those who live in the tropics cast a shadow sometimes north, sometimes south, vide Strabo ii. 5. § 43. It was ‘incredible’ to Herodotus that Necho’s Phoenician mariners, in their circumnavigation of Africa, had ‘the sun on their right hand.’ Her. iv. 42.”

The term “Phoenicia” was first used by the Greeks to refer to the country of the people with whom they traded. Thus, the term originally designated a geographical area rather than a genetic race of people. This contact in trade started early, around 1200 B.C. Once we understand the meaning of “Phoenicia” in the Greek language, it may become clearer how confusion developed over its use. Phoenicia (M@4<\60) in the Greek language has the meaning “land of purple”. You will notice that it is speaking of a “land of purple” and not a purple people! Actually, by the time the Greeks began trading with these people, most of the Canaanites had been pushed out of the coastal cities by the Israelites during the conquest at the time of Joshua and the early judges. That Israelites took possession of and inhabited the coastal cities by this time is fully attested to in the Bible, and especially the Septuagint. The Greeks called these people “Phoenicians”, and they were a very industrious people and were skilled in sailing ships, the making of glass, inventing an alphabet, designing architecture and most anything they set their mind and hand to do. They were a very industrious people and developers of civilization. On the other hand, the Canaanites were always a parasitic people with very low morals. Yet because both of these groups dwelt in the “land of purple”, at various times they were both referred to as Phoenicians, or people of the “land of purple” – where the purple dye of the murex shellfish was harvested and employed in manufacturing. It was not an ethnic term!

You will notice in Herodotus’ account of the Phoenicians that Neco gave the instruction to them, “... When it came to be autumn, they would put in and sow the land wherever they happened to be in Libya in the course of their sailing and wait the harvest there ...”. It is obvious from this that the Phoenicians were also farmers. Had they been Canaanite-jews, they would have had the curse of Cain upon them that, “... When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength ...”, Gen. 4:12. Had those Phoenicians been Canaanite-jews, they would have starved to death before they got back to Egypt three years later! How many bad-fig-jews do you know today that are farmers? Rather than being farmers, they operate junkyards or landfills or loan out money (credit) at interest!

Moreover, had the Phoenicians been genetic Canaanite-jews as some of the Septuagint-only advocates assert, the prophets would have highly condemned any alliance between Solomon and the king of Tyre in their extensive joint naval venture bringing in and exporting raw materials and finished products from all over the then known world!

For those who have done any serious research concerning the history of the twelve tribes of Israel already know that some of the tribes of Zerah-Judah and Dan left Egypt before the main body crossed through the Red Sea (or whatever body of water it was). It is my opinion that these two tribes left mainly by sea, as they would have found stiff resistance had they tried to traverse Retenue and Amurru (as Palestine was called at that time) by land. And as they made their way to distant destinations, they would have hopped from one island to another, using them as safe havens. Later, during the Joshua period, there is recorded at Josh. 17:7-11 and 19: 24-31 a description of the land that fell by lot to Asher which included much of Phoenicia, Zidon (Sidon) & Tyre. And since Asher inherited much of the land later known as Phoenicia, the name Phoenician (people of the land of purple) began to be used by the Greeks in reference to them. Whether or not some of Asher left Egypt earlier, as Zerah-Judah and Dan did, cannot be determined.

I did a little research on the subject of the purple dye made from the murex shellfish, and found that many items in the Tabernacle, (even in the wilderness), were colored with such dye. But how did our people get it, as they had not as yet entered the land of Canaan, and would not have had any access to collecting and processing the murex shellfish for use in dying these items? If it were the Canaanites who were the workers in purple we, upon entering Canaan, were forbidden to have any business dealings with them. And there is one thing for sure, after we made our exodus out of Egypt the way we did, we couldn’t have purchased it from them! The way I see it, the only way we could have gotten any purple dye at that time is, if Zerah-Judah or Dan were in the purple dye business. After all, Rahab, a descendant of Zerah-Judah, was already in Jericho.

From an article found in the Saudi Aramco World entitled “Millennia of Murex” for July-August, 2006 at the Internet website,

www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200604/millennia.of.murex.htm:

“Dye formulae of many kinds were widely known by the time this cuneiform tablet [not shown] was inscribed in the seventh century B.C. near Babylon, now in Iraq. It describes the dyeing of wool to shades of ‘lapis-lazuli,’ which was apparently an attempt to imitate murex.

“The sea meant trade, and by the eighth century B.C., the Phoenicians were established as traders, craftsmen and daring seafarers, and Phoenician sarcophagi depict wealthy businessmen. Perhaps because good business required efficient accounting, the Phoenicians invented an alphabet which was passed on to and adapted by the Greeks and which became the origin of our own today. Phoenician vessels traveled as far as the British Isles, where they traded for tin in Cornwall and tin, gold, silver and copper in Spain.

“All around the Mediterranean there are wide stretches of beaches composed of crushed murex shells, silent witnesses to the geographical scope and longevity of the Phoenician dyeing industry. One famous Phoenician dye-works was near Cadiz, in the south of Spain; others were in present-day Tunisia, where Carthage was a Phoenician colony. At all these sites, the shellfish were crushed, and the pigment extracted, processed, mixed and used. Gravestones of ‘purple merchants’ (purpurarii or negotiatores artis purpurariae) often show a set of scales or hanks of yarn, indicating that here too yarn was dyed before weaving, enabling it to be used for woven patterns and embroidery ...

“When Alexander the Great’s troops, marching east in 324 BC, took the Achaemenid winter capital Susa (in today’s Iran), they found a vast store of purple robes and cloth in the royal treasury. Afterward, Alexander’s generals criticized their leader for swanning around in the all-purple robes ‘like a Persian.’ To the austerity-loving Greek mind of the time, only a show-off would don such ostentatious luxury. Not long afterward, however, possibly thanks to captive Phoenician dyers, the Greeks learned purple technology themselves. Purple dye works have been excavated in Corinth, and murex shells were depicted on certain Greek coins. Archeologists excavating the royal Macedonian graves at Vergina found the bones of Cleopatra, Philip II’s youngest wife and Alexander the Great’s stepmother, wrapped in a breathtaking fabric of the finest purple wool, delicately woven with gold thread. A fragment of that royal shroud has recently been analyzed and proved, not surprisingly, to have been dyed with murex.”

At this point in time, I reserve the right to change my mind on this subject should further evidence shed more light on this topic. But one thing I’m quite sure of is that the Canaanite-jews were not the Phoenicians of Scripture! This is not saying that there were not Canaanites among the Asherites, because it is clearly recorded that Asher did not drive them all out. This is also not claiming that, at a later date, more Canaanites and Edomites did not move in to occupy Asher’s territory, especially after Asher was taken into captivity by Assyria. And as the Canaanites falsely claim to be Israelites today, no doubt some of them claimed to be Phoenicians after Asher was taken captive. All of this behooves us to search all the evidence and determine just who are the Phoenicians and who are the Canaanites! Surely, it is folly on the part of those who continue to declare them to be synonymous!

In the last two Watchman’s Teaching Letter, #’s 119 & 120, we have addressed how the Septuagint translators made some errant renderings, such as changing “Canaanite” to “Phoenician” and “innkeeper” to “harlot”. Thus far, we have pretty well covered the errant “Canaanite” rendering of the LXX, but a few words must be expressed concerning the errant “harlot” rendering.

Adam Clarke, in his Commentary On The Bible, made several outstanding scholarly arguments why Rahab was not a harlot. Here are a couple of excerpts from the research which he made:

“All these circumstances considered, I am fully satisfied that the term %1&' zonah in the text, which we translate harlot, [after the LXX translators and the N.T. authors], should be rendered tavern or innkeeper, or hostess.” ...

“It is granted that the Septuagint, which is followed by Heb. xi. 31, and James ii. 25, translate the Hebrew %1&' zonah by B@D<0, which generally signifies a prostitute; but it is not absolutely evident that the Septuagint used the word in this sense. Every scholar knows that the Greek word B@D<0 comes from B,D<"T, to sell, as this does from B,D"T, to pass from one to another; transire facio a me ad alterum: damm. But may not this be spoken as well of the woman’s goods as of her person? In this sense the Chaldee Targum understood the term, and has therefore translated it !(*8$1&5 !((! ittetha pundekitha, a woman, a tavern-keeper ...”

Then I made the following two comments: And as Paul was influenced by the Septuagint at Hebrews 11:31, and James at 2:25, they too, innocently followed a flawed translation not of their own making! ... Once we understand that the word should have been “zoon” rather than “zonah”, we can begin to see that Rahab either owned or had a concession on a combination hotel and restaurant.

The object of this lesson is to demonstrate how serious some of these errant translations from the Hebrew into the Greek can be. But we don’t throw either the Masoretic or the Septuagint texts away as each have both their profound and inadequate passages. As a matter of fact, we shouldn’t throw any evidence away.

The Septuagint is the outgrowth of an attempt to translate the Old Testament Hebrew text into a Greek format for a Greek speaking people. It was an endeavor begun at Alexandria, Egypt over two hundred years before the birth of Yahshua Christ. Some of the passages in the LXX reflect some of those found among the DSS. Jerome used the LXX in producing his Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate, which is approved by the Roman Catholic Church, and the LXX remains the official Old Testament for the Greek Orthodox Church. And the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches followed the LXX in using the additional books found in the Apocrypha. It was translated from a Hebrew Old Testament text-type that is older than the Masoretic text from which most Old Testaments are translated today. No doubt, Josephus had an earlier Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript to work from than we know about.

In an article on the Internet at www.scrollpublishing.com/store/ Septuagint.html, entitled “Septuagint”, it is stated: “This is sad, for the apostles had access to both the Septuagint and to the proto-Masoretic text that was in existence in their time. And they chose to quote from the Septuagint – not the proto-Masoretic text.

“You have probably noticed that many of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament don’t read the same in the New as they do in the Old. However, if you were using the Septuagint Old Testament, they would [for the most part] read the same.

“For example, notice this passage from the Psalms that is quoted in the Book of Hebrews: ‘Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, ‘Sacrifice and offering thou hast not desired, but a body thou hast prepared for me’ (Heb. 10:5,6). In that passage, Paul is quoting from Psalm 40:6. If you look up Psalm 40:6 in your Bible, you will find that it reads: ‘Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired; mine ears Thou hast opened.’ That’s not how the writer of Hebrews quoted that verse, is it?

“Our Old Testaments don’t say anything in Psalms about ‘a body Thou hast prepared for me.’ Is that not part of Scripture? If it isn’t, why did the writer of Hebrews quote it as Scripture? If it is part of Scripture, what justification do we have for using a text that is different from what the apostles were using?

“That is not an isolated example. Such variances between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are fairly numerous ...” You will notice here that the author has the same conclusion which I came to; that the New Testament writers were working from a LXX text which has flaws, and that the Masoretic Text also has flaws. in Addition, the author of this same article writes:

“The Value of the Septuagint: More and more Bible scholars today are recognizing the immense value of the Septuagint and its unique relationship to the New Testament. For example, Bible scholar George Howard points out: ‘If the writers of the NT [New Testament] were influenced by secular Greek, they were influenced more by LXX [Septuagint]. Separated from LXX the NT would have been almost unintelligible to the contemporary reader, according to B. Atkinson. ... At any rate, in the past decades there has developed an appreciation for the influence which LXX vocabulary had on NT thought and the contributions in this area of Septuagintal research are still coming. Consequently, the debate over which source is more important for NT lexicography, Greek or Hebrew, will probably be resolved in terms of LXX.”

Again, the author here is in agreement with my premise; that although the Septuagint has its flawed renderings, it nevertheless reflects many of the true meanings of an earlier Hebrew version (“proto-Masoretic text”) which we no longer have at hand. And even with its flaws, the Septuagint can be a blessing, as we can understand that the apostles did indeed quote from it. What, then, is the bottom line that all of this boils down to? The answer is, we have no perfect manuscripts to guide us. We have to face the fact that some are more accurate than others. And this doesn’t open the door for anyone to claim he alone is guided by the Spirit, and that we therefore should follow him. Yahweh save us from those who claim “God speaks personally to me”! Our only alternative is to consider and study all of the manuscripts we already have. And as I have said many times, we need a Bible in one hand and a history book in the other! There are those who brag that they never read Bible commentaries. Though the commentaries do contain many absurdities, most of the authors were skilled historians, but even that must be scrutinized. What kind of a Bible student do you wish to be? And are you up to it? Conclusion: A perfect manuscript cannot be found, nor a perfect man, outside of Yahshua Christ. Don’t even look!

Remember Jeremiah 8:8 where it says: “How will ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD [sic Yahweh] is with us? In vain have the scribes used a false pen.” (Brenton’s Septuagint)

/em/span

Watchman's Teaching Letter #122 June 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. In the last lesson, #121, we reviewed portions of lesson #’s 119 & 120, where the shortcomings of the Septuagint were discussed. We learned in those two lessons how the New Testament writers quoted from flawed passages from the LXX. That there are translation errors in our present Bibles may not accord well with some people. But whether they agree or not does not change the fact that somewhere along the line some passages, for one reason or another, have been corrupted. But don’t get overly disturbed by this revelation, as scholarly investigation can many times overcome these irregular defects.

With this lesson we will continue our perusal of the writings of the apostle Paul. It may not appear that this is what we are doing at times, especially in the last three letters, but without understanding that the New Testament writers were quoting from a sometimes flawed Septuagint, some of the problems cannot be properly resolved. When scrutinizing Paul’s epistles, we must first of all understand that they were addressed to the ethnê (nations); the nations that the lost tribes of Israel had formed. Not understanding that most of the time the Greek word ethnê means “nations” – rather than non-jew – has caused untold confusion by nominal churchianity. Trying to reduce the world’s population to two categories (jew & gentile) has caused inestimable damage. Paul’s commission was not to the Latin term “gentiles”, but rather to the ethnê (nations). Paul’s commission was also to a genetically White people, and not to all the races of the world, as some so blatantly insist.

For instance, let’s just consider the Zerah-Judah branch of Israel alone, to whom Paul would minister. One of the down-line descendants of Zerah (the scarlet thread people, related to Rahab) was Dara or Darda, or Dardanus, as called by the first century historian Josephus (a full-blooded Levite), or Darius as referred to in various Trojan genealogies. Darda is given credit as the founder of the colony which built the city of Troy. Darda’s offspring never entered the land of Canaan with Joshua, nor took part in the Exodus with the main body of the Israelites under Moses. Ostensibly, some of Zerah-Judah left Egypt during the 150 year period before a new king arose to power in Egypt, which “knew not Joseph”. That Pharaoh is accredited as saying: “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land”, Exod. 1:9-10. The Egyptians engaged in trade with Greece and some of the traders from Egypt were Israelites; a number of them being from the tribe of Dan. And this trading probably took place while there was less oppression from the Egyptian pharaoh.

E. Raymond Capt in his book Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets, states: “Argos is said by the Greeks to have been the birthplace of Hercules, but Herodotus, who went to some trouble to find out who Hercules really was, made a special voyage to Tyre (Strabo ii, 44) and found an older Temple to Hercules. The daring adventures and exploits of the Grecian Hercules (Heracles) is [sic are] more probably those of semi-traders and buccaneers of Tyre and Dan. In Hebrew, rakal means to trade and Heracleem [rakal with the article ‘he’ and the plural suffix] means traders. Those who went forth from Argos and subdued other parts of Greece are spoken of as Heraclidae or descendants of Heracles.”

The down-line progeny from Dardanus were: Erichthonius, Tros, Ilus, Laomedon, Priam, Hector, and Astyanax. Tros, being the grandson of Dardanus, gave his name to Troy. Tros had another son who was called Assaracus, from whom came Capys, who fathered Anchises, who fathered Aeneas. Priam was the king of Troy at its fall, while Hector was the foremost of its warriors. Yet Aeneas was a noted hero in the aftermath of the war.

After the close of the Trojan war, Aeneas journeyed with his son Ascanius to Italy, where they were welcomed with accolades by King Latinus. Latinus then proceeded to make Aeneas the envy of King Rutuli, a rival. In due time, Aeneas engaged in war with King Rutuli, defeating him to become the king of Italy (at that time called Latium). Ascanius then married Lavinia, the daughter of King Latinus, having a son named Sylvius, who in turn married Lavinia’s niece and had a son named Brutus, another distinguished Trojan hero.

In his book Father Abraham’s Children, Perry Edward Powell, Ph. D., pp. 98-99 gives us another historical account of this same story: “Zerah’s son Ethan, very wise, and indeed this line of Judah-Zerah is the only royal line termed wise, on the other hand led his people north, from Egypt where he was born, into what is now Asia Minor, and his son Mahol continued likewise. Mahol’s heir, Darda, reached the western shore, where on a commanding site, he founded the metropolis of Troy. The date is 1520 B.C. Here the city flourished for nearly four hundred years. Darda first saw the straits that separated Europe and Asia and gave them his name, Dardanelles. Darda also founded a fort here that is named after him. But the greatest honor is recorded in the Bible, Solomon was ‘wiser than all men; than ... Darda the son of Mahol.’ Thus great was the founder of Troy and the sire of the Trojan race whose children abide with us still ...

“When Troy fell she did so to arise on another shore in eternal and imperial splendor. I am not referring to Italy. That empire though long was ephemeral (short-lived). Italy is an interlude only. Aeneas, a member of the old royal family, attained the kingship, led the saddened Trojans around the Mediterranean Sea, as graphically described in the Aenead, and finally brought them to their new home on the Tiber in Italy ...

“Here on the Tiber happened a very sad event, too sad to be recalled, and would not be except for its denouement (final outcome). Brutus was one day hunting with his father Silvius, when he spied the prey, as he thought, and let fly an arrow. On running up he was shocked and grieved to find that he had killed his own father! Some people then, as now, were censorious and Brutus departed from the new colony, from which later sprang Rome, and with his royal followers, went to Greece, rallied the enslaved Trojans, defeated King Pendrasus, thus erasing the defeat of Troy, and as victor exacted these terms; he must give his daughter Ignoge for a wife, furnish a big fleet of ships fully provisioned, for his emigrant force of seven thousand men, and free permission for them to sail unmolested. ...

“Brutus, now with an object and direction, steered west through the straits (pillars) of Hercules, then northward along the east Atlantic main, across the English Channel to the present river Dart, and up its stream to Totnes where stepping on a large stone he landed on the great island which was ever to bear his name as a memorial among the proud nations of the world. This rock, more famous throughout the centuries than Plymouth Rock, is marked as Brutus Rock, and has been visited perennially by people of all nations, all ranks, and all ages. With his people he explored the whole island and he apportioned to each one according to his rank and services. At last he decided the proper place for his capital, a choice bank of the Thames river, so named for a stream, Thyamis, in Epirus from which he first sailed, and there he built his metropolis, and according to the advice of the oracle, he named it Tri Novantum, New Troy. This name it bore for over eleven hundred years when King Lud at the beginning of the Christian era built her walls and renamed her Luddun, Lud’s wall, easily refined into London. London is also derived by some from Llandin, meaning ‘Sacred eminence.’ London dates from three hundred-fifty years before Rome. Why should Rome be called the Eternal City? ...”

After a time of colonizing, when houses and farms began to mark the land, Brutus called the island after himself, naming it Brit-ain and the people Brit-ons. He initiated the building of a city, calling it New Troy, which is in Latin Tri-Novantum, which lasted until Lud began to build walls around it to defend against the advances of Julius Ceasar, whereupon the name changed to Caer-Lud, the City of Lud. Today we call that city London.

Again from the book Father Abraham’s Children, pp. 102-103 we read: “Rome and Britain are at variance in their primitive history. Rome always emphasizes the story of Romulus and Remus who, bereft of their own mother, and cast into the flooded Tiber, were rescued by a she-wolf who took them to her den and played the mother act. A woodpecker also carried them dainties from her store. Thus their lives were preserved for the great benefit of humanity! This delectable bit from the far past is in our histories and schoolrooms as something to be remembered. It is enough to say that we have nothing so savory in the ancient past of old Britain. Perhaps that is the reason that our schools pass over the founding of the British Empire by Trojan-Welsh. But some time the whole story will be written and told. ...

“The Roman writers and travellers after much experience admit that Britons (Cymry) had laws that excelled their own, and were highly skilled in agriculture. ‘The extraordinary similarity that exists between many of our early laws’, says Yeatman, ‘and those of the Israelites might raise an inference that they were copied from them after the introduction of Christianity, but positive evidence exists of their preexistence.’ ‘The common law is identical in principal with what was known as the Law of the Lord as given in the books of Exodus.’ The British system of law is superior to any other European system although several countries were more benefitted by Rome[’s law].”

In Britain the first king to wear a golden crown, who also is remembered as the Solomon of Britain, was Molmutius the lawgiver in 450 B.C. He based his law on the code brought by Brutus to Britain in 1100 B.C. Brutus was the one responsible for bringing these precepts and laws to Britain from Troy and Greece, and they were virtually identical to the laws Yahweh gave to Moses. Among the nations, the Brits were the first to have the Common Law, which held that a person was innocent until proven guilty. King Molmutius is also given credit for building the roads of Britain. History wrongly gives credit to the Romans whose roads came centuries after the British had constructed theirs. Upon the completion of the roads came the Triad - Three things were to be free to a country and its borders; the roads, the rivers, and the places of worship. These three were to be under the protection of God and His peace. The term “King’s Highway” originated in this law.

Greece is the next to be considered, because the very heart of the most advanced societies of the world have progressively moved westward. Before the scattering of Israel, Greece began to phase-in as the world’s next major center of western civilization. “Greeks” is not a Greek term and the Greeks didn’t call themselves Greeks but rather Hellenes, Achaeans, Danai, Ionians, Dorians, etc. The first faction calling them Greeks were the Romans, which is from their Latin word “Graeci”. As for the Lacedaemonians, Dorians who were also know as Spartans, it has been found in a writing concerning the Spartans and the pureblooded Judahites of Judaea, that they are kinsmen, and that they are both descended from Abraham. 1 Macc. 12:19-21: “19 And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent, 20 Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: 21 It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judahites are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham.” As to the Danai, the tribe of Dan was famous for their explorations on the high seas as well as over land. Thus the tribe of Dan has left his name within several locations such as: Danai, Danube, Donetz, Danzig, Dnieper, Dniester, Donsk, Denmark, Scandinavia, Macedonia, and Sardinia.

It is difficult sometimes for the Bible scholar to separate a geographical area from a tribe of people. William Finck, in giving me great assistance on this exposé, wrote a note to me thusly: “‘Lacedaemonian’ is a geographic distinction, for the name described a district of Peloponnesus where the chief city was Sparta. After the Dorian invasion, the people who dwelt there were principally Dorians. ‘Dorian’ and ‘Ionian’ are tribal names, as is ‘Danai’. All of these tribes collectively called themselves ‘Hellenes’.” It’s the same old bugaboo as with the Israelite lady, Ruth. Ruth, in reality, was an Israelite lady from a geographical area formerly called the “country of Moab”, (Ruth 4:3). I hope this bit of advice by William helps you as much as it did me!

It was the Semitic Israelites and related people who were colonizing and advancing civilization. On the other side of the coin, there are the Canaanite-jews, pretending to be Israelites, who are parasites and infiltrate and corrupt civilizations. The latter are literally the sperm of Satan by the sexual seduction of Eve who gave them birth; (in plain language, Cain and his progeny)! By the time of Yahshua Christ there were hardly any pureblooded Israelites left in Judaea. At that time, any Israelites from the ten northern tribes of Israel were almost nonexistent in the area of Palestine. And from the southern kingdom there were but few; a smattering of pureblooded Judahites along with a smattering of Benjamites and fewer yet of pureblooded Levites. And as the population of pureblooded Israelites decreased in Judaea, the population of Canaanite-Edomite-jews increased, that is until 70 A.D., when Rome decimated a substantial part of them! This Paul had predicted at Rom. 16:20.

BRITAIN’S LAWS: From all of this we can see, while most of the continent of Europe struggled under Roman law which was later codified by Justinian, Britain was thriving under laws based on the laws of Yahweh. For more on British law, I am going to quote from Celt, Druid and Culdee by Isabel Hill Elder, pages 25, 49, and 77:

Page 25- “Another point on which Britain differs from other countries is that she has ever maintained the Common Law which holds a person under trial innocent until proven guilty, whereas the Continental nations maintain the Civil Law [of Justinian] which holds him guilty until proven innocent.”

Page 49- “That the Britons adopted anything they thought good from the Romans is perfectly true; they did not, however, abandon any of their old essential laws and customs and still less their religion. But it is as untrue to say that the Britons had no previous civilization of their own as it is to pretend that Roman laws and customs permanently established themselves in Britain and remained after the legions were withdrawn. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the ancestors of the British, centuries before the Romans gained a footing in these islands, were a polished and intellectual people, skilled in arms as well as in learning, with a system of jurisprudence of their own, superior even to the laws of Rome.”

Page 77- “Cusack says that the whole system of government and legislation was patriarchal — indicative of an Eastern origin — and that in the Brehon laws, said to be the oldest code of laws in Europe, there are evidences which look very much like a trace of Jewish [sic Judah-Zerah] tradition.

“Another writer affirms that the Brehon Code in parts is a republication of the Mosaic law which declared that the first-born of every creature, including the first-born of man, was to be presented to the Lord (Exod. 13:2; Num. 18:15). ...

“Camden gives a quotation from Postellius’ lecture on Pomponius Mela, a first-century writer: ‘Ireland was called Jurin, quasi Jewsland [sic Judahland], because in the distant past the Jews [sic Judahites of] (Israel), who were great soothsayers, knew that the future empire of the world would come to these parts.’

“The Psalter of Cashel says: ‘The Tuatha de Danaan ruled in Ireland for about two centuries and were highly skilled in architecture and other arts from their long residence in Greece.’

“Sir Henry Maine observed: ‘We who are able here to examine coolly the ancient Irish law in an authentic form see that it is a very remarkable body of archaic law, unusually pure from its origin’.”

We should be beginning to get a pretty well-rounded picture in our minds of the great differences between Justinian’s law codes and Britain’s law codes. For a little more history on this, I am going to return to the book, Father Abraham’s Children, pages 104-105:

“In the course of chronology, for I am following the royal line in its descent and great achievements, we come to the great law-giver, which is a rarity among the people of the world. His name is Dyvnwal Moelmud or in Latin Dunwallo Malmutius and he is often referred to by the historian who is acquainted with the history of Britain before the advent of the Anglo-Saxon. He reduced the whole island of Great Britain to his sway as his ancestor Brutus had done and during his long reign of forty years gave them a distinguished code of laws named for him the Malmutian Laws. He is buried in Trinovantum, now London. Shakespeare has enshrined his glory thus:

 

‘... Malmutius made our laws;

Who was the first of Britain which did put

His brow within a golden crown, and called

Himself a king.’

 

“Just three reigns later came one who achieved even greater fame and longer service and she was a woman, the queen of Guytelin of Guithelin Batrus. Her name is Queen Martia, the author of the famed Martian Laws which centuries later by only making the necessary changes for time and place were adopted by Alfred the Great and are the basis for the present English laws. Then what shall be the praises of Queen Martia? Why is not she equally famous?”

It is evident from all we have investigated thus far, the laws of Rome under Justinian and the ancient laws of Britain were and are as different as day is from night and are 180° apart. It may come as a surprise to many, but Daniel prophesied the coming of the Justinian Law Code. I will now make reference to Daniel 7:24-25:

The part we are going to concentrate on is: “... and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. 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: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

To start the discussion on this passage, I am going to quote from William V. Fowler’s book, End Time Revelation, page 127:

“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 he 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 1798 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 (verse 25). Justinian’s best known work was as a 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 utterances 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.)”

The important thing to notice with this passage is that we are looking for a king of a kingdom who subdued three other kingdoms of our people during his reign. You will also notice we are looking for a king, who, during his reign had a very strong impact upon writing and managing laws. You will notice Justinian fits both of these qualifications. As we go along, the picture of the fulfillment of this passage will start to come into focus. I will now quote from The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 11, page 168 to get further insight on this subject:

“JUSTINIAN I, jus TIN ih un (A.D. 482-565), was the Byzantine (East Roman) emperor from A.D. 527 until his death. He collected Roman laws under one code, the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law). This code, also known as the Justinian Code, is the basis of the legal systems in many nations today ... Justinian was called The Great. He recaptured many parts of what had been the West Roman Empire from barbarians. He built fortresses, harbors, monasteries, and the famous church of Saint Sophia in what is now Istanbul, Turkey.

“Justinian was born in a part of Macedonia that is now in Yugoslavia. His uncle, Emperor Justin I, made him co-ruler in 527. Justin died a few months later, and Justinian became sole emperor. During Justinian’s reign, his wife, Theodora, tried to influence his politics ... Justinian was an orthodox Christian, and tried to unify his empire under one Christian faith. He persecuted Christian heretics (those who opposed church teachings), Jews, and pagans (non-Christians). In 529, he closed the schools of philosophy in Athens, Greece, because he felt they taught paganism.

“In the early 530’s, Justinian began a series of wars against the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, who had conquered most of the West Roman Empire in the 400’s. By the mid-550’s his armies had taken northern Africa, Italy, and parts of Spain ...

“JUSTINIAN CODE. Justinian I, ruler of the eastern Roman Empire from 527 to 565, commanded 10 of the wisest men in his realm to draw up a collection of the Roman laws. This collection is known as the Corpus Juris Civilis, which means Body of Civil Law. Also called the Justinian Code, this body of law is recognized as one of the greatest Roman contributions to civilization. It was a compilation of early Roman laws and legal principles, illustrated by cases, and combined with an explanation of new laws, and future legislation. The code clarified the laws of those times, and has since been a basis for the law codes of many countries.

“The scholars who compiled the Justinian Code divided it into four parts. The Institutes served as a textbook in law for students and lawyers. The Digest was a casebook covering many trials and decisions. The Codex was a collection of statutes and principles. The Novels contained proposed new laws.”

You will notice in both of these quotes, three kingdoms were taken by Justinian. William V. Fowler records them the same as The World Book Encyclopedia, except for the Alemanian which The World Book Encyclopedia calls the Visigoths. The Alemanni and Visigoths are different tribes of the same people, so there is no problem here. Justinian was corrupting the church and the state with his law code. All of this is very interesting and important, for the founding fathers of the United States chose the Common Law of Britain (the law of Brutus, or Trojan law) rather than the Justinian Law Code as the law governing our country. So whenever one hears a United States Congressman or Senator speak of “the rule of law”, to which law system is he referring? And one should keep in mind that Brutus’s Common Law is none other than the law that Yahweh gave to Moses. Yes, our laws in the United States were established on the foundation of Biblical law! And no Canaanite-jew has the authority to alter any of them to differ from Biblical law! That is also why a Canaanite should never be appointed to the United States Supreme Court, or any other office, which is in itself a violation of Biblical law!!!

You may not realize it, but we are still on the subject of the apostle Paul, for when he ministered to the Romans, by-and-large he was addressing former Trojans of the tribe Zerah-Judah. That would include the Julian clan of Caesars. This lesson has been an effort to trace the line of Zerah-Judah through the Bible, and then through secular history right up until our present day, with no missing links, and much of the evidence comes out of the Greek Classics, especially Homer. All of the testimony is available for anyone to obtain and confirm for themselves for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The truth of the matter is that a good share of the Romans were Israelites. And the knowledge of this fact puts an entirely different perspective on the crucifixion of Yahshua Christ than the majority realize! Actually, the Romans were closely related to Christ, as Zerah-Judah was a brother tribe to Pharez-Judah, Yahshua’s lineal ancestor, and both branches of Judah were Royal. Is it any wonder, then, that Yahshua forgave the Roman soldiers who had the job of executing Him? Yahshua never forgave the Canaanite-jews for their legal responsibility for His crucifixion, and neither should we! Pilate, the governor of Judaea, may have also descended from the Trojans, and Pilate spoke for the entire Empire of Rome when he declared “... I find no fault in this man.” So we can see from Pilate’s judgment, there would have been no crucifixion had not the Canaanite-jews demanded it! Christ was related to the Romans, not the Canaanites!

Paul, like Christ, went to the lost tribes of Israel with the Gospel, not to the so-called “gentiles”, which has the corrupted definition of “non-jew” by the greater part of the clergy today! The Greek word was ethnê, meaning “nations”, not the Latin gentilis. How do we know, then, that Paul went to the lost tribes of Israel? At no time did Paul countermand the teachings of Yahshua Christ, for we read at 1 Cor. 11:1: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Paul, in effect, was saying: “If I follow not Yahshua Christ in any way shape or manner, then do not follow me, but follow me only to the extent in which I myself follow Christ.” And Yahshua Christ Himself said, “... I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, Matt. 15:24. Therefore if Paul went to someone other than “unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, he did not follow Christ! And the Trojan-Romans were some of those “lost sheep”, as one can plainly observe from the documentation presented in  this lesson!

To go back to the beginning for more details surrounding the story of Zerah-Judah, and collect fundamental data, I will quote an excerpt from Destiny Magazine (Yearbook), May, 1947, the last of a series called “Study In Jeremiah” entitled “Building and Planting”, by Howard Rand, found on pages 163-166:

Pharez and Zarah. Let us pause here to briefly outline the history of the Zarah branch of Judah’s posterity. Judah had two sons by Tamar, named Pharez and Zarah. When Jacob and his family went down into Egypt Zarah, as yet, had no children. Pharez was accompanied by two sons, Hezron and Hamul. Two sons, Ethan and Zimri, were born to Zarah in Egypt. Ethan profited by the opportunities he received in the land and so did his son Mahol, who also enjoyed the same advantages. Their success won them much fame so that they are named in connection with Solomon whose wisdom did exceed theirs: ‘And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt, For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.’ (I Kings 4:30-31)”

The whole object of this lesson has been to walk the reader through both the Bible and secular history in regard to Judah’s twin son Zerah, from Egypt all the way to Britain, with no missing links. I have read both in books and articles on the Internet on this subject which make an effort to accomplish this same goal, but many corrupt the subject in one way or another.

With the help of William Finck, I believe you will find this exposé contextually more accurate on our subject than most anywhere else. To put this article together, I had to pull together everything I had learned on the subject over the last approximate twenty-five years. I also followed the general outline of topical articles on the Internet, but some of those drifted off into such error, that I decided to rewrite such citations in my own words rather than confuse the reader. After I had written my first draft, William cited several passages where he suggested that I should strike them, which I did. Upon sending a second draft to William, he returned it with a few minor changes to be made, including one citation that I had added which he rated at only 65%, which I also deleted. I should also point out that my other proofreaders helped in making this essay what it is.

Once we understand the true history of Zerah-Judah, we can better understand the Romans to whom Paul went were Israelites, and it renders a preferable perspective on Yahshua’s crucifixion! Hence, it is absurd to call the Romans “gentiles”, for they were truly of Judah.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #123 July 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul, though in this lesson, it may appear we have drifted entirely off into another subject. But I believe that what follows is a prerequisite to comprehending some of the positions which Paul advocates, to better understand some of his writings. In the previous lesson #’s 119 and 120, we were considering the various translation errors found in both the Masoretic text as well as the Septuagint. After examining some of these errors, I concluded: What, then, is the bottom line that all of this boils down to? The answer is, we have no perfect manuscripts to guide us. We have to face the fact that some are more accurate than others. And this doesn’t open the door for anyone to claim he alone is guided by the Spirit, and that we therefore should follow him. Yahweh save us from those who claim “God speaks personally to me”! Our only alternative is to consider and study all of the manuscripts we already have. For what its worth, we are going to examine yet another translation from the Aramaic which presents an alternate rendering.

What I’m referring to is found in a variance of the rendering of the 18th, 19th & 20th chapters of Leviticus between the KJV and Lamsa’s Aramaic Version. I will first present the passages involved, and then go into a discussion on the relevance of the matter. It has to be admitted that Lamsa has many positive comments to make on such things as idioms and various Biblical topics, yet we need to use caution in examining his contributions. I will use “KJV” to indicate the rendering of the King James version and “Lam.” for Lamsa’s version:

KJV, Lev. 18:2 “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.”

Lam., Lev. 18:2 “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God.”

KJV, Lev. 18:3 “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.”

Lam., Lev. 18:3 “You shall not do according to the doings of the land of Egypt wherein you dwelt, neither shall you do according to the doings of the land of Canaan whither I bring you; neither shall you walk in their ordinances.”

KJV, Lev. 18:4 “Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.”

Lam., Lev. 18:4 “But you shall do my judgments and keep my commandments and walk in them; I am the LORD your God.”

KJV, Lev. 18:5 “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.” ...

Lam., Lev. 18:5 “You shall therefore keep my commandments and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them; I am the LORD.” ...

KJV, Lev. 18:21 “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.” ...

Lam., Lev. 18:21 “You shall not let any of your semen be cast into a strange woman to cause her to be pregnant; neither shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.” ...

KJV, Lev. 18:29 “For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.”

Lam., Lev. 18:29 “For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.”

KJV, Lev. 18:30 “Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.” ...

Lam., Lev. 18:30 “Therefore you shall keep my ordinance, and you shall not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and you shall not defile yourselves by them; I am the LORD your God.” ...

KJV, Lev. 19:19 “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed  ...”

Lam., Lev. 19:19 “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with mixed seed ...”

KJV, Lev. 20:2 “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”

Lam., Lev. 20:2 “Say to the children of Israel, Any man of the children of Israel or of the proselytes who sojourn in Israel who shall cast any of his semen into an alien woman, he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”

KJV, Lev. 20:3 “And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.”

Lam., Lev. 20:3 “And I will pour out my anger against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has cast his semen into an alien woman to defile my sanctuary and to profane my holy name.”

KJV, Lev. 20:4 “And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not.”

Lam., Lev. 20:4 “And if the people of the land do in any way ignore the offense of the man who has cast of his semen into an alien woman, that they may not kill him.”

KJV, Lev. 20:5 “Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.”

Lam., Lev. 20:5 “Then I will set my anger against that man and against his family, and will cut him off and all who go astray after him, because they go astray after alien women from among their people.”

It should be quite evident here that there is a lot of difference between the KJV “giveth of his seed unto Molech” and the Lamsa’s rendering “man who has cast of his semen into an alien woman”! It may be that Lansa’s version has interpreted the Hebrew idiom in a manner which makes a lot more sense. Had the KJV read anywhere near the Lamsa version, we might have averted all the multiculturalism with its miscegenation that is going on today! You will notice that the penalty according to the Lamsa version for letting “your semen be cast into a strange woman” is “you shall stone him with stones”.

One website calling itself Christian Research Media by one James Lloyd criticizes Lamsa’s translation on Leviticus 18:21 thusly:

“Lamsa’s work is filled with errors, texts where he missed the primary meaning, outright bias, and what can only be considered to be the fruit of the poisoned tree that is the Aramaic translation itself. In short, the Lamsa Bible is devilish through and through, and should be considered apostate in the extreme.

“For example, Lamsa believed it was wrong to mix the races, so he twisted verses in the Scriptures to propagate that perspective. Please understand, the issue here is not whether or not a person believes race mixing is acceptable, the issue is, if you seek to make the Scriptures conform to your individual point of view, you have committed yourself to the Spirit of Antichrist.” Rather it is James Lloyd who is “antichrist” and following Satan’s agenda!

I checked the Septuagint, which is more confusing than the Masoretic text of the KJV. I have an Old Testament published by The Jewish Publication Society Of America (according to the Masoretic Text), and it agrees with the KJV. The following are these same verses from Brenton’s Septuagint:

Lev. 18:2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, I am the Lord your God.

3 Ye shall not do according to the devices of Egypt, in which ye dwelt: and according to the devices of the land of Chanaan, into which I bring you, ye shall not do; and ye shall not walk in their ordinances.

4 Ye shall observe my judgments, and shall keep my ordinances, and shall walk in them: I am the Lord your God.

5 So ye shall keep all my ordinances, and all my judgments, and do them; which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord your God. ...

21 And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I am the Lord. ...

29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be destroyed from among their people.

30 And ye shall keep mine ordinances, that ye may not do any of the abominable practices, which have taken place before your time: and ye shall not be polluted in them; for I am the Lord your God. ...

Lev. 19:19 Ye shall observe my law: thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with one of a different kind, and thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seed  ...

Lev. 20:2 Thou shalt also say to the children of Israel, If there shall be any of the children of Israel, or of those who have become proselytes in Israel, who shall give of his seed to Moloch, let him be surely put to death; the nation upon the land shall stone him with stones.

3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given of his seed to Moloch, to defile my sanctuary, and profane the name of them that are consecrated to me.

4 And if the natives of the land should in anywise overlook that man in giving of his seed to Moloch, so as not to put him to death;

5 then will I set my face against that man and his family, and I will destroy him, and all who have been of one mind with him, so that he should go a whoring to the princes, from their people.”

As can plainly be observed, the expression from the KJV “he giveth of his seed unto Molech” is only confusing, unless the phrase “give of his seed to Moloch” is understood as a Hebrew idiom. We have modern-day idioms similar to this such as, “Things are going to hell in a hand basket”. And “going to hell in a hand basket” would be a good analogy of the race-mixing that is going on today!

Once understanding the Hebrew idiom, one can easily see how casting one’s seed into an alien woman is equivalent to casting one’s offspring into the fiery altar of Molech, as both accomplish the same thing. We should remember that at Ezra 9:2, he referred to Israel as “holy seed” stating: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and their sons; and the holy seed has passed among the nations of the lands, and the hand of the rulers has been first in this transgression.” Inasmuch as there is a “holy seed”, then there has to be an “unholy seed”. Therefore, the mixing of the “holy seed” with the unholy brings forth death to the “holy seed” just as with the fires of Molech!

Job said at 14:7: “For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.” But once a man’s or woman’s seed is united with an alien, there is no longer any hope! All is lost down-line forever! Many are under the delusion that women don’t have any seed, but her egg supplies half of the chromosomes making up the DNA of the child!

There are several websites which make the claim that the New Testament scriptures were first written in Aramaic and then later translated into Greek and other languages. Lamsa makes the same claim. This argument doesn’t hold water, as Luke was himself a Greek, and very proficient in writing in the Greek language. Therefore, both Luke and Acts were first written in Greek. Paul was a very close associate with Luke, and since Paul was proficient in many languages, he would have had no problem writing in them. It would be foolish to claim that Paul first wrote his epistles in Aramaic, for all of his letters were addressed to Greek speaking people. Now, some of the lost ten tribes of Israel did speak Aramaic at the time of the apostles while others spoke Greek. It is only reasonable, then, that the writers of the letters to those lost tribes wrote them in the language then in use by them. Lamsa, in his translation of both the Old and New Testaments wrote on page ix of the introduction, citing Josephus’ Antiquities 21:11:2, trying to make his point:

“I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of freemen, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.”

But Lamsa completely overlooks the fact that Josephus explains in his “Wars Of The Jews” Preface ¶1, why he first wrote his Wars in Aramaic rather than in Greek thusly:

“1. Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves, have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews [sic Judaeans]; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but nowhere, the accurate truth of the facts, I [Josephus] have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; I Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work.]”

For the reader who is unfamiliar with all of this, I will now explain what was going on: First of all, the “Upper Barbarians” to whom Josephus sent his Wars in Aramaic were no other than some of the lost tribes of Israel! Josephus’ objective in sending his Wars to the Upper Barbarians was to influence them to come back to Judaea 700 years after their Assyrian captivity and help the Judaeans in Palestine to fight the Romans. So Josephus was explaining in his “Wars Of The Jews”, Preface ¶1, why he first wrote in Aramaic and then rewrote his Wars in Greek. He knew that some of the ten lost tribes were then still in Persia and Parthia, and that they spoke in Aramaic. Christ’s disciples did no differently, for they spoke and wrote the language of the people to whom they ministered. No doubt Josephus’ rewriting, of his Wars in Greek was an effort to present them to a Greek speaking audience.

So while Lamsa is correct that Josephus did part of his writings in Aramaic, he is blind to the reason why. Lamsa citing Josephus’ Antiquities 21:11:2 proves nothing concerning the original language the New Testament was written in. Evidently Judaea, at the time of Christ, was a bilingual nation with the natives familiar with both Aramaic and Greek. At Matthew ch. 10 we are told that Yahshua Christ sent out the twelve apostles, and later the seventy at Luke ch. 10. We are not informed where all of them went, but we know they were sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Had they gone to the lost tribes, the two main languages they would have encountered would have been Greek and Aramaic, and after they returned we are not informed they encountered any language problems. I believe that is because most of the people in Judaea, at that time, were bilingual. You will notice that Josephus had no problem writing in Greek, only in speaking it. But that doesn’t mean that if he met someone knowing Greek only that he couldn’t carry on a conversation with that person!

In the Preface to Lamsa’s translation of the Bible we are told: “George M. Lamsa, B.A., F.R.S.A., the translator of this work is uniquely fitted for the task to which he has devoted the major part of his life. He is an Assyrian and a native of ancient Biblical lands, where he lived until World War I. Until that time, isolated from the rest of Christendom, his people retained Biblical customs and Semitic culture which had perished everywhere else. This background, together with his knowledge of the Aramaic (Syriac) language, has enabled him to recover much of the meaning that has been lost in other translations of the Scriptures.”

The fact that Lamsa could trace his lineage back to the Assyrians could be good or it could be bad, depending on the situation. The original Assyrians were White people tracing back to Shem, but some of them were also closely related to the Babylonians, and “Egypt and Babylonia were inhabited by mingled races”, History Of Assyria by Olmstead, page 504. Also it should be noted that Assyria had absorbed many Hittites. And even though he may be a pure White Assyrian, he is not under the Abrahamic covenant, therefore I question his Biblical authority to be commenting on Scripture. Nevertheless, he has many positive observations to help the Bible scholar.

Lamsa, in his introduction on page iii says this about his Assyrian lineage: “When Nineveh was destroyed in 612 B.C., many of the princes and noblemen of this once vast empire fled northward into inaccessible mountains where they remained secluded and cut off until the dawn of the twentieth century. Nahum says: ‘Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria: thy nobles shall dwell in the dust: thy people is scattered upon the mountains, and no man gathereth them.’ Nah. 3:18. Some descendants of the Assyrians and some of the descendants of the ten tribes who were taken captive by the Assyrian kings in 721 B.C., and settled in Assyria, Babylon, Persia and other places east of the river Euphrates, were among the first converts to Christianity.” In other words, the Lamsa family was confined to the very mountains which Nahum had prophesied they would be driven to. And even if Lamsa is a white man, he is not an Israel sheep. Reread Nahum chapter 3, I think you’ll find it interesting! Although Lamsa recognizes that the ten tribes of Israel were carried to Assyria around 721 B.C., he fails to see the entire story!

One can tell he knows little of Israel Identity, for he remarks: “Some of the descendants of these Hebrew tribes are still living in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey ...” While Lamsa might be helpful in certain areastext-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; line-height: 105%/span, he is a disaster in others, so we have to be careful with his material!

Lamsa states further: “The Assyrians remained dormant during the Persian, Greek, Roman and Arab conquests. Being isolated and surrounded by their enemies, they remained secluded throughout the centuries, thus preserving the Aramaic language, which was the language of the Near East, and perpetuating the ancient Biblical customs and manners which were common to all races and peoples in this part of the ancient world. ... As we have said, the survival of this small remnant of this segment of the ancient Semitic culture was due to the isolation, tenacity, and warlike character of the Assyrian people who were living isolated, now under the Parthian Empire, now under the Persian Empire, now under the Arabian Empire and now under the Turkish Empire.”

This should be enough information to serve as a guide for George M. Lamsa’s historical and racial background. We will now explore the historical background of the Aramaic Peshitta Bible which he so highly praises:

 

“History Of The Syriac Versions

 

“Peshitta text of Exodus 13:14-16 produced in Amida in the year 464. The name ‘Peshitta’ was first applied to the standard, common Syriac Bible in the ninth century, when it is called such by Moshe bar Kepha. However, it is clear that the Peshitta had a long and complex history before receiving its name. In fact the Peshitta Old Testament and New Testament are two completely separate works of translation.

“The Peshitta Old Testament is the earliest piece of Syriac literature of any length, probably originating in the second century. Whereas the majority of the Early Church relied on the Greek Septuagint, or translations from it, for their Old Testament, the Syriac-speaking church had its text translated directly from the Hebrew. The Hebrew text that served as a master copy for the translation must have been relatively similar to the Masoretic Text of mediaeval and modern Hebrew Bibles. Although previous studies had suggested that it was translated from Aramaic Targumim, this is now rejected. However, some isolated targumic influences can be seen in the text (especially in the Pentateuch and Books of Chronicles), with the addition of little interpretive asides. The style and quality of translation in the Peshitta Old Testament varies quite widely. Some parts may have been translated by Syriac-speaking Jews before being taken over by the church, while other parts may have been worked on by early Jewish converts to Christianity. As Syriac is the language of Edessa, it is likely that the translation took place in that region. However, Arbela and Adiabene, with its large and influential second-century Jewish population, has also been suggested as the place of origin. A few scholars have pointed to a few supposedly Western Aramaic features in the text, which may suggest that the original translation took place in Palestine or Syria. However, the interpretation of these features is extremely difficult. ...

“The early Syriac versions of both Old and New Testament with the four gospels, excluding the Diatessaron [i.e. four Gospels made into one], is called the Old Syriac (Vetus Syra) version. There are two fifth-century manuscripts of the Old Syriac separate gospels (the Sinaitic Palimpsest and Curetonian Gospels). These are a comparatively free translation of the Greek text, the so-called ‘Western’ recension of it, and apparently making use of the Diatessaron text for phrasing. The Old Syriac Gospels were probably produced in the third century (although some date it to the early fourth century). The Old Syriac uses the Peshitta Old Testament for Old Testament quotes (and thus is the earliest witness to its existence) in the gospels, even in places where the quote is quite different in the Greek. There is also evidence that translations of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles also existed in the Old Syriac version, though according to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 4.29.5, Tatian himself rejected them.

“The Peshitta is a reworking of Old Syriac material to form a unified version of the scriptures for the Syriac-speaking churches. The name of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (d. 435) is popularly connected with the production of the Peshitta. However, it is extremely unlikely that he was involved with its production. By the early fifth century, the Peshitta was the standard Bible of the Syriac-speaking churches. Unlike the Greek canon, the Peshitta did not contain the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of John, the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Book of Revelation. However, examination of the earliest extant Peshitta manuscripts shows some variation, including Diatessaric and Old-Syriac features existing long after their supposed replacement. The subsequent divisions of the Syriac-speaking church did not displace the Peshitta as the common scriptures of all groups.

“In the West-Syriac Church, theological dispute within the Byzantine Empire necessitated the production of a Syriac Bible that was closer to the Greek text. Philoxenus of Mabbog (died 523) produced a New Testament text along these lines, the Philoxenian Version, but it appears that this may have just covered a few key passages and text for those books in the Greek canon that were not in the Peshitta. In the seventh century, a complete Syriac Bible based on the standard Greek was produced. The Syro-Hexapla is a version of the Old Testament based on the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla (to which it is now the most important witness). The Harklean Version, under the supervision of Thomas of Harkel, is a fairly close Syriac translation of the Greek New Testament, but oddly containing a few Old-Syriac features. In spite of the existence of these translations, the Peshitta remained the common Bible of the Syriac-speaking churches, and these more technical (called ‘spiritual’ in their time) translations were mostly confined to the desks of Syriac theologians.

“In the East-Syriac Church, and the earlier common tradition, Syriac translators of Greek exegetical literature (especially the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia) often had to provide a precise, literal translation of the Greek text under discussion to accompany the Peshitta text so that the argument of the exegete might still be understood.”

This pretty well covers the history of Syriac versions of the Bible. This is not Lamsa’s history of the Peshitta, but an independent appraisal on the subject. In his introduction to Idioms In The Bible Explained he states in part: 

“All languages of the world, both ancient and modern, have idioms, metaphors and mannerisms of speech. This style of speech is called colloquialism. An idiom is a saying that foreigners cannot understand without being trained and is often taken literally and therefore misunderstood. This is because when we use an idiom we say one thing, but we mean another. For example, in Aramaic we say, ‘If your hand offends you, cut it off,’ which means, ‘If you have a habit of stealing, cut it out.’ An English idiom, ‘He is in a pickle,’ really means, ‘He is in trouble.’ Therefore, idioms and colloquialisms are not to be taken literally. A student must know their true meanings in order to translate them accurately into another language.

“Idioms, metaphors and figures of speech constitute a great barrier in mastering a foreign language. Translators from one language into another have always been cognizant of these difficulties. This is one reason why the Bible is misunderstood and has been subjected to revision throughout the centuries. The Sixteenth Century translators of the Holy Bible did not understand the idioms of the languages from which they translated. Therefore they translated idioms literally and their true meanings were lost. ... They translated many Eastern idioms and metaphors literally, not knowing their true meaning. For instance, ‘You shall handle snakes.’ They did not know that the word ‘snake’ refers to ‘an enemy’.” From this we can see that Lamsa was simply adhering to the idiom when translating Lev. 18-20.

One of the big problems with Lamsa’s translation is that he follows the same chronology of Genesis chapter 5 as the KJV. For those who are not aware of it, there is a 1486 year discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts on the patriarchal chronology from Adam through Abraham. So this is no small matter! If you want to know more concerning this patriarchal chronological discrepancy, obtain my brochure entitled Patriarchal Chronology and you will clearly see the Septuagint is more nearly on target. Other texts somewhat aligned with the LXX on this chronology are Josephus and the Samaritan. I showed in my Patriarchal Chronology that one Ephrem the Syrian testified that the Masoretes deliberately subtracted from the chronology sometime after the crucifixion. What other motive could the Canaanite-jews have had but to prove that Christ was not the promised Messiah, and didn’t come at the appointed time which would have been 5,500 years after the promise given to Adam, (Gal. 4:4.). This shows that the Syriac versions were translated from an altered Hebrew text sometime after the crucifixion. That is, if Lamsa faithfully followed the Syriac versions. I hope the reader is beginning to see why we should carefully analyze all ancient manuscripts!

I also checked Lamsa’s translation to see how he rendered Joshua 2:1, 6:17, 25; Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 to see if he had made Rahab a harlot, and he did. Josephus alone clears Rahab from such a vile category, which shows that Josephus had yet another manuscript to work from.

My own opinion is that the Syriac versions are a valuable source for referencing various passages, but I surely wouldn’t categorize them as being perfect. Far from it! But I consider Lamsa’s Syriac version of the Old and New Testament, his New Testament Commentary, his Gospel Light, his Old Testament Light and his small booklets on Hebrew idioms to be a valuable part of my library.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #124 August 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. Lesson #123 was a preparatory lesson on what I am about to address in this one. In that lesson, I compared the KJV to George M. Lamsa’s translation on Lev. 18:2-5, 21, 29-30; Lev. 19:19; Lev. 20:2-5. We discovered there was a lot of difference between the KJV “giveth of his seed unto Molech” and Lamsa’s rendering “man who has cast of his semen into an alien woman”! I proceeded in that lesson to give the backgrounds of George M. Lamsa and the Syriac Aramaic Versions. After some research, it was discovered that Lamsa condemned the KJV translators for their ignorance saying: “The Sixteenth Century translators of the Holy Bible did not understand the idioms of the languages from which they translated. Therefore they translated idioms literally and their true meanings were lost. ... They translated many Eastern idioms and metaphors literally, not knowing their true meaning.” From this we can envision why Lamsa translated Lev. chs. 18-20 as he did, for he obviously considered these passages to contain Hebrew idioms.

In order to understand some of the Hebrew metaphors of the Bible, it will be necessary to go to Paul’s 2nd letter to the Corinthians, 6:14-18: 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial (i.e. someone worthless)? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith Yahweh Almighty.”

Some would have us believe that Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, was addressing heathen “Gentiles”, which simply is not true. Such inferences are made only by “blind leaders of the blind”. All one need do is to go to the beginning of chapter 6 to see the language Paul used at verse 2 ,which says, “(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)” I don’t know about your Bible, but mine cross-references this verse to Isaiah 49:8, so let’s go there and see who Isaiah was addressing. From verses 1 through 5, Isaiah recalls his commission; then from verses 6 through 8, Isaiah identifies who he was addressing thusly:

6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the nations, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. 7 Thus saith Yahweh, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of Yahweh that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee. 8 Thus saith Yahweh, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; 9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.”

Thus, it becomes quite obvious here, from Paul’s language at 2 Cor. 6:2, that he was addressing the same people that Isaiah was identifying at 49:6, “... to raise up the tribes of Jacob ...” Had the Corinthians been other than Israelites, Paul would have been quite foolish for citing Isa. 49:8 to them. But Paul saw in the Corinthians Isaiah’s fulfillment, “In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people ...”

Now that we know that Paul was addressing Israelites when writing to the Corinthians, we can go on to examine 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. William Finck, in his Letters of Paul, translates verse 14 thusly: “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens ...” Finck’s footnote on this page passage reads in part:

“The opening sentence of this verse is very difficult to translate in few words, although it only contains four Greek words. μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις is here ‘Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens’. The A.V. has here ‘Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers’, and so many interpret this to be a ‘religious’ statement: which would have Paul conflict with his own statements, such as those at I Cor. 7:12-14, and so be a liar. This is not a ‘religious’ statement, as will be evident upon examination of the terms ἑτεροζυγω (2086) and ἀπίστοις (571).”

There are different ways an Israelite can become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens; by marriage in unlawful fornication (race-mixing), by social activities, by business relations, by religion, or by any endeavor with a common goal. The KJV’s “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers ...” suggests language found at Deut. 22:9-11: 9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.”

These are common sense ordinances to be observed. If it is not sanctioned to sow a vineyard with divers seed because it will bring forth defiled fruit, how much more should sowing diverse seed among our races be avoided, as the fruit (child) will also be defiled! You will notice that verses 9 through 11 of Deut. 22 are all grouped together, and all have the same connotation. At verse 10 we are admonished not to plow with an ox and an ass yoked as a team. This verse is intimating more than it appears. To apply it literally, two men of a different race should not work together at the same job. Otherwise the outcome will be a nigger-rigged product. Likewise, a sexual yoking with two of unlike race will bring forth a nigger-rigged product. At verse 11 we are admonished not to weave a garment “of woollen and linen together”. The first time a person would try to wash such a garment, the fibers of the wool and linen would shrink disproportionately ending in a badly misshapen ,non-usable clump of tangled knots. The solution to the problem; weave linen into cloth for undergarments and weave wool into cloth for outer garments. The undergarment could be washed, which becomes dirty more quickly from bodily fluids and the shedding of dry skin. By wearing the wool cloth for outer garments one could, if careful, wear them for a long time before they need cleaning. In modern times, some of these fabric problems have been solved by pre-shrinking the threads to be woven, and dry cleaning the outer garments.

But, I believe that the admonition not to weave linen and wool together has the greater meaning: as an example not to mix one’s race. I believe that is also the inference at Lev. 18:2-5, 21, 29-30; Lev. 19:19; and Lev. 20:2-5, discussed in the last lesson.

It is amazing how modern science, when understood correctly, is proving the Bible correct in every detail. There is a genetic difference between an ox and a donkey, and there are genetic differences between the races. For this, I will go to the Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 4, page 180 under the heading “Modern Biological Concepts” and the sub-topic “Cell Doctrine”:

“Cell Doctrine. One of the broadest and most fundamental biological generalizations is the cell doctrine. This includes the concepts that all living things, both animal and plant, are composed of cells and cell products; that new cells are formed by the division of preexisting cells; that there are basic similarities in the chemical constituents and metabolic activities of all cells; and that the activity of an organism as a whole is the sum of the activities and interactions of its independent units.

“Genetic Mechanisms and Evolution. The gene theory states that the characteristics of each generation are transmitted to the next by the units of inheritance known as genes. The genes are composed of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The large complex molecules of DNA are made up of four kinds of subunits, called nucleotides, which are arranged in a double helix. The information in each gene resides in the particular order of these subunits. Since each gene is composed of 10,000 or so nucleotides arranged in some specific sequence, there are a very large number of possible combinations of nucleotides and therefore a large number of different sequences representing different bits of genetic information. ...

“The information in each gene is transmitted from one generation to the next by a code, called the genetic code, which involves the linear sequence of the four nucleotide units making up the gene. In each cell generation the gene undergoes replication, so that when the cell divides each of the two daughter cells gets an exact copy of the code. Also in each cell generation one or more transcriptions of the code may be made by which the genic information is used to regulate the assembly of a specific enzyme or protein.”

 

From Wikipedia on the Internet, “Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)”

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deoxyribonucleic_acid

 

“Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

“Chemically, DNA is a long polymer of simple units called nucleotides, with a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA, in a process called transcription.

“Within cells, DNA is organized into structures called chromosomes. These chromosomes are duplicated before cells divide, in a process called DNA replication. Eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants, and fungi) store their DNA inside the cell nucleus, while in prokaryotes (bacteria and archae) it is found in the cell’s cytoplasm. Within the chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones compact and organize DNA. These compact structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed.”

 

“Introduction to genetics From Wikipedia:

 

“A section of DNA, the sequence of the plate-like units (nucleotides) in the center carries information. This article is intended as a generally accessible introduction to the subject.

“Genetics studies [show] how living organisms inherit many of the features of their ancestors – for example, children usually look and act like other people in their family. Genetics tries to identify which features are inherited, and work out the details of how these features are passed from generation to generation.

“In genetics, a feature of an organism is called a ‘trait’. Some traits are features of an organism’s physical appearance, for example, a person’s eye color, height or weight. There are many other types of traits and these range from aspects of behavior to resistance to disease. Traits are often inherited, for example tall and thin people tend to have tall and thin children. Other traits come from the interaction between inherited features and the environment. For example a child might inherit the tendency to be tall, but if there is very little food where they live and they are poorly nourished, they will still be short. The way genetics and environment interact to produce a trait can be complicated: for example, the chances of somebody dying of cancer or heart disease seem to depend on both their family history and their lifestyle.

“Genetic information is carried by a long molecule called DNA and this DNA is copied and inherited across generations. Traits are carried in DNA as instructions for constructing and operating an organism. These instructions are contained in segments of DNA called genes. DNA is made of a sequence of simple units, with the order of these units spelling out instructions in the genetic code. This is similar to the orders of letters spelling out words. The organism ‘reads’ the sequence of these units and decodes the instruction.

“Not all the genes for a particular instruction are exactly the same. Different forms of one type of gene are called different alleles of that gene. As an example, one allele of a gene for hair color could carry the instruction to produce a lot of the pigment in black hair, while a different allele could give a garbled version of this instruction, so that no pigment is produced and the hair is white. Mutations are random events that change the sequence of a gene and therefore create a new allele. Mutations can produce a new trait, such as turning an allele for black hair into an allele for white hair. ...”

“Genetics from Wikipedia:

 

“Genetics, a discipline of biology, is the science of heredity and variation in living organisms. The fact that living things inherit traits from their parents has been used since prehistoric times to improve crop plants and animals through selective breeding. However, the modern science of genetics, which seeks to understand the process of inheritance, only began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the midnineteenth century. Although he did not know the physical basis for heredity, Mendel observed that organisms inherit traits in a discrete manner – these basic units of inheritance are now called genes.

“DNA, the molecular basis for inheritance. Each strand of DNA is a chain of nucleotides, matching each other in the center to form what look like rungs on a twisted ladder. Genes correspond to regions within DNA, a molecule composed of a chain of four different types of nucleotides – the sequence of these nucleotides is the genetic information organisms inherit. DNA naturally occurs in a double stranded form, with nucleotides on each strand complementary to each other. Each strand can act as a template for creating a new partner strand – this is the physical method for making copies of genes that can be inherited.

“The sequence of nucleotides in a gene is translated by cells to produce a chain of amino acids, creating proteins – the order of amino acids in a protein corresponds to the order of nucleotides in the gene. This is known as the genetic code. The amino acids in a protein determine how it folds into a three-dimensional shape; this structure is, in turn, responsible for the protein’s function. Proteins carry out almost all the functions needed for cells to live. A change to the DNA in a gene can change a protein’s amino acids, changing its shape and function: this can have a dramatic effect in the cell and on the organism as a whole.

“Although genetics plays a large role in the appearance and behavior of organisms, it is the combination of genetics with what an organism experiences that determines the ultimate outcome. For example, while genes play a role in determining a person’s height, the nutrition and health that person experiences in childhood also have a large effect.”

 

“DNA from the Beginning”

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/1/concept/

 

“Since the beginning of human history, people have wondered how traits are inherited from one generation to the next. Although children often look more like one parent than the other, most offspring seem to be a blend of the characteristics of both parents. Centuries of breeding of domestic plants and animals had shown that useful traits – speed in horses, strength in oxen, and larger fruits in crops – can be accentuated by controlled mating. However, there was no scientific way to predict the outcome of a cross between two particular parents.

“It wasn’t until 1865 that an Augustinian monk named Gregor Mendel found that individual traits are determined by discrete ‘factors,’ later known as genes, which are inherited from the parents. His rigorous approach transformed agricultural breeding from an art to a science. He started with parents of known genetic background – to provide a baseline against which to compare patterns of inheritance in the resulting offspring. Then he carefully counted the numbers of individuals showing the various traits in successive generations of offspring.”

It should be noted that Gregor Mendel was using a system of “selective breeding” rather than “cross breeding”, and the two are as different as day is from night. So when a young White man looks for a wife, he should “select” rather than “cross over”.

National Human Genome Research Institute

http://www.genome.gov/25520880

 

“What is DNA? We all know that elephants only give birth to little elephants, giraffes to giraffes, dogs to dogs and so on for every type of living creature. But why is this so?

“The answer lies in a molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which contains the biological instructions that make each species unique. DNA, along with the instructions it contains, is passed from adult organisms to their offspring during reproduction.

“Where is DNA found? DNA is found inside a special area of the cell called the nucleus. Because the cell is very small, and because organisms have many DNA molecules per cell, each DNA molecule must be tightly packaged. This packaged form of the DNA is called a chromosome.

“DNA spends a lot of time in its chromosome form. But during cell division, DNA unwinds so it can be copied and the copies transferred to new cells. DNA also unwinds so that its instructions can be used to make proteins and for other biological processes.

“Researchers refer to DNA found in the cell’s nucleus as nuclear DNA. An organism’s complete set of nuclear DNA is called its genome.

“Besides the DNA located in the nucleus, humans and other complex organisms also have a small amount of DNA in cell structures known as mitochondria. Mitochondria generate the energy the cell needs to function properly.

“In sexual reproduction, organisms inherit half of their nuclear DNA from the male parent and half from the female parent. However, ortext-align: centerganisms inherit all of their mitochondrial DNA from the female parent. This occurs because only egg cells, and not sperm cells, keep their mitochondria during fertilization.

“What is DNA made of? DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating.

“The four types of nitrogen bases found in nucleotides are: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). The order, or sequence, of these bases determines what biological instructions are contained in a strand of DNA. For example, the sequence ATCGTT might instruct for blue eyes, while ATCGCT might instruct for brown.

“Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene. The size of a gene may vary greatly, ranging from about 1,000 bases to 1 million bases in humans.

“The complete DNA instruction book, or genome, for a human contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.”

Science knows today that each single cell of the human body has two sets of 23 chromosomes, or a total of 46. I will now quote The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 9, page 192d: “Every human body cell contains two sets of 23 chromosomes. These two sets look very much alike. Each chromosome in one set can be matched with a particular chromosome in the other set. Egg cells and sperm cells have only one set of 23 chromosomes. These cells are formed in a special way, and end up with only half the number of chromosomes found in body cells. As a result, when an egg and a sperm come together, the fertilized egg cell will contain the 46 chromosomes of a normal body cell. Half of the chromosomes come from the mother, and half from the father.”

So when Paul states at Corinthians 6:14, KJV: “Be ye not un equally yoked together with unbelievers ...” or as William Finck translates it: “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens ...”, this happens when 23 chromosomes are supplied by a White Adamic man and 23 chromosomes are supplied by a nonwhite alien woman or an alien nonwhite man with a White Adamic woman. Truly this amounts to communion of “light with darkness”! And “touch not the unclean” means to have no sexual contact with them!

I hope the reader is beginning to comprehend how some of these New Testament passages pertain to the Old, and vice versa. I will use the remaining space to show some examples of this:

Paul also referred to the Old Testament at 2 Cor. 3:6 where he said: “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Let’s now compare this to Jeremiah 31:31-32 to which Paul was referring here: 31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh.” Paul was addressing the Corinthians as lost Israelites; not some kind of heathen “Gentiles”! Actually, Paul was taking the promised New Covenant to the Corinthian-Israelites! I don’t know about your Bible, but mine at 2 Cor. 3:6 cross-references to Jer. 31:31! The truth is, the New Covenant is for the house of Israel and the house of Judah ONLY! To allocate the New Covenant to “whosoever” is fraud, unless the “whosoever” happens to be of Israel or of Judah!

Paul also referred to Isa. 53:6, 9 at 2 Corinthians 5:21, writing: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”, where Isa. 53:6, 9 states: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” I don’t know about your Bible, but mine cross-references 2 Cor. 5:21 with Isa. 53:6, 9.

We have to ask the question: Why did Paul quote this passage in Isaiah unless the people to whom he was addressing were Corinthian-Israelites? It makes no sense otherwise!

There are some today who make the claim that Paul was not a true apostle, but a fraud. They go so far as to ignore all his epistles. If they read any of Paul’s writings, it is for the purpose of criticism! But let’s see what Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans, 1:1-2: 1 Paul, a servant of Yahshua Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures).” To be noticed here is the phrase “separated unto the gospel of God” which is similar to the language found at Num. 16:9; Deut. 10:8; Isa. 49:1 and Jer 1:5 (these four passages are cited by The New Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, a book of thousands of cross-references):

Num. 16:9: Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of Yahweh, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?”

Deut. 10:8: “At that time Yahweh separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.”

Isa. 49:1: “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; Yahweh hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.”

Jer 1:5: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

By the time of Paul the Levitical priesthood was a thing of the past, and the entire load of the Gospel fell on the apostles of which Paul became the chief. Not a chief to rule over the other apostles , but chief in what he was to accomplish among the nations. And like the various leaders and prophets found in the Old Testament, Paul was chosen for the job he did from the foundation of the world!

At Rom. 1:16, Paul declared to the Romans: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Judaean first, and also to the Greek.”

Here Paul was making reference to Psalm 40:9-10 where David said: 9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Yahweh, thou knowest. 10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.” I don’t know about your Bible, but mine cross-references Rom. 1:16 to Psa. 40:9-10.

At Romans 1:17, Paul wrote: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” Here Paul was referring to Hab. 2:3-4 which says: 3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. 4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.”

So that we get the context of Hab. 2:3-4, we will go to Adam Clarke’s Commentary. While Clarke is blind to Israel Identity, and some of his comments are flawed, I believe he is right on the money on these two verses:

“Verse 3. The vision is yet for an appointed time] The Chaldeans, who are to ruin Judea, shall afterwards be ruined themselves: but they must do this work before they receive their wages; therefore the vision is for an appointed time. But at the end it shall speak. When his work of devastation is done, his day of retribution shall take place.

“Though it tarry] Though it appear to be long, do not be impatient; it will surely come; it will not tarry longer than the prescribed time, and this time is not far distant. Wait for it.

“Verse 4. Behold, his soul which is lifted up] He that presumes on his safety without any special warrant from God, is a proud man; and whatever he may profess, or think of himself, his mind is not upright in him. But he that is just by faith shall live – he that believes what God hath said relative to the Chaldeans besieging Jerusalem, shall make his escape from the place, and consequently shall save his life. The words in the New Testament are accommodated to the salvation which believers in Christ shall possess. Indeed, the just – the true Christians, who believed in Jesus [sic Yahshua] Christ’s words relative to the destruction of Jerusalem, when they found the Romans coming against it, left the city, and escaped to Pella in Coelesyria, and did live – their lives were saved: while the unbelieving Jews, to a man, either perished or were made slaves. One good sense is, He that believes the promises of God, and has found life through believing, shall live by his faith.”

It is paramount that we understand the passage in the Old Testament that Paul referred to at Romans 1:17, and the historical setting that surrounded it, and apply it to Paul’s time. Paul knew ahead of time, at Rom. 16:20, that the satanic bad-fig-jews were going to be uprooted and many destroyed or made slaves, so Paul admonished the Romans (as Christ had admonished the good-fig Judaeans), that when they would observe all of this happening, that they should “live by faith”. Although Paul prophesied all of this, he would not live long enough to see Jerusalem’s final destruction, which shall never arise again. That the Romans should “live by faith” is in perfect accord with the divine decree at Habakkuk 2:4, “... the just shall live by his faith.” Acts 1:18 shows Paul’s reason for referring to Habakkuk!

Many are not aware of the difference between a good-fig-Judaean and a bad-fig-jew. The good figs of Judah were those who kept their genetics pure, while the bad figs were Judaeans who mixed their seed with the Canaanites.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #125 September 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. With this lesson we are going to discuss what Paul taught concerning the Law. Today, the greater part of judeo-churchianity teaches two gospels; one for the so-called “Jews” and another for the so-called “Gentiles”. Actually, the bad-fig-jews were/are, by-and-large, multiracial Canaanite-Edomite-Kenites!, and should not be confused with the pureblooded Judahites of the tribe of Judah! It is a flawed concept to consider the bad-fig-jews as any of the twelve tribes of Israel; nor does the misapplied Latin term “Gentiles” mean “non-jews”, as they so insistently allege! And Paul never used the Latin term gentilis (Gentile) in any of his writings! Paul used the Greek terms ethnos or ethnê, usually meaning “nation” or “nations”. It is amazing how those in nominal churchianity display their unfamiliarity with the true meanings of the Scripture and the languages they are written in!

Such professing pastors or teachers fail to heed Paul’s admonition at Galatians 1:6-9: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

It should be quite clear to everyone that “any other gospel” would consist of two or more. Yet there are those who advance the theory that Christ’s sermons taught the Law, while Paul’s teachings did away with that same Law. How does one reconcile the Law with lawlessness? Those who promote that the teachings of Paul did away with the Law will cite 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 thusly:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”

Proponents of such a dual-tenet will elaborate on “for the letter killeth” to make their point that we are no longer under the Law. By this they declare they follow the spirit rather than the Law. They seem to overlook the fact that, with the “new testament” (new covenant), the very same Law of the Old Testament is now placed in our hearts. But before any comment is made on this, we should consider what Paul said at Romans 7:1-6:

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”

At this point the husband and wife relationship has entered the picture, but that still doesn’t clarify what Paul was implying. So far, we have only been skirting around the subject of the Law, but it goes much deeper than most people comprehend. Paul is saying more in this passage than most realize, and we’ll get to that before we are finished. Before we get into the meat of the subject we should read what Yahshua Christ had to say about the Law at Matthew 5:17-19:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

It may appear to many that there is a notable conflict between what Yahshua Christ instructed and what Paul later taught, but that is not the case. When we read Paul’s epistles, we must keep what he wrote in its proper context, and there will be no discrepancy. There are some who make up their minds beforehand what they think the Bible should say, and then proceed to search the scriptures to find a verse or two to prove their own fanciful idea/s. To get to the very heart of the matter under consideration, Colossians 2:13-14 reads in part:

“... hath he (Yahshua) quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross ...”

When most people read this passage, their conclusion is that the entire Law of the Old Testament was nullified. That is not what it is saying here! It simply says “... the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us ...” And what were these “handwriting of ordinances”? Hence, it was only the ordinances which were against us, not the whole Law!

To comprehend the ordinances which were against us, we have to realize that Paul was referring to the fact that Yahweh had married Israel, and when Israel was unfaithful to Him, Yahweh gave Israel an edict of divorce. Under Yahweh’s laws, once a divorce is given, neither party can remarry except for one provision, and that is if one or the other the party dies. Also, an unfaithful wife cannot simply be reconciled to her husband, since the penalty for such adultery is death. Therefore, rather than exterminating all of Israel Yahweh decided to come in the flesh and die by giving His blood on the cross so that He might meet the requirements of the Law, and then be free – as Yahshua Christ – to remarry Israel once again. That was the primary ordinance that was “nailed to the cross”, along with some of the temple rituals. The conclusion is: Christ died for every Israelite, so every Israelite is a Christian under covenant law and were called “the anointed” in the Old Testament, which is the proper definition of a Christian, and the term “Christ.” Therefore, only an Israelite can be a Christian. This is the true meaning of the term “Gospel” (good news).

 

YAHWEH MARRIES ISRAEL

 

We cannot understand the idea of “redemption” unless we understand that Yahweh married Israel. This wedding took place at Deuteronomy 26:17-18, as when both the people and Yahweh took their wedding vows:

17 Thou hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy singular-Elohim, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: 18 And Yahweh hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments.”

In other words, Israel was asked: “Do you take Yahweh this day to be your singular-Elohim?” And they answered: “We will.” Yahweh was asked: “Do you take this people Israel to be your peculiar people?” Yahweh answered and said: “I will.” Therefore, Israel became Yahweh’s own possession. With this there came a husband-wife relationship between Yahweh and Israel. We do not have any record where Yahweh ever covenanted or married any other people as He did Israel! There simply are no others! To verify that this was a wedding that took place between Him and His people, let’s consider some passages of Scripture which prove this was actually the case:

Jeremiah 3:14, 20: 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith Yahweh; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion ... 20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith Yahweh.”

Jeremiah 31:32: “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh.”

Once we understand this husband-wife relationship between Yahweh and Israel, then we can begin to grasp what the gospel of “Redemption” is all about. This husband-wife relationship went well at first, but then Israel began to break her marriage vows by incorporating pagan religions and thus adulterating the true tenets of Yahweh. And as can be observed with the incident at Baalpeor (Num. ch. 25), that pagan worship leads to race-mixing. Because of this, it became necessary for Yahweh to divorce Israel for her unfaithfulness. Let’s now see some passages which confirm the reason for the divorce, and that in actuality Yahweh did indeed divorce Israel:

Jeremiah 3:8: “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

Deuteronomy 24:1: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

Isaiah 50:1: “Thus saith Yahweh, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.”

Today in Israel Identity, there are many trying to do away entirely with the tribe of Judah. But you will notice that Yahweh also married Judah, otherwise Jeremiah at 3:8 couldn’t have said, “… yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” It should be strikingly obvious that it would have been impossible for Judah to have “played the harlot” had not Yahweh married her also, nor could Judah be called Israel’s “sister” by Jeremiah! Those who are attempting to do away with the entire tribe of Judah haven’t yet discerned the difference between the good-figs of Judah and the bag-figs of Judah as explained by Jeremiah. And until they grasp the difference, they should learn to keep silent on the subject rather than to openly display their ignorance!

Now that Yahweh had married and divorced Israel, where does it bring us in this story? Being divorced from Yahweh, Israel could no longer call herself by His name, therefore she became known by other names. At this stage of the game things looked hopeless, as neither Yahweh nor Israel can legally marry again. The only way, by Law, that either can remarry is if one or the other spouse were to die. And had Israel been the one to die, she had not the power of resurrection as Yahshua Christ had. So if Yahweh had not taken it on Himself to come in the flesh and die as an Adam-man, there was no hope of remarriage. To verify this again, I will repeat Romans 7:1-4:

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

Redemption is a very simple story then. Yahweh came Himself in the flesh to die so he could remarry Israel. By the death of Yahweh in the flesh, the requirements of the Law were satisfied. You can mark it down in your memory bank that anyone who claims that Old Testament Law was done away with has very little comprehension what the Bible is talking about! One simply can not read “... the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us ...” and apply it to the whole Law. After Israel and Judah were divorced they became estranged to Yahweh.

To show that the divorced Israelites were considered “strangers”, all one needs to do is read Ezekiel 14:5: “That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.” Then at Ephesians 2:12 & 19: “That at that time ye were without Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without Yahweh in the world .... Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of Yahweh.” Again at Colossians 1:21: “And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

If you have followed this narration closely, you will plainly see there is no conflict between Christ’s teachings and those of Paul. It is really not a conflict between Christ and Paul, but a conflict between what one thinks is reading and what the Bible really says! Yahshua Christ Himself said that those who teach the whole Law will be the greatest in the kingdom, and those who teach that the Law was done away will be the least in the kingdom. Teaching that the Law is done away with may not keep one from being in the kingdom, but one will surely find oneself mighty low on the totem pole, so to speak. It’s bad enough to teach a separate gospel for two different entities, let alone to condemn the Law!

Most of those preaching or teaching that the Law is done away with, also have a perverted idea of what the term “gospel” really means. They will usually go back to the garden of Eden and blame everything on the fall of Adam. But 1 Timothy 2:13-14 shows that Adam was not in the transgression thusly: 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Christ did not go to the cross to redeem “old Adam”, but to redeem his covenant people Israel! Redemption simply means to purchase back a possession that one formerly owned, and surely Israel, being the wife of Yahweh, meets that criteria. The way Adam became responsible for Eve’s transgression is when he took her as his wife. In other words, Adam by marrying Eve became responsible for her transgression. Such teachers are always talking about how we have to crucify the “old Adam nature”, but never mention anything about crucifying the “old Eve nature”. When teaching about the “old Adam nature”, if in context what is meant is an “old Eve nature”, then the term would be appropriate.

It is simply preposterous to believe that Yahweh did away with His marriage and divorce laws. If that were true, He could marry all of the unclean and bastardized races of the world, which would appease all of those teaching universalism. Not only that, He wouldn’t have to keep any of His covenant promises He had made to the Israelites (and I’m not talking about the Canaanites pretending to be Israelites). If that were true, we couldn’t trust Yahweh with anything He ever said! Instead of Christ being the Kings of Kings, He would be the outlaw of outlaws. You see, if the Law has been done away for us, Yahweh doesn’t have to keep it either! If that is true (and it isn’t), we might as well throw our Bibles in the nearest trash can. You see, it’s a two-way street on the Law. It is also preposterous to believe that Yahweh in the flesh would ever renege on keeping His Own Law. So, if we continue to insist that the Law is done away with, we shouldn’t expect Yahweh to keep His end of the bargain either! After all, marriage is a two-way street, and any marriage that isn’t won’t last very long!

But this is not all of Paul’s writing relating to Israel’s marriage to Yahweh who came in the flesh as Yahshua. Let’s now go to Ephesians 5:22-30:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto Yahweh. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the assembly: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the assembly is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious assembly, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Yahshua the assembly: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”

This is really an outstanding passage written by the apostle Paul. Notice verse 30 here which says, “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”, as it gives evidence that like Yahshua Christ Himself, Paul was a racist. My KJV cross-references this verse with Genesis 2:23, which essentially says the same thing which Adam said of Eve. In other words we Whites are of the same race as Yahshua Christ. And anyone who is not of our race doesn’t belong among us, especially among our family members or in our assemblies. Paul could never have truly said all of this unless the Ephesians were also Israelites. How much more evidence do we need to verify that Paul didn’t go to some so-called “Gentiles”, or as judeo-churchianity puts it “to all the races of the world”. If you don’t already know that Christ was a racist, you need to get my paper Was Christ Politically Incorrect, Matt. 13:47-50. Again, this demonstrates that Paul’s teachings were right in line with Yahshua’s. There are lot of people who have been brainwashed into believing that Paul was a fraud and his writings uninspired (which amount to a fairy tale)!

We should also take note that at verse 26 Paul states in part: “... a glorious assembly, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish ...” What this means is that it was to be an assembly without half-breed members. In other words, a racially pure congregation of White Israelites only! One would have to look long and hard to find that kind of congregation today! Paul expands on this same topic of our husband-wife relationship with the Almighty stating at Colossians 1:18-22:

18 And he is the head of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.”

It should be noted that only the twelve tribes of Israel are those who “... were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works ...”, so this whole passage concerns Israel alone, and NO ONE else! Notice verse 18, where Paul states in part: “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ...” What this means is that Yahshua Christ was the first man ever to be raised from the dead to eternal life. Oh there were others who were raised from the dead, but only to die again. Therefore, it is imperative that we are “...members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones ...” And if one is not of his body, flesh and bones (same race), one shall never be resurrected from the dead. That is why we are not to mix socially, politically, monetarily, contractually, religiously or sexually with the heathen races! Contractually, since marriage is a contract (agreement) with a non-Israelite, non-Adamic heathen. Furthermore, any man who has fathered a child by a non-Israelite, non-Adamic woman should never hold a position in the assembly (church) because it will only encourage other men in the assembly to do likewise. Also, no man should hold an office in the assembly who has adopted an alien child into his home. That is also why our children are not to ride on a school bus with them, as Yahweh commands total segregation! To have forced integrated school busing is tantamount to child molestation. And since Yahweh doesn’t condone integrated school busing, surely He does not smile upon integrated school rooms, and He’s not about to condone integrated assemblies! Forced integrated busing and school rooms, along with integrated churches, leads in the end to integrated families, resulting in integrated (bastard) races. And inasmuch as aliens are forbidden to be in the assembly, assuredly they will not enter into the kingdom as Stephen E. Jones insists they will. Unfortunately, there are those who have dragged this “mainstream” Pharisaical doctrine into the Israel Identity Message. Foremost among these are Stephen E. Jones and Jory S. Brooks.

In a brochure entitled The Hebrew Foundation of Chricentertext-align: center; line-height: normal/sup; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” class=st’s Church, Jory S. Brooks attempts to bring non-Israelites into the Kingdom. In a diagram in column 4, he tries to show there is a “physical” Israel and an “allegorical” Israel. Then under the subtitle “Israel’s Relation To The Church” he says the following:

“The second illustration above demonstrates the true relationship between Israel and the church. The Bible shows clearly that Israelites were the first converts to the faith, came to knowledge of Christ in great numbers, and formed the core of the Church. Not all Israelites believed in Christ, but a large proportion of them did, and formed the foundation of the New Testament Church. These Israelites then went out and converted others, Hebrews and non-Hebrews; these latter becoming a form of allegorical Israel. In Old Testament times, non-Hebrews could join themselves to the Chosen Nation through faith in Israel’s God. (Isa. 56:3-8) Under the same principal in New Testament times, by faith in Israel’s Savior and God-In-Flesh, Jesus Christ, non-Israelites in a sense inherit some of the blessings given to Israel. We might therefore say that they are ‘EXPERIENTIAL ISRAELITES’, a term coined by Bible teacher and author, Dr. Stephen E. Jones, for those who, while not physically Israelites, come under some of the Israel covenental blessings through faith in Christ. The combination of both groups, Christian physical Israelites and Christian ‘Experiential Israelites’, constitutes Christ’s true Church. The body of Christ is therefore physically and allegorically Israelite throughout. This explains the otherwise inexplicable fact that the New Covenant was made only with Israel (Heb. 8:8-9), a point which has caused untold confusion among those who teach that Christ’s Church is non-Israelite.”

This statement is totally unscriptural and is a lie right out of the pits of hell, and “Dr.” Stephen E. Jones holds a Master’s in subterfuge. Not only does Jones teach universalism, but he is a vicious antichrist, anti-seedliner (antichrist in the sense that he denies the Satanic seedline that was to bruise the Messiah, and if He was not bruised, then we have no Salvation). Universalism is also antichrist inasmuch as it nullifies both the Old and New Covenants which our Kinsman Redeemer died for. If, as both Brooks and Jones imply, non-Israelites can come under those Covenants, then He is no longer a “Kinsman Redeemer”. The bottom line is, if Christ were to marry any non-Israel, non-Adamic people, He would be guilty of COMMITTING ADULTERY! “Allegorical Israelites” or “EXPERIENTIAL ISRAELITES”, they surely have to be kidding! IT’S PREPOSTEROUS!

Amos 3:1-2 makes it quite clear that Israel was the only people He had ever known, stating: 1 Hear this word that Yahweh hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Question: Where does this leave any room for people other than Israel in the marriage sense-of-the-word? It would appear that the courtship and engagement started with Abraham, and the wedding finally took place at Mount Sinai, as confirmed at Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 26.

That was the first wedding, after which later came the divorce, but Hosea 2:19-20 speaks of the remarriage of Yahweh in the flesh to Israel thusly. 19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt [again] know Yahweh.” If one will read the verses surrounding this passage, it is definitely speaking of Israel, and NO ONE ELSE. There is no record that Yahweh ever married anyone other than Israel before Hosea, and his prophecy confirms that He will not marry anyone other than Israel afterwards.

Joel, like Hosea did in ancient times, also predicts Israel’s future marriage to Yahweh thusly, at Joel 2:16-17: 16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. 17 Let the priests, the ministers of Yahweh, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Yahweh, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”

This is a prophecy for our own day, as at no other time in history have there been so many heathen aliens in high governmental offices of authority in the United States, as well as all Israel lands. I would say that it’s almost time for the bridegroom (Christ) to show Himself and the bride (the assembly) to come out of hiding! And yes, it’s about time for the Israel ministers to do some earnest weeping! But all those calling themselves “ministers” or “priests” are not ministers or priests of Yahweh! Far from it!

Yahshua Christ Himself touched on the matter of divorce at Matt. 5:31-32, saying: 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

That Israel had committed adultery and thus broken her marriage vows to Yahweh is explained by Hosea 2, verses 5, 7 & 13 thusly:

5For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink. ... 7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. ... 13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith Yahweh.”

This same thing happened time and again ever since the time of the Judges. (cf. Exod. 32:34; Deut. 32:18; Jdg. 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6; 1 Ki. 16:31-32; 18:18-40; 2 Ki. 1:2; 10:28; 21:3; Jer. 2:23-25; 2:32; 11:13; 18:15; 23:2; Ezek. 23:35, 40-44; Hos. 9:10; 11:2; 13:1.)

All of what has been presented here should pretty well establish what the gospel is – who kingdom people are – and to whom it is directed. Many may question why the other White peoples of the world at Abraham’s time were not included under Yahweh’s covenant. All one needs to do resolve such a question is to simply examine the Scripture on Abraham’s own immediate progenitors and it will quickly reveal they were all pagan. It was only Abraham who was looking for a city whose foundation and maker was God (Heb. 11:10). All pagan religions are universalist in nature and will lead, in the end, to racemixing. Thus, Yahweh saw in Abraham and his wife a couple whose descendants would preserve their race pure. Now that doesn’t mean that the Israelite men couldn’t take virgin women from the other branches of the White race, and any children born to them would come under the covenant. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean an Israelite woman was free to take a husband from any White families not under Yahweh’s covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as the children of such a union would not come under the covenant, as the lineage is always traced through the father. All we have to do today is consider what happened to the White peoples such as the Persians and Medes, as they have by-and-large mixed with the arabs. As we can see, provisions under all the covenants cannot be taken lightly!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #126 October 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. Lesson #125 was a preparatory lesson on what I am about to address in this one. In that lesson, I addressed the marriage of Yahweh to Israel, and how Israel was unfaithful to Him resulting in His divorce from her. Then I explained the true meaning of the word “gospel” (good news), and the good news was/is that Yahweh came in the flesh as Yahshua to die in order to meet the requirement of the Law so He could remarry scattered Israel as the ekklesia. With this lesson, we will follow this theme into Paul’s epistle to the Romans. And as I have previously explained, the book of Romans is a book of doctrine, and we have to get the doctrine right or it will only lead to confusion. And shame on all those who would eradicate all of Paul’s writings from our Bible. Inasmuch as Luke was a very close associate with Paul, if we do away with Paul’s epistles, that would imply that we should also do away with the books which Luke wrote; those being Luke and Acts. After one would exclude both Paul’s and Luke’s writings, one would of necessity have to eliminate the book of Revelation, for at Rev. 2:1-5, Yahshua Christ Himself praised the assembly at Ephesus which Paul had founded! And in like manner as the “Reverend(?)” Jeremiah Wright said, “God damn America”, the Paul bashers are in essence saying “God damn Paul”! It would appear that all of the Paul bashers should join “Reverend” Wright’s church, for what’s the difference between the two?

Before we go into the book of Romans, there are a few basic things we should discern. The first thing we should realize is that when Paul addressed the Romans, the Romans were by-and-large Israelites of the tribe of Zerah-Judah. Once one comprehends this fact, it brings us to the second important fact which one should distinguish: that is the difference between the Judeans of the Tribe of Judah and the bad-fig-jews who were half-breed Canaanites. In fact, one should differentiate between the two throughout the Bible. Therefore, the pure-blooded good-fig-Judaeans were not the bad-fig-Canaanite-jews, nor were the bad-fig-Canaanite-jews the same people as the pureblooded good-fig-Judaeans! The third thing we must understand is that Paul taught the exclusiveness of Israel. In the past there had been a whole series of exclusions. At Genesis 4, Cain was excluded. Noah had distinguished Ham and Japheth from the seed of Shem. Then every family of Shem except the line from the descent of Abraham, were excluded. Of the sons of Abraham, every son except Isaac was excluded. Esau was then excluded of the two sons of Isaac. After that, it was only with Jacob-Israel that there were no further exclusions. Therefore, Paul never went to any non-Israelites! Anyone who claims otherwise is reading Paul out-of-context!

Right at the beginning of Romans 1:1-4 it says: 1 Paul, a servant of Yahshua Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of Yahweh, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Yahshua Christ our Master, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of Yahweh with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” This being true, Paul’s calling by Yahshua Christ was predicted long before by the prophets.

Where in the Old Testament prophets does it promise anything about going to any so-called “Gentiles”, which most interpret to mean “non-jews”? Both the terms “Gentiles” and “non-jews” are improper here! Sometimes the words ethné in the NT and goyim in the OT can mean heathen, but the way Paul used ethné in context, it should usually be translated as “nations”. So right from the get-go, Paul excludes anyone other than Israelites, as none of the OT prophets ever prophesied anything about including any non-Israelites. William Finck, in his Letters Of Paul, translates this passage:

1 Paul, bondman of Yahshua Christ, a called ambassador, set apart for the good message of Yahweh, 2 which He previously announced through His prophets in the sacred writings, 3 concerning His Son, who came forth from the offspring of David down through the flesh, 4 who has been distinguished as a Son of Yahweh by ability in accordance with a spirit of sanctity, by a raising of the dead; Yahshua Christ our Prince ...”

At verse 7 Paul states: “To all that be in Rome, beloved of Yahweh, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and the Sovereign Yahshua Christ.”

It should be noted here that the term “saint” is #40 in Strong’s and means “... sacred (physically pure, morally blameless ... ceremonially consecrated) ... .” When Abraham placed Isaac on the altar of sacrifice, that’s the description of what Isaac’s descendants became. Hence, no other people than the descendants of Isaac through Jacob can make a claim to be “saints”. Now if you listen to some preachers in judeo-churchianity they will tell you differently. And you can be sure “physically pure” here means to be genetically pure! Who would offer an impure sacrifice expecting Yahweh to be pleased with it? Abraham didn’t do that, and neither should we! Of course, that is what Cain did! Here we are, only seven verses into Romans, and already it is fully about race. At Rom. 7:1, Paul refers to the Romans as his “brethren” and says: “For I speak to them that know the law.” Paul wasn’t speaking of the bad-fig-jews here, but the Romans who were of Zerah-Judah. To read it any other way is out-of-context, but almost everyone does! At the time Paul addressed this to the Romans, all of the New Testament had not as yet been fully developed, so that left only the Old Testament to refer to. So evidently a few of the Romans did have access to a Greek Septuagint. Thus the statement, “For I speak to them that know the law.” After all, at Paul’s time Greek was by-and-large a universal language, and most of the Romans were fluent in Greek. Not only that, but at many of the synagogues which Paul visited, some of the members were pureblooded Judaeans and were converted to follow Christ. Surely a few of the pureblooded Judaean Christians would have had a copy of the Septuagint and would have been familiar with the law. In other words, Paul was simply telling his audience, “You that have access to the Greek Septuagint, verify what I am about to say concerning the law.” Then Paul proceeded to speak about the husband-wife relationship and related it to the marriage of Christ to the assembly. And this new husband-wife relationship between Christ and the assembly was nothing more than a renewal of the Old Testament where Yahweh married twelve-tribed Israel.

When we can begin to comprehend that Paul was addressing Roman Israelites concerning their heritage, we can begin to understand his message. If the Romans were not Israelites but heathen so-called “Gentiles”, Paul would neither minister to them, nor expect to keep their attention, while continually speaking about foreign people! Likewise we Whites who in the past didn’t understand that we were Israelites, left our Bibles to collect a lot of dust – not recognizing it to be our family history! Why? Because the churches continually taught us that the bad-fig-Canaanite-jews were “God’s chosen people”. We have been victims of a carefully perpetrated fraud – the “blind following the blind” – and all of that “grafted in” nonsense! Who among us would want to be grafted into a family tree with the Canaanites? We’re grafted in all right; grafted back into the olive tree from which we came. If we were grafted into the Canaanite tree, I can’t imagine what the olives would look or taste like! I would highly suggest that a good step in the right direction would be to stop going to the churches which teach such things! Paul never taught any such thing, nor should we support those who do!

Now that we understand that Paul was addressing Israelites about Israelites, let’s now see where else in Romans he did the same thing. This is found at Romans 9:1-5: 1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Pneuma, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever ...”

Here is what Paul had in common with the Romans whom he addressed at this passage: (1) the adoption, (2) the glory, (3) the covenants, (4) the giving of the law, (5) the service of Yahweh, (6) the promises, (7) the fathers, (8) kinsmen in the flesh to Christ who is over all. In other words, the Romans had all eight of these same advantages! Here Paul had introduced to the Romans who they were, and their bill of rights according to the covenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. At Romans 11:1, Paul shows the Romans his own personal relationship to Israel, saying:

1 I say then, Hath Yahweh cast away his people? Yahweh forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 Yahweh hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to Yahweh against Israel, saying, 3 Yahweh, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of Yahweh unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Here the remnant to whom Paul alluded were the Romans and other Israelites under his ministry, and not the Canaanite-jews who falsely claimed to be Israelites! Had Paul been an infant child in Bethlehem at the time of Christ’s birth, he would have been one of the babies that the Edomite Herod had killed! Paul was aware of this and quoted Malachi’s words, at 1:2-3, at Rom. 9:13 thusly: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Don’t think even for a moment that Paul didn’t understand that the Canaanite-Edomite-jews were Israel’s mortal enemy! Therefore, the bad-fig-jews of today are God’s hated (not “chosen”) people, whom nearly every church denomination and political party mollycoddles endlessly. To them, the Canaanites can do no wrong! Paul didn’t see it that way, so neither should we. It is asinine to even suggest that Paul was akin to the bad-fig-jews! Had that been true, Paul, by writing what he did at Rom. 9:13, would have been admitting he was one of God’s hated! What’s the matter with all of these Paul bashers? Can’t they read their Bibles? The Paul bashers are nothing more than blind followers of the blind, who in turn are followers of a Canaanite-jew from New Jersey.

This information was given in my WTL #92 for December, 2005: H. Graber was a close follower of W.G. Finlay, a Paul basher from South Africa, and on audio tape #87, Finlay identified the source of his conviction. Finlay based his tenets on the book Popes From The Ghetto by Dr. Joachim Prince, president of the American Jewish Congress, and chairman of the Conference Of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Finlay also referred to Prince as “The learned rabbi, who still serves in the Temple Beni-Abram of Newark in New Jersey.”

From WTL #97 for May, 2006, William Finck wrote: “Writing in WTL #94, where I addressed Douglas’ first quote in his article from Bishop Spong, I wondered: ‘what sort of man could Spong be?’ That was back on October 23rd of last year. Shortly thereafter I was able to obtain some information concerning Spong, and Clifton has collected more since then. How little I suspected, that Spong is a much more vile man than I could have imagined back in October! Here it is fitting to divert from our response to Clayton Douglas’ articles to discuss Bishop Spong himself, whom Douglas must have read in depth, and of whom Douglas is a disciple. Once we see – from his own mouth – that John Spong is a lover of negroes and homosexuals – that he is no true Christian but rather a full-blown member of the jewish-led liberal – Communist – deviant – minority bloc who are hell-bent upon destroying our White race and civilization, then the motives of Spong, and perhaps Douglas also, shall become fully manifest. I strongly urge all Paul-bashers everywhere to fully contemplate this review of the life and works of John Spong, which we will begin with some comments and biographical information compiled by Clifton Emahiser:

“In an effort to find all the origins of the phenomenon known today as ‘Anti-Paulism’, it has led in many unusual directions. We first observed that Paul-bashing was nothing new, for there were many Anti-Paulists during Paul’s own time. The one common characteristic surrounding the attempted refuting of Paul’s writings, in all periods of time since Paul, is that it appears to have its origin from the bad-fig Judaeans of Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 whom we term as ‘Jews’ today. In pursuit of the ‘Jewish’ connection to this Paul-bashing, which is gaining epidemic proportions, we find that W.G. Finlay from South Africa, a venomous Paul-basher, based his flawed assumptions on a book Popes From The Ghetto by Dr. Joachim Prince, president of the American Jewish Congress, and chairman of the Conference Of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Finlay also referred to Prince as ‘The learned rabbi, who still serves in the Temple Beni-Abram of Newark in New Jersey’.” I know this last sentence is repetitive, but it’s important!

I have repeated in the previous three paragraphs the information on who is behind all of the Paul bashing that is going on today. Why should a Christian today parrot such unscrupulous people as Joachim Prince and Bishop John Spong?

Clay Douglas praised John Spong in his article The Seduction: Judeo-Christianity Or Pauline Christianity? Saul of Tarsus: Paul. A different view: stating: “Bishop John Spong had closely analyzed Paul’s life and writings. Spong believes Paul’s fiery manner of writing was his method of dealing with his own homosexuality. There is much, as Anglican Bishop of Newark John Spong has pointed out, which leads one to suspect Paul might have been ‘queer’ in some way. The fact he was never married, unusual for a Jew of his time, his companionship with a series of younger men, especially St. Timothy, his mention of an unnamed ‘thorn in the flesh’, and, possibly, his disdain for some types of exploitative homosexual relationships in his period, all raise questions which cannot be answered it must be admitted, about his sexuality.” Spong, a lover of homosexuals, brazenly attempts to find the same trait in Paul!

I have included this data on where all of this Paul bashing is coming from for your information, so you can be better prepared to confront any Paul basher with whom you may come into contact. Memorize every detail and write it down on a small sheet of paper and keep it in your pocket for a quick reference. Or if you wish, type up a document using both sides of one sheet of paper and pass it around to all of your friends. These people who are passing all of the propaganda around about Paul being a fraud must be addressed, and here is the ammunition you need to shoot them down. As you can clearly see, the Paul bashers are not keeping very good company. That is, unless you might consider a Canaanite-jew or a pastor who ordains homosexuals good company.

This charge against Paul by Clay Douglas is preposterous, as Paul wrote at Romans 1:25-28: 25 Who changed the truth of Yahweh into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause Yahweh gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain Yahweh in their knowledge, Yahweh gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ...”

Does this sound like Paul was a homosexual or promoted it? Shame on Clayton Douglas!!! I know that Douglas is trying his best to be a good patriot, but he cancels out all of his patriotism with his Paul bashing. And in order to be a good patriot one must have a patriarch. Paul was a good patriot as he was not ashamed of being a descendant of Abraham and of being of the tribe of Benjamin! I’ve never seen any evidence of Clayton Douglas naming his patriarchs. If Clayton doesn’t honor his patriarchs – by faithfully rendering their relationship to the gospel and Paul – he hasn’t anything to be patriotic about! With Douglas it is one step forward and two steps backward, and he’s just spinning his wheels and going nowhere! And until he repents and asks forgiveness from the Almighty for his Paul bashing, he’s not gong to achieve a single thing!!! Thus, Clayton Douglas is weighed on the balances and found wanting.

This is only a sampling of what William Finck covered in my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #’s 88 through 106 in defense of Paul. Anyone who wants to know the entire story, get a copy of each one of these lessons. You will notice, with this last quotation, we are still in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, so we are right on target.

While we have covered some of the things which Paul taught, we will now consider some things which he didn’t. I have a book in my possession entitled The Epistle to the Romans, by W. Pascoe Goard. Now Goard is one of those British-Israel people who have as yet to understand the difference between the racially-mixed bad-fig-Canaanite-jews and the racially-pure good-fig-Judaeans. In some areas Goard does quite well, but in others, he comes short of the mark. So when Goard writes about these two completely dissimilar entities, he fails to differentiate between the two. To Goard Jew = Judah; and Judah = Jew. Then he goes on at long lengths to separate the house of Israel entirely from the house of Judah without giving any evidence that they should ever be united again. Goard is playing with only two entities where he should be playing with three: (1) Israel, (2) Judah, and (3) the bad-fig-jews. Then he makes statements such as: “The Jews have the law”. Show me a single place in the Bible where Yahweh gave the bad-fig-Canaanite-Edomite-jews His law! It can’t be done! Then Goard goes on to imply that Paul’s mission was to only the house of Israel. And Goard does well in explaining that the term “Gentile” should rather be ethnos, or ethné, meaning nation or nations of Israel. Well, if Paul went only to the house of Israel, why did he go to the Romans, as the Romans were by-and-large Zerah-Judah?

Such a position, that the house of Israel and the House of Judah are forever to be separate, is not what the Bible teaches. Ezekiel 37:16-22 says otherwise:

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? 19 Say unto them, Thus saith Yahweh singular-Elohim; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 21 And say unto them, Thus saith Yahweh singular-Elohim; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” (This two-sticks in one hand nation can only be America.)

About the same time that Paul was writing to the Romans, the bad-fig-jews at Jerusalem killed James.

The book of James at 1:1 states: “James, a servant of Yahweh and of the Savior Yahshua Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.” Goard also seems not to comprehend that all of the twelve tribes were dispersed by the time Paul wrote Romans. Contrary to this, Goard’s references to the “Jews” are to those who were in Judaea.

On page 16, under the subtitle “Abraham The Heir Of The World”, Goard goes especially astray saying:

“It is the old story of the Kingdom of God on the earth, and that in Abraham in his seed ‘shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’

“The door is widely open for the heathen to come into the Kingdom by declaration of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; but the covenant is still with Abraham and his seed for ever; and this is ‘the anchor sure and steadfast’ of the Christian faith.”

All I can say is, if a heathen can come into the Kingdom by any means, the chain of the anchor is broken and we are set adrift and Yahweh’s covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob isn’t worth the paper it is written on! There is no record that Paul ever went to any non-Israelite heathen people. Rather than going to heathen people, Paul went to the lost sheep of both Israel and Judah. It should be pointed out again that the use of the term heathen is problematic considering its origin and use as a theological term. In many cases “Israelite” is mistranslated as “heathen”, promoting confusion.

Paul picks up his theme about the Israelites at Romans 9:23-26: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of Judah only, but also of the Israel nations. 25 As he saith also in Osee (Hosea), I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

From Romans 9, verses 23-26, Paul speaks of Ephraim-Israel, and at verses 27-29, he shifts gears and changes his subject to Judah-Israel. Ephraim is a term often used to include all ten tribes of the northern kingdom. In fact, it would be a good idea to draw a red line with a ball-point between verses 26 and 27. Then continuing at Romans 9, verses 27 through 29 we read:

27 Esaias (Isaiah 10:21-22) also crieth concerning [Judah] -Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant [of Judah]-Israel shall be saved: 28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will Yahweh make upon the earth. 29 And as Esaias (Isaiah) said bfont-family: efore, Except Yahweh of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.”

Here Paul had cited Hos. 1:6-11; 2:23 & Isa. 10:22. To verify that Paul indeed was speaking of Ephraim-Israel at Hos. ch. 1, we will now go to Hosea 1:6-7, 9-11: 6 ... And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. 7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Yahweh their singular-Elohim, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen ... 9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. 11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”

Then to verify that Paul was speaking of Judah-Israel at Romans 9:27-33, all we have to do is check the context it is written in. Verses 30-31 speaks of “the Gentiles” (meaning Ephraim-Israel) not following the law and contrasts them with Judah-Israel who did follow the law, but not in righteousness (not by faith but by works). Then verses 31-33 identify Judah-Israel as “stumbling at that stumblingstone”, and that stumblingstone was the “rock of offense” representing Yahshua-Christ. So Paul was speaking of that remnant Judah nation that returned from Babylon and gradually deteriorated into a multicultural society, though a few Judaeans did keep their racial purity. This remnant nation was “cut short” in 70 A.D., when the Romans, under Titus, destroyed it. Thus, from Romans 9:23 through 33, Paul addressed the Romans concerning all the twelve tribes of Israel! Also, Paul called the Romans his “brethren”, which is from Strong’s Greek word #80, meaning “the womb”, or brothers of the womb. In all of Paul’s epistles to the lost Israel nations, he used this same Greek word a little over a hundred times, and it was not in a spiritual sense as churchianity insists.

This matter of Yahweh not having mercy on Israel while having mercy on Judah simply means that the ten northern tribes would never return back to Samaria, while a small remnant of Judah would return to Judaea for a period of about 500 years. This has nothing to do with a permanent separation of the house of Israel and the house of Judah as W. Pascoe Goard surmises. Even the last verse at Hosea 2:11 makes that quite clear. Again, this fits America, as we appoint (vote for) one head, a President, although he can only lawfully sign bills into law after they are passed by both the House and Senate. Therefore, it is absurd to insist that Paul was speaking about some heathen “Gentiles” when he quoted Osee (Hosea). Nor were the Romans “Gentiles”!

Then at Romans 11:3-5, Paul cites Elijah the prophet found at 1 Kings 19:10 & 18, Elijah saying: “3 Yahweh, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of Yahweh unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Who made up this particular Israel remnant (not to be confused with the Judah-Israel remnant) at Paul’s time other than those to whom Paul preached and believed the gospel and were converted to Christianity? And Paul’s Roman converts were part of that Israel remnant! It took a lot of courage in Paul’s day to come out against the gods of Rome and Greece, and many of the awakened Israelites and/or Christians had to die for their newfound belief, yet they considered such a death as a privilege.

Does this not settle absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ethné (“Gentiles”, or “nations” in the original) at Romans 9 through 11 were none other than Israelites of all twelve tribes? Some will say that it was only the ten tribes of the house of Israel who were divorced, but Scripture says that Israel’s sister Judah also played the harlot, and a major part of Judah went into Assyrian captivity, as did the ten northern tribes. And like Israel never returned to Samaria, neither did the major part of Judah ever return to Judaea. So Judah was also put away and punished in the same manner as Israel. Today, by-and-large the German people are the true tribe of Judah, and like Ephraim-Israel, are as numerous as the sand of the sea. There was a time when 49% of the population of the United States was comprised of German-Judah people. When one takes into consideration all of the people in the United States who are Irish or Scottish of Zerah-Judah, and add the 49% who are German, that made Judah the dominant progenitor of White people in our country. Not only that, but German nearly became the official language of the United States.

W. Pascoe Goard was incorrect when he obliquely intimated on page 52, that Assyria failed to take Judah captive. Correctly put, Assyria took all of Judah captive except the city of Jerusalem. And Jerusalem was populated by a lot of (but not all) non-Judaean riffraff. That’s why it is recorded that the good-fig-Judaeans were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar’s first deportation of Judaea. Goard isn’t playing with a full deck. In Goard’s book, he has a chapter on “The Jew”, from pages 6-11, and never once does he explain, that by-and-large, the people calling themselves “Jews” in Christ’s day were mixed with Canaanite and Edomite blood.

Paul knew the difference between a Canaanite-Edomite-jew and a true Judaean when he declared at Romans 2:28-29: 28 For he is not a Judaean, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Judaean, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of Yahweh.” In other words, one could circumcise and baptize a Canaanite-Edomite-jew, but that would not change his half-breed degenerate genetics. And like Jeremiah said, one can buy forty gallons of strong lye soap and shower for forty days and forty nights, and he’ll still be a Canaanite-Edomite-jew! And Jeremiah was speaking of the Judaeans who had mixed their blood with the Canaanites! This can be found at Jeremiah 2:21-22: 21 Yet I had planted thee [Judah] a noble vine, wholly a right seed [sperm]: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh singular-Elohim.” Why didn’t W. Pascoe Goard cite this passage under his chapter entitled “The Jew”? Doesn’t he want to admit that the Germans are true Judah?

What we can observe with this lesson is that Paul was very accurate and cautious with what he stated. It’s just that the translators were at a loss to use the proper English wording for the Greek. Without study, we are also at a loss to read a passage in its proper context! I hope that this lesson has cleared up some of your uncertainties. Check all of these things out for yourself!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #127 November 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. With this issue we are going to digress from Paul’s teachings for one lesson. Because we are having a massive illegal immigration problem today with Canaanite-mexicans streaming into our beloved country from south of the border, I felt it would be appropriate to consider just how criminal this invasion is. Therefore, this lesson will be a critical review of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848. The following is from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, taken from the Internet. Please examine it carefully, for I believe that several provisions of this treaty have been, and continue to be violated:

TREATY OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES CONCLUDED AT GUADALUPE HIDALGO, FEBRUARY 2, 1848; RATIFICATION ADVISED BY SENATE, WITH AMENDMENTS, MARCH 10, 1848; RATIFIED BY PRESIDENT, MARCH 16, 1848; RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT QUERETARO, MAY 30, 1848; PROCLAIMED, JULY 4, 1848, IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD

“The United States of America and the United Mexican States animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calamities of the war which unhappily exists between the two Republics and to establish upon a solid basis relations of peace and friendship, which shall confer reciprocal benefits upon the citizens of both, and assure the concord, harmony, and mutual confidence wherein the two people should live, as good neighbors have for that purpose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say: The President of the United States has appointed Nicholas P. Trist, a citizen of the United States, and the President of the Mexican Republic has appointed Don Luis Gonzaga Cuevas, Don Bernardo Couto, and Don Miguel Atristain, citizens of the said Republic; who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective full powers, have, under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace, arranged, agreed upon, and signed the following: Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic.

“ARTICLE I: There shall be firm and universal peace between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, without exception of places or persons.

“ARTICLE II: Immediately upon the signature of this treaty, a convention shall be entered into between a commissioner or commissioners appointed by the General-in-chief of the forces of the United States, and such as may be appointed by the Mexican Government, to the end that a provisional suspension of hostilities shall take place, and that, in the places occupied by the said forces, constitutional order may be reestablished, as regards the political, administrative, and judicial branches, so far as this shall be permitted by the circumstances of military occupation.

“ARTICLE III: Immediately upon the ratification of the present treaty by the Government of the United States, orders shall be transmitted to the commanders of their land and naval forces, requiring the latter (provided this treaty shall then have been ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic, and the ratifications exchanged) immediately to desist from blockading any Mexican ports and requiring the former (under the same condition) to commence, at the earliest moment practicable, withdrawing all troops of the United States then in the interior of the Mexican Republic, to points that shall be selected by common agreement, at a distance from the seaports not exceeding thirty leagues; and such evacuation of the interior of the Republic shall be completed with the least possible delay; the Mexican Government hereby binding itself to afford every facility in its power for rendering the same convenient to the troops, on their march and in their new positions, and for promoting a good understanding between them and the inhabitants. In like manner orders shall be dispatched to the persons in charge of the custom houses at all ports occupied by the forces of the United States, requiring them (under the same condition) immediately to deliver possession of the same to the persons authorized by the Mexican Government to receive it, together with all bonds and evidences of debt for duties on importations and on exportations, not yet fallen due. Moreover, a faithful and exact account shall be made out, showing the entire amount of all duties on imports and on exports, collected at such custom-houses, or elsewhere in Mexico, by authority of the United States, from and after the day of ratification of this treaty by the Government of the Mexican Republic; and also an account of the cost of collection; and such entire amount, deducting only the cost of collection, shall be delivered to the Mexican Government, at the city of Mexico, within three months after the exchange of ratifications.

“The evacuation of the capital of the Mexican Republic by the troops of the United States, in virtue of the above stipulation, shall be completed in one month after the orders there stipulated for shall have been received by the commander of said troops, or sooner if possible.

“ARTICLE IV: Immediately after the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty all castles, forts, territories, places, and possessions, which have been taken or occupied by the forces of the United States during the present war, within the limits of the Mexican Republic, as about to be established by the following article, shall be definitely restored to the said Republic, together with all the artillery, arms, apparatus of war, munitions, and other public property, which were in the said castles and forts when captured, and which shall remain there at the time when this treaty shall be duly ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic. To this end, immediately upon the signature of this treaty, orders shall be dispatched to the American officers commanding such castles and forts, securing against the removal or destruction of any such artillery, arms, apparatus of war, munitions, or other public property. The city of Mexico, within the inner line of intrenchments surrounding the said city, is comprehended in the above stipulation, as regards the restoration of artillery, apparatus of war, &c.

“The final evacuation of the territory of the Mexican Republic, by the forces of the United States, shall be completed in three months from the said exchange of ratifications, or sooner if possible; the Mexican Government hereby engaging, as in the foregoing article to use all means in its power for facilitating such evacuation, and rendering it convenient to the troops, and for promoting a good understanding between them and the inhabitants.

“If, however, the ratification of this treaty by both parties should not take place in time to allow the embarcation of the troops of the United States to be completed before the commencement of the sickly season, at the Mexican ports on the Gulf of Mexico, in such case a friendly arrangement shall be entered into between the General-in-Chief of the said troops and the Mexican Government, whereby healthy and otherwise suitable places, at a distance from the ports not exceeding thirty leagues, shall be designated for the residence of such troops as may not yet have embarked, until the return of the healthy season. And the space of time here referred to as, comprehending the sickly season shall be understood to extend from the first day of May to the first day of November.

“All prisoners of war taken on either side, on land or on sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the exchange of ratifications of this treaty. It is also agreed that if any Mexicans should now be held as captives by any savage tribe within the limits of the United States, as about to be established by the following article, the Government of the said United States will exact the release of such captives and cause them to be restored to their country.

“ARTICLE V: The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.

“The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled ‘Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell,’ of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.

“In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.

“The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.

“ARTICLE VI: The vessels and citizens of the United States shall, in all time, have a free and uninterrupted passage by the Gulf of California, and by the river Colorado below its confluence with the Gila, to and from their possessions situated north of the boundary line defined in the preceding article; it being understood that this passage is to be by navigating the Gulf of California and the river Colorado, and not by land, without the express consent of the Mexican Government.

“If, by the examinations which may be made, it should be ascertained to be practicable and advantageous to construct a road, canal, or railway, which should in whole or in part run upon the river Gila, or upon its right or its left bank, within the space of one marine league from either margin of the river, the Governments of both republics will form an agreement regarding its construction, in order that it may serve equally for the use and advantage of both countries.

“ARTICLE VII: The river Gila, and the part of the Rio Bravo del Norte lying below the southern boundary of New Mexico, being, agreeably to the fifth article, divided in the middle between the two republics, the navigation of the Gila and of the Bravo below said boundary shall be free and common to the vessels and citizens of both countries; and neither shall, without the consent of the other, construct any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part, the exercise of this right; not even for the purpose of favoring new methods of navigation. Nor shall any tax or contribution, under any denomination or title, be levied upon vessels or persons navigating the same or upon merchandise or effects transported thereon, except in the case of landing upon one of their shores. If, for the purpose of making the said rivers navigable, or for maintaining them in such state, it should be necessary or advantageous to establish any tax or contribution, this shall not be done without the consent of both Governments.

“The stipulations contained in the present article shall not impair the territorial rights of either republic within its established limits.

“ARTICLE VIII: Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.

“Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

“In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

“ARTICLE IX: The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.

“ARTICLE X: [Stricken out]

“ARTICLE XI: Considering that a great part of the territories, which, by the present treaty, are to be comprehended for the future within the limits of the United States, is now occupied by savage tribes, who will hereafter be under the exclusive control of the Government of the United States, and whose incursions within the territory of Mexico would be prejudicial in the extreme, it is solemnly agreed that all such incursions shall be forcibly restrained by the Government of the United States whensoever this may be necessary; and that when they cannot be prevented, they shall be punished by the said Government, and satisfaction for the same shall be exacted all in the same way, and with equal diligence and energy, as if the same incursions were meditated or committed within its own territory, against its own citizens.

“It shall not be lawful, under any pretext whatever, for any inhabitant of the United States to purchase or acquire any Mexican, or any foreigner residing in Mexico, who may have been captured by Indians inhabiting the territory of either of the two republics; nor to purchase or acquire horses, mules, cattle, or property of any kind, stolen within Mexican territory by such Indians.

“And in the event of any person or persons, captured within Mexican territory by Indians, being carried into the territory of the United States, the Government of the latter engages and binds itself, in the most solemn manner, so soon as it shall know of such captives being within its territory, and shall be able so to do, through the faithful exercise of its influence and power, to rescue them and return them to their country, or deliver them to the agent or representative of the Mexican Government. The Mexican authorities will, as far as practicable, give to the Government of the United States notice of such captures; and its agents shall pay the expenses incurred in the maintenance and transmission of the rescued captives; who, in the mean time, shall be treated with the utmost hospitality by the American authorities at the place where they may be. But if the Government of the United States, before receiving such notice from Mexico, should obtain intelligence, through any other channel, of the existence of Mexican captives within its territory, it will proceed forthwith to effect their release and delivery to the Mexican agent, as above stipulated.

“For the purpose of giving to these stipulations the fullest possible efficacy, thereby affording the security and redress demanded by their true spirit and intent, the Government of the United States will now and hereafter pass, without unnecessary delay, and always vigilantly enforce, such laws as the nature of the subject may require. And, finally, the sacredness of this obligation shall never be lost sight of by the said Government, when providing for the removal of the Indians from any portion of the said territories, or for its being settled by citizens of the United States; but, on the contrary, special care shall then be taken not to place its Indian occupants under the necessity of seeking new homes, by committing those invasions which the United States have solemnly obliged themselves to restrain.

“ARTICLE XII: In consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States, as defined in the fifth article of the present treaty, the Government of the United States engages to pay to that of the Mexican Republic the sum of fifteen millions of dollars.

“Immediately after the treaty shall have been duly ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic, the sum of three millions of dollars shall be paid to the said Government by that of the United States, at the city of Mexico, in the gold or silver coin of Mexico. The remaining twelve millions of dollars shall be paid at the same place, and in the same coin, in annual installments of three millions of dollars each, together with interest on the same at the rate of six per centum per annum. This interest shall begin to run upon the whole sum of twelve millions from the day of the ratification of the present treaty by the Mexican Government, and the first of the installments shall be paid-at the expiration of one year from the same day. Together with each annual installment, as it falls due, the whole interest accruing on such installment from the beginning shall also be paid.

“ARTICLE XIII: The United States engage, moreover, to assume and pay to the claimants all the amounts now due them, and those hereafter to become due, by reason of the claims already liquidated and decided against the Mexican Republic, under the conventions between the two republics severally concluded on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, and on the thirtieth day of January, eighteen hundred and forty-three; so that the Mexican Republic shall be absolutely exempt, for the future, from all expense whatever on account of the said claims.

“ARTICLE XIV: The United States do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United States, not heretofore decided against the Mexican Government, which may have arisen previously to the date of the signature of this treaty; which discharge shall be final and perpetual, whether the said claims be rejected or be allowed by the board of commissioners provided for in the following article, and whatever shall be the total amount of those allowed.

“ARTICLE XV: The United States, exonerating Mexico from all demands on account of the claims of their citizens mentioned in the preceding article, and considering them entirely and forever canceled, whatever their amount may be, undertake to make satisfaction for the same, to an amount not exceeding three and one-quarter millions of dollars. To ascertain the validity and amount of those claims, a board of commissioners shall be established by the Government of the United States, whose awards shall be final and conclusive; provided that, in deciding upon the validity of each claim, the board shall be guided and governed by the principles and rules of decision prescribed by the first and fifth articles of the unratified convention, concluded at the city of Mexico on the twentieth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three; and in no case shall an award be made in favour of any claim not embraced by these principles and rules.

“If, in the opinion of the said board of commissioners or of the claimants, any books, records, or documents, in the possession or power of the Government of the Mexican Republic, shall be deemed necessary to the just decision of any claim, the commissioners, or the claimants through them, shall, within such period as Congress may designate, make an application in writing for the same, addressed to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, to be transmitted by the Secretary of State of the United States; and the Mexican Government engages, at the earliest possible moment after the receipt of such demand, to cause any of the books, records, or documents so specified, which shall be in their possession or power (or authenticated copies or extracts of the same), to be transmitted to the said Secretary of State, who shall immediately deliver them over to the said board of commissioners; provided that no such application shall be made by or at the instance of any claimant, until the facts which it is expected to prove by such books, records, or documents, shall have been stated under oath or affirmation.

“ARTICLE XVI: Each of the contracting parties reserves to itself the entire right to fortify whatever point within its territory it may judge proper so to fortify for its security.

“ARTICLE XVII: The treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, concluded at the city of Mexico, on the fifth day of April, A. D. 1831, between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, except the additional article, and except so far as the stipulations of the said treaty may be incompatible with any stipulation contained in the present treaty, is hereby revived for the period of eight years from the day of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, with the same force and virtue as if incorporated therein; it being understood that each of the contracting parties reserves to itself the right, at any time after the said period of eight years shall have expired, to terminate the same by giving one year’s notice of such intention to the other party.

“ARTICLE XVIII: All supplies whatever for troops of the United States in Mexico, arriving at ports in the occupation of such troops previous to the final evacuation thereof, although subsequently to the restoration of the custom-houses at such ports, shall be entirely exempt from duties and charges of any kind; the Government of the United States hereby engaging and pledging its faith to establish and vigilantly to enforce, all possible guards for securing the revenue of Mexico, by preventing the importation, under cover of this stipulation, of any articles other than such, both in kind and in quantity, as shall really be wanted for the use and consumption of the forces of the United States during the time they may remain in Mexico. To this end it shall be the duty of all officers and agents of the United States to denounce to the Mexican authorities at the respective ports any attempts at a fraudulent abuse of this stipulation, which they may know of, or may have reason to suspect, and to give to such authorities all the aid in their power with regard thereto; and every such attempt, when duly proved and established by sentence of a competent tribunal, they shall be punished by the confiscation of the property so attempted to be fraudulently introduced.

“ARTICLE XIX: With respect to all merchandise, effects, and property whatsoever, imported into ports of Mexico, whilst in the occupation of the forces of the United States, whether by citizens of either republic, or by citizens or subjects of any neutral nation, the following rules shall be observed:

“(1) All such merchandise, effects, and property, if imported previously to the restoration of the custom-houses to the Mexican authorities, as stipulated for in the third article of this treaty, shall be exempt from confiscation, although the importation of the same be prohibited by the Mexican tariff.

“(2) The same perfect exemption shall be enjoyed by all such merchandise, effects, and property, imported subsequently to the restoration of the custom-houses, and previously to the sixty days fixed in the following article for the coming into force of the Mexican tariff at such ports respectively; the said merchandise, effects, and property being, however, at the time of their importation, subject to the payment of duties, as provided for in the said following article.

“(3) All merchandise, effects, and property described in the two rules foregoing shall, during their continuance at the place of importation, and upon their leaving such place for the interior, be exempt from all duty, tax, or imposts of every kind, under whatsoever title or denomination. Nor shall they be there subject to any charge whatsoever upon the sale thereof.

“(4) All merchandise, effects, and property, described in the first and second rules, which shall have been removed to any place in the interior, whilst such place was in the occupation of the forces of the United States, shall, during their continuance therein, be exempt from all tax upon the sale or consumption thereof, and from every kind of impost or contribution, under whatsoever title or denomination.

“(5) But if any merchandise, effects, or property, described in the first and second rules, shall be removed to any place not occupied at the time by the forces of the United States, they shall, upon their introduction into such place, or upon their sale or consumption there, be subject to the same duties which, under the Mexican laws, they would be required to pay in such cases if they had been imported in time of peace, through the maritime custom-houses, and had there paid the duties conformably with the Mexican tariff.

“(6) The owners of all merchandise, effects, or property, described in the first and second rules, and existing in any port of Mexico, shall have the right to reship the same, exempt from all tax, impost, or contribution whatever.

“With respect to the metals, or other property, exported from any Mexican port whilst in the occupation of the forces of the United States, and previously to the restoration of the customhouse at such port, no person shall be required by the Mexican authorities, whether general or state, to pay any tax, duty, or contribution upon any such exportation, or in any manner to account for the same to the said authorities.

“ARTICLE XX: Through consideration for the interests of commerce generally, it is agreed, that if less than sixty days should elapse between the date of the signature of this treaty and the restoration of the custom houses, conformably with the stipulation in the third article, in such case all merchandise, effects and property whatsoever, arriving at the Mexican ports after the restoration of the said custom-houses, and previously to the expiration of sixty days after the day of signature of this treaty, shall be admitted to entry; and no other duties shall be levied thereon than the duties established by the tariff found in force at such custom-houses at the time of the restoration of the same. And to all such merchandise, effects, and property, the rules established by the preceding article shall apply.

“ARTICLE XXI: If unhappily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the Governments of the two republics, whether with respect to the interpretation of any stipulation in this treaty, or with respect to any other particular concerning the political or commercial relations of the two nations, the said Governments, in the name of those nations, do promise to each other that they will endeavour, in the most sincere and earnest manner, to settle the differences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves, using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not, on this account, be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any kind, by the one republic against the other, until the Government of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighbourship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case.

“ARTICLE XXII: If (which is not to be expected, and which God forbid) war should unhappily break out between the two republics, they do now, with a view to such calamity, solemnly pledge themselves to each other and to the world to observe the following rules; absolutely where the nature of the subject permits, and as closely as possible in all cases where such absolute observance shall be impossible:

“(1) The merchants of either republic then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain twelve months (for those dwelling in the interior), and six months (for those dwelling at the seaports) to collect their debts and settle their affairs; during which periods they shall enjoy the same protection, and be on the same footing, in all respects, as the citizens or subjects of the most friendly nations; and, at the expiration thereof, or at any time before, they shall have full liberty to depart, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance, conforming therein to the same laws which the citizens or subjects of the most friendly nations are required to conform to. Upon the entrance of the armies of either nation into the territories of the other, women and children, ecclesiastics, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, merchants, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all persons whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, unmolested in their persons. Nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their cattle taken, nor their fields wasted, by the armed force into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall; but if the necessity arise to take anything from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at an equitable price. All churches, hospitals, schools, colleges, libraries, and other establishments for charitable and beneficent purposes, shall be respected, and all persons connected with the same protected in the discharge of their duties, and the pursuit of their vocations.

(2). In order that the fate of prisoners of war may be alleviated all such practices as those of sending them into distant, inclement or unwholesome districts, or crowding them into close and noxious places, shall be studiously avoided. They shall not be confined in dungeons, prison ships, or prisons; nor be put in irons, or bound or otherwise restrained in the use of their limbs. The officers shall enjoy liberty on their paroles, within convenient districts, and have comfortable quarters; and the common soldiers shall be disposed in cantonments, open and extensive enough for air and exercise and lodged in barracks as roomy and good as are provided by the party in whose power they are for its own troops. But if any officer shall break his parole by leaving the district so assigned him, or any other prisoner shall escape from the limits of his cantonment after they shall have been designated to him, such individual, officer, or other prisoner, shall forfeit so much of the benefit of this article as provides for his liberty on parole or in cantonment. And if any officer so breaking his parole or any common soldier so escaping from the limits assigned him, shall afterwards be found in arms previously to his being regularly exchanged, the person so offending shall be dealt with according to the established laws of war. The officers shall be daily furnished, by the party in whose power they are, with as many rations, and of the same articles, as are allowed either in kind or by commutation, to officers of equal rank in its own army; and all others shall be daily furnished with such ration as is allowed to a common soldier in its own service; the value of all which supplies shall, at the close of the war, or at periods to be agreed upon between the respective commanders, be paid by the other party, on a mutual adjustment of accounts for the subsistence of prisoners; and such accounts shall not be mingled with or set off against any others, nor the balance due on them withheld, as a compensation or reprisal for any cause whatever, real or pretended. Each party shall be allowed to keep a commissary of prisoners, appointed by itself, with every cantonment of prisoners, in possession of the other; which commissary shall see the prisoners as often as he pleases; shall be allowed to receive, exempt from all duties as taxes, and to distribute, whatever comforts may be sent to them by their friends; and shall be free to transmit his reports in open letters to the party by whom he is employed. And it is declared that neither the pretense that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending the solemn covenant contained in this article. On the contrary, the state of war is precisely that for which it is provided; and, during which, its stipulations are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged obligations under the law of nature or nations.

“ARTICLE XXIII: This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and by the President of the Mexican Republic, with the previous approbation of its general Congress; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the City of Washington, or at the seat of Government of Mexico, in four months from the date of the signature hereof, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement, and have hereunto affixed our seals respectively. Done in quintuplicate, at the city of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the second day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight.” [END]

As far as I know this treaty is still in effect, and no amount of maneuvering can change one jot or tittle of its authenticity from its inception. By breaking these provisions, Mexico has declared a resumption of war.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #128 December 2008

 
00:00

This is my one hundred twenty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. In the last lesson we digressed from the writings of Paul in order to give a critical review of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made by the United States with Mexico, February 2, 1848 (our treaty with the Canaanite-mexicans having a scripturally predicted outcome – and their resumption of hostilities toward us in our day (cf. Deut. 7 & Joshua 23, which one needs to review)). With this lesson we will continue our series on the apostle Paul. A minority of people are under the delusion that somehow Paul deviated from the teachings of Yahshua Christ, however I will demonstrate with this lesson that this is absolutely untrue! Some people will cite Romans 10:1-5 and charge Paul with doing away with the law thusly:

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.”

Because Adam Clarke was a humble man and worked hard to master several languages, he has a better than average comment on verse 4, although he had many blind spots in other areas:

“For Christ is the end of the law – Where the law ends, Christ begins. The law ends with representative sacrifices; Christ begins with the real offering. The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ; it cannot save, but it leaves us at his door, where alone salvation is to be found. Christ, as an atoning sacrifice for sin, was the grand object of the whole sacrificial code of Moses; his passion and death were the fulfillment of its great object and design. Separate this sacrificial death of Christ from the law, and the law has no meaning. The sacrifice under the law was a type or representative of that atonement; but the atonement was the sacrifice offered by Christ. Thus he was the END of the law in respect to its sacrifices. And, as sacrifices were offered merely to procure pardon of sin, righteousness, or justification, Christ is the end of the law for this justification to every one that believeth on him as dying for their offences, and rising again for their justification, having made peace through the blood of his cross ....”

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with doing away with the law and everything to do with fulfilling it, and there is a lot of difference! Verse 4 would be better rendered “to each one that believeth” rather than “to every one that believeth”. The main topic which I would like to concentrate on in this lesson is this matter of belief. In other words, what is one supposed to believe, and for whom was Paul admonishing this belief? In order to understand these two questions, one must comprehend the reason for which Christ came in the first place! It should be noted that in verse 1 above Paul said: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” Therefore, it should be evident that in context, Paul was speaking of Israel and no one else.

One passage concerning belief which should not be overlooked is Acts 10:43: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” We see from this passage for whom belief was necessary, as prophesied by the prophets. The center-reference in my KJV takes me to Isa. 53:11; Jer. 31:34; Dan. 9;24; Mic. 7:18; Zech. 13:1 & Mal. 4:2.

Isa. 53:11: “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

Jer. 31:34: “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Dan. 9:24: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

Mic. 7:18: “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.”

Zech. 13:1: “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.”

Mal. 4:2: “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.”

We can know for sure that Isaiah at 53:11 was writing exclusively of Israelites, for at verse 6 he stated: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Only Israel are likened to sheep in Scripture! We also know that Jeremiah at 31:34 was writing only of Israelites, for at verses 31-32 he identifies them thusly: 31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh.” Here an important element enters the picture, that being Yahweh’s betrothal to Israel, but both the house of Israel and the house of Judah played the harlot, so by Yahweh’s own law there was nothing left for Him to do but divorce them. Again, by His own law the only way He could remarry the twelve tribes is if He or the 12 tribes were to die. Thus, He chose to die Himself for His people, and that is the good news which is called the “gospel”.

This brings up what Paul said at Romans 10:15: 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” Paul is still preaching to us today through the epistles he wrote for our benefit! Therefore, Paul’s ministry didn’t stop with his martyrdom. Hence, only Israel and Judah can claim and believe in the gospel, no one else! And true Judah should not be confused with the Canaanite-Edomite-jews, as they are not the same people!

Not only that, but the gospel will never be proclaimed again at Jerusalem, as Christ Himself stated at John 4:19-21 thusly: 19 The woman saith unto him [Christ], Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Yahshua saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” Yet today judeo-churchianity proclaims that the Canaanite-Edomite-jews are “God’s chosen people”, and that the temple at Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Therefore, either judeo-churchianity is lying or Christ is a liar. Take your pick!

It is regrettable that many passages in the New Testament are rendered in misleading vague language and terms. For instance, most New Testament references to “Gentiles” should rather be rendered as nations. Not only should it be rendered nations, but in a large number of cases it should be rendered as Israel nations. One such passage that causes a lot of confusion is Acts 13:46-48, and I will amplify it to bring out the true context:

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of Yahweh should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Israel nations. 47 For so hath the Master commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Israel nations, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 48 And when the Israel nations heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Master: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

Here the center-reference in my KJV takes me to Matt. 10:6, on verse 46 of this passage, saying: “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Hence, all we need to do here is to compare scripture with scripture. Therefore it is evident that Paul and Barnabas were addressing some bad-fig-Canaanite-Edomite-jews at verse 46, and realized that they were taking the gospel to the wrong people. In other words, the bad-fig-jews were not parties to the covenant of redemption, while the true house of Judah and the house of Israel were. It is regrettable that most Bibles do not differentiate between the bad-fig-jews and the Judaeans of the true tribe of Judah!

Another verse which is usually taken completely out-of-context is Rom. 1:16, and I will amplify it to make it understandable: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Judaean of the true tribe of Judah first, and also to the Greek Israelites.”

To demonstrate the difference between a good-fig-Judaean and a bad-fig-jew, it is recorded that the bad-fig-jews inherently refused to believe, while the good-fig-Judaeans by-and-large did believe in Christ. For evidence of this, I will cite John 10:24-27 which states:

24 Then came the bad-fig-Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Yahshua answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my Israel sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My Israel sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

Here Christ lays down the criteria that one can recognize a true “sheep” (an Israelite) by the fact that His sheep (His Israelite kin) would hear and follow Him! Here we are 2000 years later and the bad-fig-Canaanite-Edomite-jews still don’t follow Him but hate Him and curse His name! Either Christ meant what He said or He didn’t! We must ask then, “Who are they for the last 2000 years that have faithfully followed Him?” Surely, history has recorded that it has been the White Anglo-Saxons and related people. Why is it that we can’t take Christ at His Word when He said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”? But the clergy, instead of taking Christ at his Word, keep on proclaiming that the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomites are “God’s chosen people”!

An example of how some of the bad-fig-jews pretended to believe is found at John 8:31-32: 31 Then said Yahshua to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Then there is an exchange of conversation between these bad-fig-jews and Christ, and how they claimed Abraham to be their father. Christ shot down that claim by telling them that if Abraham were their father, they would do the works of Abraham, which they have never done before or since that time. Then Christ made a very clear statement to them at verse 38, saying, “I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.” By stating this, Christ was conveying to them that they were the offspring of Satan through Cain. In other words, Satan was their literal father! Therefore, instead of being “God’s chosen people”, they were actually “Satan’s chosen people”! Christ also told them at John 8:47, “He that is of Yahweh heareth Yahweh’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of Yahweh.” How much plainer can it be? Therefore, if today’s bad-fig-jews masquerading as Israelites are “God’s chosen people”, then Christ is a liar! Then these same bad-fig-jews had the audacity to claim that Christ was a Samaritan, and that He was possessed of the devil! But Christ replied to them at verse 49 where it states, “Yahshua answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.” Christ then stated to them that He honored His father and did not seek His own glory, and that if a man kept His sayings that he should never see death. But these half-breed-jews couldn’t take this for an answer and struck back at Him thusly at verse 52, saying, “Then said the bad-fig-jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death ...” Christ finally had to explain to those satanic-Canaanite-Edomite-jews that He existed before the time of Abraham!

That the bad-fig-jews had their origin with Satan is made clear a few verses previous to this, at John 8:44, where Christ states: “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.” That the “murderer” in this case was Cain is made clear by Christ at Matt. 23:55 where He stated, “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.” Had those bad-fig-jews not had their origin with Cain who murdered Abel, Christ would have been guilty of bearing false evidence, for who killed Abel other than Cain, who was the son of Satan through the seduction of Eve. And don’t quote me Gen. 4:1, for that verse is known by scholars of the Hebrew language to be a corrupted passage! To show you that the Hebrew at Genesis 4:1 has indeed been corrupted, I will use the following two witnesses:

The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 ‘consulting editors’, plus 124 other ‘contributors’, makes the following observation on this verse, vol. 1, page 517: “Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ – one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man.  From the Lord (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth – so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ – and that the words are a gloss ...”

Secondly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on this passage, on page 6: “... under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood). His younger brother was named Abel, which suggests the Hebrew word for breath.”

Therefore, if Genesis 4:1 is “unintelligible” and “can scarcely be translated, still less understood”, how can one prove anything by quoting it? Additionally, if these words are a gloss, where is the foundation for such a premise?

Some will insist that Cain’s descendants never made it through Noah’s flood, but that’s another flawed premise! As for all of Cain’s descendants being drowned in Noah’s flood, Scripture makes it quite clear that they were not. All we need to do is go to Genesis 15:19-21 where it states:

19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

The first mentioned of these ten nations are the Kenites, and Strong assigns them the numbers 7017 and 7014 thusly: Strong’s #7017 is: “Qênîy ... or ... Qînîy ... patronymic from 7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin:– Kenite.” And 7014 is: “Qayin ... Kajin, the name of the first child ...:– Cain, Kenite(-s).” The timing for this chapter is contemporary with Yahweh’s first appearance to Abram (Abraham) to give to him an inheritance. This would have been several hundred years after Noah’s flood, and Cain’s descendants were still alive and kicking. The next mention of the descendants of Cain is found in 1 Chronicles 2:55:

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

Additionally, after Jerusalem was depleted of most of its population, nearby peoples moved into their empty homes as a refuge from Babylon, thinking it safe after Zedekiah was appointed king by Nebuchadnezzar. Even during the kingship of Jehoiakim, after Nebuchadnezzar’s first campaign of 605 B.C., there were the Rechabites of Jeremiah 35:2, 3, 5, 11 & 18 who moved into Jerusalem; descendants of the Kenites of 1 Chr. 2:55 and Gen. 15:19, or “Cain’s bloodline.” So it is quite evident that Cain’s descendants made it safely through Noah’s flood! It is also obvious that Christ was not mistaken when He accused the bad-fig-jews of the physical murder of Abel! Therefore, we shouldn’t consider it strange that they were so hostile to Christ and their contempt toward Him in unbelief! Is it any wonder that He sternly admonished them that they were not his sheep?

But this is only part of the story of the bad-fig-jews pretending to be Israelites. The following is from Josephus Antiquities 13:9:1:

“... Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”

A footnote on the same page makes the following comment on this passage: “This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterwards. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod was derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew. Ammonius, a grammarian, says:– ‘the Jews are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumeans are not Jews from the beginning ... but being afterwards subdued by the Jews and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Jews.’ Dio also says:— ‘That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion, though of other nations’.” It should be noted that many of the citizens of Judaea at the time of Christ were Edomites of the bloodline of Esau who had married Hittite women. And the Hittites were mentioned at Gen. 15:19-21, who had in turn intermarried with the Kenites who were in turn descendants of Cain. Once again, one can comprehend just how accurate Christ was when He accused the bad-fig-jews of the murder of Abel.

PAUL & CHRIST TEACH ALIKE ABOUT “BELIEVING”

To demonstrate that both Paul and Yahshua Christ taught the same manner of belief, I will cite Mark 1:14-15 where it is recorded:

14 Now after that John was put in prison, Yahshua came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

Now some claim that Christ taught the gospel of the kingdom while Paul taught the gospel of grace. If that is the case, why did Paul go only to the lost Israel nations with his ministry? The center-reference of my KJV, Mark 1:15 takes me to Gal. 4:4 and Eph. 1:10.

At Gal. 4:4-6, Paul states: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” Question: If the Galatians were non-Israelites, why would Paul be informing them of this? If the Galatians had not been part of the Israel tribes in the past, what relevance would this have for them? Answer: No relevance whatsoever! Many people when they read “Gentile” (the Latin gentilis) automatically think “heathen” rather than “nations”, and “nations” is intended most of the time, but not all.

At Eph. 1:10-14, Paul states: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”

Paul speaks of several important issues in this passage, such as “gathering together” – “all things in Christ” – “obtaining an inheritance” – “being predestined to His will” – “the gospel of salvation” – “sealed with the holy Spirit of promise” – “earnest (down payment) of inheritance” – and “redemption of the purchased possession”. All of these things pertain to the twelve tribes of Israel, and no one else! Anyone who tries to apply these valuable favors to any one other than Israel is a cheat and a fraud! Again, had not the Ephesians been part of the twelve tribes of Israel in their past, why would Paul even speak of such things to them? It should now be evident that what Christ taught at Mark 1:14-15 agrees with what Paul wrote at Gal. 4:4-6 & Eph. 1:10-14! Therefore, “kingdom” and “grace” represent the same gospel!

In order to comprehend that Paul’s teachings were identical to Yahshua’s, we must take into consideration the parable of the sower at Luke 8:5-8:5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. 6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. 8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

Then at Luke 8:11-13, Christ explains this parable to His disciples and speaks of believing thusly: 11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” This parable of the sower by Yahshua can also be found at Matt. 13:4-8, 18-23 & Mark 4:4-8, 14-20, and reads somewhat differently in each case. For instance, in the KJV, Mark says “Satan” rather than “devil”. But the account found in Luke stresses the importance of believing, and of course, we know that means believing the gospel. And the gospel is the good news that Christ came to die on the cross to purchase Israel, and only Israel, back to Himself.

The center-reference in my KJV at Matt. 13:20-21 (which is the equivalent to Luke 8:6) takes me to 2 Tim. 1:15, where Paul writes to Timothy: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.” What happened to Paul here is exactly what Yahshua referred to in His parable of the sower! So Paul and Christ are on the same wavelength! Another incident is where Paul writes to Timothy at 2 Tim. 4:10, where he states: “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.”

Also, Christ in His explanation of the parable of the sower at Luke 8:14 reads: “And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.”

Again, in Paul’s 1st epistle to Timothy at 1 Tim. 6:9-10 he writes: 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” Here again, this demonstrates that Paul and Christ were on the same wavelength as Christ had taught in this parable!

Not only this, but this same type of situation is spoken of at Ezekiel 33:31-33 which states: “31 And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. 32 And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not. 33 And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.” It is very possible that both Christ and Paul had this passage in mind when they spoke or wrote the scriptures which I have cited concerning belief. Another passage which both Christ and Paul might have had in mind is found at Psalm 78:35-39: 35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. 36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. 37 For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant. 38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. 39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.”

But in spite of all of our (Israel’s) failures we are told at Isaiah 41:14-20: 14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith Yahweh, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. 15 Behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. 16 Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them: and thou shalt rejoice in Yahweh, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel. 17 When the poor and needy [of Israel] seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I Yahweh will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. 18 I will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water. 19 I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together: 20 That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of Yahweh hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.” Much of this has already happened, and America is the result, but we still have a long way to go to get to where we need to be!

The only truth that is being proclaimed today is the Israel Identity Message, and the people who understand it are mighty few and far between. There have been many who have come into this movement, only to find that it is a very unpopular message, and because they would rather be politically correct according to the prevailing world’s standard, they have drifted back into their former ways. In addition to being unpopular, some have also discovered that it is dangerous to be on Yahweh’s side, and they too have slipped back into the world’s hog trough. We really shouldn’t be surprised about all of this for it’s all predicted by Christ’s parable of the sower, and confirmed by the experiences of Paul, as well as the writers of the Old Testament. It’s about time that we take a stand for Yahweh, and to hell with what the world thinks!

I hope the reader can now comprehend what it means to believe – what it is to be believed – and in whom we are to believe!