2011 Watchman's Teaching Letters

Watchman's Teaching Letter #153 January 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. With this issue we will continue the series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I had given a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. It is a sad state of affairs that this marriage is so greatly neglected by most Biblical scholars who usually mistakenly believe the proselytized Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jews are the twelve tribes of Israel, which could not be further from the truth. Once the genuine tribes of Israel had taken Yahweh as their Husband, the marriage continued amicably for a while, but in time it began to breakdown because of Israel’s involvement with the Canaanite worship of Baal. This was tantamount to Israel breaking her marriage vows with her Husband, Yahweh. Upon Israel’s unfaithfulness becoming intolerable, Yahweh had no other alternative but to issue his wife a decree of divorce (the ten northern tribes first, followed a little later by the two southern tribes). The twelve tribes’ marriage violation was so grievous it was necessary for Yahweh to put them away in punishment for 2520 years. But that was not to be the end of the story!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 17

THE MARRIAGE” continued:

ISRAEL’S ARRIVAL AT MT. SINAI, WHERE HER WEDDING TO YAHWEH WOULD FINALLY TAKE PLACE:

To start with, it has come to my attention that there are some who don’t understand Jeremiah 31:31-33 which reads 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: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel [all twelve tribes as a unit]; After those days, saith Yahweh, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Some people, when they read this passage mistake this “covenant” for the Abrahamic covenant, which would be an error. The main thing to understand is that the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional, while the marriage covenant was conditional. In other words, in the Abrahamic covenant there was no way that Abraham could ever break it, as Yahweh was the only One responsible for its fulfillment. On the other hand, the nuptial (marriage) agreement with Yahweh was ‘conditional’, as only the twelve tribes could break it; surely Yahweh would never break His Word in the matter. The following is what I wrote in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #63:

Let’s consult A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ‘The Preparation for Subsequent Revelation’, page 96: ‘Another purpose of the book of Ruth was to connect the Davidic dynasty with the promises of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant rather than with the conditional Mosaic Covenant. To accomplish this, the writer traced David’s genealogy back to Pharez, the son of Judah (Ruth 4:18). It was from Judah that a king for Israel would arise (Gen. 49:10). He would be the main channel of God’s blessing to Israel ... The provision of this king was not conditioned on Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Covenant but was guaranteed on the basis of God’s faithfulness to His promise to Judah. When David reigned, he functioned as a priest as well as a king (1 Chron. 15-17). He was able to do so because his right to rule was rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant rather than in the Mosaic Covenant. Had it been rooted in the Mosaic Covenant, David could not have served as a priest since he was not a Levite. But because his right to rule went back to the Abrahamic Covenant, obviously antedating the Mosaic Covenant, he could serve as a priest. David functioned according to the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron (cf. Pss. chs. 2, 110). The book of Ruth then links David with the promises of a king that were given to the patriarchs, and so prepares for the record of his reign that follows in 1 and 2 Samuel’.”

The reader will notice that Jer. 31:32 states in part:, “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 ...” Therefore, both the “old” and “new” covenants mentioned at Jer. 31:31-33 and Heb. 8:8-10 pertain to marriage covenants. Please take notice, these marriage covenants are for the house of Israel and the House of Judah (including the Levites), and no one else (i.e., no other race, nor even non-Abrahamic Adamites).

It appears that Yahweh found good reason for excluding a good portion of the White Adamites in His choice of Israel ONLY to become His wife, although the other White Adamites will experience resurrection. As for the Mongolian, Dravidian, Negro, Hottentot, Papuan and Australian races, they are not even on Yahweh’s radar screen, and will not experience resurrection!

Is it too difficult for us to understand that Yahweh wants only Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic, Lombard, Celtic, Scottish, Irish, Danish, Icelandic, Welsh and other related peoples who are descendants of Jacob-Israel? Yes, there are a few of our people who understand this important fact, but they are exceedingly few in number. It is now time to face this issue headlong, and bring it out into the open so it can be broadcast to those intended. Once it is, maybe then we can get a breath of fresh air instead of all this old moldy stench we have been receiving. The Scriptures do not teach anywhere that the non-whites are going to be brought into the Kingdom, NOWHERE! In fact, the Bible teaches quite the contrary! If Yahweh were to marry any non-whites, He Himself would be committing adultery, a violation of the sixth commandment, Exo. 20:14! When are we ever going to start calling the sixth commandment what it is (i.e., “race-mixing”)? Maybe the reader should also read my brochure Yahweh The GOD Of Segregation vs. Satan The god Of Integration.

One should now be connecting the dots as to whom Yahweh married in the Old testament and whom Yahweh (as Yahshua) would remarry in the New, and whom He will NOT marry, past, present or future! We can be quite sure that He, Yahweh (as Yahshua), is not going to marry Stephen E. Jones’ daughter of color! Jones is doing the same thing Yahweh accused the house of Israel of at Eze. 36:16-17:

16 Moreover the word of Yahweh came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.” Question: For what other reason is a woman given a divorce? Can anyone ever claim they are an Israelite, and have not sinned (i.e., have the uncleanness of a removed woman)? We’re all guilty, both male and female! We have all been “removed” (i.e., divorced).

WEDDING PREPARATIONS, Exodus Chapter 19

We are told at Exo. 19:1-2 that Israel had arrived at Mt. Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt (see calendar in WTL #152). Exo. 19:4 states:

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.” Here we see how the prospective Husband, Yahweh, brought His Cinderella bride-to-be, Israel, unto Himself, like all suitors do. However, the intended bride is given instructions on how she is to present herself at Exo. 19:10-11, 15 which reads:

10 And Yahweh said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. ... 15 And he [Moses] said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.” It is evident from all of this that Yahweh’s intended bride was to present herself physically clean and restrain herself momentarily from carnal activity. It is also apparent here that Yahweh desired a people with a superior moral code of living, as compared with the morally decadent Canaanites, known today as jews!

As I said before, one should not confuse this marriage covenant with the Abrahamic covenant made by Yahweh at Gen. 15:5-16. Deut. 5:1-6 makes this fact quite clear where it states: 1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 2 Yahweh our God made a [marriage] covenant with us in Horeb. 3 Yahweh made not this [marriage] covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 4 Yahweh talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, 5 (I stood between Yahweh and you at that time, to shew you the word of Yahweh: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying, 6 I am Yahweh thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.”

We should always remember that the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional, and this marriage covenant was conditional! In other words, the Abrahamic covenant couldn’t be broken, but the marriage covenant could. Therefore, when Yahweh made His Promise to Abraham, He signed His (that is Yahweh’s) own death warrant, because the Israelites couldn’t be put away and punished forever, or His covenant to Abraham would be violated! So what it amounts to is this, we could be (and were) divorced, but the divorce couldn’t last forever. Hence, the one and only purpose for the crucifixion was to arrange for one of the two parties to die to satisfy the law on divorce, making it lawfully possible for Yahweh, as Yahshua, to remarry the twelve tribes of Israel once again! Anyone who doesn’t grasp this doesn’t understand Covenant Theology, nor the main thrust of Scripture!

THE LOCATION OF MT. SINAI

There has been much debate by so-called authorities as to where Moses’ Mt. Sinai is located. We find from the Internet website:

http://www.ldolphin.org/sinaiisbe1.html

Notes on Mt. Sinai from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, written by C.R. Conder:

The name comes probably from a root meaning ‘to shine,’ which occurs in Syriac, and which in Babylonian is found in the name sinu for ‘the moon.’ The old explanation, ‘clayey,’ is inappropriate to any place in the Sinaitic desert, though it might apply to Sin (Eze. 30:15,16) or Pelusium; even there, however, the applicability is doubtful. The desert of Sin (Exo. 16:1; 17:1; Num. 33:11f) lay between Sinai and the Gulf of Suez, and may have been named from the ‘glare’ of its white chalk. But at Sinai ‘the glory of Yahweh was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel’ (Exo. 24:17); and, indeed, the glory of Yahweh still dyes the crags of Jebel Musa (the ‘mountain of Moses’) with fiery red, reflected from its red granite and pink gneiss rocks, long after the shadows have fallen on the plain beneath. Sinai is mentioned, as a desert and a mountain, in 35 passages of the Old Testament. In 17 passages the same desert and mountain are called ‘Horeb,’ or ‘the waste.’ This term is chiefly used in Deuteronomy, though Sinai also occurs (Deut. 33:2). In the other books of the Pentateuch, Sinai is the usual name, though Horeb also occurs (Exo. 3:1; 17:6; 33:6), applying both to the ‘Mount of God’ and to the desert of Rephidim, some 20 miles to the Northwest.

Traditional Site: The indications of position, in various passages of the Pentateuch, favor the identification with the traditional site, which has become generall Kadesh-barneay accepted by all those explorers who have carefully considered the subject, though two other theories may need notice. Moses fled to the land of Midian (or ‘empty land’), which lay East of the Sinaitic peninsula (Num. 22:4, 7; 25; 31), and when he wandered with his flocks to Horeb (Exo. 3:1) he is said to have reached the west side of the desert. In another note (Deut. 1:2) we read that the distance was ‘eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea’ or Petra ... the distance being about 145 miles, or 14 miles of daily march, though Israel – with its flocks, women and children – made 16 marches between these points. Sinai again is described as being distant from Egypt ‘three days’ journey into the wilderness’ (Exo. 5:3), the actual route being 117 miles, which Israel accomplished in 10 [segmented] journeys. But, for Arabs not encumbered with families and herds, this distance could still be covered by an average march of 39 miles daily, on riding camels, or even, if necessary, on foot.

Identification with Jebel Musa: These distances will not, however, allow of our placing Sinai farther East than Jebel Musa. Lofty mountains, in all parts of the world, have always been sacred and regarded as the mysterious abode of God; and Josephus says that Sinai is ‘the highest of all the mountains thereabout,’ and again is ‘the highest of all the mountains that are in that country, and is not only very difficult to be ascended by men, on account of its vast altitude but because of the sharpness of its precipices: nay, indeed, it cannot be looked at without pain of the eyes, and besides this it was terrible and inaccessible, on account of the rumor that passed about, that God dwelt there’ (Ant., II, xii, 1; III, v, 1). Evidently in his time Sinai was supposed to be one of the peaks of the great granitic block called et Tur – a term applying to any lofty mountain. This block has its highest peak in Jebel Katarin (so named from a legend of Catherine of Egypt), rising 8,550 ft. above the sea. Northeast of this is Jebel Musa (7,370 ft.), which, though less high, is more conspicuous because of the open plain called er Rachah (‘the wide’) to its Northwest. This plain is about 4 miles long and has a width of over a mile, so that it forms, as Dr. E. Robinson (Biblical Researches, 1838, I, 89) seems to have been the first to note, a natural camp at the foot of the mountain, large enough for the probable numbers.

Description of Jebel Musa: Jebel Musa has two main tops, that to the Southeast being crowned by a chapel. The other, divided by gorges into three precipitous crags, has the Convent to its North, and is called Ras-es-Cafcafeh, or ‘the willow top.’ North of the Convent is the lower top of Jebel el Deir (‘mountain of the monastery’). These heights were accurately determined by Royal Engineer surveyors in 1868 (Sir C. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Sinai); and, though it is impossible to say which of the peaks Moses ascended, yet they are all much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in Midian. The highest tops in the Tih desert to the North are not much over 4,000 ft. Those in Midian, East of Elath, rise only to 4,200 ft. Even Jebel Serbal, 20 miles West of Sinai – a ridge with many crags, running 3 miles in length – is at its highest only 6,730 ft. above the sea. Horeb is not recorded to have been visited by any of the Hebrews after Moses, except by Elijah (1Ki. 19:8) in a time of storm. In favor of the traditional site it may also be observed that clouds suddenly formed, or lasting for days (Exo. 24:15f), are apt to cap very lofty mountains. The Hebrews reached Sinai about the end of May (Exo. 19:1) and, on the 3rd day, ‘there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount’ (Exo. 19:16). Such storms occur as a rule in the Sinaitic desert only in December and January, but thunderstorms are not unknown in Palestine even in May.

Patristic Evidence: A constant tradition fixing the site is traceable back to the 4th century A.D. Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word ‘Choreb’) place Horeb near Paran, which in their time was placed (Onomasticon, under the word ‘Raphidim’) in Wady Feiran. Anchorites lived at Paran, and at Sinai at least as early as 365 A.D., and are noticed in 373 A.D., and often later (Robinson, Biblical Research, 1838, I, 122-128); the monastery was first built for them by Justinian in 527 A.D. and his chapel still exists. Cosmas (Topographical Christ.), in the same reign, says that Rephidim was then called Pharan, and (distinguishing Horeb from Sinai, as Eusebius also does) he places it ‘about 6 miles from Pharan,’ and ‘near Sinai.’ These various considerations may suffice to show that the tradition as to Horeb is at least as old as the time of Josephus, and that it agrees with all the indications given in the Old Testament.

Lepsius’ Theory: Lepsius, it is true (Letters from Egypt, 1842-1844), denying the existence of any unbroken tradition, and relying on his understanding of Cosmas, supposed Sinai to be the Jebel Serbal above mentioned, which lies immediately South of Wady Feiran. His main argument was that, visiting Sinai in March, he considered that the vicinity did not present sufficient water for Israel (Appendix B, 303-318). But, on this point, it is sufficient to give the opinion of the late F.W. Holland, based on the experience of four visits, in 1861, 1865, 1867-1868.

He says (Recovery of Jerusalem, 524): ‘With regard to water supply there is no other spot in the whole Peninsula which is nearly so well supplied as the neighborhood of Jebel Musa. Four streams of running water are found there: one in Wady Leja; a second in Wady et Tl’ah which waters a succession of gardens extending more than 3 miles in length, and forms pools in which I have often had a swim; a third stream rises to the North of the watershed of the plain of er Rachah and runs West into Wady et Tl’ah; and a fourth, is formed by the drainage from the mountains of Umm Alawy, to the East of Wady Sebaiyeh and finds its way into that valley by a narrow ravine opposite Jebel el Deir. In addition to these streams there are numerous wells and springs, affording excellent water throughout the whole of the granitie district. I have seldom found it necessary to carry water when making a mountain excursion, and the intermediate neighborhood of Jebel Masa would, I think, bear comparison with many mountain districts in Scotland with regard to its supply of water. There is also no other district in the Peninsula which affords such excellent pasturage.’ This is important, as Israel encamped near Sinai from the end of May till April of the next year. There is also a well on the lower slope of Jebel Musa itself, where the ascent begins. [underlining mine]

Greene’s Theory: Another theory, put forward by Mr. Baker Greene (The Hebrew Migration from Egypt), though accepted by Dr. Sayce (Higher Cricitism, 1894, 268), appears likewise to be entirely untenable. Mr. Greene supposed Elim (Exo. 15:27) to be Elath (Deut. 2:8), now ‘Ailah at the head of the Gulf of ‘Akabah; and that Sinai therefore was some unknown mountain in Midian. But in this case Israel would in 4 days (see Exo. 15:22, 23, 27) have traveled a distance of 200 miles to reach Elim, which cannot but be regarded as quite impossible for the Hebrews when accompanied by women, children, flocks and herds.

From the 1988 Edition: ... The name of the sacred mountain before which Israel encamped at the time of the lawgiving and the establishing of the [marriage] covenant relationship. The Hebrew is sometimes qualified by the words har, ‘hill’ or ‘mountain,’ or migbar, ‘desert.’ The origin of the name is uncertain; some have suggested that it is related etymologically either to Heb. seneh, ‘thornbush,’ or to the Babylonian Sin, the ancient Semitic moon-deity. Neither of these suggestions seems particularly satisfactory, however, and ‘Sinai’ is less likely the name of a mountain than the normal designation of one particular peak in the Sinai wilderness. In several OT passages both the desolate Rephidim area to the northwest and the mountain itself are called ‘Horeb’ (Heb. Horeb, from a root meaning a ‘desolate region’ or ‘ruin’), a feature that is prominent in Deut. (1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15; etc.) although present elsewhere in the Pentateuch (Exo. 3:1; 17:6; 33:6). In many instances ‘Sinai’ and ‘Horeb’ are used synonymously; where a distinction appears, the mountain itself is Sinai and the neighboring wilderness area bears the wider designation Horeb.

I. In the OT. The covenant between God and Israel was established at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19-24). When the divine presence was revealed to the people, it was accompanied by seismic disturbances and a cloud of smoke that came down upon the mountain (19:16-18). Deut. 1:2 records that the journey from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea by way of Mt. Seir took eleven days. This distance has been confirmed independently by modem scholarship, on the assumption that the route went from the traditional Sinai (Jebel Musa) to Dhahab on the east coast of the Sinai Peninsula, then north toward Edom and across to Kadesh-barnea (‘Ain Qudeis).

In the time of Ahab of Israel (874-853 B.C.) a discouraged and apprehensive Elijah made a pilgrimage to Horeb for spiritual enlightenment (I Ki. 19:8). Perhaps the detailed list of Stations between the mountain and Kadesh as found in Num. 33:16-37 had been preserved with such care because religious pilgrimages similar to Elijah’s were undertaken more often in the early days of Israel’s nationhood, although such journeys were not recorded.

II. Traditional Location. For about fifteen hundred years the sacred mountain of the lawgiving has been located by tradition in the rugged terrain at the apex of the Sinai Peninsula. In the 4th cent. A.D. the area attracted small settlements of monks and received some prominence through the reports of an Egyptian pilgrim named Ammonius, who visited Sinai ca. 373, having previously traveled to the holy places of Palestine. During Justinian’s reign (527-565) the association of Sinai with Jebel Musa, the ‘mountain of Moses,’ became firmly established. Justinian established the present St. Catherine’s monastery on the northwest slope of Jebel Musa to replace a smaller church built two centuries earlier.

Leaving the ancient Egyptian mining center of Serabit el-Khadim, perhaps to be identified with Dophkah, and journeying to the southeast, the traveler enters a wide valley called er-Raha. This area is much like a small plain, being about 3 km. (2 mi.) long, nearly 11 km. (7 mi.) wide, and about 1.5 sq. km. (1 sq. mi.) in area. It would have been the only natural area for the encampment of Israel before the sacred mountain (Exo. 19:1; Num. 33:15). Rising majestically over the plain of er-Raba are the steep ascents of Ras es-Safsafeh, with a valley on each side. This elevation, which is approximately 6540 ft., comprises the northwest summit of the granite ridge stretching about 3 km. (2 mi.) southeast, where Jebel Musa completes the formation and towers to a height of about 7500 ft. Southwest of Jebel Musa is the elevation known as Jebel Katerin, ‘Mt. of St. Catherine,’ which rises another 300 m. (1000 ft.) above Jebel Musa. The Monastery of St. Catherine is located between these two mountains.

The heart of the problem is that the etymology of Sinai is not known. Horeb is clearly a Semitic word, meaning ‘dryness, drought, heat,’ and ‘dry ground, waste, and desolation’ (BDB, and thus seems to be a good descriptive term for the Sinai Peninsula or a specific pan of it. ‘Sinai’ might be connected with the name of the Egyptian frontier city Sin, called Heb. sin in Ex. 16:1. Another suggested root for Sinai is seneh, ‘bush,’ used of the burning bush in Exo. 3:2; according to this proposal the area was named for the bushes that covered it. Neither proposal has been accepted with any degree of confidence.

“‘Sinai’ is used both for the area (wilderness of Sinai, sixteen times in the Pentateuch) and for the mountain (fourteen times in the Pentateuch). ‘Horeb,’ however, is used primarily as the name of the area. Only once in the OT is the mountain called Horeb (Exo. 33:6; cf. also 2 Esd. 2:33 [AV Oreb]), and that might be a shortened form (either deliberate or accidental) for the fuller expression ‘the mountain of God, Horeb’ (cf. 3:1; I Ki. 19:8). In Exo. 3:1, where the term Horeb first appears, Moses is said to come to ‘the mountain of God horebah.’ The directional ‘h’ at the end of the word for Horeb suggests that Horeb was not the name of the mountain but of the area in which the mountain was located. This leads to the suggestion that both Horeb and Sinai are names for the general area, Horeb clearly a Semitic term and Sinai possibly a name used by some other people. A place having two different names representing different languages or ethnic groups is known elsewhere in the ancient Near East (K. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and OT [1966J, p. 124). A good example is the city of Hebron (Semitic name), which was also known as Kiriath-arba (Indo-European name: see Y. Arbeitman. ‘The Hittite is their Mother: An Anatolian Approach to Gen. 23.’ in Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistics Science IV. 889ff.).

III. Problems of Identification. The traditional interpretation has identified Ras es-Safsafeh with Mt. Horeb and Jebel Musa with Mt. Sinai. Although the two elevations may be considered twin peaks of one large mountain the association of Horeb in some OT passages with wilderness areas seems to preclude its identification with Ras es- Safsafeh. Nevertheless, this peak has certain topographical features favoring its identification with Sinai. From the plain of er-Raba the summit of Ras es-Safsafeh can best be reached by means of a detour up a steep ravine called ‘Jethro’s path’ (Sikkel Shu’eib) near the northeast end of the range. Descending from this point Moses and Joshua could have heard the summit of the camp in er-Raba prior to witnessing it (Exo. 32:15-18). Jebel Musa has the double disadvantage of being about 5 km. (3 mi.) from the plain of er-Raba and of having the view from its summit restricted by other peaks to the east, south and west. The prospect northwest along the ridge extends beyond the peak of Ras es-Safsafeh to the distant horizon. No pan of the plain of er-Raba can be seen from Jebel Musa; there is, however, a smaller and more elevated plain beneath its highest part that could have witnessed the events connected with the lawgiving. Thus it is possible that the Israelites did not assemble on the plain of er-Riba.

From Jebel Katerin, another peak, the view is obstructed only by the peak of Jebel Umm Shomer to the south: the Gulf of Suez and Egypt can be seen to the west and the Gulf of Aqabah and Arabia to the east. The principal difficulty with both Ras es-Safsafeh and Jebel Katerin is that neither appears to have been regarded as a holy mountain until well into the Christian era. Jebel Musa, on the other hand, seems to have enjoyed special sanctity long before Christian times, culminating in its identification with Mt. Sinai, quite aside from the weight of tradition. The granite formations of the mountain are so imposing that they lend support to this identification. In addition the presence of a few stations on the way to Jebel Musa that are traditionally associated with the wilderness wanderings point to the same conclusion.

IV. Other Identifications. Because of the apparently volcanic phenomena associated with the giving of the law on Sinai, some nineteenth century scholars thought that the most acceptable identification was with a volcanic peak near al-Hrob. But this opinion has fallen into disrepute because it makes the route of the Exodus virtually impossible to reconstruct and because it reads far too much into the phenomena of Exo. 19:11-25. Another view located Sinai at Jebel Serbal, some distance west of the Jebel Musa – Ras es-Safsafeh ridge, where the early Christian center of Pharan was situated. This identification was repudiated by the Peregrinatio Silvae (ca. A.D. 388), which specifically locates the ‘mount of God’ 35 Roman mi. from Pharan (Feiran), this is the actual distance between the oasis in the Wadi Feiran and Jebel Musa.

Volcanic interpretation of Exo. 19:16, 18 has led some to place Sinai in northwest Arabia, near Midian, where the nearest volcanoes active in historical times are located. Another argument supporting this site involves Moses’ marriage into a Midianite family (Exo. 3:1; 18:5-11). ... But Midianite territory as such was too far north of the Sinai Peninsula proper to furnish the kind of topographical isolation from Egyptian influence that depicted by the narratives of the wilderness sojourn. Furthermore, volcanic interpretation of the events of Exo. 19:16, 18 might well read too much into the narrative.

Yet another suggested location for Mt. Sinai is one of the mountains near Kadesh-barnea. This identification is based partly on the occasional OT association of Sinai with Seir, Mt. Paran, and even Teman, a town in Edom, as places of divine revelation (Deut. 33:2; ... Hab. 3:3). In addition, the association of Rephidim with Meribah – the latter being placed rather arbitrarily in the Kadesh-barnea area – as well as the Edomite king’s apparent claim to territory on both sides of the Arabah at the time of the wilderness wanderings (Num. 20:14-16) seem to support such a location. But since the tradition of producing water from the rock is narrated twice (Exo. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13) and may actually have occurred even more frequently, too much geographical reliance ought not to be placed upon attempts to associate the incident in Exo. 17 with the area of Kadesh-barnea. Scholars have also argued that Sinai should be placed near Kadesh-barnea because Moses asked Pharaoh’s permission to make a three-day journey into the wilderness to sacrifice (Exo. 5:1-3). This consideration has gained some currency in academic circles but is completely irrelevant in any discussion of the location of Sinai. The ‘holy mount’ is not even mentioned in the request, and neither Kadesh nor Jebel Musa can be reached from the eastern delta region in three days’ travel on foot. [underlining mine]

Indeed, Moses’ request on behalf of Israel can be defined into any of the proposed locations for Sinai. None of the encampments of the wilderness wanderings can be meaningful if the Israelites went directly to either Kadesh or Midian. Again, locating Sinai elsewhere than at Jebel Musa would leave the ancient traditions about that mountain unexplained. Finally, the reference in Deut. 1:2 to a journey of eleven days from Kadesh to Horeb can be properly understood only in relationship to the southern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. On balance, therefore, the identification of Mt. Sinai with Jebel Musa, as traditionally maintained, seems the most satisfactory.” R.K. Harrison & J. K. Hoffmeier [end of quotation].

Of all of these proposed places as being the Mountain of Moses, only one fits the bill, and that is Jebel Musa! There are critical criteria for choosing this particular mountain: (1) Musa is Arabic for “Mount of Moses”, (2) Jebel Musa has a large plain at its base, suitable for a camping site for the 2½ to 3 million Israelites, plus their pitched tents, including all of their cattle, (3) along with a generous water supply, and (4) is compatible with a Red Sea (Gulf of Suez) Migdol-Tor crossing.

Ron Wyatt claimed the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez, and identified a wrong Jabel el Lawz on the wrong side of the Gulf of Aqaba to be Mt. Sinai, as well as claiming the Israelites left Egypt unprepared for food and water, claiming they purchased food from passing caravans! [pile it higher and higher]


Watchman's Teaching Letter #154 February 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been continuing a long and involved series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. After a general overview, I began a more detailed study of the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. Strange as it might seem, this account is one of the most neglected stories in our Bible. In the process of time, we Israelites disregarded the terms of our marriage to Yahweh and became an unfaithful wife, whereupon our Husband had no alternative other than to give us a bill of divorce (or be put away and punished for a period of 2520 years). However, He did provide a way for us to return to His favor, it was not an easy one, and has taken quite some time to transpire!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 18

THE MARRIAGE” continued:

ISRAEL’S ARRIVAL AT MT. SINAI, WHERE HER WEDDING TO YAHWEH WOULD FINALLY TAKE PLACE:

In the last lesson (WTL #153), it was established that the most likely location where this wedding took place is now called Jebel Musa, being the Biblical Mt. Sinai. I am partial to this location as Yahweh saw fit to preserve the manuscript codex Sinaiticus there, and the codex Sinaiticus is the oldest, best, and most complete manuscript of the New Testament that we have. Things like this simply don’t happen by accident! Not only that, but Jebel Musa fits all the criteria needed to harmonize with the Exodus account. As I stated in WTL #153:

Ron Wyatt claimed the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez, and identified a wrong Jebel el Lawz on the wrong side of the Gulf of Aqaba to be Mt. Sinai, as well as claiming the Israelites left Egypt unprepared for food and water, claiming they purchased food from passing caravans!” Are we to believe that our Almighty would instruct Moses to lead 2½ to 3 million Israelites with women, children and old with infirmities out into a barren desert without provisions for food, water and camping necessities? If Ron Wyatt would take a sample of Christ’s blood to an Israeli lab for testing (which I believe to be a lie), he has to be mentally incompetent, as Christ said of the Canaanites claiming to be of the tribe of Judah, “... there is no truth in him ...”, John 8:44! If Ron Wyatt had Christ’s blood tested (which I consider a lie), why didn’t he take a like sample to a second lab to verify the findings of the first lab? After all, where are the second and third witness that are required by Yahweh’s law to settle a matter (Deut. 17:6)? That is why, when a man and a woman get married today, two witnesses are required by the state.

Also, I believe that the reader might be interested in Eli James’ position concerning Yahweh marrying the twelve tribes of Israel. On one of his Talkshoe programs, Eli and Ken Gregg argued that Yahweh the Father and Yahshua the Son were two different persons, and I sent both of them an E-mail asking them, “what about Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel?” And I told them that if Yahweh and Yahshua were two different persons, then in the New Testament, the Son is going to marry His Fathers wife! The following is the answer I got back from Eli:

March 8, 2009 10:50 PM ... Clifton: “To call an argument ‘absurd,’ you must provide reasons for why the logic fails. Simply declaring something to be ‘absurd’ does not make it so! The ‘marriage’ cannot be literal; and your insistence that we agree with you is Pharisaic! You have not at all addressed how it can be literal. Until you do, your argument fails. Deut. 26 doesn’t say anything about marriage. It is merely an agreement to obey His laws. Your whole argument hinges on the literalness of the ‘divorce,’ but you cannot prove the literalness of the ‘marriage.’ Clifton: you still don’t get it! You’re the one who brought sex into the picture by declaring Yahweh to be literally married to Israel. No Israelite can be considered married until the sex act is performed. Not so? If I am wrong, prove it. Please answer the question! Lest you imitate our enemies too much, I will remind you that evasiveness is a Jewish tactic. And if there is no ‘marriage,’ there can be no ‘divorce.’ The references are figurative, not literal. You haven’t proven anything, as I knew you couldn’t. And what about Gen. 3:15? Isn't that about sex? Are any and all references to sex ‘Jewish’.[sic ?] Clifton, you are being silly! And it’s because you have no real argument against the Scriptures I cited. You have not addressed a single one of them. Until you do, your argument must be considered a failure. I challenge you to answer this question: Is GREATER THAN the same concept as EQUAL TO? You know that answer to that question as well as I do; but since your argument requires the question to be ignored, you refuse to answer it. ... Yah bless, Eli.”

In an E-mail back to Eli and Ken, I stated in part:

3-8-09; To Eli James & Ken Gregg, There was indeed a marriage ceremony taken between Yahweh and the twelve tribes of Israel at Duet. 26:17-18:

“‘17 Thou hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy God, 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.’

Eli & Ken, when you bring sex into the picture concerning Yahweh’s marriage to Israel, you are thinking like a Canaanite-jew.

Not only that, but if Christ (Yahweh in the flesh) marries anyone other than Israel, it would be a form of adultery called in the Greek, fornication! This is not even bringing up the fact that Mary contributed only 23 chromosomes of the 46 necessary to have formed Yahshua (again part Adam man and part Yahweh in the flesh). Therefore, Yahweh became our kinsman by blood. How about that marriage? Mary contributing only 23 Chromosomes would only produce a half of a person. Where did the other 23 chromosomes come from?”

The following is what I wrote in WTL #134:

Some will argue that it would be impossible for Yahweh to consummate His marriage with Israel! If you are one of those who assume as much, think again! As a matter of fact, He consummated it the second day of the marriage! Those of us who know the Scripture are aware that a thousand years to Yahweh is but one day, and approximately 1400 years (or 1 & 4/10th day) after He married the twelve tribes of Israel, Yahweh, in one of His three manifestations (the Holy Spirit, Matt. 1:20) caused Mary, the mother of Christ, to become pregnant without sexual intercourse. But nevertheless the marriage of Yahweh to Israel was consummated, and the offspring was both God and Adam-man, or Yahweh in the flesh! Not only was the marriage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel foreordained before the foundation of the world, but also the consummation that would bring about the birth of Christ!” So, Eli, there’s my “proof”, and it was “literal”! And if I would proclaim it was not “literal”, I would be antichrist!

Further evidence of Yahweh’s “literal” marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel can be found at Exodus 6:7 thusly: “And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.”

If Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel was only figurative, as Eli James insists, it would not have been necessary for Him to adhere to His own marriage laws. If Eli is correct, then Yahweh’s divorce of the twelve tribes has no significance whatsoever, nor would His coming in the flesh as Yahshua to die for us avail for a reconciliation, and we would be forever separated from Yahweh without any hope for salvation! Eli’s words were, “The references are figurative, not literal. You haven’t proven anything, as I knew you couldn’t.” If that is true, Eli, then our reconciliation to Yahweh is figurative! Also, if Eli is correct, Christ Himself was figurative, and didn’t come in the flesh!

While I was researching for this lesson, I was pleasantly surprised when I consulted Adam Clarke’s 6-volume unabridged Commentary on the 19th chapter of Exodus. While Clarke is not 100% perfect, I was amazed how his findings agree with what I have studied on the subject I’m addressing. We have to also take into consideration that he didn’t understand his identity as a true Israelite, nor did he comprehend that those calling themselves “Jews” during his time were not Israelites, but rather Kenite, Canaanite and Khazar in nature. Nor did he comprehend that the covenant made with the twelve tribes of Israel was a marriage covenant! I will next cite Clarke in vol. 1, pages 397-398, and after citing him, I will show where we agree:

NOTES ON CHAP. XIX

Verse 1. In the third month] This was called Sivan, and answers to our May. ...

The same day] There are three opinions concerning the meaning of this place, which are supported by respectable arguments. 1. The same day means the same day of the third month with that, viz., the 15th, on which the Israelites had left Egypt. 2. The same day signifies here a day of the same number with the month to which it is applied, viz., the third day of the third month. 3. By the same day, the first day of the month is intended. The Jews [sic Israelites] celebrate the feast of pentecost fifty days after the passover: from the departure out of Egypt to the coming to Sinai were forty-five days; for they came out the fifteenth day of the first month, from which day to the first of the third month forty-five days are numbered. On the 2nd day of this third month Moses went up into the mountain, when three days were given to the people to purify themselves; this gives the fourth day of the third month, or the forty-ninth from the departure out of Egypt. On the next day, which was the fiftieth from the celebration of the passover, the glory of God appeared on the mount; in commemoration of which the Jews [sic Israelites] celebrate the feast of pentecost. This is the opinion of St. Augustine and of several moderns, and is defended at large by Houbigant. As the word הדש chodesh, month, is put for new moon, which is with the Jews [sic Israelites] the first day of the month, this may be considered an additional confirmation of the above opinion.

The wilderness of Sinai.] Mount Sinai is called by the Arabs Jibel Mousa or the Mount of Moses, or, by way of eminence, El Tor, The Mount. It is one hill, with two peaks or summits; one is called Horeb, the other Sinai. Horeb was probably its most ancient name, and might designate the whole mountain; but as the Lord had appeared to Moses on this mountain in a bush סנה seneh, chap. iii. 2, from this circumstance it might have received the name of Sinai or הר סיניhar Sinai, the mount of the bush or the mount of bushes; for it is possible that it was not in a single bush, but in a thicket of bushes, that the Angel of God made his appearance. The word bush is often used for woods or forests.

Verse 3. Moses went up unto God] It is likely that the cloud which had conducted the Israelitish camp had now removed to the top of Sinai; and as this was the symbol of the Divine presence, Moses went up to the place, there to meet the Lord.

The Lord called unto him] This, according to St. Stephen, was the Angel of the Lord, Acts vii. 38. And from several scriptures we have seen that the Lord Jesus was the person intended; see [Clark’s] the notes on Gen. xvi. 7; xviii. 13; Exod. iii. 2.

Verse 4. How I bare you on eagles’ wings] Mr. Bruce contends that the word נשר nesher does not mean the bird we term eagle; but a bird which the Arabs, from its kind and merciful disposition, call rachama, which is noted for its care of its young, and its carrying them upon its back. See his Travels, vol. vii., pl. 33. It is not unlikely that from this part of the sacred history the heathens borrowed their fable of the eagle being a bird sacred to Jupiter, and which was employed to carry the souls of departed heroes, kings, &c., into the celestial regions. The Romans have struck several medals with this device, which may be seen in different cabinets, among which are the following: one of Faustina, daughter of Antoninus Pius, on the reverse of which she is represented ascending to heaven on the back of an eagle; and another of Salonia, daughter of the Emperor Galienus, on the reverse of which she is represented on the back of an eagle, with a scepter in her hand, ascending to heaven. Jupiter himself is sometimes represented on the back of an eagle also, with his thunder in his hand, as on a medal of Licinus. This brings us nearer to the letter of the text, where it appears that the heathens confounded the figure made use of by the sacred penman, I bare you on eagles’ wings, with the manifestation of God in thunder and lightning on Mount Sinai. And it might be in reference to all this that the Romans took the eagle for their ensign. See Scheuchzer, Fusellius, &c.

Brought you unto myself.] In this and the two following verses, we see the design of God in selecting a people for himself. 1. They were to obey his voice, ver. 5, to receive a revelation from him, and to act according to that revelation, and not according to their reason or fancy, in opposition to his declarations. 2. They were to obey his voice indeed, שמוע תשמעו shamoa tishmeu, in hearing they should hear; they should consult his testimonies, hear them whenever read or proclaimed, and obey them as soon as heard, affectionately and steadily. 3. They must keep his covenant – not only copy in their lives the ten commandments, but they must receive and preserve the grand agreement made between God and man by sacrifice, in reference to the incarnation and death of Christ; for from the foundation of the world the covenant of God ratified by sacrifices referred to this, and now the sacrificial system was to be more fully opened by the giving of the law. 4. They should then be God’s peculiar treasure, סגלה segullah, his own patrimony, a people in whom he should have all right, and over whom he should have exclusive authority above all the people of the earth ... as receiving his revelation and entering into his covenant. 5. They should be a kingdom of priests, ver. 6. Their state should be a theocracy; and as God should be the sole governor, being king in Jeshurun, so all his subjects should be priests, all worshippers, all sacrificers, every individual offering up the victim for himself. A beautiful representation of the Gospel dispensation, to which the Apostles Peter and John apply it, 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6; v. 10, and xx. 6; under which dispensation every believing soul offers up for himself that Lamb of God which was slain for and which takes away the sin of the world, and through which alone a man can have access to God.

Verse 6. And a holy nation.] They should be a nation, one people; firmly united among themselves, living under their own laws; and powerful, because united, and acting under the direction and blessing of God. They should be a holy nation, saved from their sins, righteous in their conduct, holy in their hearts; every external rite being not only a significant ceremony, but also a means of conveying light and life, grace and peace, to every person who conscientiously used it. Thus they should be both a kingdom, having God for their governor; and a nation, a multitude of peoples connected together; not a scattered, disordered, and disorganized people, but a royal nation, using their own rites, living under their own laws, subject in religious matters only to God, and in things civil, to every ordinance of man for God’s sake.

This was the spirit and design of this wonderful institution, which could not receive its perfection but under the Gospel, and has its full accomplishment in every member of the mystical body of Christ.

Verse 7. The elders of the people] The head of each tribe, and the chief of each family, by whose ministry this gracious purpose of God was speedily communicated to the whole camp.

Verse 8. And all the people answered, &c.] The people, having such gracious advantages laid before them, most cheerfully consented to take God for their portion; as he had graciously promised to take them for his people. Thus a covenant was made, the parties being mutually bound to each other.”

As I promised before quoting this passage from Clarke’s Commentary, I will now show where we are in agreement:

In his notes on verse 1, “In the third month” and “The same day”, he cites the same passage that James L. Porter used to reconstruct the first three months of Israel’s Sacred Calendar from the original Passover until the original Day of Pentecost. Clarke cited what he termed “three respectable arguments”, none of which were correct. Had Clarke, with the data he had at hand, would have reconstructed a Hebrew calendar of 30 + 29 + 30 monthly days and carefully counted 49 days after the Sabbath in the original Passover week, he would have arrived at the 8th day of the third month, with Israel arriving at Mt. Sinai on the 4th weekly day of the 3rd month, giving them time to wash and sanctify themselves for the wedding ceremony on the original day of Pentecost. Therefore Clarke was partly correct where he stated: “Moses went up into the mountain, when three days were given to the people to purify themselves ...”. In other words, it was three days to purify themselves, and a fourth day for the wedding, which was 8th day of the 3rd month.

Then Clarke makes the comment: “The wilderness of Sinai.] Mount Sinai is called by the Arabs Jibel Mousa or the Mount of Moses, or, by way of eminence, El Tor, The Mount. It is one hill, with two peaks or summits; one is called Horeb, the other Sinai. Horeb was probably its most ancient name, and might designate the whole mountain; but as the Lord had appeared to Moses on this mountain in a bush ...”. Although Clarke has a slightly different spelling for Jebel Musa, it is indeed an Arabic name for “Mount of Moses”.

Clarke is not alone on this description, as we also find a similar account in The New Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge at Exodus 19:2:

2 Rephidim. 17:1, 8 the desert. Mount Sinai, called by the Arabs Jibel Mousa, the Mountain of Moses, and sometimes by way of eminence, El Tor, the Mount, is a range of mountains in the peninsula formed by the gulfs of the Red Sea. It consists of several peaks, the principal of which are Horeb and Sinai; the former, still called Oreb, being on the west, and the latter, called Tur Sina, on the east, at the foot of which is the convent of St. Catherine.”

Ibid. Exodus 15:27: “Elim. This was on the northern skirts of the desert of Sin, and, according to Dr. Shaw, two leagues from Tor, and near 30 from Corondel ....”

Also, cautiously from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia on the Internet we find the following at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El-Tor

El-Tor (also transliterated as Al-Tur & At-Tur, Arabic: also known as Tur Sinai, formerly Raithu, is the capital of South Sinai Governorate of Egypt, located at the Sinai Peninsula. The name of the city comes from the Arabic name of the mountain where the prophet Moses received the tablets from God; this mountain is called Jabal Al Tor. ...

The Raithu desert is situated around El-Tor, between Saint Katherine city and the Red Sea. It is part of the Archdiocese of Mount Sinai and Raithu of the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The ‘Martyrs of Raithu’ were 43 anchorites slain by Nomadic Tribes in the Roman Era of Diocletian. Christian monks fleeing persecutions had been present since the 3rd century, and the Raithu monastery (or Rutho) was commissioned in the 6th century by Byzantine emperor Justinian. ....”

What we have here is data that blows Ron Wyatt clean out of the water two times, as El Tor is located in the exact same place that C.C. Robertson places it in his On The Track Of The Exodus, for the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (i.e., the Gulf of Suez), plus substantial evidence that Wyatt’s discovery of Mt. Sinai was in the wrong place.

I am sorry, I can’t agree with Adam Clarke where he stated, “Mr. Bruce contends that the word נשר nesher does not mean the bird we term eagle; but a bird which the Arabs, from its kind and merciful disposition, call rachama, which is noted for its care of its young, and its carrying them upon its back.” I would rather believe the eagle being spoken of is the kind we read about at Deut. 32:11-12, where it states:

11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: 12 So Yahweh alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.” Clarke also refers to Mr. Bruce on this passage, and I still can’t agree with him. What we should notice of at Deut. 32:12 is that, at the time, it is referring to Israel as having “no strange god with him”, meaning the honeymoon period. This indicates that at that time all Israel, as a wife, was still faithful to Yahweh!

Eli, is Hosea speaking of something figuratively at 2:7?: “And she [Israel] 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”?

Again, Eli, at Isaiah 54:4-8, is Isaiah speaking of something figurative?: 4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. 5 For thy Maker is thine husband; Yahweh of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. 6 For Yahweh hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. 7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. 8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith Yahweh thy Redeemer”?

Eli, could you explain what is figurative about the above passage?: “... shame of thy youth ... reproach of thy widowhood ... thy Maker is thine husband ... thy Redeemer ... woman forsaken ... a wife of youth ... have I forsaken thee ... will I gather thee ... I hid my face from thee ... will I have mercy on thee ...”.

Again, Eli, is Jeremiah 3:20 figurative where it states: “Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith Yahweh”?

Again, Eli, is Hosea 2:2 figurative where it states: “Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts ...”?

Again, Eli, is Malachi 2:11, 14-15 figurative where it states: 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. ... 14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth”?

Eli, what is there about 1st Peter 2:5-9 (especially verse 9), that you don’t seem to understand?: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (Revised Standard Version).

Eli, what is there about Hosea at 2:23 that you don’t seem to understand?: “And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.? (KJV)

Eli, what is there about 2 Corinthians 11:2, which the apostle Paul wrote, that you don’t seem to understand?: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” Eli, please explain how Christ was figurative when he ate “fish” and “honeycomb” after His resurrection, Luke 24:42. Also, please explain why Christ told Thomas, “... for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have ...”, Luke 24:39, if He were figurative, I would contend that Yahweh in the flesh was literal, and He married the literal twelve tribes of Israel! So what’s figurative about that?

Eli, what is there about Deut. 26:17-19 that you don’t seem to understand?: 17 Thou hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy God, 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; 19 And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto Yahweh thy God, as he hath spoken”, (KJV). Eli, what is figurative about this passage? How can anyone deny that this is language used in a marriage ceremony? Eli, what’s figurative about “in name”?

Eli, what is there about Exodus 24:3-8 that you don’t seem to understand?: 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which Yahweh hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto Yahweh. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that Yahweh hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh hath made with you concerning all these words.” Eli, what is figurative about this passage? How can anyone deny that this is language used in a marriage ceremony? And neither Yahweh nor the children of Israel are figurative here!

Eli, what is there about Exod. 19:1, 3-6 that you don’t seem to understand?: 1 In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. ... 3 And Moses went up unto God, and Yahweh called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my [marriage] covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel”? Eli, what is figurative about this passage? How can anyone deny that this is language used in a marriage ceremony? And neither Yahweh nor the children of Israel are figurative here!

Eli, what is there about Ezekiel 16:8-15 that you don’t seem to understand?: 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith Yahweh God, and thou becamest mine. 9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. 10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith Yahweh God. 15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.”

With this passage we have a description of the loveliness of Yahweh’s beautiful Cinderella bride (before she played the harlot). And how could any man desire a more beautiful woman than depicted by Ezekiel? Truly, the Israelite women are the most beautiful in all the world! Eli, what is figurative about this passage? How can anyone deny that this is language used in a marriage ceremony? And neither Yahweh nor any of the tribes of Israel are figurative!

Concerning Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, when Paul was addressing the Israelite Romans (of the tribe of Zerah-Judah) at Rom. 7:2-4, he stated: 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.”

It is simply amazing that Eli James would demand that Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel be figurative, when both entities are fleshly beings. To declare that Yahweh in the flesh was not Yahshua is antichrist! And Christ was still in the flesh after His resurrection! Eli must still hold to his view, as he has never sent me an E-mail modifying his position! Now there are many areas where Eli and I agree, but this is not one of them, and I’m not about to sit idly by while Eli intimates that Christ was neither literally Yahweh in the flesh, nor literally Israel’s Husband! For myself, I do not apologize for my position, as I have researched it thoroughly and have no regret, as consummation was “literally” complete with Mary’s pregnancy!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #155 March 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137 with a general overview, followed by a more detailed seven stages of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. While this subject is of utmost significance, very few are aware of its importance in the context of Scripture. Of all of the descendants of Adam and Eve (who are the White nations of Genesis chapter 10), only the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were chosen by Him to marry as His wife. But the wife (the twelve tribes of Israel) would prove to be unfaithful, and Yahweh had no other choice except to divorce her. However, Yahweh provided a way back (that being His death as Yahshua on the cross). The divorce (i.e., put away in punishment) would last for a period of 2520 years.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 19

THE MARRIAGE” continued:

ISRAEL’S ARRIVAL AT MT. SINAI, WHERE HER WEDDING TO YAHWEH WOULD FINALLY TAKE PLACE:

With the last few lessons, we have established where Israel crossed the Red Sea (at the Gulf of Suez), and the highly probable location of Mt. Sinai. In the last WTL #154, I quoted several passages which confirm that Yahweh literally took the 12 tribes of Israel as His Cinderella bride! Why else would Yahweh so rigorously adhere to His own marriage laws at Exodus chapter 18, if His marriage to the twelve tribes were only figurative? And the argument that Yahweh didn’t consummate His marriage doesn’t hold water, as Yahweh in His manifestation of the Holy Spirit got Mary (the mother of Christ) pregnant with child, Luke 1:26-33! Is it too hard to understand that Yahweh would consummate His marriage to Israel? Not only did He consummate His marriage, He sought marriage with Israel according to Mal. 2:15-16 which states:

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For Yahweh, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith Yahweh of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

Here we see that Yahweh desired a “godly seed” for the mother of His Son, and only an Israelite lady like Mary would qualify, for He (Yahweh) wanted His “godly seed” to be a perfect “kind after kind” with a full complement of 46 chromosomes. The first question on verse 15 is, “And did not he make one?” followed by a second question, “And wherefore one?” We also notice here that, “... he hateth putting away ...”, so we can know for sure that Yahweh was quite disappointed when he had no other alternative but to divorce both Israel and Judah by putting them away in punishment for 2520 years! Just as every racially pure male Israelite should desire a “goodly seed”, so also did Yahweh. So, what is the answer to, “And did not he make one? We find the answer at Matt. 19:4-6:

4 And he [Christ] answered and said unto them [the Pharisees], Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Now these are Christ’s own red-letter spoken words as they are presented in my KJV, and my center reference takes me to Gen. 1:27; 5:2 & Mal. 2:15, so Gen. 1:26-27 is not speaking of “two creations”, nor some kind of “narrowed down Cro-Magnon Caucasoid”, as Eli James aka Joseph November would have us believe! Yes, you heard me right! It is clear that Yahshua Christ was making reference to Gen. 1:26-27 when He addressed the Pharisees above, not some “chay” improperly applied by some from the Hebrew!

In order to show the reader how these passages are interrelated, I searched several commentaries for evidence to substantiate how they are in context with the overall Bible message. Many, in their endeavor to substantiate a defective premise, concentrate on a restricted portion of Scripture taken entirely out-of-context to somehow prove their thesis. I first checked with Adam Clarke’s 6-volume Commentary on Mal. 2:15-16, and he did quite well for the first few lines, but then his comments turned universalist in nature, which was contrary to the context. I then examined the 6-volume A Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on this same passage, and they did excellent on verses 1 through 14, but didn’t connect Mal. 2:15-16 with Christ’s words at Matt. 19:4-6. After consulting several sources, I turned to my 14-volumes of Barnes’ Notes under “Minor Prophets” (Micah to Malachi), vol. 2, by E.B. Pussy, pages 483-484. (And I would inform the reader that this is a reprint of a book originally published in 1847, nevertheless, Pussy shows himself a Bible scholar understanding its overall context, but I did have to do a minimal amount of editing which you will see in italicized brackets):

15. And did not He, God, of Whom he had spoken as the witness between man and his wife, make one, viz. Adam first, to mark the oneness of marriage and make it a law of nature, appointing ‘that out of man (created in His own image and similitude,) woman should take her beginning, and, knitting them together, did teach that it should never be lawful to put asunder those, whom He by matrimony had made one?’ ‘Between those two, and consequently between all other married, to be born from them, He willed that there should be one indivisible union; for Adam could be married to no other save Eve, since no other had been created by God, nor could Eve turn to any other man than Adam, since there was no other [Adamite] in the world. ‘Infringe not then this sanction of God, and unity of marriage, and degenerate not from your first parents, Adam and Eve.’ ‘If divorce had been good, Jesus says, God would not have made one man and one woman, but, having made one Adam, would have made two women, had He meant that he should cast out the one, bring in the other; but now by the mode of creation, He brought in this law, that each should have, throughout, the wife which he had from the beginning. This law is older than that about divorce, as much as Adam is older than Moses.’

Yet had he the residue of the spirit; the breath of life, which He breathed into Adam, and man became a living soul. All the souls, which God would ever create, are His, and He could have called them into being at once. Yet in order to designate the unity of marriage, He willed to create but one. So our Lord argues against divorce, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? They both together are called one man,and therefore should be of one mind and spirit also, the unity of which they ought faithfully to preserve.

And wherefore one? Seeking a seed of God, i.e. worthy of God; for from religious [sic kindred] marriage, religious [sic kindred] offspring; may most be hoped from God; and by violating that law, those before the flood brought in a spurious, unsanctified generation, so that God in His displeasure destroyed them all. And take heed to your spirit,which ye too had from God, which was His, and which He willed in time to create. He closes, as he began, with an appeal to man’s natural feeling, let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

16. He hateth putting away. He had allowed it for the hardness of their hearts, yet only in the one case of some extreme bodily foulness, discovered upon marriage, and which the woman, knowing the law, concealed at her own peril. Not subsequent illness or any consequences of it, however loathsome (as leprosy), were a ground of divorce, but only this concealed foulness, which the husband found upon marriage. The capricious tyrannical divorce, God saith, He hateth: a word naturally used only as to sin, and so stamping such divorce as sin.

One covereth violence with his garmentor, and violence covereth, his garment, or, it might be in the same sense, he covereth his garment with violence, so that it cannot be hid, nor washed away, nor removed, but envelopes him and his garment; and that, to his shame and punishment. It was, as it were, an outer garment of violence, as Asaph says, violence covereth them as a garment; or David, he clothed himself with cursing as with a garment. It was like a garment with fretting leprosy, unclean and making unclean, to be burned with fire. Contrariwise, the redeemed saints had washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb. Having declared God’s hatred of this their doing, he sums up in the same words, but more briefly; and this being so, ye shall take heed to your spirit, and not deal treacherously.” When we consider that this commentary was written in England near the time of America’s Civil War, we have to be amazed at the scholarship!

What we need to do now is examine verses 10 through 14 that preceded Mal. 2:15-16 which reads:

10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the [marriage] covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in [all twelve tribes of] Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 Yahweh will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto Yahweh of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy [marriage] covenant.”

What we have in the passage just quoted are two marriage covenants; one between Yahweh and His people Israel at verse 10, and another between a man and his wife at verse 14. If you don’t understand them, read it again! As I stated before the 6-volume A Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown did excellent on verses 1 through 14, so I will use them on verses 10 through 14, with a minimum of editing:

10. Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? – why, seeing we all have one common origin ‘do we deal treacherously against one another, especially in respect to the marriage relation (1 Thess. iv. 3-6). ‘His brother’ is a general expression, implying that all are ‘brethren’ and sisters as children of the same Father above, and thus includes the wives so injured. ‘We deal treacherously’ by putting away our Jewish [sic Judahite] wives and taking foreign women to wife (cf. v. 14 and v. 11; Ezra ix. 1-9) ; and so we violate ‘the covenant’ made by Jehovah [sic Yahweh] with ‘our fathers,’ by which it was ordained that we should be a people separated from the other peoples of the world (Exod. xix. 5; Lev. xx. 24, 26; Deut. vii. 3). Whilst there is an ulterior reference to the common Fatherhood of God in relation to all mankind, the primary reference here is to His common Fatherhood in relation to all alike of the covenant-people Israel (in the more special sense as their God and Father peculiarly). To intermarry with the heathen would defeat this purpose of Jehovah, [sic Yahweh] who was the common Father of the Israelites, in a peculiar sense in which He was not Father of the heathen. The ‘one Father’ is Jehovah [sic Yahweh] (Job xxxi. 15; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. iv. 6). ‘Created us’ implies not merely physical creation, but ‘created us’ to be His peculiar and chosen people. So ‘created’ is elsewhere used (Ps. cii. 18; Isa. xliii. 1; xlv. [4-]8; lx. 21; Eph. ii. 10). (Calvin.) How marked the contrast between the honour here done in the Word of God to the female sex, and the degradation to which Oriental females are generally subjected. Such a marked difference can only be accounted for by the fact that the Jews [sic Judahites] were under a direct Divine guidance, such as the Gentiles [sic heathen] did not enjoy. 11. Judah hath dealt treacherously – viz., in respect to the Jewish [sic Judahite] wives who were put away (v. 14; also v. 10, 15, 16). For Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved – by ill-treating the Israelites (viz., the wives), who were set apart as a people holy unto the Lord. ‘The holiness of the Lord’ means ‘the holy seed’ (Ezra ix. 2; cf. Jer. ii 3, ‘Israel was holiness unto the Lord’). Or, ‘the holiness of the Lord’ means His holy ordinance and covenant, forbidding marriages with the heathen (Deut. vii. 3). But ‘which he loved’ seems rather to refer to the holy people Israel, whom God so gratuitously loved (ch, i. 2), without merit on their part (Ps, xlvii. 4). Therefore the former explanation is preferable. and hath married the daughter of a strange god – (Ezra ix. 1, 2; x. 2; Neh. xiii. 23, &c.) the daughter of a strange god – i. e., women worshipping idols: as the worshipper in Scripture is regarded in the relation of a child to a father (Jer. ii 27, ‘Saying to a stock, Thou art my father’). The Jews [sic Judahites], as Nehemiah found on his return to Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 6), had ‘married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab.’ 12. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar [hn[w r[] – lit., ‘him that watcheth and him that answereth.’ So ‘wakeneth’ is used of the teacher or ‘master’ (Isa. 1. 4); masters are watchful in guarding their scholars. The reference is to the priests, who ought to have taught the people piety, but who led them into evil. ‘Him that answereth’ is the scholar who has to answer the questions of his teacher (Luke ii. 47). (Grotius.) The Arabs have a proverb, ‘None calling and none answering’ – i.e., there being no one alive. So Gesenius explains it of the Levite watches in the temple (Ps. cxxxiv. 1), one watchman, calling and another answering. But the scholar is rather the people, the pupils of the priests ‘in doing this’ – viz., forming unions with foreign wives. The clause – out of the tabernacles of Jacob – proves it is not the priests alone. God will spare neither priests nor people who act so. and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts – his offerings will not avail to shield him from the penalty of his sin in repudiating his Jewish [sic Judahite] wife and taking a foreign one. 13. And this have ye done again [tynX] – ‘a second time:’ an aggravation of your offence (Neh. xiii 23-30), in that it is a relapse into the sin already checked once under Ezra (Ezra ix. 1-10). (Henderson.) Or, again, ‘a second time’ – means this: your first sin was your blemished offerings to the Lord; now ‘again’ is added your sin towards your wives (Calvin.) I prefer the former view. Malachi supported Nehemiah in his second reformation of the people, after the former work of reformation had been undone during his absence at the court of Persia (Neh. xiii. 5, 6). covering the altar of the Lord with tears – shed by your unoffending wives, repudiated by you that ye might take foreign wives. Calvin makes the tears to be those of all the people, on perceiving their sacrifices to be sternly rejected by God. I prefer the former view. 14. Yet ye say, Wherefore? – why does God reject our offerings? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife – (so Gen. xxxi. 49, 50). of thy youth. The Jews [those who are jews now, not Judah] marry very young, the husband often being but thirteen years of age, the wife younger (Prov. v. 18; Isa. liv. 6). yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant – not merely joined to thee by the marriage-covenant generally, but by the covenant between God and Israel, the covenant-people, whereby a sin against a wife, a daughter of Israel, is a sin against God (Moore). Marriage also is called ‘the covenant of God’ (Prov. ii. 17), and to it the reference here may be (cf. Gen. ii. 24; Matt. xix. 6; 1 Cor. vii. 10).”

ISRAEL MAKES READY TO PLEDGE, “WE WILL”

At Exodus 19:5 it is recorded that Moses was to take Yahweh’s words to the twelve tribes of Israel thusly:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my [marriage] covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine ...”.

At Exodus 19:8 it is recorded the answer of the people back to Yahweh thusly:

And all the people answered together, and said, All that Yahweh hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto Yahweh.” And Yahweh and the twelve tribes of Israel became Husband and wife! It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel was only figurative as Jeremiah speaks of Israel’s betrothal to Yahweh at Jeremiah 2:2 saying: “Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith Yahweh; I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.” The Hebrew word translated by the KJV as “espousals” is #3623 in Strong’s and is defined by him as: “... from #3618; “bridehood (only in the plural) ...”. From #3618, Strong instructs to go to #3634 which is defined as: “to complete ...”. Just as a man is not complete without a bride, neither was Yahweh. Who are we, then, to deny Yahweh of his rightful bride by claiming it was “a figurative marriage? By doing so, one is also making Christ a figurative being! Had Yahweh’s marriage to Israel not been “literal”, Jer. 2:32 could not have stated: “Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.” Forget your wedding anniversary just one time, and you will find what your wife has to say to you!

Not only were Yahweh and the twelve tribes “literally” married to each other, but after Christ died to satisfy His own law, Yahweh in the flesh (as Yahshua) will remarry them again, Jeremiah 3:12-16:

12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north [Assyria], and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith Yahweh; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith Yahweh, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against Yahweh thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers[2114] under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith Yahweh. 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: 15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith Yahweh, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of Yahweh: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.”

Well, if this is true, then Ron Wyatt is 100% in error! Wyatt claimed he found the Ark of the Covenant in a cave directly below where Christ was crucified, so in essence he claimed he “visited it”. If Wyatt is correct, then Jeremiah is a false prophet! On the other hand, if Jeremiah is correct, then Wyatt is an out-and-out liar! How much more evidence do we need to understand the Ark of the Covenant is a thing of the past!

Further verification of Israel’s marriage to Yahweh is found at Jer. 3:20-22: 20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith Yahweh. 21 A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten Yahweh their God. 22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art Yahweh our God.”

YAHWEH MARRIES ISRAEL

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

17 Thou hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy 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 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 wife-husband relationship between Yahweh and the twelve tribes of Israel. We do not have any record where Yahweh covenanted or married any other people as He did Israel!

To verify that this was actually a wedding that took place between Him and His people, lets consider some scriptures which prove this at Jeremiah 3:14, 20; 31:32:

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 [marriage] 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 understand what “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. Because of this it became necessary for Yahweh to divorce Israel for her unfaithfulness. Now lets see some scriptures which confirm the reason for the divorce and that actually Yahweh did divorce Israel Jer. 3:8; Deut. 24:1 & Isa. 50:1:

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 favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then 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.”

Now that Yahweh has married and divorced Israel, Where in this story does it bring us? Being divorced from Yahweh, Israel can no longer call herself by His name, therefore she became known by other names. At this stage of the game, things look hopeless as neither Yahweh nor Israel can marry again lawfully. The only way by law that either can remarry is if one or the other’s spouse were to die. To verify we shall go to 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. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the [marriage] 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.”

When I tried to find information on Romans 7:1-4 in different commentaries concerning the divorce and remarrying of Israel to Yahweh, I was not able to find anything worthwhile. Matthew Henry’s Commentary tries to promote the idea that we somehow are no longer under the Law. He says, “The sentence of the law against us is vacated and reversed, by the death of Christ, to all true believers.” This is not at all what this passage is portraying! What it is saying is: By the death of Yahshua we are free from the letter of the divorce law. Another thing that is taught here by Paul is: The Law has power over a man as long as he lives, and secondly, a wife is bound under the authority or law of her husband as long as she lives and no longer. In other words, the wife is bound to the Law of Yahweh through her husband. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 1052, indicates that Paul was preaching to some “jews” and therefore Paul had to refer to the law of Moses or maybe the “jews” wouldn’t “embrace the gospel.” Clarke says of the 4th verse, “You were once under the law of Moses and were bound by its injunctions, but now you are dead to that law .... God has determined that it shall be no longer in force. So that now, as a woman whose husband is dead is free from the law of that husband.... the law has consequently ceased.” Here Clarke is teaching the Law was abolished with the death of Yahshua when in fact Yahshua obeyed His Own Law to the minutest detail. Yahshua didn’t die to abolish the Law, but so by the Law might be able to remarry Israel and redeem her, and her only unto Himself.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible says, “... that believers are ‘not under the law but under grace’ the apostle here shows how this change is brought about.” OH REALLY?

The Concise Bible Commentary by The Reverend W. K. Lowther Clarke has this to say, “The man dominated by law turns into a woman, the law unto her husband. The husband (= law) dies, in the application the Christian (= the wife) dies. No attempt to make sense of the parable is possible. The application in 4 is forcible Pauline doctrine, but the parable itself is best disregarded as one of the Apostles failures.” OH, REALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THIS PASSAGE IS ONE OF PAUL’S GREATEST SUCCESSES! (If you are wondering what the “4” means, it points to some more spurious remarks by this commentator.)

The Believers Bible Commentary by William MacDonald has this to say, “The point of the illustration is just as death breaks the marriage relationship, so the death of the believer with Christ breaks the jurisdiction of the law over him.” OH, AGAIN I SAY, “REALLY?” I didn’t know that we “the believers” died with Yahshua. I was under the impression that Yahshua died alone to ransom us.

The Interpreters Bible by Abingdon Press, a 12 volume work with 36 consulting editors and 124 contributors has this to say of this passage, “Paul feels the need of giving his idea of the believer’s necessary separation from sin further emphasis and clarification and decides to try one more analogy. By means of it illustration from marriage becomes even more awkward than the proceeding one from slavery. Again the general intention of the apostle is clear enough: we were formerly married to sin; but sin has now died, and we are free to belong to another husband, even Christ, and in fact we do belong to him. We formerly bore ‘fruit for death’; now we bear ‘fruit for God.’ Some such idea as this is apparently in Paul’s mind but his statement in detail is confused.” Poor old Paul just doesn’t understand; he is “confused”, or is it the “editors” of The Interpreters Bible who are “confused”? The Interpreters Bible goes on: “Paul we must remember, was a speaker, with the added difficulties inseparable from being tied to the slow capacities of an ancient amanuensis (secretary). Anyone who has read with shame the confused dictation which his secretary has brought back for correction will feel himself quite at home in the opening verses of ch. 7. The confusion may also be attributed to the fact that two thoughts are present in Paul’s mind — there is the old nature, married to sin, which has been put to death, so that our true self can be united to Christ; and there is law which also belonged to the old order, and whose power has ended by the death we share with Christ [more hocus-pocus]. The ideas are related: they are both intimately connected with death as the decisive breach between the old order and the new; and both are inseparable from any full consideration of what Christ has accomplished for us. So Paul launches out on his analogy, and as the scribe painfully scratches down his words, his active mind, so quick to grasp interrelated thoughts, races ahead, and when the dictation is completed, the result is the confusion before us. Owing to the method he has chosen and the difficulties inherent in the analogy he uses, this passage does not constitute one of Paul’s great statements of the gospel.”

From all of this, one can see that The Interpreters Bible and the other similar reference commentaries have missed the entire point of this passage. All of these reference books should have referred to Deut. 24:1-4, but they did not. The reason they didn’t is because they were so intent on the abolishment of Yahweh’s marriage laws, which they call “the law of Moses” that they were entirely blind to the true meaning of “redemptive law.”

There are many misinformed, unlearned people who attempt to include the nonwhite races under Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel. If such a thing were possible (and it isn’t), of necessity, Yahweh would have to have a separate prenuptial marriage covenant with them, which would amount to “adultery”, as it would not be kind after kind, as stated many times in the early chapters of Genesis.

Amos 3:2 states: “You [Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” To maintain otherwise goes contrary to the proper context of the rest of the Bible!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #156 April 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-sixth monthly teaching letter and ends my thirteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told in WTL #137 with a general overview, followed by a more detailed seven stages of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. As I have stated before, this marriage appertained only to the descendants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (although it included the wives that their descendants would take of the pure Adamic race). But it didn’t, and still doesn’t, include any husband that a White Israelite lady might take who was not under Yahweh’s covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

However, the wife (the twelve tribes of Israel) would prove to be unfaithful, and Yahweh had no other choice but to divorce her, nevertheless Yahweh provided a way back (that being His death as Yahshua on the cross). The divorce (i.e., put away in punishment) would last for a period of 2520 years for both Israel and Judah.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 20

THE MARRIAGE” continued:

THE BEGINNING OF YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON

WITH THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL:

It is very sad, but today there are many in Israel Identity who claim that the ten northern tribes of Israel were divorced, but the two southern tribes of Judah were not divorced. This is absolutely not supported by Scripture, as Jer. 33:24 states:

24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised [all of] my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25 Thus saith Yahweh; If my [marriage] covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 Then will I cast away [all] the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.”

Before making the assertion that Israel was divorced and Judah wasn’t, one should consider what the prophet said at Jer. 3:6-11:

6 Yahweh said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 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. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith Yahweh. 11 And Yahweh said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.”

To erroneously claim that Yahweh did not divorce Judah upon being more “treacherous” than the house of Israel is tantamount to accusing Yahweh of being injustice in His decree toward the house of Israel. For if Yahweh was going to be prejudiced toward Judah, while condemning the house of Israel for a lesser offense we would condemn Him as an unjust Elohim!

Eze. 36:16-17 states: 16 Moreover the word of Yahweh came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.” Question: For what other reason is a woman given a divorce? Under the circumstance of Judah being more “treacherous” than the house of Israel, can anyone ever claim that Judah was not divorced? Some will make the absurd argument that “put away” and “divorce” are two different words, concluding mistakenly that Judah was not divorced! To get the proper Biblical context of “put away” and “divorced”, I will quote Isa. 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.” Here, “divorcement” and “put away” are in the same context, and so is “cast them off” at Jer. 33:24! Furthermore, in the New Testament at Matt. 5:31-32, “divorcement” and “put away” are in the same context where it states:

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.” This is tantamount to accusing Yahweh of keeping an adulterous woman (even one who had committed the sin of race-mixing, which some of Judah did)! If, as some foolishly claim, Yahweh never divorced Judah, He is still married to Judah today (including those Judahites who had race-mixed with the Edomites and other Canaanite tribes, [i.e., Canaanite-jews]). An even greater error is this; if Yahweh didn’t divorce Judah in the Old Testament, He as Yahshua, didn’t die on the cross to redeem Judah back to Himself! If such is the case (and it isn’t), those of German, Irish and Scottish descent have no hope of being in the Kingdom! This would include the “wild olives” of Romans 11:17 (or the Romans, to whom Paul wrote his epistle, who were of Zerah-Judah)! That would also exclude Rahab the innkeeper, of “scarlet thread” fame at Joshua 2:18, also of Zerah-Judah!

Maybe we better start looking before we leap to a conclusion; (the entire context of the Bible, that is)! Above all, if Yahweh didn’t divorce the two tribes of Judah, He as Yahshua cannot remarry them back again, and that would include Benjamin (from whom all the disciples of Christ, except Judas, were chosen, including Paul)! In order to comprehend what Yahweh’s divorce of Israel and Judah were all about one should consult the entire chapter of Leviticus 26, and take special notice of Lev. 26:44-46 which reads:

44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my [marriage] covenant with them: for I am Yahweh their God. 45 But I will for their sakes remember the [marriage] covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am Yahweh. 46 These are the [marriage] statutes and judgments and laws, which Yahweh made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.” Therefore, the only people to whom the law applies are the twelve tribes of Israel, and we were never commissioned to take our laws to any other people, regardless of what alias “Eli James” (whose real name is Joseph November), insists upon to the contrary!

As we enter the period of Yahweh’s honeymoon with the twelve tribes of Israel, we have to review what brought us to this juncture in our story. The honeymoon begins at the climax of a period where Yahweh had proven His favoritism for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob time and time again. David in Psalm 105 recapitulates these events throughout this chapter, and ends by stating the following at verses 42-45.

Psalm 105:42-45 reads: 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. 43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: 44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; 45 That they might observe his [prenuptial] statutes, and keep his [prenuptial] laws. Praise ye Yahweh.”

It should point out here that Yahweh married no other people, and no other people are responsible for keeping Yahweh’s laws, no matter how much alias “Eli James” (aka, Joseph November) insists otherwise! Alias “Eli” stated in an E-mail January 31, 2011: “The valid missionary activity is teaching the laws of God and bringing the other peoples into subjection.” When alias “Eli” wrote this, he meant nonwhites! This is universalism; not Israelite exclusivism (i.e., excluding all others). Yahweh is the God of “exclusivism”, whereas Satan is the god of “universalism”! To say it another way, “Yahweh is the God of segregation, while Satan is the god of integration!” In other words, “exclusivism” = “segregation”, while “universalism” = “integration”!

The false Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews are goats and the true Israelites are His sheep. The door has been slammed shut to the “goats”, and opened wide to His true Israel sheep. No other but the sheep need apply, as it is a closed corporation. Messiah told the “goats”, John 10:26-27:

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

At Matthew 15:24, our Savior specified the purpose of His exclusive Mission: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

At Amos 3:2, Yahweh proclaimed to Israel: “You [Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

Further, we are told in Deuteronomy 7:6: “For thou art an holy (set apart) people into Yahweh thy Elohim: Yahweh thy Elohim hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

After the Almighty divorced Israel, putting her away and punishing her, in the New Testament at 1 Peter 2:9 we read: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy”, RSV.

The same concept is expressed in Psalm 147:19-20: 19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they (the non-Israelites) have not known them.”

Again, the same thought is advanced in Deuteronomy 14:2 which says: “For thou art a people set apart unto Yahweh thy Mighty One, and Yahweh hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the (other) nations [sic 5971 ethnicities] that are upon the earth.”

For another rendering of the same basic precept, Isaiah 41:8 says the following: “But thou Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.” Contrary to what some advance, Yahweh does not promote the doctrine of universalism! Question: Where does this leave any room for people other than Israel in the marriage relationship with Yahweh?

After all, we should not be surprised at Yahweh’s exclusiveness toward the twelve tribes of Israel, as He promised them at Exo. 19:5:

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my [marriage] covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation ....” This flies in the face of alias “Eli James” where he said: “The valid missionary activity is teaching the laws of God and bringing the other peoples into subjection.” This goes contrary to Yahweh’s words at Deut. 10:15 where it reads: “Only Yahweh had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.”

This is even more clear at Deut. 32:8-9 where it reads: 8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”

This is reinforced again at Psalm 147:19-20 where it states: 19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any [other] nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye Yahweh.”

We find similar words at Isa. 63:19: “We [Israel] are thine: thou never barest rule over them [i.e., Canaanite aliens]; they were not called by thy name.” This is a difficult passage, and it is imperative to establish just who the “we” and the “them” are! Once the “we” and the “them” are confirmed, it rules out Cain’s, Esau’s and all pre-Adamite progeny from ever being a part of Yahweh’s kingdom, even though Jacob and Esau were brothers!

Deut. 28:9-10: 9 Yahweh shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of Yahweh thy God, and walk in his ways. 10 And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of Yahweh; and they shall be afraid of thee.”

Yahweh’s exclusive preference for the seed of Jacob, excluding all others, is shown at Exo. 33:19:

And he [Yahweh] said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of Yahweh before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.”

The 6-volume Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, A Commentary states: “... and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. &c. This is added to show that such an extraordinary discovery as was about to be made to Moses was not due to his merit, but was an act of free grace (cf. Romans ix. 15).”

Paul writes at Romans 9:14-16: 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” In other words, we have no choice in the matter of whom Yahweh selects to be His chosen people, for one is either a “son” or a “bastard”, Hebrews 12:8! There is no category in-between!

We read at Psalm 50:3-6, where the prophet David stated:

3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. 4 He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. 5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a [marriage] covenant with me by sacrifice. 6 And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself ....”

The same thought is expressed at Psalm 135:4 where David stated: “For Yahweh hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.”

The same thought along this topic is expressed at Jer. 2:3-5:

3 Israel was holiness unto Yahweh, and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith Yahweh. 4 Hear ye the word of Yahweh, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel: 5 Thus saith Yahweh, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?” Upon Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, she became Yahweh’s consecrated property or “firstfruits, just as a wife becomes the husband’s consecrated property today, with all of the responsibility that goes with the marriage-covenant. If the husband is any kind of a man at all, he’ll defend his wife and children with his very life, if necessary! In turn for that protection, the wife (the weaker vessel) will respect and obey her husband, while the husband reciprocates in an honest and respectful manner by keeping a roof over his family’s head, and seeing to it that his family is well clothed while providing adequate food for the table.

This becomes evident at Titus 2:14 where the marriage of Yahweh in the flesh (i.e., Yahshua’s) remarriage to the twelve tribes of Israel is alluded to in the New Testament: “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Thus, through Christ’s sacrifice by crucifixion, the twelve tribes regained the status of being virgins (a feat impossible for an individual woman)! Most in churchianity today are under the delusion that somehow this is a status a person can choose for himself by accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior. Had one read Psalm 33:12, one would not make such an error, for it is Yahweh in the flesh (as Yahshua) who has chosen we Israelites, stating:

Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.” In other words, the twelve tribes of Israel didn’t propose to Yahweh, asking Him to become their Husband, but it was Yahweh who proposed to the twelve tribes of Israel by seeking their hand in marriage. In fact, it was when Abraham placed Isaac on the altar that Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel was foreordained, with the descendants of Esau being foreordained for a different reason – since they are vessels of destruction as Paul explains in Romans 9!

Because there are men in the clergy who in their proud and insolent manner, want nothing more than to dominate and lord over the humble, they will dare anyone who might resist them! However, Malachi 3:16-18 prophesied that Yahweh would “spare” His chosen in their humility while “discerning between the righteous and the wicked”, between those who served their Husband, and those who followed Satan’s agenda!

Mal. 3:16-18: 16 Then they that feared Yahweh spake often one to another: and Yahweh hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared Yahweh, and that thought upon his name. 17 And they shall be mine, saith Yahweh of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. 18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” From this it is quite obvious that we will not be fully aware of just who served Yahweh and who didn’t until we reach the day of Judgment. Furthermore, we are told here in verse 16 that what we are teaching is being “written” in “a book of remembrance”, to the effect in verse 18 to “discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” Therefore, it behooves each one of us to rightly expound Yahweh’s Word to the best of our ability, which is the goal of this ministry!

In light of all of this, I must reject alias “Eli James” (real name, Joseph November’s) absurd invented fairy tales, such as his promotion of the Mayan Calendar so-called prophecy and his own un-Biblical 2012 predictions; his promotion of fraudulent individuals, such as Ron Wyatt and Clayton Douglas, with their twisted fantasies; his unscientific and unproved belief in telegony; his many endorsements of productions parallel to the works of the Canaanite-jew Zecharia Sitchin, such as Sitchin’s imagined planet “Nibiru” and his misuse of the pagan Annunaki gods (which many of alias “Eli’s” E-mails resemble). One of the most unsound premises which alias “Eli” has adopted is deciding the interpretation of Scripture by casting lots Las Vegas style, rather than researching the original languages of the holy men who wrote them! Also, I must highly object to alias “Eli’s” fantasy that the adam, at Gen. 1:26 (without the “eth” and Hebrew Article), was somehow some kind of “narrowed down Cro-Magnon Caucasoid” rather than the first man to stand on the earth (as Scripture confirms so many times)! From all of these negative attributes of alias “Eli James”, if Yahweh’s Holy Word can be twisted, alias “Eli” will put his own twisted “spin” on it. To emulate Sitchin is to follow Satan!

YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON WITH THE 12 TRIBES CONTINUED

To identify the seasons of the honeymoon, one must investigate the various periods where Israel kept the commandment of abstaining from worshipping other gods. As there were many periods of backsliding from, and resurgence back to the First Commandment by the various tribes at various times, it is hard to pin down one precise honeymoon period. In general, as all honeymoons go, the first couple of hundred years or so, Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes went well.

We were warned at Exod. 34:14-16 where it states: 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat [as Eve did] of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” Right away, at the beginning, the main issue was the problem of race-mixing.

What it amounts to is, Yahweh our Husband is a White Elohim, and He wants us to have White children! Verses 15-16 of Exodus chapter 34 above is the first incident of many where this same admonition is given not to race-mix. It appears again at Num. 25:2-9 in the matter of Baalpeor where 24,000 died of a plague for disobeying the instructions given at Exod. 34:14-16. Back then, it was primarily the men of our Israelite tribes that were violating Yahweh’s commandment; today by-and-large it’s our women! It is important to understand, ever since the beginning in the garden of Eden, wherever there were “other gods” there was a danger of miscegenation, bringing about the genocide of Yahweh’s original creation of Adam-man! So, whenever one observes a mixed-racial couple, accompanied by a mulatto child, Satan has accomplished his damnedest!

The epistle of Jude (evidently written by the brother of James, who in turn was a half-brother of Christ, Mark 6:3), comes down hard on race-mixing! Whoever Jude was addressing his epistle to must have been a cosmopolitan (i.e., representing many races and mixtures thereof) city. It is likely that, at Jude’s time, Jerusalem could be the candidate for the city intended, for its population was certainly a satanic mixture, yet a few pure Judahites remained.

The book of Jude is short and concise, but he didn’t mince words in addressing his proclamation against miscegenation! He denounced “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” to mix with animal-kind. For documentation on this, I will quote from an edition of the Qumran scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6: 1 [... two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird ...] 5 [...] for miscegenation [...]”. And in the same source, 4Q531, fragment 2: 1 [...] they defiled [...] 2 [... they begot] giants and monsters [...] 3 [...] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted ...] 4 [...] with its blood and by the hand of [...] 5 [giants] which did not suffice for them and [...] 6 [...] and they were seeking to devour many [...] 7 [...] 8 the monsters attacked it.” Again, 4Q532, Col. 2 fragments 1-6: 2 [...] flesh [...] 3 al[l ...] monsters [...] will be [...] 4 [...] they would arise [...] lacking in true knowledge [...] because [...] 5 [...] the earth [grew corrupt ...] mighty [...] 6 [...] they were considering [...] 7 [...] from the angels upon [...] 8 [...] in the end it will perish and die [...] 9 [...] they caused great corruption in the [earth ...] 10 [... this did not] suffice to [...] 11 they will be [...][underlining mine]. While quite fragmentary, the general theme of these fragments from what is known as the Book of Giants is readily evident. You will notice here that the interpreter of the Dead Sea Scroll Book of Giants translated a word of the original language to English as miscegenation”! Now alias “Eli James” (aka, Joseph November), don’t go telling everyone that we don’t have any evidence concerning this matter which falls into the category of archaeological evidence!

The book of Jude is very controversial in nature, with many readers not understanding its context. The entire twenty-five verses appear to revolve around a topic that was once well understood, but by Jude’s time was nearly forgotten. It may appear to some that Jude, in his brief discourse, is tiptoeing from subject to subject, but this is not the case. Rather, he is addressing one subject in its many manifestations. The one subject that Jude is addressing is revealed candidly in a couple of verses. At verse 7, it is crystal clear that the theme is about sexual impropriety in the forms of homosexuality and race-mixing. In verse 11, it is quite obvious, where it speaks of “the way of Cain” and “the error of Balaam”, the subject is about the violation of interracial sexual unions. Of course, to comprehend “the way of Cain” , we have to grasp that Genesis 4:1 is a corrupt passage, and that Cain was conceived by the sexual union of Satan with Eve, making him a half-breed. In other words, all mamzers (i.e., “bastards”) have gone “the way of Cain”!

The one verse that might not seem to have a sexual connotation is verse 9 where it states, “Yet Michael the archangel when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses ...” As there is no record of such an incident in the Old Testament of Michael and the devil disputing over Moses’ dead body, many reject the book of Jude as being canonical. However, if “the body of Moses” meant “the body of the law of Moses”, the laws pertaining to suitable and improper sexual unions would align with Jude’s subject. I usually try to document everything I present, but so many years have lapsed since I researched Jude 9, that I can’t remember the source where I found it, so you will have to determine the validity of this premise for yourself.

Well, if the entire 25 verses contained in the book of Jude pertain to illicit sex, then also does verse 6, where it says: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” As I have stated before several times in my writings, this incident of the fallen angels that sinned happened thousands of years before Adam was created at Gen. 1:27. And since the entire book of Jude concerns sexual sins, the “everlasting chains of darkness” relates to some kind of biological DNA covering (like black skin) in which the “angels that sinned” find themselves locked into. One other thing to notice about verse 6 is where it says in the KJV, “... kept not their first estate ...”, in the margin it has “or principality”. Barnes’ Notes on Jude, page 391 states: “The word properly means, beginning, commencement; and then that which surpasses others which is first, &c., in point of rank and honour; or pre-eminence, priority, precedence, princedom. Here it refers to the rank and dignity which the angels had in heaven. That rank or preeminence they did not keep, but fell from it.” It is obvious from this meaning that before these rebel angels fell, they held positions of very high rank in the heavenly realms, but once fallen their eminence turned into degradation of the lowest caliber, where they would devise every abominable act to corrupt Yahweh’s free of foreign matter creation, which they are still doing today through the genocidal miscegenation of the White race with the spawn of their own making. Once grasping Jude 6, we can better comprehend what Paul meant at Romans 8:38-39:

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of Yahweh, which is in Christ Yahshua our Master.” If Paul meant, “... nor things present, nor things to come ...”, we meet, and have to deal with these fallen angels on a daily basis! So, who are they? Dare we suggest that these “angels” and “principalities” are the unholy spawn of fallen angel and animal-kind, from long before the creation of Adam?

So what the twelve tribes of Israel’s honeymoon period with her Husband amounts to is the space of time between the marriage vows to Yahweh Elohim until the twelve tribes started to follow other gods, which, in turn, leads to race-mixing which is always inevitable.

Yahweh was quite stern when He instructed us at Lev. 26:1: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am Yahweh your God.”

It is stated very clearly at Isaiah 44:6-8 6 Thus saith Yahweh the King of Israel, and his redeemer Yahweh of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

At 1 Kings 8:23 we find the words of the wisest man who ever lived: “And he [Solomon] said, Yahweh God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart ...”

At Psalm 81:7-9 we read the admonition: 7 Thou calledst in trouble, and I delivered thee; I answered thee in the secret place of thunder: I proved thee at the waters of Meribah. 8 Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me; 9 There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.”

As long as the twelve tribes of Israel were faithful to her Husband, the honeymoon continued in bliss, but upon forgetting her wedding vows, Yahweh’s wife became hardened in heart, and at variance to His sovereign Will for her life. Israel began to observe the pagan peoples around her, and became envious of their kings, and their carnival-like show-and-tell vaudeville activities on every green hill. It appears that the people were happy at these lowlife carnivals, and soon the twelve tribes desired to join them in their sexual activities!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #157 May 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-seventh monthly teaching letter and begins my fourteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and giving a general overview, to be followed by a more detailed seven stages of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. I had planned to continue with the honeymoon portion with this lesson, but I find it necessary to address the divorce stage again as there are those who are confused about the subject. They read one verse at Hebrews 8:10, without taking into account the context of the rest of the Bible, where it states:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the *house of Israel after those days, saith Yahweh; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people ...” [* = whole house, or 12 tribes]

Right away, because the house of Judah is not mentioned in this particular verse, some will erroneously conclude that Judah wasn’t divorced. Had they read the whole chapter, they would have found both Israel and Judah mentioned two verses previously to verse 10, at verse 8. Actually, verse 8 is citing Jeremiah 31:31-33, where both houses are included. Others will assert a play on words, claiming “divorce” has a different meaning than “put away”! To prove beyond all doubt that “divorce” and to “put away” have the same connotation (i.e., “associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning”, Webster’s Dict.), I will cite Deut. 22:19, 29: 19 And they shall amerce (penalize) him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days .... 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” Only a simpleton would argue that this is not speaking of “divorce”! I hate to classify anyone in such a category, but they make it difficult to give them any credence otherwise, and the reader will soon see why.

I will now quote a portion of Cameo Studies, No 2., by Frank W. Dowsett, pp. 84-89:

DIVORCED! January, 1991.

Over a period of many years I have noticed that whenever the subject of Israel’s divorce is mentioned, it is always applied to ONLY the northern house of Israel as distinct from the southern House of Judah. As a matter of fact, various people go to no end of trouble to emphasise their belief that the House of Judah was never divorced by God, and that this divorce can never be applied to the House of Judah.

The purpose of this article is to examine this teaching, and whilst I realise that it will attract some criticism from those who believe to the contrary, it is certainly not meant to be a personal attack on such people. It is my considered opinion that this belief has been handed down over the years and automatically accepted without question simply because of its long established acceptance. But this, of course, is no proof of correctness, as I’m sure you will agree. And like all other subjects in the Bible, it can only be properly understood as we go right back to the beginning of the subject, and carefully trace it through. So let us turn to God’s Word as set forth in Exodus 24:3-8, where we find recorded the scene where Israel uttered those famous words ‘I Do’, and became the wife of Jehovah.

“‘And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the Judgments. And all the people answered with one voice, and said, ‘All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.’

“‘And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

“‘And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.

“‘And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood be sprinkled on the altar.

“‘And he took of the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said;

“‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.’

“‘And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said; ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words’.’

We recognise this, of course, as THE OLD COVENANT. But let us keep in mind one very important feature of this covenant. It was made with the entire twelve tribes of Israel. This leads us to one very important conclusion. And it is this:

GOD MARRIED THE ENTIRE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL

All the tribes, the whole twelve of them, constituted His wife or bride. Now this might seem a very obvious remark to make, but I can’t help feeling that most people totally overlook this point. This is clearly brought out in [the] wording of the NEW COVENANT, as recorded in Jer. 31:31-32;

“‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; 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 break ALTHOUGH I WAS AN HUSBAND UNTO THEM, saith the Lord.’

So it is quite clear that irrespective of how we interpret what is said in future references by the prophets in regards to the marital relationship between God on the one hand, and Israel and Judah on the other hand, at the time of the giving and acceptance of the Old Covenant, all twelve tribes of Israel constituted Jehovah’s wife.

Furthermore, right up until the time of the division of Israel into the northern and southern houses, ALL twelve tribes constituted Jehovah’s wife, and they continued in this relationship even when they were divided into the two houses. And irrespective of what happened in the meantime, when we turn to the Book of the Revelation, chapter 21 and verses 9-12, it is perfectly clear that Jehovah’s (the Lamb’s) bride is still to be the WHOLE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

The fact is quite evident that the coming Royal Marriage is going to be between Jehovah and both houses of Israel and Judah.

Now I ask the question, ‘How can Jehovah remarry the house of Judah if He was never divorced from them in the first place?’ If He never divorced Judah, then He must still be married to her right now, and this fact would exclude Judah from the coming marriage. Judah would be sitting in the back pews watching the ceremony, not taking part in it.

But there is a much more serious aspect to this. The Law of God was quite explicit in regards to divorce and remarriage. A wife who had been put aside and divorced by her husband for unfaithfulness could not, under God’s Law, remarry until the death of her former husband. It was for this very reason that Jehovah, the Husband in this instance, came down from glory in the form of a man and died. He obviously couldn’t die as God. So He had to become a human man. And in doing this, He, the former Husband, died, and freed His wife Israel from the requirement of this law. Let us never forget the fact that if He had not done this, there could never be a remarriage with Israel in the future, and the promise of the remarriage, as recorded in Hosea 2:19-20 would have been impossible of fulfilment. In fact, it would have been a deliberate deception on God’s part to even suggest a remarriage without the fulfilment of His own requirement.

This leads us to the next question. If Jehovah only divorced the northern house of Israel, and remained married to the southern house of Judah, then there was no requirement for Him to die to redeem Judah from the requirements of the marriage law, and the house of Judah would not be covered by the national redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ in the same way as the house of Israel was. Ask yourself the question, ‘Did Jesus die for both Israel and Judah? There is only one answer to this. Of course He did. It is the very basis of the NEW COVENANT. This being so, it follows that Judah must have continued at all times in the same marriage relationship to Jehovah as did Israel. Why on earth should Judah need to be freed from the law pertaining to divorce, if she was never divorced in the first place? And as we have already pointed out, how could Judah be remarried to Jehovah if she was still married to Him?

Let’s face the facts friends. You just cannot divorce a part of your wife. If you don’t believe me, then try it some day. Go down to the court and tell the judge that you only wish to divorce the portion of your wife down to her knees, but wish to remain married to the part of her from the knees down. Just see how you get on. Yet, as foolish as this may sound, this is exactly what we are asked to believe in regard to Jehovah and His wife. He is supposed to have divorced only five-sixths of His wife and remained married to the remaining one-sixth. Let us remember the fact that although Israel was divided into two sections,this was done in order to achieve a specific purpose by God. Israel was to be the DOMINION, whilst Judah was to be the SANCTUARY. (see Psalm 114:1-2). The prophet Jeremiah refers to these two sections as ‘the two families which the Lord chose’, (see Jer. 33:24), and ‘two sisters’, (see Jer. 3:6-14).

In verse 6 of chapter 3, Jeremiah refers to ‘backsliding Israel’, and enumerates her sins. He then turns to Judah and says;

“‘And I said after she (Israel) had done all these things, Turn thou unto me: But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

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

“‘And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

“‘And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.’

Now I ask you. If God gave the northern house of Israel a divorce for committing adultery, then on what basis did He refrain from doing the same thing to Judah, especially when we read that Judah had not only committed the same sin of adultery, but had become worse than her sister Israel. It is interesting to read in verse 14 that Jehovah refers to Himself as the HUSBAND of ‘His backsliding children’: (plural).

So we see that although there were two sections to Israel, they both constituted the one wife, and although there is no specific mention of a bill of divorcement in regard to Judah, in the same terms as that applied to Israel, there is no doubt at all in my mind that in view of all the factors mentioned above, Judah was automatically included in the proceedings by virtue of the fact that she was a part of the one and the same wife. Let’s face it, Jehovah didn’t have two wives.

Perhaps we can more readily understand this situation when we remember that the means by which God accomplished the divorce was by the act of sending His wife away into captivity, or as the Old Testament expresses it, putting His wife away. This was not an instantaneous event for either house: The captivity of Israel took quite a number of years. And the fact that the captivity of Judah didn’t occur until some years after that of Israel, does not [in] any way release Judah from ending up in exactly the same relationship to her husband as her northern sister co-wife Israel. In other words, the act of divorcement was a process which occupied the entire period of the captivities, or putting away, of both the houses of Israel and Judah, and applied equally to both houses as the ONE wife.

For these reasons, I sincerely believe that BOTH houses of Israel and Judah were divorced. Their collective Husband Jehovah died to redeem BOTH houses, and freed BOTH houses from the Law of divorce by His death on Calvary. The same Jehovah is about to return to remarry His entire bride, BOTH houses, the whole twelve tribes of Israel. What a wonderful day that will be for His people. May He come quickly.” End.

Frank W. Dowsett must have been a citizen of the UK, as he uses the British variations in spelling. However that may be, we have to be grateful for his excellent proficiency on this subject! How well he did on other topics, I am not aware. A much better analysis on this topic than Dowsett is William Finck, who wrote in his program notes for a presentation done in 2010:

Saturday February 13th, 2010: Last night – John 10 – wolves – 14 months today working with Eli - Eli’s magnanimity taken advantage of by the unscrupulous – kindness is weakness where I come from. [Note: James’ real name is Joseph November.]

Euripides, Hippolytus, Line 962-963: ‘...the bastard is always regarded as an enemy to the true-born’. Therefore the goats will not have an open go of it in tonight’s forum.’

All of the tribes of Israel were involved in the national relationship of marriage to Yahweh. Nobody could ever dispute this. Here I will begin with Exodus chapters 19 through 24: There should be little doubt that the record here is that of a marriage between Yahweh and the children of Israel. The nation would be the bride of God, and the law was given to Israel as the terms of that marriage. The children of Israel are represented as having fully agreed to this arrangement. The tribe of Judah is clearly there, and is mentioned in Exodus chapters 1 and 31.

Exodus 19:5-11: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto Yahweh. 9 And Yahweh said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto Yahweh. 10 And Yahweh said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.’

For the next several chapters the laws are given which Israel must follow as their part in the agreement. Then in Exodus chapter 24:3-8, we see this:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.’

Now there is even more to the story, of course, but this is basically the marriage ceremony of Yahweh and Israel as a nation.

Once the children of Israel adopted the customs of the surrounding Canaanite nations, broke the law, began practicing paganism, and began mixing their race – which is a practice of paganism and a part of the fertility rituals of the ancient pagan temples, they were found to be adulterers by Yahweh, the husband of the nation.

Here is what the Law says of adulterers:

Leviticus 20:10: 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.’

Deuteronomy 22:22: 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.’

So we see that Israel, the wife, had committed a crime worthy of death. In our entirety, we as a nation deserved to die. This is the reason for such prophecies as that found at Jeremiah chapter 31:

Jeremiah 31:31-38: 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: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith Yahweh, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 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. 35 Thus saith Yahweh, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.’

While Israel deserved death under the law, we see that Yahweh promised that Israel would certainly not die, but rather would be a nation forever. There is only one way that this could be done without Yahweh’s being a hypocrite and breaking His Own law: He himself had to die in order to free Israel from the law! This is why Christ professed that He came to “fulfill the law”! Paul explains this very thing in Romans chapter 7:

Romans 7:1-4 KJV:1Know 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.’

Let’s take a detour and talk about this word ‘divorce’. Many half-witted commentators make far too much of this word, imagining that because of the way that the translators treated it, it must mean something more than merely a ‘putting away’. None of them accept or even undertake a full study of the word.

The word ‘divorce’ appears once in the King James Version of the Bible, at Jeremiah 3:8. In the KJV the word ‘divorcement’ appears 3 times in the Old Testament, and 3 times in the New. The Hebrew word for both divorce and divorcement is always Strong’s #3748, keriythuwth, and its primary meaning is only a cutting. It is a noun formed from the word at Strong’s # 3772, karath, a verb which means to cut, and it is used of covenants and contracts as well as of the cutting down of trees or other things. It is not a special legal term and bears no such connotation. In the Greek the word translated ‘divorcement’ in the King James comes from the word apostasion, a noun which means a repudiation. Neither does this word have any special legal significance. A ‘bill of divorcement’ is really only a written statement of repudiation. The law, found in Deuteronomy 24:1 and 3, required such a written statement be provided by a husband to a wife in order to protect the outcast wife so that she may seek shelter in the homes of others without fear of being accused of adultery and stoned. No man would take a woman in who had no such paper, for fear of being stoned. So we see that none of this has anything to do with any formal court decree. An outcast woman is a divorced woman, and the paper was only a formality the husband was required to give in order to protect the outcast woman. But the act of casting her out, called ‘putting away’ in scripture, that was the actual act of divorce.

Here it shall be made manifest. The word ‘divorced’ appears four times in Scripture, three of them in the Old Testament. But in the Hebrew it does not come from the word keriythuwth, a cutting. Rather it comes from Strong’s #1644, garash, which means ‘to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce’. Therefore ‘to drive out’ is to divorce. This same word was translated ‘put away’, ‘expel’, and ‘thrust out’ elsewhere in the KJV. In the New Testament the word ‘divorced’ only appears at Matthew 5:32, and there it is the word apollumi, the very same word which was translated ‘lost’ every time it described the sheep of Israel. So there is no real difference between ‘lost’, ‘put away’, and ‘divorced’ concerning Israel and Scripture.

Both Israel and Judah were divorced! Here are the supporting Scriptures:

As Jeremiah 33:24 states thusly: ‘Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? Thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.” And then Zechariah 10:6: “And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.”

Ezekiel 23:18: ‘So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.’ In Brenton’s Septuagint, the reading is ‘And she exposed her fornication, and exposed her shame: and my soul was alienated from her, even as my soul was alienated from her sister.’ The Greek word translated ‘alienated’ here is the verb, aphistami. The same word of which the noun form apostasion is translated ‘divorce’! Judah was indeed divorced by Yahweh, as well as Israel. Is there any doubt now? Russell Walker, Stephen E. Jones, and all of their followers are little but fools to think otherwise.

If there was a new covenant to be made with Israel and Judah, and Judah was NOT divorced, why is there a need for a new covenant with Judah as well as Israel? If Judah was not divorced, Judah would still be under the Old Covenant! It should be manifest, that all of this stems from the confusion of those who mistake Judah with the jews. All of the arguments against Judah’s being divorced are sophistic. Rather, it is the remnant which was not divorced, and while that remnant consisted mostly of Judah, there were some Israelites in it also. Even long after Israel had been taken away by the Assyrians, 2 Chronicles chapter 30 mentions ‘all Israel and Judah ... and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria’, and 2 Chronicles chapter 34 mentions ‘all the remnant of Israel, and all of Judah and Benjamin’.

Many years ago I did a word study on Isaiah 6:13, and this is how I must translate that verse:

“‘Yet a tenth will return to be kindled: a pillar of oak, in order to be a monument. Because of their felling the holy seed will be a monument.’ Translated correctly, it is a good cross-reference for Romans 11:12. This passage, and many others like it, are talking about a remnant of Israel to be left in the land. For instance, 2 Kings 19:30 states that ‘the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward’. Of course this is talking about true Judah, and not the jews.

Both Israel and Judah were divorced, the ‘two families’ which Yahweh had put away. The remnant was not divorced, because they were still there in the land – they were not put away. This is why they were accepted by Christ: they stayed in the law and in the Old Covenant until He fulfilled them. With one illustration we can make this distinction: that Anna, of the tribe of Asher, had remained in the temple and was a prophetess!

Israel – including most of Judah – had lost their identity almost entirely by the time of Christ. With Christianity, the true Judahites in Judaea would lose their identity as Judaeans, and become Christians. With the conversion of the White nations of Europe, dispersed Israel, then Israel and Judah again became ‘one stick’, Ezekiel 37.

Claiming that Judah was NOT divorced by Yahweh is tantamount to accusing Yahweh of the very sin which caused the fall of Adam! Because Yahweh Himself said that Israel played the harlot and was put away, and that ‘her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also’. Think about this: is Yahweh guilty of the sin of Adam? Or are there simply a lot of half-witted Bible commentators? According to the law cited above, Yahweh HAD to divorce Judah as well as Israel, and he did! This should settle the matter of divorce, and now we can return to the marriage relationship with Yahweh. All of these turkeys who think they have to help God are instead blaspheming him. They should not invent scripture: they should read it instead!

Deuteronomy 24:3-4: 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.’

Here we see that there is no way that a divorced wife can return to the husband once she has another. But if the husband should die, the wife can marry another without worry. As Paul explains in Romans 7, Yahweh died in Christ, freeing Israel from the law. But I must say that Yahweh, being God has the power to lay down His life – therefore fulfilling the law – and then to take it up again, as Christ asserted at John 10:11, 15 & 17. He died and was resurrected so that He could keep Israel, in spite of Israel’s sin, while at the same time keeping the letter of the law!

The Scriptures prove that Yahshua is indeed Yahweh in many places. Here we shall see it in the context of the marriage relationship:

Isaiah 54:5: ‘For thy Maker is thine husband; Yahweh of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.’

Yahweh is our husband AND our redeemer: Yahshua Christ.

Hosea 2:7: ‘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.’

Hosea 2:20: ‘I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord.’

Hosea proves that Israel is returning to Yahweh as the husband, which can only be Christ. That is what the Wedding Supper of the Lamb in the Revelation is all about. That is why John the Baptist referred to Christ as the bridegroom, and Christ referred to Himself as the bridegroom. For these same reasons Paul said to the Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 11:2: 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.’

The return of Israel to Christ is a betrothal: the New Covenant and the wedding supper are not fulfilled until His return.

What marriage is:

Exodus 22:16-17: ‘And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.’

Euripides, Trojan Women, lines 1133-1144:

“‘She begged Neoptolemus that this dead child, who was hurled from the walls and breathed his last, the son of your Hector, be buried. She begged him also not to bring this bronze-backed shield, the Achaeans’ terror, which this boy’s father used to hold against his side, to the home of Peleus or to take it into the same chamber where she will become his bride [the mother of this dead boy, Andromache, so as to see grief], but to bury the boy in it instead of a cedar coffin and a stone tomb. She asked him to put it into your hands so that with funeral clothes and garlands you may deck out the corpse as well as you can in your present circumstances. For she is gone, and her master’s haste has prevented her from burying the boy.’

There are many other citations from the ancient world that prove that marriage happened in a bed, and not with a state-issued license. A civilized man would first reach an agreement with the family of the prospective bride: but neither was that a requirement in reality. When you slept with a woman, and she was a virgin, she would be your wife. If she was not a virgin, you are both adulterers!

What was Yahweh’s act of consummation? Impregnating Mary and coming here as His Own Son.” End of William Finck’s remarks.

The bottom and defining line that Judah was indeed divorced is found at Jeremiah 33:24 where it states: “... The two families which Yahweh hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? ...” The “casting off” couldn’t be initiated until AFTER the “writing of the divorce” was given to the wife, Deut. 24:3! No written divorce – no casting off! Is Jeremiah a liar? That’s what we make Jeremiah, if we continue to falsely declare that Judah was never divorced. Is Yahweh so unjust that He would cast Judah out of His presence without following His own irrevocable mandate? Well, that’s what some insist that He did! Is Yahweh a hypocrite? Some evidently think He is! I am sorry that I had to interrupt the scheduled honeymoon portion of this series, but this topic, which some are twisting entirely out-of-context, is too serious to ignore. The honeymoon will be continued in the next lesson.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #158 June 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, giving a general overview, which I am enlarging upon with a more detailed seven stages of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. With WTL #157, I had to pause my narrative in order to once more address the fact that Yahweh had indeed divorced Judah in spite of those who insist that He did not. From the data that I have, this errant premise has been circulating for nearly a hundred years, and it needs to be resolved.

To prove Judah was also divorced, Jeremiah at 33:24 states, in no uncertain words: “Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.” These two families were Israel and Judah, so an argument cannot be made that both of them were not “cast off”. Yahweh absolutely does not break His own law, and at Deut. 24:1, He specifically instructs the twelve tribes thusly: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” Therefore, even a 3rd-grader should be able to see that the writ of divorce comes first before the casting out! It is a serious matter of accusing Yahweh of being a common sinner by breaking His own law! Maybe some of these “Bible experts” aren’t as knowledgeable as they claim to be! Nuff said; back to our subject:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 21

YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON WITH THE TWELVE TRIBES continued:

It is difficult to determine whether there was one long honeymoon between Yahweh and His wife, the twelve tribes of Israel, or several smaller honeymoons between periods of backsliding. Of course, the honeymoon started immediately after their marriage at Mount Sinai, but the bride received a golden calf at her reception, which set the tone for things to come. Except for a few instances from Mount Sinai to Israel’s entrance into Cannan, this honeymoon with the Husband, Yahweh, continued, but the incident at Baalpeor was no Sundayschool picnic. Even through the book of Joshua, although not perfect, the honeymoon continued (the incident with Achan and his family not withstanding). Neither did Yahweh smile on Israel’s refusal to enter Canaan! So the honeymoon continued under the leadership of their commander, Joshua, winning battle after battle for Yahweh.

There is no better book in the Bible to describe Yahweh’s honeymoon with the twelve tribes than the book of Joshua. I will now use a portion of Adam Clarke’s 6-volume Commentary, vol. 2, pages 5-6, from his “Preface To Joshua”, which he titles, “Table Of Contents To The Book Of Joshua”, which I will edit as he missed some important facts which should be upgraded. Therefore, I will not use the usual quotation marks, and my editing will be in brackets “[ ]”:

TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

[Yahweh] commands Joshua to lead the people over the Jordan, and promises to put them in possession of the whole land. He encourages and commands him to be obedient, and promises him his continual presence and protection; chap. i.

Joshua sends two spies to examine the state of the inhabitants; they are received and concealed in the [red thread] house of Rahab, with whom she and her family they make a covenant. After three days they return to Joshua, and make a favourable report; chap. ii.

The whole Israelitish camp pass the Jordan, opposite to Jericho. The waters of the Jordan are miraculously cut off, and stand in a heap till the whole camp passed over; chap. iii.

By the command of [Yahweh] twelve stones are taken up from the bed of the river, and twelve other stones are set up in it as a memorial. The twelve stones brought out of the river are set up in Gilgal as a monument of the miraculous interposition of [Yahweh]; chap. iv.

At the command of [Yahweh], Joshua circumcises the Israelites; they keep their first passover; and Joshua is encouraged by the appearance of an extraordinary person, who calls himself ‘Captain of [Yahweh’s] host’; chap. v.

The Israelites invest[igate] Jericho, and surround it seven days, the priests blowing with seven trumpets. On the seventh day, at the command of Joshua, the people shout, and the walls of Jericho fall down; the Israelites enter and put all to the sword, except Rahab and her family. The city is laid under a curse; chap. vi.

Three thousand men, being sent against Ai, are repulsed, and thirty-six of them slain; Joshua being distressed, and the people greatly discouraged, he inquires of [Yahweh] why they fell before their enemies? And is answered that, contrary to the express command of [Yahweh], some of the people had secreted part of the spoils of Jericho, which they had been ordered wholly to destroy. An inquiry is instituted, and Achan, the son of Zerah [born with a red thread around his wrist, - same house as Rahab] is discovered to have taken a rich Babylonish garment, 200 shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold. He is sentenced to be stoned. He and all his property, his asses, sheep, oxen, and tent, are destroyed in the valley of Achor, and a heap of stones raised over the place; chap. vii.

Thirty thousand men attack Ai, and take it by stratagem; they put the inhabitants to the sword, to the amount of twelve thousand persons, and hang the king; they preserve the cattle and spoil to themselves. Joshua builds an altar to [Yahweh], and offers sacrifices, writes the law upon the stones of it and reads all the blessings and curses over against Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, as [Yahweh] commanded Moses; chap. viii.

The Gibeonites send ambassadors to the Israelites, and, pretending to be of a very distant nation, get the princes of Israel to make a league with them; the deception is discovered, and they are condemned to a state of perpetual slavery; chap. ix.

The kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, attack the Gibeonites, because they had made a league with the Israelites. They send to Joshua for assistance. Joshua attacks those five kings, and during the battle, by an extraordinary fall of hail-stones, many are killed; and at the intercession of Joshua, the sun and moon stand still, and the day is prolonged till all the confederate Amorites are destroyed. The five kings are taken in a cave at Makkedah, brought out and hanged. The Israelites afterwards take and destroy Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and all the country of the hills, south, vale, and springs; chap. x.

Many Canaanite, Amorite, Hittite, Perizzite, Jebusite, and Hivite kings join together against Israel; Joshua attacks and discomfits them at Merom. Afterwards he attacks the Anakim, and conquers the whole land; chap. xi.

A catalogue of all the kings and kingdoms that were conquered in this war; thirty-three in the whole, two on the east side of Jordan, and thirty-one on the west; chap. xii.

An account of the countries not yet subjugated to the Israelites. The manner in which the territories of Sihon and Og were divided among the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh [the territory from where Ruth later came]; chap. xiii.

Joshua, and Eleazar the priest, begin the distribution of the land by lot; Caleb’s portion; chap. xiv.

The borders of the tribe of Judah described. Othniel smites Kirjath-sepher, and marries Achsah, the daughter of Caleb. The cities of the tribe of Judah are enumerated; chap. xv.

The boundaries of the children of Joseph. The Canaanites of Gezer are not expelled, but become tributary to the Ephraimites; chap. xvi.

The boundaries of the half tribe of Manasseh. The inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad [establishing the inheritance by which Tea Tephi would later be decided]. The Canaanites are not expelled by the children of Manasseh, but serve under tribute. The children of Joseph complain that their portion is too small for them; and Joshua commands them to subdue and inhabit the mountain country of the Perizzites; chap. xvii.

The tabernacle of [Yahweh] is set up at Shiloh, and the remnant of the land is further examined and divided by lot; Benjamin’s portion is described; chap. xviii.

The lot of Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan. The Danites take the city of Leshem; and the Israelites give Joshua the city of Timnath-serah, which he rebuilds and inhabits; chap. xix.

Six cities of refuge are appointed, at the commandment of [Yahweh]; chap. xx.

The Levites have forty-eight cities appointed to them out of the different tribes [the same as the number of contiguous states in the United States]; they and their suburbs are described. The people enjoy rest, all the promises of [Yahweh] being accomplished; chap. xxi.

Joshua dismisses the two tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh (one of these three tribes from whom Ruth would later return with Naomi to Bethlehem). On their return, they build an altar of testimony on the east side of the Jordan, at which the other tribes are alarmed, fearing some idolatrous design; and preparing to go to war with them, they first send Phinehas and ten of the princes to require an explanation; they inquire into the business, and find that the altar was built to [Yahweh], merely to prevent all idolatrous worship; and the people are satisfied; chap. xxii.

Joshua, in his old age, exhorts the people to be faithful to their God, [Yahweh]; chap. xxiii.

He assembles all the tribes at Shechem; recounts [Yahweh’s] merciful dealings with them, and the deliverances he had wrought for them and their fathers; and causes them to make a solemn covenant, which he writes in the book of the law. Joshua dies aged 110 years, and shortly after Eleazar, the high priest, dies also; chap. xxiv. (End of the “Table Of Contents To The Book Of Joshua” by Adam Clarke, edited by Clifton A. Emahiser.)

The book of Joshua may not seem like a honeymoon as we would conceive it, but we must remember that to Yahweh a thousand years is but one day. Our idea of a honeymoon would be a short vacation of a week or ten days. As I explained in WTL #143:

Some will argue that it would be impossible for Yahweh to consummate His marriage with Israel! If you are one of those who assume as much, think again! As a matter of fact, He consummated it the second day of the marriage! Those of us who know the Scripture are aware that a thousand years to Yahweh is but one day, and approximately 1400 years (or 1 & 4/10 day) after He married the twelve tribes of Israel, Yahweh, in one of His three manifestations (the Holy Spirit, Matt. 1:20) caused Mary, the mother of Christ, to become pregnant without sexual intercourse. But nevertheless, the marriage of Yahweh to Israel was consummated, and the offspring was both God and Adam-man, or Yahweh in the flesh! Not only was the marriage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel preordained before the foundation of the world, but also the consummation that would bring about the birth of Christ! To deny that this is true would be blasphemy! Yet some do, (i.e., alias “Eli James”; real name “Joseph November”)!

It is when we investigate the book of Judges, that we find several examples of where the twelve tribes became more and more unfaithful to her Husband, Yahweh. Concerning the book of Judges, we have a mistranslation at Hebrews 4:8, where Paul was referring to Joshua 21:43-45 which reads:

43 And Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.”

Paul addressed this passage at Hebrews 4:8, which in the older KJVs incorrectly reads:

7 ... To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.”

In some of the newer KJVs, verse 8 is corrected (or a note in the margin showing the error). The New Geneva Study Bible, (i.e., New King James Version Thomas Nelson Pub.) has it right, and reads:

For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Then, in the margin there is a note on verse 8: “JoLevites , sans-serif;span style=sh. 22:4; Greek Jesus same as Hebrew Joshua.”

Joshua 22:4 also speaks of that rest: “And now Yahweh your God hath given rest unto your brethren, as he promised them: therefore now return ye, and get you unto your tents, and unto the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you on the other side Jordan.” [Smith & Goodspeed have “beyond the Jordan”.]

The reason the KJV translators mistranslated Heb. 4:8 is because they were so used to translating the Greek #2424 Iesous as Jesus, it never dawned on their minds that Christ and Joshua had the same name! Strong, in his Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, makes it quite clear by stating: “... of Hebrew origin [3091]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua, the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites ....” Then, in his Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary under #3091, Strong states in part: “... from 3068 and 3467; Jehovah [sic Yahweh]-saved; ... (i.e. Joshua), the Jewish [sic Israelite] leader ... Compare 1954, 3442.” I should also point out that the older KJVs also mistranslated Acts in the same manner. Acts 7:44-45 reads:

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus [sic Joshua] into the possession of the Gentiles [sic nations], whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David ....”

The reason for the corrupted transliteration from the Hebrew “Yahshua” to the Greek “Iesous”, our “Jesus” is because the Greek alphabet doesn’t supply an adequate articulation to match perfectly with the Hebrew articulation. There are many other names and words where this same mismatch of articulation exists in transliteration, but to name two examples: (1) the Hebrew “Jeremiah” is transliterated into the Greek as “Ieremias” , our “Jeremy”, and, (2) the Hebrew “Hosea” is transliterated into the Greek as “Osee”. And it’s not the translator’s fault!

Matthew Henry On The Name “Joshua”, vol. 2, p.2:

An Exposition, With Practical Observations, of

The Book of Joshua:

“… Though Joshua is not expressly mentioned in the New Testament as a type of Christ, yet all agree that he was a very eminent one. He bore our Saviour’s name, as did also another type of him, Joshua the high priest, Zec. 6:11, 12. The Septuagint, giving the name of Joshua a Greek termination, call him all along, Iesous (Jesus), and so he is called [at] Acts 7:45, and Heb. 4:8. Justin Martyr, one of the first writers of the Christian church (Dialog. cum Tryph. p. mihi 300), makes that promise in Ex. 23:20, My angel shall bring thee into the place I have prepared, to point at Joshua; and these words, My name is in him, to refer to this, that his name should be the same with that of the Messiah. It signifies, He shall save. Joshua saves God’s people from the Canaanites; our Lord Jesus saves them from their sins. Christ, as Joshua, is the captain of our salvation, a leader and commander of the people, to tread Satan under their feet, to put them in possession of the heavenly Canaan, and to give them rest, which (it is said, Heb. 4:8) Joshua did not.” [emphasis mine]

A few things should be noted here. In particular that the Joshua of the Old Testament saved the Israelites from the Canaanites of that day (attempted to give the Israelites rest). Matthew Henry almost got it correct here, as our Joshua (Yahshua = Yah saves) will also save us from the present-day Canaanites. Paul the apostle made it clear at Romans 16:20 that the Romans would tread, or “bruise Satan under your feet shortly”, and the Romans (who were Zerah-Judah Israelites) of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15) sure trounced the hell out of the bad-fig-canaanite-edomite-jews at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But that’s not the end of the story, as at Yahshua’s second advent “the seed of the woman” (in the person of Yahshua-Christ) is going to do it again, and permanently (Luke. 19:27). Without an understanding of the two “seeds” of Genesis 3:15, the Bible makes little sense! Churchianity has made a big thing out of so-called “personal salvation” while completely overlooking the seed of the serpent vs. the seed of the woman. [Note: I do not fully endorse Matthew Henry’s comments, but he did better than average here. I would have given Henry a better rating had he the insight, but seeing with but one eye, he didn’t comprehend that in order for the Israelites to obtain “rest” at Christ’s Second Advent, the bad-fig-canaanite-edomite-jews still need to be eradicated, big-time, which Christ will accomplish with His own right arm, (Deut. 32:39-43)!]

We need also to take note that within the name of Joshua is found “salvation”, whereas in its latter corrupted Greek form “Jesus”, “salvation” is missing. I did an electronic search in the Complete Works of Josephus, and he used the name “Jesus” 74 times in his writings. As the name “Jesus” could have been used multiple times for one man, it would be difficult to determine how many individual men Josephus was talking about. Actually, one of the men Josephus wrote about was Yahshua Christ Himself. I then wrote the following note above my search:

The following references in Josephus to the name ‘Jesus’ is to demonstrate there were many who had that name, therefore it is not unique to the Christ. I refer to the passage where there is ‘no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved’. Christ’s name therefore must contain the word ‘salvation’ within itself. The name that ended up being translated ‘Jesus’ was a gradual transliteration corruption for the name “Yahshua.” It contains the abbreviated name of the Father, Yah. The second syllable is “shua”, which in the Hebrew means ‘salvation.’ Thus, the truth of the matter is, if the ‘shua’ is removed from the name, there is no salvation. W.E. Vine makes it quite clear in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words that “IESOUS is a translation of the Heb. ‘Joshua’, meaning ‘Jehovah [sic Yahweh] is salvation’, i.e, is the ‘Savior’. As there was no ‘J’ in the Hebrew, pronounce Joshua with a ‘Y’ sound rather than a ‘J’ sound. Vine did quite well except he used the corrupted “Jehovah” rendering rather than the proper name “Yahweh.” As a matter of fact, one of the words for ‘salvation’ in the Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary is #3444, ‘yshuwah’, and the meaning is ‘... something saved ....” The true name of Yahweh was expunged before the time of Christ by unholy hands and substituted with ‘adoni’ or ‘lord.’ Today in our Bibles nearly everywhere it is translated ‘lord’, it should be ‘Yahweh.’ It is strange, though, some of the actual words in Hebrew, as Sarah said of Abraham, ‘he is my baal’ (meaning husband), and in such a case the term ‘lord’ would not be out of order. Now if you ladies don’t like this, don’t blame me, I didn’t write a single word in the Bible!”

The moral of the story is: If we as Israelites of one of the twelve tribes were once married to Yahweh, our Husband, before we were divorced, and by Yahshua Christ’s death on the cross, we are destined to remarry Him, we surely should know His correct Hebrew Name! Or do we just say, “hey you”? While “Yahweh” is a very powerful Name, Yahshua, with “salvation” added, is even more significant! Ladies, how would you like to marry a man who didn’t have a name, and you would become known as Mrs. Nameless? I know this sounds absurd, but there are those who, wittingly or unwittingly, propose this very thing with our Almighty Husband!

Another moral of the story is: If one is under the impression that we are ever going to have “rest” as long as there are Canaanite-jews and Canaanite-arabs alive, one has not read Deut. 7:1-3, which 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 [who had completely absorbed the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites and Rephaims of Gen. 15:19-21], 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: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” Actually, there were four nations absorbed, not three. This means that an Israelite shall definitely not enter a Canaanite-jewish owned bank (or any other bank) and negotiate a loan on usury, nor make a league with the Canaanite-arabs in order to get their oil. We are admonished at Gen. 16:12 that the now arabized Ishmaelites would behave thusly:

And he [Ishmael] will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” This means that it is a violation of Yahweh’s law to allow an arab to enter an Israelite nation (let alone build a mosque there)! Besides, one should avoid a “wild man” like the plague. And surely, one should not want a “wild man” for a doctor! It should now be evident that we Israelites are 180° out of synchronization with Yahweh’s Sovereign Will, with no hope in sight.

An important lesson should not be glossed over concerning Deut. 7:1-3. In Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten nations and they racemixed so much that by Deut. 7:1-2 there are only 6 of the 10 cited. The Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites and Rephaims were completely absorbed by the other nations of this group, from which the Canaanite-jews are extracted. The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, has this to say:

The Kenites. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards reckoned but seven; see Deut. vii. 1; Acts xiii. 19. Probably some of them which existed in Abram’s time had been blended with others before the time of Moses, so that seven only out of the ten then remained. [emphasis mine]

In the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 116 we find this about this mixed group of nations spoken of in Genesis 15:19-21:

When the Israelites entered Canaan they found there a very mixed population generally designated by the term Amorite or Canaanite.” [emphasis mine]

How, then, do we know that this is what happened? Well, we can know this because we know their lifestyles and what kind of people they were. It is recorded in the 18th chapter of Leviticus and we will read verses 24 and 25:

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”

Note: If one will take into account both Gen. 15:19-21 and Deut. 7:1-3, one will find there were actually a total of 11 Canaanite nations, and that 4 nations were absorbed by the other 7. Now in a period of four hundred years, this Satanic seed spread throughout Canaan. Not only was the Satanic seed of Cain involved here, but there was also the Satanic seed of the Rephaims and later the Edomites. The Rephaims were the children of the mixture of fallen angels (who left their first estate) and the daughters of men, and it is recorded that there were giants among them (mutants with six toes on each foot and six fingers on each hand). The sons of “the giant” (Hebrew Rapha, whence Rephaim are mentioned as late as 1 Chronicles chapter 20. This is why Yahweh gave Israel the commission to kill every man, woman and child among them. He has never rescinded that commission – He has just put it on hold. The next mention of this mixture of Canaan and Cain is found at 1st Chr. 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.”

Now the whole 2nd chapter of 1st Chronicles, from verse 3 on, is the lineage of Judah. Then tacked on at the end of the chapter (verse 55) is this group of people who are actually descendants of Cain known as Kenites and have no blood connection at all with Judah. A footnote in The Complete Word Study King James Bible, by Spiros Zodhiates, page 1055 says, “They became incorporated into the tribe of Judah.” The word Kenite here is 7017 in the Strong’s Concordance. Actually, the numbers for Cain are both 7014 and 7017. You will notice here, in 1st Chronicles 2:55, they are called “the families of the scribes.” They were scribes at that time and they were scribes in Yahshua’s time – and they carry the genetics of Satan.

At this time I am going to quote from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782:

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

Once we understand that the descendants of both Cain and Canaan are all mixed genetically together, we can better comprehend the context of the entire evil story. This is not all of the evidence as there is much more, and I challenge anyone to refute it if they think they can!

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

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

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

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

Again, in the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 181, we have more on the name of the Kenites: “The name Cain is generally taken by Semitic philologists to mean ‘smith’, and regarded as the patronymic of the Kenite clan of smiths.”

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

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

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

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

Here is where these Pharisees, Sadducees and SCRIBES, whom Yahshua pointed out as being of their father the devil, came from. When He said to them Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.”

Yahshua was only stating a scientific fact. Not only was all of the blood from Abel up to this point on their head, but the blood of Yahshua Himself would fall upon them. Matthew 27:25 says:

Then answered all the [Cain satanic] people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”

Not only is the blood of Yahshua upon their head, but all of the blood shed since that time in all their murders. That means every Adamic man woman and child that has died in their planned wars, and all the other murders they have committed. Here is where this “one-seedline” (or maybe “no-seedline”) doctrine gets serious: When one denies the Cain-Satanic-seedline, one puts the impostor usurping-jew on the same level as anyone else. What one is actually doing, in essence, is forgiving the satanic-jews for their murder of Yahshua the Christ! What the “one-seedliners” are essentially implying is that the enmity is in the flesh, and therefore we are the murderers of Yahweh in the flesh! What a lot of tommyrot that is to confuse the issue! I guess if Ted. R. Weiland insists upon being a buffoon, he might as well do it “first-class”!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #159 July 2011

This is my one hundred and fifty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137 by giving a general overview, which I am expanding on with a more detailed seven-stages explanation of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. With WTL #157, I had to interrupt my account in order to once again address the fact that Yahweh had indeed divorced Judah. Yet in spite of all hell, there are those that through ignorance of Scripture, or pure arrogance (or both), still insist that He did not. From the data which I have, this errant premise has been circulating for nearly a hundred years, and it’s about time the clowns who are promoting this error be silenced, posthaste!

Had these less-than-intelligent wannabees ever read Jeremiah at 33:24, stating in no uncertain words: “Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.” These two families were Israel and Judah, so an argument cannot be made that both of them were not “cast off”. Yahweh absolutely does not break His own law, and at Deut. 24:1, He specifically instructs the twelve tribes thusly: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” Therefore, even a 3rd-grader should be able to see that the writ of divorce precedes the casting out! It is a serious matter of accusing Yahweh of being a common sinner by breaking His own law! Maybe some of these “Bible experts” aren’t as knowledgeable as they claim to be! By-the-way, if by chance you meet someone making this un-Biblical argument, cite these two verses! Now to our subject:

  

 

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 22

YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON WITH THE TWELVE TRIBES continued:

Dan Gayman, in his audiocassette series on this same subject, in tape #4 on the honeymoon cited parts of Psalm 105, but I will present it in full, not from the KJV as he did, but from Smith & Goodspeed, which I will edit in part for a better understanding. This passage contains allusions to the courtship, the marriage, and the honeymoon:

Psalm 105: “THE WONDERS OF YAHWEH

1 Give thanks to Yahweh; call upon His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples! 2 Sing to Him; sing praises to Him; tell of all His wonders! 3 Glory in his Holy Name! May the heart of those who seek Yahweh rejoice! 4 Inquire of Yahweh and His Might! Seek His Face continually! 5 Remember the Wonders that He has done, His portents, and the judgments of his Mouth, 6 O descendants of Abraham, His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen! 7 He is Yahweh, our God; His judgments are in all the earth. 8 He remembers His Covenant forever, the word He has commanded, to a thousand generations; 9 The Covenant He made with Abraham, and His Oath to Isaac. 10 For He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an eternal Covenant; 11 Saying, ‘To you I give the land of Canaan, as your portion and inheritance.’ 12 When they were but few in number, of slight importance and but strangers therein; 13 When they went back and forth from one nation to another, and from one kingdom to another people, 14 He permitted no man to oppress them, And warned kings concerning them, 15 ‘Touch not my anointed [people], And do my prophets no harm!’ 16 Then He called a famine upon the land; He broke every staff of bread. 17 He sent forth a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave. 18 They forced his feet into fetters; he himself was laid in irons. 19 Until what he had said came about, the Word of Yahweh tested him. 20 The king sent and released him, the ruler of peoples, and set him free. 21 He made him overseer of his house, and ruler over all his possessions; 22 That he might give orders to his officers as he pleased, and might instruct his elders. 23 Then Israel went into Egypt, and Jacob dwelt in the land of Ham. 24 And he made his people very prolific, and made them more numerous than their foes. 25 He changed their heart so that they hated His people, so that they dealt treacherously with His servants. 26 He sent forth Moses, His servant, and Aaron, whom He had chosen. 27 They wrought among them wondrous signs, and portents in the land of Ham. 28 He [through Moses] sent forth darkness so that it became dark; But they rebelled against His words. 29 He turned their water into blood, and so killed their fish. 30 Their land swarmed with frogs; they were in the chambers of their kings. 31 He spoke and a swarm of flies came, mosquitoes throughout their country. 32 He gave them hail for rain; flaming fire was in their land. 33 He smote their vine and fig tree, and broke down the trees of their country. 34 He spoke, and the locust came, and insects innumerable. 35 They ate up all the fodder in their land; they ate up all the products of their soil. 36 Then He [allowed the] smiting [of] all the first-born in their land, the first-fruits of all their virile strength. 37 Then He sent them [Israel] forth with silver and gold, and there was no straggler in their ranks; 38 Egypt was glad when they went forth, for terror had fallen upon them. 39 He spread out a cloud as a screen, and fire to give light by night 40 They asked, and He brought in quails; and with bread from the heavens he satisfied them. 41 He split the rock and water flowed forth; there ran a river in the sands. 42 For He remembered his sacred word to Abraham, His servant. 43 And He brought forth his people with joy, His chosen ones with joyous song. 44 And He gave them the lands of the nations; of the toil of the peoples they took possession. 45 That they might keep his statutes and observe his laws. Hallelujah!”

I would point out that Pete Peters erroneously believes that the “my anointed” spoken of in this passage are not the Israel people, but only the Israel prophets, and applies this “my anointed” only to himself! Well Pete, pile it higher and higher! Pete’s idea of a Divine Government is a dictatorship with him as the Chief (with a club in his hand that he usually swings at those watching his videos on the Internet), praising n-words and bashing Caucasians! Many now rightfully refer to him as “Azusa Pete”, which fits him to the tee! [Since this was written, it was learned that Peters has joined William Seymour, and has gone to his reward.]

Rather than a dictatorship, we now turn our attention to this particular phase of Israel’s history, and we must bear in mind that Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel (His Cinderella bride) amounted to a theocratic, or God-centered government upon this earth, where the Ekklesia and State were one and the same. Yahweh’s bill of divorce to the twelve tribes is what temporarily dissolved this form of government, until our future remarriage to Him. In the meantime, we suffer under inferior styles of government that can never bring us true justice, although the United States comes the closest to the ideal, only because it was established on Christian principles. So if one really desires equity, pray for Yahshua Christ’s quick return at His Second Advent, when true justice will finally be meted out!

Yahweh gave we Adamites larger brains to think with than are found among the non-Adamic races, and He expects us to use them to a greater degree. A professor at the University of Michigan, Alexander Winchell LL.D. wrote a 526 page book entitled PreAdamites, ©1880, and subtitled, “or A Demonstration of The Existence of Men Before Adam”. On pages 248-250, he makes some very interesting observations, showing a side-by-side comparison drawing of an Adamite with a Chimpanzee. A note below this side-by-side drawing states: “In Fig. 42 the reader will note especially the length of the arms, the narrowing and obliquity of the pelvis, and the angularity or flattening of the tibia” [of the Chimpanzee]. He explains further, on page 249, stating: “... Their contrasts are apparent at a glance. In every particular in which the skeleton of the Negro departs from that of the Adamite, it is intermediate between that and the skeleton of the Chimpanzee ... The average weight of the European brain, males and females is 1340 grammes; ... that of the Hottentot, 974, and of the Australian, 907. The significance of these comparisons appears when we learn that Broca, the most eminent of French anthropologists, states that when the European brain falls below 978 grammes (mean of males and females), the result is idiocy. In this opinion Thurman coincides. The color of the Negro brain is darker than that of the white, and its density and texture are inferior ....” This is simply amazing, as the Negro appears to be a halfway-house between an Adamite and a Chimpanzee. Why else would all of the bones of a negroid measure halfway between the bones of these two examples? Such results are understandable when we consider that a fallen Angel would have the same physical characteristics as an Adamite!

I am not referring to evolution here, which would amount to a gradual change from one species to another, but the mixing of two dissimilar species, causing an immediate corruption of the blueprint of the DNA to a genetic mutation of a third kind which never existed before, and Yahweh never created. The reader can use his own imagination as to the degree of idiocy in a Hottentot. I bring all of this up, as it is predicted that there are those who will attempt to crash the “marriage supper of the Lamb” without a wedding garment, WHITE and clean, Rev. 19:8-9; Matt. 22:11-13!

Once the marriage had taken place, all areas of the life of the Cinderella bride – the twelve tribes of Israel – came under the absolute prenuptial constitution, which consisted of commandments, laws, statutes, judgments, ordinances and blood sacrifice for sins.

When the remarriage takes place, the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (i.e., race-mix), Exo. 20:14, will no longer be necessary, as the non-Adamic races will no longer exist. There will be no mules in Christ’s Kingdom! The reason Yahshua died was to purchase His former bride back unto Himself – no others need apply! If one was born a pure descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and under the covenants promised to them, one has no choice in the matter – they’ll be in the Kingdom, whether they like it or not – and they alone will face judgment for their former infidelity (all 3000+ years worth)! Meanwhile, we have one alternative at 1 Tim. 5:24:

Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.”

In order to sin, one must have at sometime been under Yahweh’s nuptial agreement, consisting of commandments, laws, statutes, judgments, ordinances and blood sacrifice for sins, and only the twelve tribes of Israel were ever under Yahweh’s Law. Therefore, it is an impossibility for a non-Israelite to sin, other than the fact that the product of miscegenation (i.e., mixed-race) is a walking violation, or a bastard, and can only produce more bastards! A thousand generations – a thousand bastards, for which there is no remedy, other than eternal death. Don’t blame me – I didn’t write the Bible! Even this sin can be sent beforehand to the judgment, but not the product thereof! Take for instance Judah, who became a multi-great-grandfather to Christ, but also fathered the multiracial Er, Onan and Shelah by a Canaanite woman, daughter of Shua.

To give the reader some idea what kind of honeymoon Yahweh had planned for His Cinderella bride, under His prenuptial agreement, which most people refer to as “the Law”, the bride was assured by her Husband Yahweh of generous measures of freedom, multiplied prosperity, along with sincere happiness and sufficient liberty corresponding to her obedience in keeping her wedding vows. Under the provisions of the wedding vows, the bride was established as “a people”, “a nation”, and “a kingdom of priests”, Exo. 19:5-6:

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”

SO, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

The problem is that some try to bring under the Covenant those whom the Scripture does not include, Amos 3:2:

You [Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

Again, Yahshua stated, Matthew 15:24:

But he [Christ] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Now, what is there that is so hard to understand about these two verses? How much plainer can it be?

Galatians 4:4-5: 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.” Only Israel was ever under the law! That excludes all the other peoples! Where it says: “God sent forth his Son”, it actually means Yahweh the Father came as the Son. Otherwise the Son would marry His Father’s wife.

Galatians 3:13-15 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the [Israel] nations through Yahshua Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” The Covenant made to Abraham cannot be annulled, nor can anyone else be added to it! They can try until hell freezes over, but it will never happen! An attempt to do so is fraud! Anyone committing fraud is a criminal! So much for the “whosoever[s].”

Luke 1:68-79: 68 Blessed be Yahweh God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of Yahweh to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” Only the lost tribes of Israel “sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.” Therefore only Israel qualifies under the Covenant. It doesn’t say anything about anyone else here!

2 Corinthians 5:17-18: 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Yahshua Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” Only Israel was separated from Yahweh by divorce, and only Israel could therefore be “reconciled.” “Reconciliation” is impossible without a previous relationship! The other races cannot claim a primary position, let alone a reconciled relationship.

Colossians 1:14-21: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: 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.” Again, only Israel can claim “reconciliation”, and only Israel can claim to have become “alienated.” How absurd to apply the words “reconciliation” and “alienated” in the context of this passage to the other races! How do the other races, already being aliens, become alienated?

Ezekiel 20:33-36: 33 As I live, saith Yahweh God, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you: 34 And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. 35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. 36 Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith Yahweh God.” Not only are we going to be separated from the other races, but we are going to knuckle-under Christ’s rule, whether we like it or not. We have no choice in the matter!

This is what I wrote several years ago: “Then Yahweh informs them (verse 32), So you want to be like the heathen? like the families that serve wood and stone? Well, I have news for you, whether you like it or not, I am going to ‘RULE OVER YOU’! You will see that by My ‘MIGHTY HAND’ and ‘LONG ARM’, along with ‘MY ANGER, I WILL RULE OVER YOU.’ And after I have ‘scattered’ you among the heathen, I will ‘gather’ you out of the countries where you were scattered with that same ‘MIGHTY HAND.’ And I will bring you into a new ‘wilderness’ (America) and there I will deal with you ‘face to face’ like I pleaded with your fathers, (1) in Egypt, (2) the (first) wilderness, (3) the border of Canaan, (4) in Canaan, and (5) in Ezekiel’s day.” A lot of this has already happened, but there is more yet to come, and it appears like it will be a mighty rough ride, as we ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

The question might come up: What right does Yahweh have to rule over His wife? After all, haven’t the women of today gained the right to rule over themselves? All of this is answered at Gen. 2:18 where it states: “And Yahweh God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” It is very obvious here that an Adamic man is absolutely of no value without an Adamic woman at his side. Likewise, an Adamic woman is absolutely of no value without an Adamic man! This same rule can be applied to Yahweh and His Cinderella bride. In other words, the twelve tribes of Israel are absolutely of no value without a Husband. And as for Yahweh Himself, He can have no real satisfaction with everything that He has created, without a genetically pure White wife to share it with!

The truth of the matter is: we were conceived and born under contract, so we, as Israelites, have no choice in the matter, man or woman! We do not choose Christ, as churchianity demands, but He chose us before the foundation of the world. Therefore, we are Yahweh’s legitimate property, and He is not about to let any of us escape His jurisdiction. The major responsibility a White woman has over her own body is to keep it out of reach of an alien not of her race!

The following is part of what I wrote in my brochure, Born Under Contract: “Imagine yourself being born, and when you took your first breath, you found yourself under a binding legal obligation emanating from your ancestors which you cannot, in any way, annul. As a matter of fact, if you are a member of a certain group of people, you have several contracts by which you must abide which will affect every major phase and all the decisions of your life. There is only one group of people in the entire world who are born with this obligation on their physical, mental and spiritual beings. And, as much as anyone might want to find a way to disengage himself from the provisions of these contracts, he finds himself entirely helpless to do so. He cannot decide he doesn’t want to be under the terms of these contracts, nor can others who are not under them decide they want to be included therein. If you have been designated a party under the terms, you really have no choice in the matter but to comply. It is not open for invitation, and you don’t have an option. If one does not comply with the terms of the accord, every means will be applied to bring him back into compliance with that Covenant. One cannot plead ignorance to the existence of these contracts as ignorance is no excuse. Because these binding contracts play such an important role in our lives, it will be the object here to explain them and the penalties incurred for not keeping the terms as prescribed. It is my hope here to show how futile it is to fight these conditions under which we find ourselves obligated from the time of our birth. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, says in part: ‘... and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price’ ...

YAHWEH’S CHOSEN PEOPLE

From the foregoing, it should be quite obvious Yahweh does have a ‘chosen people.’ As a matter of fact, Yahweh chose His people, and in no way can one choose Him. They may choose to serve Him, but cannot choose Him personally. For He has already made the choice of choosing us, and we have no say in the matter. To back up this statement, I will quote Deuteronomy 7:6:

“‘For thou art an holy [set apart] people unto Yahweh thy Elohim: Yahweh thy Elohim hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.’

For more witnesses that this is speaking of Israel only, let’s consider the following passages:

Isaiah 41:8: “‘But thou Israel art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.’

Isaiah 43:10: “‘Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen ...’

Isaiah 44:1-2: “‘1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel whom I have chosen: 2 Thus saith Yahweh that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not O Jacob my servant; and thou Jesurun whom I have chosen.’ ....

FALSE DOCTRINE OF BEING BORN AGAIN

It is not my desire to ridicule anyone’s prayer to Yahweh for repentance, such as found in 2 Chronicles 7:14, or any effort one might put forth to amend one’s ways, but the doctrine of being ‘born again’ cannot be found in Scripture. I am sure many might be quick to quote John 3:3 where it says: ‘... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Yahweh.’ Actually, this passage does not say ‘born again’, but ‘born from above.’ You’ll have to admit there is a world of difference between being ‘born again’ and being ‘born from above’. Being born from above simply does not imply being born again. You can check almost any Bible commentary and it will confirm ‘born from above’ is a correct rendering. It may also be rendered ‘from the beginning.’ It was Nicodemus only who didn’t understand this, and churches as a whole have taken the same position as Nicodemus took. While the churches do not go to the extent of saying one must reenter one’s mother’s womb, they take another erroneous position. Nominal churchianity takes the position: if a person (and he can be from any race) chooses Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and believes on Him, he can enter the Kingdom, and somehow this new candidate is regenerated or ‘born again’ of the Spirit. That this passage should have been translated ‘born from above’ is illustrated in Matthew Poole’s A Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 3, page 290: ‘The word translated ‘again’ is ἄνωθενwhich often signified ‘from above’ ...’

Comparing verse 3 to 31, we can plainly see it should have been translated ‘from above’ as it uses the same Greek word #509:

John 3:31: ‘He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.’

Now that we can understand that the expression ‘born again’ is a mistranslation, let’s take a better look at this passage found in John 3:1-21. What we have here is a man of the Pharisee sect by the name of Nicodemus coming to the Messiah by night to inquire more concerning the kingdom of Yahweh. No doubt, Nicodemus was a good man and a true Israelite, for he defended Yahshua at his trial, John 7:50-51; and attended, with Joseph of Arimathaea, at His burial, John 19:38-40. This was part of the conversation our Anointed One had with him, John 3:3-7:

“‘3 Yahshua answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of Yahweh. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Yahshua answered,span style=em 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born from above’.”

The moral to the story is: when Yahweh decided to marry and take a wife, He chose a bride of His Own White Race (or the twelve tribes of Israel)! What is more, He expects we White Israelites to do likewise, and teach our pure White children to do the same. If a nonwhite alien moves in next-door, one is not to encourage the least whit of friendship with (or toward) them, and immediately their property is off-limits to any of our own pure White children; nor are the alien nonwhite children to be welcome to trespass on our property. A nonwhite is not Biblically a Caucasian’s neighbor. And when it comes to education, the only alternative a Caucasian has is home schooling! To ride the same school bus or enter a classroom with a nonwhite is highly unChristian, as it leads later on to miscegenation! Our White children should have the same privilege of having recreation with, courting, marrying and having a honeymoon with a White spouse, as our God Yahweh set the precedence for! To encourage our White children to do otherwise is satanic, right out of the pits of hell! So, Yahweh’s honeymoon with His Cinderella bride (the twelve White tribes of Israel) is our example and lawful pattern for living, come hell or high water! Neither we, nor Yahweh, have any other choice!

A lot of people in Israel Identity mistakenly attempt to make the #120, “man”, at Gen. 1:26-27 a different man than the #120, “man” at Gen. 2:7-8, by differentiating the words “created” and “formed”. Had they taken Isaiah 43:1 into account, they wouldn’t have fallen into that error perpetrated by the romish Jesuits and Canaanite-jews:

But now thus saith Yahweh that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.”

Therefore, all those promoting a 6th and 8th day creation of Adam, and the other races, couldn’t be more in error! Some will even go to long lengths to differentiate between “Elohim” in Gen. ch. 1 and “Yahweh” in Gen. ch. 2, making a case that two different gods brought to life two different “peoples”. One can take notice that Isaiah states that Yahweh “CREATED” Jacob and Israel who were descendants of the same lone man at Gen. 1:27 & 2:7!

If this isn’t enough evidence that the 6th & 8th day purveyors of error are wrong, read Isaiah 43:7 which supports Isaiah 43:1:

Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.” And it’s Yahweh speaking! Shall we make Isaiah a liar twice?

There Will I Plead With You Face To Face”, Exo. 20:36:

Once we had arrived in the wilderness of America, the above promise was fulfilled before our very eyes, especially among the Puritans. All we needed was the freedom to read our 1599 Geneva Bibles, without a king or priest injecting his biased individual political or religious views. Yes, it was “face to face”, as we opened our 1599 Geneva Bibles, and our eyes gazed directly upon Yahweh’s word, with the average reading distance from about 10 to 15 inches. In other words, the “face” of the printed pages to one’s own “face”! When it says, “face to face”, that is exactly what it means, with no third-person in-between!

What, then, is Yahweh’s greatest pleading with us? It is none other than the topic of this series, The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, with its seven stages as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. His pleading with us has now lasted nearly 400 years, in an effort to inform us that it is now safe for His divorced wife to return unto Him. Under the law we were dead, without any hope, but by Yahshua Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, the “Blotting out the handwriting of [the divorce] ordinances that was against us” was paid for with His blood, Col. 2:14.

This is also alluded to at Malachi 4:5-6: 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Yahweh: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” With all of the natural disasters that have been occurring in this world for the last ten years, I would really hate to imagine what this “smite[ing of] the earth” might be like, let alone what will transpire during the “dreadful day of Yahweh”! Obviously, when it speaks of sending “Elijah the prophet”, it is referring only to “the same spirit that motivated Elijah”. Actually, the spirit of Elijah (not to be confused with reincarnation) has been with us now since 1837, ever since John Wilson started his Inquiry into the Israelitish origin of the Anglo-Saxons and related peoples.

Israel Identity, and Israel Identity alone, has been the only message since the writing of divorce, followed by the casting out of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, that qualifies as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6! And like I have said before, we Israelites have no choice in the matter! The only people who qualify for remarriage to Yahweh are those He bought and paid for. They are the same people (+ their pure-blooded descendants) whom He married at Mount Sinai!

Watchman's Teaching Letter #160 August 2011

This is my one hundred and sixtieth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, by giving a general overview, which I am expanding on with seven more-detailed stages of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. From time to time I have to interrupt this comprehensive presentation in order to address undue conjecture that some less-than-enlightened individuals attempt to interject into a story, which the Bible absolutely does not support. Like some have wisely said in the past: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!” But in spite of all hell, these clowns insist on exposing their ignorance to everyone around them, even so far as writing 40 to 50 pages of ranting diatribe, sending it worldwide in E-mails, and posting it on internet websites!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 23

YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON WITH THE TWELVE TRIBES continued:

In the last lesson on this subject, I quoted what we Israelites have faced during the last 400 years, and what we still have to face in the future, at Ezekiel 20:33-36:

33 As I live, saith Yahweh God, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you: 34 And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. 35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. 36 Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith Yahweh God.”

To understand who the Israelites are today, we have to consider several (better than 20 in number) of the Teutonic tribes, generally called “Germans”. The uncontaminated Germans, Irish and Scottish are all pureblooded Israelites, and of a very pure race. Not only are these Israelites, but also the White Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Scandinavian, Norwegian, Icelandic, Canadian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealanders, Northern Italian, White Spanish, and others who are of the same clean pristine White race.

What I wanted to impress on your mind is, if you are truly descended from the original tribes whom Yahweh married at Mount Sinai, Ezekiel 20:33-36 describes how He has been dealing with you and your ancestors for the last 400 years, and you (as His wife that He purchased back with His blood) have no choice in the matter! As of the writing of this lesson, less than 1 in 10,000 White Israelites understand their Identity. However, if Ezekiel 20:33-36 is true, (and it is), sometime in the near future 100% of the Israelites are going to know their Israel Identity! The last two verses of Malachi warn, if we don’t learn our Israel Identity PDQ, the earth will be “smitten” with curse after curse until we do understand who we are! Do we have to suffer the 1929 economic depression all over again – only worse – to finally wake up? We were well on our way to moral disaster during the “roaring twenties”, when suddenly we were faced with the 1929 depression, and just as suddenly, everyone got religion, and the women started acting like godly women again, and when the men finally were re-employed, they stayed faithful to that job the rest of their lives!

Upon the Canaanite-jews observing how easy it was to lure the American White women to the moral hog-trough in the “roaring twenties”, they decided to bring back a measure of prosperity. In order to do that, they (the Canaanite-jews) decided to kill two birds with one stone: by planning World War II, where White German-Americans would be slaughtering White European Germanic Nationals (their near-of-kin), and vice versa, while an untold number of mothers of Israelite-Teutonic origin grieved over the deaths of their sons. The White American mother would place a star in her window upon this occasion to show the family’s loss. The Hollywood Canaanite-jew’s second all-out attack on White women (as they had done with the men in WW II), would come later, on a worldwide scale.

!! NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLANNED !!

If you’re looking forward to an economic recovery, forget it – it’s not going to happen under the present jewish-controlled regimes of this world. The world’s elite have us right where they want us, and they are not going to allow us to regain the abundant life we once knew. These very same world elite have systematically shipped all of our good paying jobs overseas to third-world countries, and our present leadership in Washington D.C. have made it clear that those jobs will never return to our shores. They instead keep promising us “green jobs”, which can never provide even 1% of the jobs we need. But instead of bemoaning the dire straits in which we find ourselves, let’s take into consideration from whence all of this evil emanates.

The following documentation is from a book entitled Pawns In The Game by William Guy Carr. Carr had a distinguished naval career in WWs I & II where he served as submarine navigating officer and other positions of authority. Carr wrote a sequel to this book entitled The Red Fog Over America in which his documentation is impeccable. I will now pick Carr up in chapter 10 of his Pawns In The Game, on pages 105-106, where he cites a Jewish Conference held in Budapest on January 12th, 1952. And his source is from an American publication Common Sense by Mr. Eustace Mullins, an authority on the Marxist conspiracy.

A report from Europe carries the following speech of Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952:

“‘Greetings, my children: You have been called here to recapitulate the principal steps of our new programme. As you know, we had hoped to have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to us, and we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War III within five years.

“‘The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase our efforts, and our caution, tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king, and every Gentile a slave. (Applause from the gathering). You remember the success of our propaganda campaign during the 1930’s, which aroused anti-American passions in Germany at the same time we were arousing anti-German passions in America, a campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign is now being waged intensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up in Russia by an incessant anti-American barrage, while a nationwide anti-Communist scare is sweeping America. This campaign is forcing all of the smaller nations to choose between the partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States.

“‘Our most pressing problem at the moment is to inflame the lagging militaristic spirit of the Americans. The failure of the Universal Military Training Act was a great setback to our plans, but we are assured that a suitable measure will be rushed through Congress immediately after the 1952 elections. The Russian, as well as the Asiatic peoples, are well under control and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of anti-Semitism, which worked so well in uniting the Americans against Germany. We are counting heavily on reports of anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to help whip up indignation in the United States and produce a front of solidarity against the Soviet power. Simultaneously, to demonstrate to Americans the reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their effectiveness, and we shall stage anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their larger cities. This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America, which can be silenced, and of welding the United States into a devoted anti-Russian unit.

“‘Within five years, this programme will achieve its objective, the Third World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israel [sic the Canaanite-jews], of course; will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted we will arbitrate, sending our Control Commission into all wrecked countries. This war will end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles.

“‘We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter-racial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples.”

Question from the gathering: ‘Rabbi Rabinovich, what about the various religions after the Third World War?’

Rabinovich: ‘There will be no more religions. Not only would the existence of a priest class remain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an after-life would give spiritual strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We will, however, retain the rituals and customs of Judaism, as the mark of our hereditary ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so that no Jew will be allowed to marry outside our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us.

“‘We may have to repeat the grim days of World War II, when we were forced to let the Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order that we may have adequate documentation and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the Peace. I am sure you will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword of our people, and the death of a few thousand Jews in exchange for world leadership is indeed a small price to pay.

“‘To convince you of the certainty of that leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the white man into weapons against him. His printing presses and radios are the mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him. Our interests in Washington are greatly extending the Point Four Programme for developing industry in backward areas of the world, so that after the industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the whites can offer no resistance against the large masses of the dark races, who will maintain an unchallenged technological superiority.

“‘And so, with the vision of world victory before you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until that approaching day when Israel [sic Canaanite-jews] will reveal herself in all her glorious destiny as the Light of the World’ ...”

This is not the only evidence of what these world elite have planned for the White race, and it started long before 1952. In Myron C. Fagan’s booklet UN Is Spawn Of the Illuminati, published October-November, 1966, he elaborates somewhat more in depth concerning this matter, on pages 16-18:

Around 1910, one Israel Zangwill wrote a play which he called ‘The Melting Pot.’ The central figure in the play was a very young Jewish boy, who ostensibly was a violinist of wonderful talent. According to the plot in the play, certain people were eager to reveal his great talents to the world and they tried to lease the Carnegie Music Hall for a concert, but the management of the Carnegie refused, ostensibly because the boy was a Jew. However, very great pressures were brought to bear on the management, and they consented to the engagement. Then – and this was still part of the play – it was discovered that the young violinist insisted upon a young Negro pianist being his accompanist. Again the management exploded – they had a rigid rule against Negroes performing in their Music Hall. But, again tremendous pressure was brought to bear on them – and they finally surrendered.

All that was part of the play. Now, I come to the point of establishing that ‘The Melting Pot’ was sheer propaganda, embodied in a good evening’s entertainment. The idea in the play was that the United States should be a ‘Melting Pot’ for the Minority Groups, but especially for the Jews and Negroes. And that was the way the Critics viewed it – and the way the audiences accepted it. As a result of the reviews, the play was a sensational success. Nobody who saw the play recognized the propaganda in it – not even I. Well, as far back as 1910, 56 years ago [in 1966], there was no reason to suspect [propaganda]. We all accepted what Zangwill said – that it was all a case of ‘humanitarianism’ – they used that word that far back ... Now, get the following!

George Bernard Shaw, Israel Zangwill and another English (Jewish) writer, named Israel Cohen, composed the triumvirate that launched ‘Fabian Socialism’ in England. And all three were zealous supporters of Marxism.

Both Shaw and Cohen came to America to attend the opening of the Zangwill play. Following the performance, Diamond Jim Brady, a famous character of those days, threw a banquet at Delmonico’s for the Cast and the author – and invited many Broadway celebrities to attend. I was one of the invited. There, for the first time, I met Israel Cohen – I had previously known Shaw in England. During the evening, Cohen mentioned that he was writing a book, which was to be titled: ‘A RACIAL PROGRAM FOR THE 20th CENTURY.’ Cohen described it as a ‘humanitarian’ follow-up in book form of ‘The Melting Pot.’

At that time that meant nothing to me. When the book was published I did not get a copy of it – I wasn’t that interested in it.

It first came to my attention shortly after [Earl] Warren issued his infamous ‘DESEGREGATION DECISION’, and it was brought to my attention by an article published by the Washington Star, in which they quoted the following passage from Cohen’s ‘A RACIAL PROGRAM OF THE 20th CENTURY’ ... the following is the quote:

“‘We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension ... In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the negroes. We will aid the negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our [the Canaanite-jewish] cause’.”

SUMMARY

In 1952, I was 25 years old, and little did I realize that anyone on this earth was making such plans as we note Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich and others before him formulated. When faced with Rabinovich’s words, we are stunned that there is anyone on this earth with such an evil agenda. Once we are informed of these facts, though, we realize that this is exactly what we have witnessed in our country since 1952. Once we become aware of the machinations of the race of people to whom Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich and Israel Zangwill belong (who are in reality are Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jews falsely claiming to be Israelites), then it becomes quite apparent what their criminal motives are. They want nothing less than a world full of half-breed slaves, which means the extinction of the White race! Not only is their ultimate plan the genocide of the White race, their goal is to steal all of the White man’s jobs and ship them to third world countries in the name of “global warming” in preparation for this. Therefore, don’t look forward to an economic recovery anytime soon. Only the Second Advent of Yahshua Christ will restore to us our rightful prosperity!

To further enlighten the reader, I will repeat what I wrote recently in two of my E-mails:

1st. A WORD TO THE WISE: I would like to connect the dots on a matter of which I am sure many are not aware. At Psalm 22:16-20 it is prophesied that Christ would be crucified by the “power of the dog”. In Scripture, both Old Testament and New, the Canaanites were considered “dogs”! Not only did they murder Christ, but later they infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church, in the fifteenth century, by the Florentine Canaanite banking family of the Medici, and made its rule virtually hereditary. By the sixteenth century one Lorenzo de’ Medici (styling himself the Magnificent) had a son, Giovanni, who became Pope Leo X (1475-1521). Giulio de’ Medici (son of Giuliano) also became Pope Clement VII, (1478-1534). The Medici family also became dominant in financial and political endeavors. Later, the Canaanite house of Rothschild would follow a similar paradigm. In 1913, their Canaanite descendants gained control over America’s money system in the unlawful establishment of the so-called Federal Reserve System. Then in 1917, these same Canaanites of the house of Rothschild, on the east side of New York, organized and financed the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, murdering and starving to death 20,000,000 White Ukrainian farmers. Since the beginning of the 20th century, these same Canaanite-dogs have had a published agenda to mongrelize the White Anglo-Saxon race with all the races of the 3rd world. You can listen to the female Canaanite-dog, Barbara Spectre on Utube, revealing their plan for this, stating at Stockholm, Sweden: “Sweden cannot continue ‘monolithic’ [meaning racially pure], but must become ‘multicultural’ [meaning racially mixed] to survive”.

2nd. A WORD TO THE WISE: Concerning our out-of-control national, state, county, city and township debts in the United States, we are told by our less-than-trustworthy media and politicians that “everything must be placed on the table”. Then they go into their oral gymnastics, claiming the only solutions to our financi mce_style=text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 105%;al problems are to lower every kind of spending, and increase every kind of taxes. By doing so, they overlook the major item to be placed on the table! That item is the spiraling accumulating interest on all of these debts. Biblically, loaning money on usury was, and still is, totally forbidden on penalty of death, and the Unites States was founded as a Christian nation on Biblical principles! Jeremiah at 15:10 stated: “Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.” So we see that it is just as evil to borrow as it is to loan on usury! Secondly, the money (i.e., debt instruments) that are being issued to us today are made out of thin air by the so-called Federal Reserve, so the only honest way to deal with our debt is to write a non-negotiable check for 13 or 14 trillion units of the same kind of thin air they loaned to us, and pay the Federal Reserve debt off in like-kind and bring our deficit down to zero! As China also has a central bank, which also creates money (i.e., debt instruments) out of thin air, we should declare all of their phony money illegal in America, and cancel all debts, both national and personal, and return all of the foreclosed-on property back to the rightful owners. Until the factor of Interest is laid on the table, our Nation will have committed financial suicide!

After that, an honest, non-interest money system would have to be established. On such a system all the various governmental needs could be met by allowing them to spend into existence any new currency printed, based on the increased wealth of the nation, as Benjamin Franklin did for the colonies, and as Lincoln did during the Civil War with his Greenbacks. In such a system, tax agencies would be a thing of the past! If the reader is not already aware of it, he needs to know about:

THE BLACK BOX ECONOMY

What you are about to read is 100 times more evil than the following website describes! It is how a solitary woman by the name of Brooksley E. Born stands up in defiance to the three Canaanite-jews; Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt and Robert Rubin at:

http://www.bloomberg.com

Born Says Banks Seek to Block Any Derivatives Change (Update1) By Matthew Leising - May 18, 2009 14:46 EDT

May 18 (Bloomberg) – Brooksley Born, the former U.S. commodities regulator who lost the fight to police over-the-counter derivatives a decade ago, said the banks that caused the financial crisis are trying to stop the overhaul of the market.

“‘Special interests in the financial-services industry are beginning to advocate a return to business as usual and to argue against any need for serious reform,’ Born said today as she accepted a Profile in Courage award from the John F. Kennedy Library. If changes aren’t made ‘we will be haunted by our failure for years to come,’ she said.

As the chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1998, Born warned that the unregulated contracts posed a serious danger to the global financial system and moved to address changes in how swaps based on interest rates, commodities or currencies were traded. She was stopped by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt and Robert Rubin, who all argued the market could regulate itself.

Lax oversight contributed to the failures last year of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and American International Group Inc., leading to the seizure of credit markets and causing more than $1.4 trillion in writedowns amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has promised that the U.S. will for the first time regulate over-the-counter derivatives, which are a major source of bank profits.

The motivation for blocking her attempt to oversee over-the-counter derivatives was both ideological and financial, Born said in an interview today after the awards ceremony.

Strong Market Period

“‘It was an era where the markets were performing very well. Certainly Alan Greenspan believed they were self-regulating and didn’t need oversight,’ she said. ‘The fact that it was a significant profit center for many of the largest investment banks meant that the financial-services industry was adamantly opposed to any inquiry into that market.’

After Congress exempted over-the-counter derivatives from U.S. oversight in 2000, the market swelled from about $100 trillion to $684 trillion by June 30, according to the Bank for International Settlements. The growth included credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, custom-made products barely in use under Born’s reign.

“‘I was aware that powerful interests in the financial community were opposed to any examination of that market,’ Born said in her first known public comments on the current financial crisis. ‘I spoke out because I felt a duty to let the public, the Congress and the other financial regulators know that that market endangered our financial stability.’

An Award for Bair

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair also received a Profile in Courage award today for her efforts to warn about subprime-mortgage lending practices.

Over-the-counter derivatives, such as the $28 trillion credit-default swaps market, complicated U.S. and European efforts to unravel trades between banks. Bear Stearns Co’s. was acquired by JP Morgan Chase & Co. last year, Lehman collapsed in the world’s biggest bankruptcy and AIG is selling assets after losses from derivatives. All are based in New York.

Born, 68, was appointed to the CFTC by Bill Clinton and served alongside Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and Securities and Exchange Chairman Levitt, a board member of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News. They all served with Born on the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets.

Upsetting Colleagues

Born roiled [angered] colleagues when her agency said on May 7, 1998, that it would consider whether the over-the-counter instruments should remain exempt from oversight. That same day, Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt said in a joint statement, ‘We seriously question the scope of the CFTC’s jurisdiction in this area.’

Born’s position would have extended the commission’s reach from exchange-listed futures on oil, soybeans and Treasury bills into over-the-counter derivative contracts sold by banks and brokers. This would have put her agency in territory overseen by the Fed and Treasury, which regulate banks.

Derivatives are contracts whose values are tied to assets including stocks, bonds, commodities and currencies, or events such as changes in interest rates or the weather.

As much of the OTC derivatives market as possible should be traded on regulated exchanges, Born said today in the interview ....

Post-CFTC Work

After leaving the CFTC in 1999, Born returned to the Washington law firm Arnold & Porter LLP, where she practiced before joining the government. She retired in 2003 and has been active in American Bar Association projects on women in the law.

There is now a small amount of time to create ‘a comprehensive regulatory scheme’ to rein in the market that ‘spread and multiplied risk throughout the economy and caused great financial harm,’ Born said.

Investment banks fought regulation of OTC derivatives for more than a decade because the contracts provide a significant portion of bank earnings. As much as 40 percent of the profit for dealers Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley comes from the trading, according to fixed-income research firm CreditSights Inc. JP Morgan made $5 billion in profit last year from trading in fixed-income OTC derivatives, according to people familiar with the earnings.

Alan Greenspan Admission

Greenspan has since acknowledged he was ‘partially’ wrong to oppose regulation of the privately traded instruments. ‘Credit default swaps, I think, have serious problems associated with them,’ he told a House of Representatives hearing in October. Credit-default swaps are used to hedge against or speculate on a company’s ability to repay debt.

Levitt has said he wishes he had advocated a clearinghouse to spread the risk of default in OTC trading, though it ‘would not have avoided the recent turmoil,’ he said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Rubin has said he favored stricter capital standards and margin requirements on such trades at the time but that there was no political will in Washington to push for new regulation.

“‘My voice was not popular,’ Born said today. Banks and other institutions in the financial world said at the time that they could police themselves and that government oversight should be lessened or abolished.

“‘All of us have now paid a large price for that fallacious argument,’ Born said.”

Had our United States Congress listened to Brooksley E. Born, rather than cowering down to the three Canaanite-jews; Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt and Robert Rubin, our eventual financial meltdown (which was coming anyway) might have lingered in limbo for a few years longer. But Congress, rather than discipline Greenspan, Levitt, and Rubin, slapped Brooksley E. Born in the face. But upcoming events would prove Greenspan 100% in error and Born 100% correct (at least concerning the problems with derivatives), with no sincere apology forthcoming! We are now in our 98th year with the Federal Reserve, and from its very inception, its eventual collapse was inevitable.

As a people, when we – the twelve tribes of Israelites – were first married to our Husband, Yahweh, and living under our prenuptial marriage Covenant with Him during our honeymoon, we avoided the economics we have today! What we are experiencing today in the areas of political, religious, economic and racial infidelity is 180° opposite our original honeymoon period! I would remind the reader that Yahweh is the God of Segregation, and Satan the god of Integration, so there is no need for anyone to guess whose agenda we are following, and on which side of the fence we take our stand. I would also like to bring to remembrance that Yahweh created the horse, and He created the donkey, but He never created a mule, and we have a lot of mule-people running all over our Israel lands today! I would proclaim with utmost emphasis that “Yahweh Elohim (Almighty) hates mules!” Just as He hated Esau (in taking Hittite women), and fathering mule-people, called the “Edomites”, Mal. 1:3. Knowing all of this, do we as a people, have the audacity to ask Yahweh to ease our burdens (as our pastors in churchianity, and the chaplain in the House of Representatives do), as long as we continue to practice what the world calls “diversity”?

Scripture terms a mule-person as a “mamzer”, which is translated “bastard” not born out of wedlock, (as the churches would have us believe), but born of miscegenation (race-mixing). This is serious, as there is now evidence that the Angels that sinned at 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 mixed their seed with animal-kind: The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation, ©1996, by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6.

From The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ch. 4, Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho: “‘... The Soul of Itself Cannot See God.” – “‘Tell me, however, this: Does the soul see [God] so long as it is in the body, or after it has been removed from it?’ – “‘So long as it is in the form of a man, it is possible for it,’ ... ‘And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?’ said he. – ‘They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment’.” [emphasis mine] (See my Angels That Sinned “Chained In Darkness”, 2 Pet. 2:4 & Jude 6 (#1). It would appear “the angels that sinned” are genetically mixed ½ & ½ with animal-kind/s! Until we comprehend there is no record that Yahweh created the nonwhite races, we are naïvely doomed to adopt dangerous premises.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #161 September 2011

This is my one hundred and sixty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, giving a general overview, which I am expanding on with a more detailed seven stages of the story as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. From time to time I have had to interrupt this comprehensive presentation, in order to address undue conjecture from some less-than-enlightened individuals who attempt to interject information which the Bible absolutely does not support. Like some have wisely said in the past: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!” But in spite of all hell, these clowns insist on exposing their ignorance to everyone around them, even writing 40 to 50 pages of ranting diatribe, sending it worldwide in E-mails, and posting it on Internet websites!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 24

YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON WITH THE TWELVE TRIBES continued:

Upon preparing for this lesson, I came to realize the need to examine the circumstances surrounding the honeymoon activities of the very first wedding that took place in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. Then, as today, the factors of that wedding weren’t the ideal, as there had been premarital sexual activity of the worst kind. Yahweh’s Sovereign Will for every candidate for betrothal (both Adamic-man and Adamic-woman) is to be a virgin. Besides Yahweh’s Sovereign Will, He also has a Permissive Will, which took effect with Adam and Eve, and most of the racially pure Adamic men and women contemplating marriage throughout our history.

First of all, the only kind of sexual union that Yahweh recognizes is “kind after kind”! Therefore, any sexual union between an Adamite (man or woman) and a racial alien is an abomination, and is considered by Yahweh to be highly unclean. Birth resulting from such a union is deemed a mamzer (i.e., bastard) unfit to ever enter the congregation of Israel! Not only that, but any White Adamite (man or woman) entering such a union is deserving of death. So the first rule-of-thumb is: if it is not “kind after kind”, it’s not a marriage, and if one doesn’t like Yahweh’s mandate, take it up with Him!

As most in Two-Seedline understand, Genesis 4:1 is a corrupted passage, and it was not Adam who knew Eve, and she bear Cain, but it was Satan who knew Eve and she bear Cain. (See my The Problem With Genesis 4:1.) I should point out at Gen. 3:15 that the “seed of the woman” (i.e., Eve) does not pertain to Cain*, but only to Abel (substituted by Seth) and his seed through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (including Christ), and all racially pure born Israelites ever since. On the other hand, Cain and his seed descended from Satan! Therefore, anyone not from a pure Adamic union is not counted as seed, just as Cain was not counted as Eve’s seed (for her DNA was identical to Adam’s, and she contributed half of the necessary genetic code). In other words, Cain was rejected as “scrap”, as all defective components are refused as replacement parts for automobiles, airplanes or appliances, and are red-tagged and sent to the junkyard. Therefore, all half-breed “mamzers” are genetic misfits, and to be denied. Reread Gen. 3:15: “And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy [the serpent’s] seed and her seed*; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” [2 seeds]

The next important thing that we should notice about the betrothal of Adam and Eve is the fact that Eve was made by Yahweh especially for Adam, and no one else, at Gen. 2:18: “And Yahweh God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” I have said it before, and I will repeat it: An Adam-man is no damn good without an Adam-woman, and an Adam-woman is no damn good without an Adam-man, and no White-Adamic parents will produce anything less than White-Adamic children! Mixed-race offspring are UNNATURAL, and are as UNCLEAN as a porkchop submerged in a septic tank.

By the criteria presented here, and what we have observed so far, Adam and Eve’s marriage and honeymoon weren’t getting off to a very good start! Instead of having a virgin as a bride, Adam found himself with a secondhand, sexually morally-debased woman on his hands, defiled by Satan. However, we have no record that either Adam or Eve had a childhood or adolescence, but surely were created as full-grown adults. Under such circumstances, with all of her hormones working at peak efficiency during her fertile cycle, one can easily imagine how Eve might have been sexually seduced by the serpent (i.e., Satan).

A second witness makes it quite clear that racially-mixed mamzer children born to Adamic-Israelites and alien nonwhite unions are not counted as legitimate offspring at Genesis 38:27-30 thusly:

27 And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. 28 And it came to pass, when she 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.

At this point we must ask the question: Why did the midwife use a scarlet thread to identify the firstborn of the twin sons born to Judah by Tamar? This is unusual, inasmuch as Judah previously had three sons by the Canaanite woman, daughter of Shua. Why were not Pharez and Zarah counted as numbers four and five? Had the children born to Judah by the Canaanite woman been considered legitimate Israelite children, the effort by the midwife to identify the firstborn would have been in vain because it wouldn’t have made any difference which one was first! What we have in the births of Cain, Er, Onan and Shelah are walking violations of Yahweh’s Sovereign Will! Today, repulsive as it is, we observe millions of White Adamic Israelite women vomiting illegitimate walking violations out of their wombs, like a sewer discharging feces. So, it appears that neither Eve nor Judah had a very laudable honeymoon, but both were in the line of Christ! Adam’s pure line was preserved through his son Seth, and Judah’s pure line was preserved through his twin sons Pharez and Zarah.

When we weigh Adam and Eve’s marriage along with those of Judah, we can plainly see that they were far from the ideal according to Yahweh’s Sovereign Will of one virgin Adamic man to one virgin Adamic woman. It would be impossible to determine how many ideal marriages have occurred throughout the 7,500 years of White Adamic history, but surely it would be less than 1%, and even less than that today. An ideal marriage also includes keeping the same White Adamic spouse as long as their counterpart is living, as in the case of Isaac. Abraham fell short of this, because, in his time, if the primary wife was unable to bear a child for the husband, it was customary for the husband to find another woman who could. Surely we can be thankful that Sarah ordered Abraham to “cast out the bondwoman and her son”, as this too was not the ideal! In that particular action, Abraham and Sarah disinherited Hagar and her son Ishmael forever from the Covenant which Yahweh had made with them, leaving it only to Isaac and later Jacob.

What we have so far in the ideal marriage is: (1) Adam-kind after Adam-kind for both man and his bride, (2) both Adam-man and Adam-woman being a virgin, and (3) a lifetime commitment of fidelity. This is the ideal for us as a people, and it was the ideal for Yahweh and His marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel! This ideal marriage didn’t work out for Yahweh and His Cinderella bride, and it hasn’t worked out for better than 99% of the Israelite men and women. By deduction, Yahweh’s Permissive Will has superseded His Sovereign Will, or we wouldn’t exist as a people! That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to strive for the ideal; for if we have failed as parents, we should encourage our children to strive for the ideal. Had we done so on the race mandate alone, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. While inordinate divorces and wrongful remarriages can be forgiven, race-mixing cannot be forgiven in this life or the life to come. As the reader can begin to see, this marriage, divorce and remarriage thing can become quite complicated, so let’s try to sort it out.

YAHWEH’S SECOND COMMAND TO EVE

Yahweh’s first command to Eve was not to “eat” of the tree in the midst of the garden (Gen. 3:3). Here, “eat” is used as an idiom for sexual intercourse, as it is used at Proverbs 30:20: “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” The “adulterous woman” didn’t wipe the “mouth” on her face; rather, she wiped her vagina, so now we know what it was that Eve ate; and she conceived and bear Cain, fathered by Satan! By this act, Eve became an unclean, defiled woman, unsatisfactory as a bride for Adam! But in spite of this deplorable development, Adam loved the beautiful White Eve so much, he decided to consummate a marriage union with her, even though she had been defiled by Satan. This is the whole “naked” account of the story, and it was about as far away from “ideal” as anything could get! All three parties were guilty, Satan, Eve and Adam, and deserved death! But at this point, Yahweh’s Permissive Will was manifested, overriding His Sovereign Will, since He knew beforehand (as only He could) what would ultimately happen.

Considering Eve’s sexual unions with both Satan and Adam, Yahweh had to decide which one should be Eve’s husband, and He did so, in no uncertain words, at Gen. 3:16: “Unto the woman he [Yahweh] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband [Adam], and he shall rule over thee.”

At this point, Adam and Eve entered their honeymoon, but not with the amount of bliss that could have been otherwise. Every Adam-man since Adam and Eve, who has had a virgin White Adam-woman as a bride has had the most precious gift that any Adam-man could receive. Ditto for the woman. But if one has been as unfortunate as Adam and Eve, their children are still precious since they are racially pure. After all, the lineage of Christ Himself goes back to the race-mixer, Judah, and the race-mixer Eve, although in both cases, the lineage stayed pure through Tamar and Adam. We must remember, as long as an Adamic Israelite is born racially pure, he, as a child is not responsible for his parent’s sins, Deut. 24:16; 2 Ki. 14:6; 2 Chr. 25:4 read similarly: “... The father shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.” Jer. 31:30 adds: “... every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Here, eating “the sour grape” is the mixing of race, and this was (and should still be) a capital crime. What it all boils down to is, a pureblooded Adamic Israelite couple may have been previously married and divorced 15 to 20 times, but a child born to that union is just as acceptable as any other pureblooded White Adamic Israelite child! Either that, or we have to condemn Yahshua Christ Himself on account of Eve and Judah. Clearly, the Bible doesn’t hide any of its dirty laundry!

SELF-APPOINTED, GOODY-GOODY TWO SHOES,

WOULD-BE BIBLICAL AUTHORITIES ACTING AS CLOWNS

Recently a trio of self-righteous, insufficiently informed Bozos in Israel Identity took it upon themselves to demand that every married man or woman return to the first person they had marital-relations with, as being their only rightful spouse, which (if married more than once) is strictly against Yahweh’s law at Deut. 24:1-4 which states:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Hopefully, the trio will see their error and repent! Surely the reader can see that by following this flawed premise of going back to the original spouse, Eve would have been forced to return to Satan, and have more children by him, and Tamar would have been forced to take Shelah (Judah’s third half-breed son by his Canaanite wife), placing the purebreds Pharez and Zarah on the sidelines. Such a defective scenario would have made our Savior part Canaanite (or a bastard child of Yahweh)! This misinformed trio sure as hell didn’t “study to show themselves approved”!

Yahshua Christ Himself, with a pure Adamic lineage, but through imperfect marriage relationships, stated the Ideal marriage relationship at Matt. 19:4-9: 4 And he [Christ] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the *hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” [*Greek infers cruelty by the husband.]

Getting back to Eve and her alien sexual affair with Satan, it was not “kind after kind”, and Christ’s statement above would not apply, so it really wasn’t a legitimate marriage, though it did produce Cain, and it was “adultery” and/or “fornication” in its most accurate definition. So the race of Adam-man got its start (of which Christ was a descendant) with an adulterous relationship. In that adulterous relationship, both Eve and Adam were guilty, but their children, Abel and Seth, were pure, and it was a eugenic marriage, rather than an alien affair!

As for Judah and his alien sexual affair with the Canaanite woman, daughter of Shua, that was not “kind after kind” either, and not a legitimate marriage but out-and-out “adultery” and/or “fornication” in the sense of race-mixing. By this alien sexual affair with the Canaanite woman, daughter of Shua, it produced three half-breed Canaanite devils by the names of Er, Onan and Shelah. When Er was grown to maturity, Judah started to search to find Er a wife, and he attempted to match him up with a purebred White Adamic wife. The evidence is found in the Book of Jasher, chapter 45, verse 23, and it reads thus:

And in those days Judah went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born, Er.” What a dastardly deed for a White man (i.e., Judah) to do to another White man’s daughter! Fortunately, Yahweh killed both Er and Onan in the process, and Judah was afraid to try it a third time with Shelah. Before Shelah was full-grown, Judah’s unfit wife, daughter of Shua, died, leaving Judah a widower. So Judah was free to find an appropriate pureblooded White Adamic wife. But Judah hadn’t fulfilled his contract with Tamar and her father to supply Tamar with pure unadulterated White Adamic seed. So by cunning, Tamar beguiled Judah into living up to his side of the bargain, which no other Adamic man could do according to Judah’s agreement with the house of Shem. Therefore, Judah and Tamar’s honeymoon lasted for only one day. Tamar’s only alternatives were: (1) to accept the half-breed Shelah, (2) trick Judah into having sexual intercourse with her, or (3) hope that Shelah and Judah died before she reached menopause. Since Judah pronounced Tamar “righteous” after her sexual act with him, how can we do otherwise? So just like the offspring of Adam and Eve was accepted by Yahweh after Eve had been defiled by Satan, so likewise was the twin offspring of Judah and Tamar accepted of Yahweh after Judah had committed adultery (i.e., fornication) for several years with the Canaanite, daughter of Shua.

Under the defective premise of this trio of self-righteous, insufficiently informed Bozos in Israel Identity that took it upon themselves to demand that every married man or woman return to the first person they had marital-relations with, as being their only rightful spouse, that would mean that Eve would have to have returned to Satan, and Judah would have to have given his last Canaanite son Shelah over to Tamar. If such a premise were correct (and it isn’t), Christ would have had Satanic blood flowing through His veins. Thankfully, Yahweh arranged for Pharez and Zerah to be born of an “illicit” union. Judging from the length of Adam’s life, his honeymoon with Eve must have lasted over a hundred years, and there is not a single condemnation in Scripture of that union, as these Bozo the clowns would have it!

ONCE A DIVORCE IS ENFORCED, ONE CAN NEVER

RETURN TO THAT PARTICULAR SPOUSE

The truth is just the opposite of what this misinformed trio is demanding! Deuteronomy 24:4 is quite clear on this point, which emphatically states: “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife ....” This very law not only applies to a man or a woman who divorces their spouse, but to Yahweh and the twelve tribes of Israel whom Yahweh systematically divorced for unfaithfulness. More details on this aspect are explained at Rom. 7:1-3:

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.”

Paul addresses this subject again at 1 Cor. 8:39: “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in Yahweh.”

Jeremiah 3:1 really nails the lid to the casket on this needless argument, where he states: “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Yahweh.”

It is absolutely clear that once a man divorces his wife, he can never go back to his original wife again! It is also absolutely clear that once Yahweh divorced His Cinderella bride, He too could not return as Husband to the twelve tribes of Israel, except on one condition: “... but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband ....” This is the sole reason that Yahweh came in the flesh as Yahshua to die on the cross, to annul the divorce law that was against us, so He could once more take us for His bride. It should be pointed out that Yahweh had divorced all the twelve tribes of Israel, and although they were completely separated from Him, they were still under the law of their Husband (Yahweh) until He came as Yahshua and died! It was only then that they were loosed from the law of their Husband. The difference between Yahweh and man is that Yahweh had the power to sacrifice His life unto death and then to resurrect Himself back to life again, but man has not the power of life and death. If those who advocate that one who has been divorced one or more times should return to their original spouse, I recommend they hire Jack Kevorkian (or someone like him) for his services, and if one can resurrect himself back to life again, then (through death) he can return to his original spouse! Otherwise, one should stop playing God. If one can’t find someone like Jack Kevorkian, they might try some of Jim Jones’ kool-aid, or buy a pair of Heaven’s Gate tennis shoes and take a journey to, and return back again from, the Comet Hale-Bopp.

The truth of the matter is: only Yahweh was able to lawfully return to His first wife after He had divorced her! And even if some men have unlawfully returned to their formerly divorced wife and had children by her the second time around, it doesn’t genetically defile the children by that reunion. If a man has fathered children by more than one woman, it is his duty to supply all of their needs, 1 Tim 5:8: “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” The following is what I wrote in WTL #145 for May 2010:

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised to deal justly with a maid servant, Exod. 21:7-11! “If a man sell his daughter.” This the Israelites allowed no man to do, except in extreme cases of poverty when the father no longer had any goods, tangible or intangible, left to his name, even to the clothes on his back, and this was allowed only while the daughter was too young for marriage. Today, this might seem strange that such a law should be given, but let it be remembered that this servitude could extend at the most for only six years, and was comparable somewhat to an apprenticeship. Once the man’s daughter was sold to a master, the master was obliged to treat her like his own daughter! Once the purchased daughter reached the stage of maturity that she was eligible for marriage, and the master wished to marry her to his own son, the master was duty-bound to give her the same dowry he would have given to his own natural daughter, and he was obligated to treat her in every respect as a natural daughter! Further, it is decreed, that should this master’s son decide to marry a second wife, the master’s son shall continue to provide his first wife with food, shelter, raiment, and sex, or ‘her duty of marriage’. And if the master’s son can’t supply all these to his first wife, she is to go out as a free woman owing no one anything! While I know that this is what the Bible says, I am NOT personally in favor of polygamy, for Christ said it was not so from the beginning. But nevertheless, this was part of the nuptial agreement!”

Exod. 21:7-11 reads: 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

All of this concerning divorce and remarriage may seem confusing to some people, but it really isn’t. When we read at Deut. 24:2: “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.”

This might seem to conflict with Rom. 7:2-3 which reads in part:

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth ... So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress ...”

A lawful writ of divorce is the prerogative of a man’s rule over his wife. He can exercise this prerogative only once for one particular wife (and without the power to sacrifice his life and resurrect himself back to life again, as only Yahweh had the power to do), and that writ of divorce can never be rescinded. In New Testament times (after the death and resurrection of Yahshua Christ), the sinner having taken his divorced wife back again would have to find repentance, and be placed under His Blood for forgiveness. And for anything which Yahshua Christ has forgiven by His Blood, let every man’s mouth be stopped! There are some things between man (i.e., man or woman) and Yahshua Christ that are nobody else’s damn business!

The issuance of a writ of divorce is a very important lawful instrument for a castaway woman, as immediately she must find shelter under another roof. Usually, it would be going back to mom and dad, but that can’t last forever! If dad and mom are no longer living, she was faced (1) with a life of prostitution, or (2) find another man to become her husband. Since it was a capital crime for a man to be found with another man’s wife, the writ of divorce protected the potential second husband from being stoned to death along with the divorced woman. The divorced woman might have found some means for making her own living, and not remarrying anyone, but such opportunities were very rare in ancient times. In any case, she still needed the writ of divorce as proof of her divorced status!

... found some uncleanness in her ...” Deut. 24:1

The Hebrew word #6172, “ervah” translated into English has a wide latitude of meanings, but usually implies the exposure of the sexual organs of a man or woman (i.e., “pudenda”), or showing one’s shame. To the Old Testament Hebrews, it could be any cause of dislike for one’s wife to put her away, but Christ explained this at Mark 10:2-5:

2 And the Pharisees [some few of whom were then Israelites, while most were not] came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Yahshua answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.”

So we see that by-and-large, concerning divorce and remarriage at the time of Moses, things were not much different than they are today! If a man gets “the hots” by observing his neighbor’s wife, it isn’t very long until he is jumping the backyard fence while her husband is working at a factory someplace, sweating over a machine to put bread on the table. Then, when the illicit affair is exposed, any flimsy excuse is used to obtain a divorce! Another case of which I became aware of about thirty years ago, is where a man was crossing an alley to visit a woman while her husband was sweating away in an automotive body shop. The hurt husband, who voluntarily recited his sad story to me said: “The husband is always the last one to know”!

Adam and Eve’s honeymoon seems to be the typical story of our race down through our history. No doubt, much of the happiness that Eve could have experienced during her first thirty days with Adam was subdued by her guilt of being defiled by Satan. How many times she looked back and regretted not saving her virginity for Adam we will never know. How many times Adam looked back and blamed himself for not protecting Eve from Satan’s advances we will never know. How many times, during her lifetime, did the thought of Satan defiling her haunt Eve’s memory? How many times during Adam’s lifetime did the thought of playing second fiddle haunt his memory? Let’s face it, Adam and Eve’s honeymoon was not the ideal! However, by raising up children and teaching them not to make the same mistakes that they did, Adam and Eve could rectify some of their own error.

Although a “honeymoon” is defined as “a month (i.e., 30 days) of sweetness”, it is difficult to determine just how long a honeymoon should last. Inasmuch as the pre-Noah patriarchs lived an average of 907 years, if figured on the percentage of life lived today, Adam and Eve’s honeymoon should have lasted nearly twelve months, or one year by our present calendars. I would estimate that most honeymoons today would be a three-day weekend, or how much time the couple can afford before reporting back to work, whereas for couples from affluent families, the honeymoon might last upwards of six months. Inasmuch as a thousand years is but one day with Yahweh, His honeymoon with His Cinderella bride should have lasted thirty thousand years. If that is the case, Yahweh divorced the twelve tribes of Israel before their honeymoon was over. The approximate time of our marriage to Yahweh was 1450 B.C., or about 3461 years ago, meaning we still have nearly all the thirty thousand years left of our honeymoon with Yahweh in the flesh, in His manifestation as Yahshua Christ!

Since the time of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, nearly 7,500 years ago, our people, as a whole, have committed one sin right after another, and many less-than-ideal marriages have transpired during that time. Of these sins, all can be forgiven except one. And by one stipulation, it is impossible for man to sin in the first place. Once we understand these two provisions, we are ready to live in perfect harmony with our Husband, Yahweh! The unforgivable sin is found at Matt. 12:32: “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” The “Holy Ghost” spoken of here is the “... breath of life ...” that was breathed into Adam at Gen. 2:7. Whenever a fetus is conceived between an Adamic and an alien race, this “breath of life” is enormously diminished or completely destroyed, and has Yahweh’s curse upon it, as it can never be repaired! The other provision is found at 1 John 3:9: “Whosoever is born of Yahweh doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of Yahweh.” We are informed several times in the Bible that when a man marries a woman (i.e., has sexual intercourse with her) the two become one flesh. Therefore, a man being of one flesh with his wife, when the two of them have sexual intercourse, as 1 John 3:9 indicates, “... his seed (i.e., sperm) remaineth in him ...”. Now should he have an affair with the White woman next-door, or an alien, his seed (i.e., sperm) would not “... remaineth in him ...”. The bottom line is, regardless of the less-than-ideal marriages (even the next-door woman), all of which can be forgiven, the products of those unions MUST BE pure-White Adamic children! It all hangs on Yahweh’s Sovereign or Permissive Wills.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #162 October 2011

This is my one hundred and sixty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. Again, I am going to have to interrupt my series The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, which I started with WTL #137, giving a general overview of the marriage relationship between Yahweh and Israel, which I have been expanding on in more detail in seven stages as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. From time to time I have had to interrupt this comprehensive presentation in order to address undue conjecture from some less-than-enlightened individuals who attempt to interject material into the story that the Bible or true History absolutely do not support. With this interruption, I will address how various people in 15th and 16th centuries, for political reasons, branded a pureblooded White woman as being black, which simply isn’t true! With this issue of WTL, we will learn how a few men in high position used their influence, wittingly or unwittingly, to promote Satan’s agenda. I am persuaded the damage done by those people, two to five hundred years ago, will not be fully grasped until Christ’s Judgment.

I continue to be amazed at how some people attempt to bring nonwhites into Yahweh’s Kingdom under His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yahweh married the twelve tribes of Israel, and no one else. Therefore, Yahweh had a honeymoon with the twelve tribes of Israel, and no one else! Not only that, but Yahweh demands racial purity with each succeeding generation of Israelites, for He hates mule-people with a passion. Esau married Hittite women, and we read at Mal. 1:2-3: 2 I have loved you [Israel], saith Yahweh. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith Yahweh: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

LIES, FALSEHOODS AND PREVARICATIONS

Again, I find myself in a position where I am forced to delay the exposition of Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel to correct some false propaganda that is circulating in Israel Identity which originated with the enemy. So far, I have received complaints from a man (whom I consider a friend) in Michigan and a lady in Kentucky. I also received a strange letter with no return address from Fort Wayne, Indiana, dated “02 Aug 2011”. On opening the envelope, among five other printed pages, I found the letter-size front page of “The Nubian Times”, Volume 5, Issue 3 ... March 2003 with the lead story “Black Women In History”. First mentioned (with a somewhat blurred photograph) was Ida Stover Eisenhower (with a fifteen line description), who being part Canaanite-jew, probably had some negro blood. Second, which I consider to be untrue, is a column with what appears to be two retouched blurry photographs of a painting of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, accompanied with thirty-three lines of the authors’ commentary stating:

The king of England during the American Revolution was George III, who married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz in 1761. She was a Black woman, who gave him fifteen children: nine sons and six daughters, with their elder son, George IV also becoming king of England. Buckingham Palace was built for her. Several cities and counties in the United States are named after Charlotte and her birthplace of Mecklenburg. If you read this in Charlotte North Carolina, be proud, take your shirt off and fly it like a helicopter again.

Our Sistah [sic] Charlotte has been traced to a Moorish branch of the Portuguese aristocracy. Charlotte’s granddaughter was Victoria, the Queen for whom the Victorian Era was named. Queen Victoria’s great granddaughter is the present Queen Elizabeth of England.

When you are working on the premise that ‘one drop of Black Blood’ makes you black, a whole lot of Negroes be trying to pass Yo [sic]! March is supposed to be International Month of the Woman. This month we focus on Black women globally.”

First of all, it was Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, who taught Victoria etiquette (good manners), so it should have been called the “Albertian Era”. But we mustn’t let mud be splashed on the ladies, not even Victoria! It is obvious to me that “The Nubian Times” is an n-word publication, and they are trying to claim things that don’t belong to them! I checked the Internet, and they are still publishing “The Nubian Times”. It is still formatted exactly as the copy that “no-name” sent me. When I think about it, who other than an n-word would have an issue to make a copy from. This shows that some people are not careful from what sources they collect their data. I have good reason to believe that “The Nubian Times” is deliberate disinformation aimed at the negros, and edited by Canaanite-jews, whom Yahshua Christ labeled as “liars”. (see Congressional Record, vol. 103, page 8559.)

It just so happens that I have my own copy of the same photograph of the painted picture of Charlotte in a 9x11 inch book entitled National Portrait Gallery History Of The Kings & Queens Of England (professionally printed on the best paper available) in my library. My lifelong occupation for fifty-three years was barbering, and photography (including re-photography) was one of my major hobbies. So I have the capability of analyzing the photograph of the painting of Charlotte more closely than most, especially when I place her picture from this book under a powerful lighted magnifying lens. I also found this same painting of Charlotte on several websites on the Internet. At one website, her painting took up about 1/8th of the screen. I noticed, when I placed the cursor on the painting, a plus sign appeared, showing that it could be enlarged. When I enlarged it, it filled up about ½ of the screen and another plus sign appeared, so I enlarged it again whereupon Charlotte’s painting filled up 100% of the screen for close inspection. But from these various inspections, the lighted magnifying lens worked best, and what I found should prove once and for all that Charlotte was a pureblooded Caucasian White woman!

I first started barbering in the Navy in 1945 in the Philippines on an Island ship repair base named Manicani, which had a complement of about 4000 men with all manner of special craftsmen and equipment to support the dry-docks there. A few months later, I was transferred to a Navy tanker named the Monongahela, where I became the official barber for the crew of the ship. Among the crew were three or four negros, and I was duty bound to cut their hair. I soon discovered that it was impossible to draw a comb through their hair as one could do with a white man. All one could do was to jab the points of the teeth of the comb into the mass of intertwined tangled hair and lift a bit while cutting off a little hair. It’s similar to trimming the bushes outside of one’s house – it becomes a matter of sculpturing rather than styling! Then in the early 1960s, I owned and managed my own barber shop in Fostoria, Ohio, when suddenly I received a notice from the Ohio State Barber Board, that any licensed barber who refused to cut negros’ hair would be prosecuted. To scare all of the Ohio barbers and beauticians into compliance, a law case was brought against a Lima, Ohio beautician for not giving service to an n-word, whereupon the judge awarded the n-word the beautician’s business lock, stock and barrel. Before this, in 1949, I worked the second chair in a two-chair barbershop in Bowling Green, Ohio, right across the street from the Bowling Green State University. One day, the Bowling Green State University sent one of its officials to the owner-manager Melvin Munn, to request that his shop (which included me) would start cutting the hair of the n-words attending the university. Neither Melvin nor I were very enthusiastic about the idea, but the officer from the university had a tone of threatened law action in his request. Melvin and I talked this situation over, and not wanting to see Melvin sued, I told him I had cut the n-word’s hair in the Navy, and if he could handle it, I could grudgingly go along. After about three months, I found a different job of barbering. Getting back to the warning from the Ohio State Barber Board in the early 1960s, operating my own barbershop, I avoided every negro that I could, but if confronted while witnesses were present that could testify against me, I would reluctantly cut their hair. Fortunately, until February 1998, when I finally retired, I was able to keep the n-word problem to a minimum. The reason for giving the reader some of my background is because I don’t want anyone trying to tell me that I don’t know what in hell I am talking about!

GETTING TO QUEEN CHARLOTTE’S PAINTED PICTURE

Re-photography (taking pictures of pictures or paintings) requires special photographic equipment and supplies. There is a lot more to it than just picking up a snapshot camera and trying to take a precise duplicate of the original picture or painting. I never got beyond 35mm cameras, but I had several excellent models. Most of all, it requires a good portrait lens. A portrait lens is a special lens which keeps all of the surface of the picture or painting in focus. Without a portrait lens, if the center of the flat painting is in focus, the edges will be out of focus, or if the edges are in focus, the center will be out of focus. I now have a large re-photography case (about the size of an extra-large suitcase) full of re-photography equipment (now all obsolete). I never did followup with the newer digital photography, as when my wife died, I lost my main subject to take pictures of. I advise the reader of this, because I want him to know I have a special ability to evaluate the re-photography that others have done.

As I stated before, my best opportunity of analyzing the photograph of the painting of Charlotte was when I placed her picture from the book, National Portrait Gallery History Of The Kings & Queens Of England under a powerfully lighted magnifying lens. First of all, the portrait painter, Allan Ramsay, painted all of Charlotte’s exposed skin areas a lighter shade of skin color than the average pureblooded Caucasian White woman! Judging from Allan Ramsay’s portrait of King George III (Charlotte’s husband), Charlotte’s skin color is even lighter than that of King George III (see pp. 98-99). King William IV was the third son of King George III and Queen Charlotte, and there is a color photographic facsimile on page 104, where there is absolutely nothing about his color or bodily features to indicate he is the least bit negroid! He does, though, have the same wavy hair that his mother had (not kinky like the blacks). He also has a somewhat wide mouth like his mother, Charlotte, which is common among some white people. While William IV did reasonably well in his naval career, he was only mediocre at being a king. But anyone who has the audacity to claim he was part black has to be stark raving mad, for it simply cannot be true! Some condemn Queen Charlotte as being part black because of her extra wide mouth, but if they would take the time to observe some of the White women around them, they would find it’s not that unusual. I purposely observed, over a period of days, several White blond women on TV that had fairly wide mouths which didn’t detract from their beauty, but Allan Ramsay, Charlotte’s portrait painter, had abolitionist reasons for painting her mouth wider than it really was! This was a criminal act on the part of Ramsay, as old as our country! What’s even more criminal, is to pass this false story as true throughout Israel Identity! Who will The Nubian Times claim they are related to next?

We read from the following website:

angelfire.com/poetry/of_rastafari/queen_charlotte1.htm

With features as conspicuously Negroid as they were reputed to be by her contemporaries, it is no wonder that the black community, both in the U.S. and throughout the British Commonwealth, have rallied around pictures of Queen Charlotte for generations ....”

This is true, but this is not the end of the story. Wikipedia did a fairly good job of presenting Queen Charlotte’s background history at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Claims of African ancestry

Mario de Valdes y Cocom, an independent afrocentrist (i.e., centered on Africa) researcher, has argued that Allan Ramsay, a noted abolitionist, frequently painted the Queen in works said to emphasize the alleged mulatto appearance of Charlotte, and that Ramsay’s coronation portrait of Charlotte was sent to the colonies and was used by abolitionists as a de facto support for their cause. Valdes y Cocom goes on to state that, along with descriptions of a ‘mulatto face’ (as, supposedely, Baron Stockmar, whom Valdes y Cocom wrongly considers Queen Charlotte’s personal physician, wrote in his autobiography), the Queen’s features had also been described as Vandalic, as exemplified by a poem written for the occasion of her marriage (‘most literary of these allusions’, according to Valdes y Cocom):

Descended from the warlike Vandal race,

She still preserves that title in her face’ ....”

Evidently the painter Allan Ramsay was not aware that the Vandals were White Caucasian people, actually German, and occupied North Africa in the 5th century A.D. They were also lost Israelites (surely of the Royal tribe of Judah)! So we see, that Allan Ramsay painted quite well on most occasions, but when he didn’t approve of his subject, he had a biased paint brush! This is evidence that Allan Ramsay deliberately painted Queen Charlotte to appear negroid! We are admonished in the Bible to beware of the lying pen of the scribe. In this case it is the lying brush of the painter, which is just as evil!

LET’S TALK ABOUT CHARLOTTE’S HAIRSTYLE

In the portrait which Allan Ramsay painted of Queen Charlotte for her coronation, there is absolutely no way she wore a hairstyle that a negroid (or a mulatto for that matter) could manage to fashion into the position that she, or her servant, had cut and styled. There is a world of difference between the hair of a negroid and that of a Caucasian! The shaft of the hair of Caucasians is round, while the hair of negroids is flat (much like that of a cassette tape, especially when the case of the cassette is broken and the flat tape is all tangled up. Most Caucasians’ hair tends to be straight in nature, although some Caucasians have wavy or even quite curly hair. To what degree a Caucasian has straight or curly hair depends upon the strength of the Arrector Pili muscle which is attached to each hair follicle from which each hair is extruded. This process may cause a curly haired Caucasian’s hair shaft to be slightly oval in shape, but not flat like a negroid. As a barber for 53 years, I have firsthand knowledge of this, and there is absolutely no comparison between the two!

Even though Allan Ramsay defrauded with his paint brush, he did quite well in portraying Charlotte’s hairstyle for her coronation, which we shall examine in minute detail. When we inspect Charlotte’s 2½ x 311/16 inch printed facsimile of her painted portrait, the first thing to be noticed are eleven individual ringlets of blond hair hanging like bangs from the right side of her forehead at the hair line. Because the left side of her forehead at the hairline is shaded it is not as clear, but one can clearly see three ringlets of like nature, and one must assume there are eight more to balance out the right side for a total of twenty-two. If these hair ringlets were a little longer, they would form a circle about 1¼ inch in diameter. Inasmuch as negroid hair forms circles less than ¼ inch in diameter, it would be utterly impossible for Charlotte to have a single drop of negroid blood! To get this frontal hairline style, it would have been necessary to section off a portion of hair about an inch wide, parallel to the hair line; then comb the sectioned hair straight down, cutting off anything in excess of about 2½ inches. And one must remember that in the 1700s, they didn’t have all the tools, gadgets and lotions found in a beauty shop today!

In her portrait, Charlotte had her head turned slightly to her left. This left a portion of her hairstyle exposed on her right side just behind her ear. Under the lighted high power magnifying lens, this clearly shows how her hairstyle, for the occasion, would have appeared from the back of her head. It appears that the back of her head was made up of vertical coils, with the hair combed horizontally into 1¼ inch diameter circuits. Judging from what can be seen on her right side, these coils of hair were 3 tiers high and about 6 or 7 rows wide, all the same size. We can be sure of this as a portion of one coil on her left side (near the same level as her chin) reveals a portion of a like-sized coil. Had Charlotte the slightest amount of negroid blood, such a hairstyle, as described here, would have been impossible!

But this still isn’t the end of the story: The book, National Portrait Gallery History Of The Kings & Queens Of England on the same page 98 with Queen Charlotte’s portrait painted by Allan Ramsay, ¶ 3, states in part: “Charlotte was no beauty, possessing small simian features, though she was not without a certain charm ....” Here the word “simian” means: “... adj. 1. of or pertaining to an ape or monkey. 2. characteristic of apes or monkeys: long simian fingers. –n. 3. an ape or monkey [1600-10; <L simi(a) an ape (prob. deriv. of simus flat-nosed <Gk simós) + -AN] -sim-i-an-i-ty ... n. ” (Webster’s 1996). With this definition, the author is intimating that Queen Charlotte appeared like an ape, and surely that was what Allan Ramsay was implying, but he had to twist his paint brush to accomplish that!

After all of this, maybe we should check to see just who published the National Portrait Gallery History Of The Kings & Queens Of England! The first thing that I notice is, it was printed and bound in Korea. On the second inside title page, the publishing company is stated as Konecky & Konecky. I searched “Konecky & Konecky” on the Internet, and it brought up Dr. Elizabeth A. Konecky, National Jewish Outreach. Also Edith Konecky, feminist and novelist, and (JWA) Jewish Woman’s Archive and European Jewish Fund, which in turn supports “Paideia”, (jewish promoters of race-mixing in Europe; see next ¶).

A WORD TO THE WISE: A Racial Plan For the Genocide Of The White Race from jews in Sweden: (From a youtube video): “As you heard, there are people in Sweden who supported this, and at the expense of the injustice of the present situation. It’s these people who give hope to those who still believe things will get better here. One of them is Barbara Lerner Spectre, a former American who made ‘aliyah’ [meaning migration to the spurious Israeli state in Palestine] and then ten years ago, with the hope of the government of Sweden, set up a non-denominational institute of learning with the Greek name ‘Paideia’ [meaning ‘The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden] here in Stockholm. She believes the current wave of anti-semitism in Sweden will pass, and the jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.” (Then Spectre, agreeing): “I think there is a resistance to anti-semitism because, at this point in time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural [meaning racially-mixed]. And I think we [meaning the jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe [meaning all the countries of Europe] is not going to be the monolithic societies [meaning racially pureblooded nations] that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the front of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.” What in hell is Spectre threatening we pureblooded Whites with?

There is one thing more that we need to discuss about Allan Ramsay’s portrait of Queen Charlotte, and that is the extra dark shadow on the left side of her nose. When placing her printed facsimile under a powerfully lighted magnifying lens, and placing a white sheet of paper over her shadowed left side, the right side of her nose appears quite natural and not out of proportion in any way. Since the left side of her nose is obscure because of the extra dark painted shadow, one must assume that both sides of her nose are normal and well proportioned! When analyzed very carefully, it is quite obvious she was not “flat-nosed” like an ape. However, on the other hand, we know other kinds of people who are! It would have been better, had Allan Ramsay kept his political frustrations over the then heated issue of abolition to himself! Rather, Ramsay should have redirected his frustrations toward the Moslems who were raiding southern Europe and taking White slaves back to Africa and selling them to tyrant nonwhite chieftains (especially White women and children) to satisfy their sexual lusts. The arabs are still the enemy of the White people of today! Of course, by Ramsay’s day in the 1700s, Islam was in its nadir (lowest point), partly due to the advent of Charles Martel. Here is a concise account of that Moslem history:

Mohammed, a half-jew, founder of Islam, was born at Mecca Aug. 20, 570 A.D. At age 40, he claimed a revelation from Gabriel and launched a hybrid religion. Gaining adherents and an army, he soon conquered all of Arabia and summoned Persia, Abyssinia and Constantinople to embrace his religion, but died before taking on Asia Minor and the Roman Empire. After his death, his fanatical followers pressed into Egypt, Palestine, Persia and Syria, and 50 years later moved into North Africa and Spain, giving the conquered an ultimatum of conversion or the sword, raping the women as they went. Upon sweeping northward into Spain, at the beckoning of the jews, they broke the rule of the Visigoths in 711, bringing with them Berbers from Africa, making Cordova their seat of government. In Spanish history, the term Moor” is used generally to include Arab” and Saracen”. Later the Moorish forces invaded France, but were defeated at Tours in 732 by Charles Martel, which was a major turning point in history.

The progress of the Mohammedans northward had continued unchecked for a distance greater than a thousand miles from Gibraltar, and had they not been stopped they would have carried the Crescent to the borders of Poland and the Scottish Highlands. The sedate Gibbon conjectured that the Koran would today be used as the principal textbook at the University of Oxford.

Destiny (through Yahweh) had a different plan. The battle-axe, Charles (called the hammer”) Martel, was not about to allow the (arab) Moors’ advance to continue. The Frankish warrior was already hardened by twenty-four years of service. With this great emergency upon the kingdom, Charles’ policy was to let the Arabian torrent diffuse itself before attempting to stem the tide. Here Europe was arrayed against Asia and Africa; the Cross against the Crescent; Christ against Mohammed. For six days the battle appeared to favor Islam, but on the seventh day the fierce Germans arose with their battle-axes upon the lighter soldiery from the south. As night closed, Europe was victorious, for Abdalrahman their leader was slain. In the confusion of the darkness the Moorish warriors rose against each other till sunrise, when the few remaining alive retreated south.

One would think that Charles Martel would have received the highest honors the Christian world could bestow! But just the opposite occurred after the victory. Martel, in raising and equipping his army, had been obliged to appropriate the treasures of several churches, and the unthankful clergy never forgave him, but consigned him to hellfire. As far as the church was concerned, the hero of Poitiers could roast in purgatory’s flame. [Gleaned partly from the Cyclopædia of Universal History by John Clark Ridpath, volume II, pages 150-152.]

Let’s once and for all time define the meaning and origin of the term “Moor”. The best source I found for doing this is the 1971 The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 13, page 652 which reads:

MOOR. In ancient history, the Romans called the people of northwestern Africa Mauri and the region they lived in Mauretania. These peoples belonged to a larger group, the Berbers (see Berber). The Berbers became Moslems and adopted Arabic as their language. They joined the Arabs in conquering Spain during the 700’s. The so-called Moorish civilization of the Middle Ages was in large part Arabic. The Moors lost much of their land in Spain by 1276. In 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain drove out the last Moors. Most of the refugees settled in North Africa. Today, the term Moor may refer to all inhabitants of northwestern Africa who are Moslems and who speak Arabic. Or it can refer to Moslems of Spanish, Jewish, or Turkish descent who live in North Africa.

The term Moor in its French form Maure designates the nomads of the western Sahara in Africa. The term Moor also applies to the Arab-Sinhalese Moslems of Ceylon. In the form Moro, it refers to Moslems who live in the southern Philippines.

A common but incorrect belief that Moors are Negroes was spread by William Shakespeare’s play Othello. Moors belong to the Mediterranean group of the Caucasoid (white) race.” Vernon Robert Dorjahn [emphasis mine CAE]

William Shakespeare 1564-1616: “Early in Elizabeth’s reign a baby boy was born in the village of Stratford, in the center of England. The day we do not know, but the parish register gives April 26, 1564, as the day of his christening ....” (First Steps In The History Of England by Arthur May Mowry) The earliest mention of the play Othello is found in the 1604 Revels Office account, which records that on ‘Hallamas day’, 1st day of November ... the Kings Maiesties plaiers’ performed ‘A Play in the Banketinghouse at Whit Hall, The Moor of Venis’ ... Later, the cover of Shakespeare’s book reads: ‘The Tragoedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice ... London ... 1622’ (Wikipedia).

From this explanation by World Book, and other follow-up data, it is clear the term or name “Moor” originally meant “White Caucasoid” people occupying North Africa, and surely the White Israelite Phoenicians of Carthage (880 B.C.) also fit into the account. It would appear that, over a period 2300 years, the term “Moor” took on three different meanings, in the following order: (1) it originally meant a “White Caucasoid” people from approximately 880 B.C. to around 450 A.D., (2) then with the advent of Mohammed and his mixed arab converts in the 6th & 7th centuries A.D., as they advanced into northwestern Africa and southern Europe, they absorbed the name as an arab people, (3) with the decline of Portugal, by entering the slave trade around 1575, and due to large numbers of negros imported to work their fields, while the Portuguese were out exploring for more slaves, the women back home were getting pregnant by the negros causing an influx of mulattos in the population, and the term “Moor” was also wrongly given to them. The problem is, Shakespeare’s misapplication of the name “Moor” to mean “negro” caused many in England (and God only knows who else) to also misapply the name “Moor”.

SOME SOURCES REFUSE TO LIE ABOUT THE MATTER!

From website: people.virginia.edu/~jlc5f/charlotte/credite.html

Credits for: Queen Charlotte, 1744-1818: A Bilingual Exhibit

Angelika Schmiegelow Powell, Slavic Librarian at the University of Virginia Library - and herself a native of Mecklenburg, Germany - prepared the graphic materials for this exhibit, which was shown in 1994, in Charlottesville, VA, one of the towns in the New World named after the royal bride; and simultaneously in Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Germany, the Queen’s birthplace. A Library Faculty Research grant from the University of Virginia Library supported the composition of two sets of 30 pictures depicting scenes, monuments and personages of Queen Charlotte’s life and time. The English set is now permanently housed in the Albemarle County Historical Society Archive. The German edition was deposited in the Stadtmuseum Neustrelitz in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany.

Jean L. Cooper, Systems Librarian at the University of Virginia Library, suggested the creation of a World Wide Web hypertext document of this exhibit for global viewing. A second Library Faculty Research grant sponsored this cooperative pilot project. Cooper formatted, rearranged, and selected most of the added English texts for the World Wide Web edition of the exhibit. She also scanned all the pictures. Angelika Powell translated the English texts into German.

In May 1994, Werner K. Sensbach read through 440 of Queen Charlotte’s surviving letters, addressed to her favorite brother, Grand Duke Charles II of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, which are kept in the Mecklenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv in Schwerin, Germany. The director of the archive generously agreed to provide photocopies of 460 royal letters for the University of Virginia Library, and granted permission to quote excerpts from them in English and German translations in this hypertext document. Werner Sensbach translated these excerpts from the difficult 18th century French letters into English. Charles Rice, of the University of Virginia Library, prepared the English translation of eight-year old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s French dedication letter to Queen Charlotte for his Opus 3 ....”

MORE CONJECTURE, (Which I Will Edit), FROM:

angelfire.com/poetry/of_rastafari/queen_charlotte1.htm

Queen Charlotte, wife of the English King George III (1738-1820), was directly descended from Margarita de Castro y Sousa, a black [sic White Moorish] branch of the Portuguese Royal House. The riddle of Queen Charlotte’s African [White Moorish] ancestry was solved [sic fabricated] as a result of an earlier investigation into the black magi featured in 15th century Flemish paintings. Two art historians had suggested [sic surmised] that the black magi must have been portraits of actual contemporary people (since the artist, without seeing them, would not have been aware of the subtleties in coloring and facial bone structure of quadroons or octoroons which these figures invariably represented) Enough evidence [sic supposition] was accummulated to propose that the models for the black magi were, in all probability, [sic presumed] members of the Portuguese de Sousa family. (Several de Sousas had in fact traveled to the Netherlands when their cousin, the Princess Isabella went there to marry the Grand Duke, Philip the Good of Burgundy in the year 1429.) [hogwash]

AN ERROR IN REASONING FROM:

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html

Six different lines can be traced from English Queen Charlotte back to Margarita de Castro y Sousa, in a gene pool which because of royal inbreeding was already minuscule, thus explaining the Queen’s unmistakable African appearance.” [pile it higher and higher]

Nothing could be farther from the truth, for Queen Charlotte was descended from the White Moors. Over a period of 2300 years, the name “Moor” degenerated downward from “White” to “brown” to “black”. In Portugal, they had a myth that one of the magi that visited the Christ child was black, and in their skits to celebrate the Biblical account, they would use chimney soot to blacken the face of one of the participants acting out the skit of the three magi. However, all of the original magi were White men who came to honor the White Christ! The subject of Charlotte will be continued for three more WTLs.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #163 November 2011

This is my one hundred and sixty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. Again, I am going to have to interrupt my series The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, which I started with WTL #137, giving a general overview, and have been expanding it in greater detail in seven stages as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. As you will remember, I got sidetracked from the subject of Israel’s honeymoon with her Husband, Yahweh, and because of the seriousness of the lies that are being circulated about Queen Charlotte of England (who was the wife of King George III), I find it my Christian duty to set the record straight! I will repeat here two lines of a poem that was written with a false premise to ridicule Queen Charlotte upon her marriage to George III, which I also quoted in WTL #162:

Descended from the warlike Vandal race,

She still preserves that title in her face’ ....”

While the writer does not have a Christian Israel Identity perspective, and therefore does not have a thorough understanding of Germanic origins, let’s determine whether or not the Vandals were negroid. From roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html (All needed editing on the following essay, especially where the author wrongly declares the Alans to be non-German will be corrected in [ ] ):

History of the Vandals: by Brian Adam (‘Gaiseric’)

It’s not known to many people today that [a]long time ago the Vandal warriors, a [White] Germanic tribe, once established a kingdom in North Africa as their base for raiding the Mediterranean Sea, much like the Vikings. Like the Goths and [White] Attila’s Huns, the [White] Vandals helped bring about the Roman Empire’s decline.

Who were the Vandals?: Vandal was a [White] Germanic people belonging to the family of East Germans. The term ‘Vandilii’ is used by Tacitus in his Germania. They settled between the Elbe and Vistula. At the time of the Marcomannic War (166-181 AD) they lived in what is now Silesia. During the 3rd century when the Roman Empire was in crisis with many powerful enemies at their borders, the Vandals and their ally Sarmatians did invade the Roman territory along upper Rhine river in AD 270. About AD 271 AD, the Roman Emperor Aurelian was obliged to protect the middle course of the Danube against them. In AD 330 they were granted lands in Pannonia on the right bank of the Danube by Constantine the Great. Vandals accepted Arian Christianity during the reign of Emperor Valens in the AD 360’s. Before this, there is mention of two branches of the Vandal Confederacy: the Siling Vandals in the northwest and the Asding Vandals in the south.

Breach of the Roman Frontier in AD 406: The kingdom of the Alans ([White] Germanic descendants of the Scyths) that lay to the east side of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in south Russia, was the first of the Hun conquest driving into Europe from Central Asia. Some of the [Germanic]-Alans escaped westward and the rest fell under the Hun rule. The Great Ostrogothic Kingdom that covers the area between [the] Baltic and Black Seas under powerful King Ermanarich, fought the Huns once they appeared in eastern Europe and invaded their land in [the] 370’s. The Ostrogothic cavalry was humiliated by the faster-moving Huns, whose mounted archers destroyed every force Ermanarich sent against them. The fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom and death of Ermanarich in South Russia, the related Gothic clans (later know[n] as Visigoths) grew fearful of the Hunnic warriors and decided to appeal to Rome to grant them refuge. The Romans gave them permission to cross the river Danube into Roman territory, once they had suffered defeat by the Huns. Many Goths however followed them into Roman territory without such permission. Other Germanic tribes such as Gepids, Rugians who were not under the Ostrogothic Kingdom, were also defeated and subjugated by the Huns. Worried that they would be next, the Asding Vandals began to stir. By [the] early fifth century, closely pursued by the Huns, the two branches of Vandals (Siling and Asding) and other [White] Germanic tribes: Suebi (once called the Marcomanni and Quadi), Alamanns, Burgundians and a clan of Alans ([White]-Germans, displaced from the Caucasus) went on the move. There was a large number of barbarians that (lying in wait) across the river Rhine, one cold and frozen night in December, AD 406. They surprised the Romans and breached the Frontier at Mainz. The Roman defences would not stop them pouring into Gaul for months. The border had been weakened as a year previous the Roman General Flavius Stilicho (his background was Vandal) had been forced to collect some Roman soldiers posted along the Rhine in order to defend Rome from the Goth King Alaric and his army. With the Roman frontier breached, many hundreds of thousands of barbarians settled in Gaul; various barbarian bands roamed unchecked across large parts of Gaul for two and [a] half years. It was the [worse] ravaging of Gaul than ever before. Finally the two branches of the Vandals (Siling and Asding), as well as the Suebi and [Germanic]-Alans, crossed the Pyrenees into Spain after being defeated by the Franks in battle and being harassed by the Goths (Visigoths). Within two years of being in Spain, the various conquering tribes divid[ed] up their spoils, apparently by lot; the Siling Vandals and [the Germanic]-Alans taking the richest area, Baetica in the south, while the Asdings and Suebi took the north – Galicia.

Gunderic, the Vandal King up to AD 428: During the late AD 410’s and early 420[’s,] the Romans tried to evict the Siling Vandals and [Germanic]-Alans from southern Spain. To this end they employed the Visigoths to drive the Silings and [Germanic]-Alans out. In fact they finally succeeded in ruining them, though the Romans feared the Visigoths becoming too powerful and offered them to settle in southeast Gaul in AD 418. The Asding Vandals moved south to rejoin their kindred and the joint kingdom proved strong enough to be viable, becoming a Vandal Kingdom. Gunderic was their leader since sometime in the 410’s. This left the Suebi Kingdom in control of the northwest of Spain. When the [Germanic]-Alans lost their leader Ataces, with almost all his army, in battle against Vallia the King of the Visigoths 419 AD, the remainder of these [Germanic]-Alans subjected themselves to Gunderic, King of the Vandals in Baetica, who therefore became King of the Vandals and [the Germanic]-Alans.

At the beginning of the 420’s, the Vandals won a great victory against a Romano-Gothic army led by Castinus. This helped them to further enrich themselves by raiding in Mauritania and the Balearic Islands. Many Roman ports in Spain were captured, including many of [the] galleys within them, and so the Vandals became the first Teutonic people to develop a Mediterranean navy [in modern times].

Gaiseric, The Vandal King, AD 428-477: King Gunderic died and was succeed by his half-brother, a *bastard named Gaiseric (his mother being an unknown concubine of the Vandal King). The name, of which there are various spellings (also Geiseric and Genseric), means the ‘Caesar King’. He was a more clever and shrewd diplomat, as well as military leader (excellently trained in warfare), than any Vandal leader before or after him. He led his Vandals to repulse the imperial offensives and gave gifts to Attila the Hun for attacking the Romans and Visigoths in the 440’s-450’s. He was undisputed King of the Vandals and [Germanic]-Alans in AD 428. [*“bastard”, at the time was used even of Whites with parents of differing tribes. CAE]

Boniface’s Crisis in North Africa: In about 428 AD, Boniface (warlord), Count of North Africa, controlled six whole provinces. He suffered serious problems as a governor, among them legal disputes, Christianity (disappointing St. Augustine by marrying an Arian), and bad relations with [White] Moorish tribesmen. More so, Roman General Flavius Aetius saw Boniface as a rival. Aetius persuaded Empress Placidia, who acted as regent for her son, the future Emperor Valentinian III, that Boniface was disloyal to her and had tyrannical aspirations for himself in North Africa. Further, she was advised to summon Boniface in order to assure his future loyalty. So she sent word to Boniface to come to the imperial court at Ravenna to explain his failure in north Africa. Aetius secretly sent Boniface a private message advising him that Placidia was planning a plot against his life. Aetius was pleased to see his plan succeed as Boniface declined to appear at the court and was subsequently accused of treason and declared a rebel.

Placidia sent the imperial army to arrest Boniface but he managed to repulse them. Then the Vandals crossed the straits of Gibraltar, suddenly arriving in North Africa and began to raid. Placidia decided to send her army to re-attempt arresting Boniface. Meanwhile, Aetius’ fraud was discovered by Boniface, who sent his friend to see the empress to sue for peace in order to allow him to deal with the Vandal raiders.

The Invasion of Africa: Why did the Vandals come into Africa? Had it been arranged with Boniface or was it just a normal invasion? It still remains a mystery to this day. We have two different stories below: (1) King Gaiseric was invited into Africa by a rebellious Boniface who was keen to recruit their support against the army of empress Placidia. They were offered lands in north Africa. After Aetius’ fraud was discovered Boniface appealed [to] King Gaiseric to turn home. But it was too late as King Gaiseric was fully aware that Boniface was weakened by the civil war with the empress, and so he landed in North Africa and turned against Boniface. (2) The other story states that King Gaiseric had suffered a severe fall from his horse which left him permanently lame. From that point on he experienced trouble riding and hence sought to satisfy his need for excitement and raiding by seaborne expeditions. Soon the Vandal fleet grew too strong for the Roman navy and raided the coasts of the western Mediterranean Sea. Gaiseric knew that the North African provinces were the chief suppliers of grain and oil to the Empire and decided to conquer them.

King Gaiseric landed [in] North Africa with over 80,000 men, including the [Germanic]-Alans, Roman-Spaniards, former slaves and several Germanic tribesmen with their families. They seized lands from the local Berbers and some Romans near Tingi (Tangier). From there they overran the country and spread all over Mauritania. There was no limit to their savage atrocities and cruelties. Everything within their reach was laid waste, with looting, murders, tortures of all kinds, brigandry, and countless other unspeakable crimes, without any mercy to men, women, children, priests and ministers of god. Also, they destroyed church buildings. As the Vandals were Arians, [they] made the war with the Catholic Romans especially bitter. The armies of Gaiseric defeated Boniface in battle and went on the rampage, forcing Boniface to retreat to [the] fortified coastal town of Hippo Regius, now Bona.

14 Months of Resistance: All the refugees were crowded into the walled town of Hippo Regius before Gaiseric came. He realised [he was] unable to capture the town in a direct assault, so he laid siege. Boniface and his people saw the Vandal siegeworks grow longer and stronger, depriving them even of their sea links. St. Augustine and his priests prayed together for a hasty relief, strengthening the resolve of the citizens against the Arians. Three months into the siege of Hippo Regius, St. Augustine died on August 28th, AD 430. Boniface was the one to be blamed for St. Augustine’s death. Desperately [seeking] to be rescued by the empire, Boniface sent messengers who did break through the Vandal lines, but for months they heard nothing from Constantinople. After 14 months, hunger and disease were ravaging the Vandals as much as the besieged inhabitants of Hippo Regius. News reached Gaiseric’s camp [that] Constantinople had responded [by] sending a powerful imperial fleet that brought an army under the leadership of Aspar and landed at Carthage, which still remained in Roman hands. Boniface joined forces with Aspar and took the field a second time against the Vandals but was completely routed. Unable to defeat the Vandals, he called for negotiations. Gaiseric decided to relax the siege and entered into negotiations. Gaiseric still maintained the upper hand and dictated terms. Boniface was allowed out of Hippo Regius with his bodyguard, [and] families were permitted to leave. Having failed to stop the Vandals, Boniface handed power to Aspar and sailed to Italy to see empress Placida, who invested him with the office of Magister Militum. General Aetius was furious. Boniface died from a wound he received in his victorious battle against Aetius and his army in AD 432.

Improved Relations: General Aspar established better relations with Gaiseric, as Aspar was an Alan by birth and Gaiseric’s official title was ‘King of the Vandals and [Germanic]-Alans’. They exchanged gifts and ambassadors. Hippo Regius became the Vandal city while Aspar maintained imperial authority in Carthage. Gaiseric had won for his people an independent kingdom in North Africa, the first and only assault on this rich province by Germanic Barbarians.

Arians vs Catholics in North Africa: The Vandals treated the Catholics more harshly than other Germanic tribes. Catholic communities were disolved and any priests refusing to perform the Arian service were banished or enslaved for decades. It is said of Gaiseric himself that he was originally a Catholic and had changed to Arianism before coming to North Africa.

Surprise Capture of Carthage: Peace was made between the Romans and Vandals as the division of the coastline was officially acknowledged in AD 435. However, Hippo Regius was an excellent port for expeditions, [and] all raiders [paid] a proportion of their booty to Gaiseric. His raiders attacked the coasts of Sicily and sacked some cities. Since Aspar had returned to Constantinople in 434 AD, the Carthaginian defences appear to have been weak. Gaiseric, interested in Carthage’s port with its many ships and galleys anchored there, sought to make it another Vandal city. His son Huneric who was held by the court at Ravenna as hostage of peace [but] was soon released and returned home, where he led his army in a surprise attack on Carthage on 19th October, AD 439 (according to Hydatius, Gaiseric captured it by trickery). As Carthage fell into Gaiseric’s hand, to celebrate the achievement, the Vandals made 439 the first year of a new calendar.

Fall of Carthage to the Vandals aggrieved the western and eastern empire[s], as there was a large number of galleys and great shipyards in Carthage, creating the Vandal fleet as the equal to the joint navy of the two empires. That the empire ever allowed for so many galleys to be left in Carthage’s port while the Vandals were so close by, must be one of the most monumental blunders of it’s history. For the first time in nearly 6 centuries, Carthage became the greatest danger to Rome since the Punic Wars.

Wars: In the spring of 440 AD, a vast fleet manned by Vandals and their allies ([Germanic]-Alans, Goths, Romano-Barbarians, and [White] *Moors) set out from Carthage for Sicily, the principal supplier of oil and grain to Italy after the loss of North Africa. All the coastal towns were looted and Palermo besieged. Heavily laden ships returned to the court of Gaiseric. The powerful eastern imperial fleet responded by sailing into Sicilian waters in 441 AD, taking the Vandals by surprise. This was under the command of the Romano-Goth Areobindus. But a major invasion of the Balkans by the Huns, and the threat of a Persian attack, forced him to take his fleet back home. After this Gaiseric allowed his fleets to continue plundering throughout the western Mediterranean Sea. [White Moors, descendants of former Libyan-Phoenicians. CAE]

Arrangement of a Marriage to make Peace: There was a marriage proposal for Eudocia, daughter of the western emperor Valentinian and King Gaiseric’s son Huneric. It was a great honour for the Barbarian leader. However, whose idea was it? It seems possible that General Aetius, who became chief defender of the western empire, realised the impossibility of defeating the Vandals in battle. From another point of view, it could be that emperor Valentinian desired a powerful alliance with a barbarian force that would counter-balance the considerable power of Aetius with his [White] Huns and Goths. Whoever’s idea it was, the political result must have seemed promising to both sides, for it led to King Gaiseric’s first major political blunder.

Huneric was already married to a Visigoth princess when the imperial offer of marriage arrived. King Gaiseric decided [to] free his son from such prior obligations by allowing the poor Visigoth princess to be accused of trying to poison him. Her ears and nose were cut off and she was sent back to her father Theoderic, the Visigothic King, in Toulouse, Gaul. [This] enraged King Theoderic and he swore revenge, making Vandals and Visigoths enemies. But King Gaiseric sat back and enjoyed the fruits of his African estates, as there was little chance of serious conflict between his kingdom and the empire of the Visigoths.

Sack of Rome AD 455: In 454, Emperor Valentinian murdered Aetius. The [following] year Valentinian was stabbed to death by Aetius’s follower. The story goes that Eudoxia, the widow of the emperor, was then forced to marry Maximus against her will. Petronius Maximus was generally believed to have been the grandson of the usurper Maximus who had been crushed by Theodosius the Great. He had been Consul at age 38 and became Praetorian Prefect of Italy six years later. He became emperor of the West Empire after Valentinian’s death.

The widow Eudoxia knew that an appeal to Constantinople would have little chance of being answered. So she decided to write to Gaiseric, inviting him to take possession of Rome. However, no invitation was needed. Gaiseric’s peace treaty had been with Aetius and Valentinian. Now they were dead and so was the treaty. Emperor Maximus, who hurried to get his son married to Eudoxia instead of Huneric, to whom she was long since promised, angered Gaiseric. The Vandal fleet had been built up for the last ten years and now awaited a major expedition.

A major Vandal fleet left Carthage for Rome. Gaiseric and his nobles expected to clash with the imperial fleet somewhere at sea, though when they sailed along the coast of Italy they found themselves unopposed and sighted the port of Rome, Ostia, on 31 May, 455. The Romans were already terrified, sending their wives and daughters away to safety. The gates of Rome couldn’t cope with the number of people seeking to flee. Emperor Maximus had no chance to raise his army in defence of his capital and decided to ride out of Rome. Unfortunately for him, an angry Roman crowd recognised him and stoned him to death. This emperor had reigned for just 70 days. Three days after Maximus’ death, unopposed, King Gaiseric stepped ashore at Ostia

For the fourth time in less than half a century, a barbarian stood at the gates of Rome. Fearing for the safety of Rome, Pope Leo I decided to speak with the leader of the barbarians on the behalf of his city. He was met by King Gaiseric and persuaded him not to burn and slaughter. Gaiseric decided to give certain promises: there would be no killing, no torturing to discover the location of hidden treasure and no destruction of buildings, public or private. On these terms the gates of Rome were wide open to him, allowing him to enter the city with no resistance. The Vandals plundered for two weeks. While Gaiseric stayed at the Imperial palace, his men took all the treasures, statues, Solomon’s Temple (menorah), even part of the gilded roof of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was removed. Yet his greatest prize were Empress Eudoxia, her two daughters, Eudocia and Placidia, and Gaudentius, the son of Aetius. Everything was carted to Ostia, loaded into the waiting ships, from where he and his men departed in good order and sailed back to their stronghold in North Africa. The people of Rome and its buildings were left unharmed (if indeed this story was true).

Life at Home: According to one book, Gaiseric’s position among his own people was unassailable. His overwhelming success encouraged autocratic power, as did a conspiracy among some Vandal lords, which was bloodily suppressed. In response, Gaiseric favoured government in which officials replaced the old tribal aristocracy, by his patronage and not their birth right. This allowed Gaiseric to employ the talents of Romans and non-Vandals. Later, he passed a law in which succession to his throne was restricted to the royal family and not subject to the ancient Germanic custom of election. Such was his authority that Gaiseric’s will was accepted with little struggle.

According to Procopius in the same book, Gaiseric organised his warriors into 80 companies commanded by captains called chiliarchs, which means leaders of 1,000. Most of them were Vandals and [Germanic]-Alans, but increasingly, as time passed and many of them retired to the good life, some *black Moorish tribesmen filled in. They were used as seaborne raiding parties while the Vandals waited in the galleys for the spoils to be brought up. The Moorish kingdoms gave Gaiseric few problems. “Gaiseric arms my own flesh against me” Sidonius wrote [in] a poem, “I am being cruelly torn under his authority by the prowess of my own”. [* That Moors were black is this writer’s absolutely mistaken assumption. For biased religious reasons, the author of this article refused to accept the Germanic Moors as White! CAE]

Each year after the sacking of Rome, the Vandals and allies continued to return to Sicily and the coasts of southern Italy for more plunder. A new emperor, Avitus, unable to stop them [from] doing this, appealed to Constantinople for help but would not trust General Aspar, [after] his old relations with Gaiseric, as [a Germanic]-Alan and an Arian. He instead decided to call General Ricimer, half Suevian, half Goth, for help. Ricimer had a couple of successes against the Vandal fleets but still proved unable to end the Vandal raids.

Majorian’s North African Expedition: Majorian was born early in the fifth century. His grandfather had served Emperor Theodosius I as ‘Master of Soldiers’, and his father had been treasurer to Aetius. He was officer to Aetius but later was dismissed by Aetius due to his wife’s dislike of him. He became emperor of the western Empire in April 457. First he suffered conflicts with his rival Romans and the Goths in Gaul. After he gained control of the situation he felt able to deal with the Vandals, who still raided the western Mediterranean from their stronghold in North Africa.

First, he drove the Vandal raiding force out of Campania in Italy in circa AD 459. Then he organised the building of a great fleet and the recruiting of a mighty army. In France, he obtained recognition from the Visigoths and Burgundians, many of whom joined the Suevi, [White]-Huns, [Germanic]-Alans and other barbarians forming his army. In AD 460, he marched the army to Carthago Nova (Cartagena) in Spain. Realising the imperial army and fleet too strong for the Vandals, Gaiseric gained information of Majorian’s movements. He suggested a treaty, but emperor Majorian refused. Gaiseric decided to instruct his [White] Moorish warriors to lay waste [to] Mauretania and poison the wells in order to hinder the Roman army advance. Marjorian’s fleet was being prepared to lead an offensive but the Vandals captured them in their port by a surprise. With both advances on land and sea devastated, Marjorian was forced into peace talks and into recognising Gaiseric as king of North Africa and confirming his mastery over the western Mediterranean.

With the expedition a failure, Ricimer, the head of the military was furious and saw his emperor dealing with Gaiseric as shameful. And so Ricimer, who had nominated Marjorian as western Emperor, now turned against him. Marjorian was captured in the mutiny (likely being set up by Ricimer). He was to end his reign in AD 461, either by illness or murder.

Raids continue: The accession of a new western emperor in AD 461 gave Gaiseric the excuse to break all previous treaties and resume his raiding of Sicily and Italy. The Vandals planned their attacks well, ensuring there were never any Roman troops or navies present. Meanwhile, the Romans could not possibl[y] be everywhere at the same time. Every year, the [White]-Vandals grew ever more daring and ever more rapacious. Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic Islands all fell into Gaiseric’s hands.

Great Expedition of 468: In 468, emperor Leo decided to end the Vandal raiding by launching an expedition to crush them. It was the most expensive expedition ever in history, though [it] was a failure and brought about the end of [the] western Roman Empire 8 years later.

A) Outrages: By AD 467 Gaiseric and his raiders went too far. It might not have been his fault, but the greedy actions of a rogue Vandal pirate. A raid on southern Greece violated territory of the Eastern Empire. [The] Eastern emperor Leo was outraged. He decided to join forces with the Western Empire against the Vandals, by nominating Anthemius as Western emperor. First Anthemius had to ally himself with Ricimer by marrying his daughter Alypia to him. He also made himself popular in Rome as he brought about the end of the hostilities between the Eastern and Western empire.

B) Spending on Expedition: Poor emperor Leo had to pour 65,000 pounds of gold and 700 pounds of silver into the equipment of over 1,100 ships and 100,000 soldiers and sailors. He had collected a fleet of ships from the whole of the eastern Mediterranean. It was the greatest fleet ever sent against the Vandals, enough to destroy the Vandal Kingdom and capture Gaiseric. It brought Leo near to bankruptcy. [several typos throughout by author, which I have corrected.]

C) Commanders: Regarding who should be at the head of the expedition, Leo was persuaded by his wife and General Aspar to put General Basiliscus in charge, the brother of Leo’s wife. In AD 468, the fleet sailed from Constantinople into [the] Mediterranean Sea and was joined by the Italian fleet under Marcellinus. Ricimer was angered that the Western emperor Anthemius had chosen Marcellinus as the commander of the Western fleet, for he was Ricimer’s foremost enemy. General Heracleius of [the] Eastern army obtained auxiliaries in Egypt and then sailed for Tripoli, where he would disembark and march by land to Carthage.

D) Battle on Land and Sea: Alerted by the Vandal scouts of the empire’s movements, Gaiseric decided to repulse them by using his Vandal fleets. However, Marcellinus’ Western fleet succeeded in Sardinia over the Vandal fleet and took control of [the] island. About 500 Vandal galleys confronted Basiliscus’ fleet in the Sicilian waters. This battle, too, ended with a major victory for Basiliscus, Gaiseric losing 340 galleys.

Sea battles were rare in the 5th century and something that Vandals avoided whenever possible. The classic ram and board warfare of the ancient Mediterranean still pertained. But greater emphasis was placed on firepower, as the proliferation of cataphract-type ships suggests. A hail of archery preceded any encounter. To this was added the shot of catapults and ballistae, their stones and iron weights intended to hole a galley. I’m not sure if there was widespread use of Greek Fire in the 5th century, a feared Byzantine weapon. Like Carthaginian General Hannibal Barca using clay pots of snakes, both sides us[ed] clay pots of quicklime, serpents and scorpions to throw into [the] enemy[’s] galley to panic them.

Heracleius landed with a considerable force in Tripoli, confronting a Vandal army along the Libyan coast. The Vandal warriors in Gaiseric’s army were all quality horsemen who fought with sword and spear when in close combat. Their [White]-Moorish allies in the centre, rose on camel back, and if the fighting was to be an aggressive, skirmishing attack, they remained in the saddle. It was [an] advantage to the [White]-Moors to stand in a phalanx in which they stood with spears, javelin, and shields amid the legs of their animals, enemy horsemen unfamiliar with the sight and smell of Moorish camels could be thrown into disorder. They marched against Heracleius but his army, which included Hun horse-archers, were little effected. [White]-Moorish javelin showers, the camel phalanx and the powerful Vandal horsemen failed to break Heracleius’ advance. This allowed Heracleius to capture several towns and to confidently continue his march towards Carthage.

E) Three Roman columns close in on King Gaiseric: Gaiseric was at his palace fearing for his own survival, as well as for that of his kingdom, as all the three enemy forces closed in on him. However, the Vandal scouts informed him of Basiliscus and his fleet being anchored at the Promontorium Mercurii, now Cape Bon, not far from Carthage (45 miles). It is still a mystery today [why] this fleet had not just sailed into the port of Carthage and taken it by surprise. But Basiliscus settled down there and showed no inclination to go further. Gaiseric called for a council of war over what the Vandals should do. Now was the time for Gaiseric’s famous cunning. He sent ambassadors to commander Basiliscus asking for a cease fire and promising Basiliscus great wealth. And according to some chroniclers the latter may well have achieved this brief armistice. Basiliscus and several of [his] generals preferring a bloodless victory were only too ready to agree.

F) The Gaiseric Design: Gaiseric spent the [next] five days preparing his old war galleys, filling them with brushwood and pots of oil. On the fifth day they were ready, waiting for dark to come. When the wind rose and the moon was obscured by cloud, the old galleys were towed out. Against the black sky, the Vandals reached Cape Bon and started to fire the galleys. Roman guards observed fire darting to and from ships. Too late, the alarm was sounded. The fire galleys sailed into the pack of imperial ships which was too crowded, leaving no room for ships to manouvre. The flagship, where Basilsicus stayed at, was well away from danger. The wind drove the fire ships into the Roman fleet, throwing it into confusion. The noise of the wind and the crackling flames [were] mingled with the cries of the soldiers and sailors as they shouted commands to one another, using long poles to push off the fire galleys as well as each other’s galleys. The Vandal fleet [was] behind the advancing fire galleys. They rammed the imperial galleys, sinking them. But there were some brave Romans in this struggle, including General John, who was a general under Basiliscus. When his ship was surrounded by the Vandals and was being boarded, he stood on the deck and, turning from side to side, he kept killing heaps of the enemy. Finally, once his ship was captured, he assured that much of the valuable Roman equipment had been thrown into the sea. Genzon, the son of Gaiseric boarded John’s ship. He offered a promise of safety, but John refused to fall into the hands of dogs and threw himself into the sea wearing his armour. The galleys of the Roman fleet burned throughout the night.

By morning, Basiliscus had lost more than half his fleet that anchored off Cape Bon. The surviving galleys sailed back to Sicily, harassed all the way by [White]-Moorish pirates. Another imperial fleet under Marcellinus, who was at Sardinia, might have saved the situation. But Marcellinus was assassinated by either a Vandal agent or a plot by Ricimer. Any further expeditions against [the] Vandal kingdom were abandoned. The army of Heracleius heard the bad news and decided to march back. The empire’s campaign was a complete disaster and Gaiseric was the strong man of the Mediterranean ....”

Because I could find little data in my vast library on this subject; and that in scattered articles, I turned to the Internet and found this less-than-perfect work that incorrectly cited the Alans as being “non-Germanic”, but it does give us a perspective of the movements of the “divorced” and “put away” and “punished” Israelite people consisting of twelve tribes. So I decided to use it, while editing out the serious errors.

It may come as a surprise that the Huns were White Israelites, for they helped fulfill the prophecy at Daniel 2:42-45, (the toes representing the “mingled seed” within the ten Roman provinces), which only true Israelites (i.e., the “kingdom” of verse 44) were to fulfill! Vandal-Germanic-Israelite history, to whom Queen Charlotte of England belonged, will be continued in the next lesson.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #164 December 2011

This is my one hundred and sixty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. This is the third consecutive interruption of my series The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, which I started with WTL #137, and have been expanding on it in greater detail in seven stages as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. As you will remember, I got sidetracked from the subject of Israel’s honeymoon with her Husband, Yahweh, and because of the seriousness of the lies that are being circulated about Queen Charlotte of England (who was the wife of King George III), by black Nubian Times, I find it my Christian duty, and have no other alternative but to set the record straight!

In order to determine whether or not the Vandals were negroid, I was quoting from: roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html (with all needed editing, especially where the author wrongly declares the Alans to be non-Germanic, which will be corrected in [ ] ):

History of the Vandals continued from WTL #163:

... General Basiliscus at St Sophia: Emperor Leo was shocked that the expedition was not successful. A fleet, after all, whose costs would keep the Empire near bankrupcy [sic] for many years. The public was outraged and Basiliscus was forced to seek sanctuary in the church of St Sophia in Constantinople, the capital of [the] Eastern Roman empire. Leo blamed him for the failure to destroy the enemy kingdom and the loss of so many fine Roman soldiers and sailors. General Aspar was [a Germanic]-Alan and Arian and may have secretly sided with his fellow-Arian Gaiseric, who was after all king of the [White]-Vandals and [Germanic]-Alans. If this was true, then Aspar may have helped Gaiseric by bribing Basiliscus to betray his emperor on his expedition. However, there is no evidence.

Gaiseric’s Old Age: The early AD 470’s saw some major changes within the imperial hierarchy. Aspar was murdered by emperor Leo. [The] next year Ricimer died. The following year emperor Leo died. The Vandals still were raiding the coasts of [Italy] and Greece as Gaiseric was angered over Aspar’s family being wiped out, revealing the special relationship they enjoyed. The new emperor Zeno tried to end the Vandal War by negotiating. His embassador [sic], Severus, met with surprising success at Carthage. Used to buying the services of imperial agents, Gaiseric presented him with rich gifts and money, but Severus refused. ‘In place of such things, the reward most worthwhile for an ambassador is the redemption of prisoners’. Malchus records that Gaiseric acquiesced. ‘Whatever prisoners I, along with my sons, have obtained, I hand over to you. As for the rest who have been shared out among my followers, you are at liberty to buy them back from each owner, but even I [was] unable to compel their captors to do this against their will’

In addition to the freedom of prisoners, Severus wanted to end the cruelty to Catholics. Gaiseric appears to have wanted to impress the rest of the Mediterranean with his tolerance and civilisation. Emperor Zeno recognised the full extent of the Vandal kingdom, including all of western Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily, ensuring an end to the raids on the empire.

During the long reign of Gaiseric, the western Roman empire broke up into numerous Germanic kingdoms. Many different emperors had held the throne in both west and east. He had outlived all the great warlords: Aetius, Attila, Theoderic, Ricimer and Aspar. He witnessed the deposition of the last emperor of the western Roman empire. The following year, Gaiseric, in his advance[d] old age, died a natural death on 25th January, 477, aged either 77 or 87, forty-eight years after landing in Africa.

Huneric, The Vandal King, AD 477-484: His son, Huneric, succeeded Gaiseric. Huneric would not keep his great kingdom together. The [White]-Moors revolted. No one could command the respect Gaiseric had won.

Huneric had problems with the different churches, Arian and Catholic. He resolved to suppress Manichaeism at the start of his reign, but backed down upon finding many Manichaeans among the Arian clergy. At the request of emperor Zeno, Huneric, owing to his fear of Constantinople, allowed the election of a Catholic Bishop of Carthage in AD 481, named Eugenius. Eugenius was wise and popular, and attracted not only Catholics but also many Vandals, which alarmed Huneric.

Gunthamund, The Vandal King, AD 484-496: Huneric died and was succeeded by his nephew Gunthamund (though he had desired his son to rule). Under his reign the Catholics were free from molestation from government. He also restored the Basilica of St Agileus, a Catholic [as opposed to Arian; not ‘Catholic’ as we know today].

Thrasamund, The Vandal King, AD 496-523: Gundthamund died and was succeeded by his brother Thrasamund, who at first sought to bring the Catholics into line with Arianism through gifts and persuasion. But as this did not work he resorted to threats and torture. He deported 120 bishops to Sardinia. At times though he feared an invasion by Theodoric the Great, the Ostrogothic King, who now controlled Italy.

Hilderich, The Vandal King, AD 523-530: After the death of Thrasamund, a great grandson of Gaiseric and mildly homosexual[?] bachelor named Hilderich became king of the Vandals. He favoured the Catholics and granted religious freedom. He recalled the exiled bishops, one of whom was Fulgentius, an important leader [of] monastic houses, but only sixty bishops could be mustered. For the next seven years, the church underwent a process of reorganisation. There was a revolution in the palace [that] threatened to bring back the days of persecution. His cousin Gelimer, who raised the banner of national Arianism, opposed King Hilderich’s policy. Gelimer had won several victories against the Berber ([White]-Moors) in the south. He was supported by most of the Vandal nobility seiz[ing] the throne for himself. Hilderich was put into [a] prison cell along with his few supporters; his children perhaps were granted refuge at the court of Constantinople. From prison Hilderich appealed to emperor Justinian for help.

Gelimer, The Vandal King, AD 530-34: Eastern emperor Justinian the Great had hoped to bring the Vandal Kingdom back into the imperial fold without the loss of a single Roman soldier. King Hilderich was a Roman on his mother’s side: Princess Eudocia, daughter of Valentinian III, who had been brought back to Africa with her mother and sister after the Vandal sack of Rome. Hilderich had so far adopted Roman ways as to renounce the Arian heresy of his forefathers and embrace the orthodox faith. Gelimer finally lost patience and had put Hilderich in prison, [and] repl[ie]d to Justinian the Great’s immediate protest with a letter pointing out that ‘nothing was more desirable than that a monarch should mind his own business.’

Peace with Persians: The Eastern Roman empire had negotiated an end to the war with the Persians and kept the Germanic and Slavic tribes [to] the north in check. Emperor Justinian the Great was free to deal with Gelimer and his kingdom. Justinian the Great wanted North Africa to be reconquered from the Vandals. First he had to find [the] right person – finally he found a young General Belisarius from Thrace who had had several successes in the war with the Persians, including a victory at Dara. He could be trusted to command an expedition to North Africa.

Justinian the Great’s advisers, including John of Cappadocia, warned against launching an expedition to North Africa, fearing a repeat of Emperor Leo’s failed expedition 65 years earlier and the huge drain it represented on the imperial treasury. The invasion fleet would be sailing over 1,000 miles into Vandal waters, with no reinforcements available, when they landed in North Africa. The invasion fleet might have its supply-lines cut between Belisarius and the empire. John of Cappadocia said to Justinian, ‘Even if you are victorious, you will never hold Africa while Italy and Sicily are in the hands of others, while if you are defeated your breach of a treaty will put the whole empire in jeopardy. Success, in short, will bring you no lasting gain, while failure will risk the ruin of your flourishing and well-established state.’ However, an eastern bishop had informed him of a dream in which the Almighty had promised his assistance in a holy war against the Arian Vandals. Justinian responded, that God was on their side.

Departures: On about Midsummer Day 533, Justinian the Great stood at the window of his palace to watch the departure of the expedition under Belisarius. They travelled in a fleet of 500 transports with support by 92 dromons (the smallest type of eastern warship, designed for lightness and speed). The fleet carried 10,000 infantry which was collected from the eastern frontier, together with 5,000 trained cavalry, including 600 [White]-Huns and 400 Heruls ([a] Germanic tribe), all mounted horse archers. On the flagship was, along with his military secretary Procopius, his wife Antonina.

Belisarius hanged two drunken Huns on the hill above Abydos for murdering one of their comrades. Disaster struck when 500 men were poisoned from the sacks of biscuit[s] provided by John of Cappadocia, which were found to be mouldy. Finally, they arrived at Sicily, once ruled by the Vandals but bought from Gaiseric by King Odoacer of Italy some 60 years [earlier] in return for an annual subsidy (it was a total mistake for the Vandals to give this island to Odoacer). Sicily was now controlled by the Ostrogoths, who had conquered Italy from Odoacer under their King Theodoric. The Ostrogoths were friendly with Belisarius and his army, providing a useful vantage-point from which Belisarius could prepare his fleet for the final attack. Procopius was sent south to Syracuse, where he accidentally ran into an old boyhood friend, a slave who had returned only three days earlier from Carthage.

Gave Orders to Sail: Procopius took his old friend to see Belisarius to report some unbelievable news. The slave [told that] King Gelimer had indeed recently sent his major expedition of over 120 ships, carrying 5,000 Vandals under his brother Tzazo, to put down a rising in Sardinia, a Vandal province. Gelimer still [had] not yet heard anything of the approaching imperial fleet. Belisarius decided to sail at once via Malta. When they reached the coast of North Africa, somewhere in south of Carthage, he held a council of war with his generals, [whether] one should land the army along the coast or if one should sail directly into the port of Carthage. It was decided to disambark [sic] the army on dry land rather than to sail into [the] Carthage port, as they didn’t know the Vandal fleet’s location. They landed at Caput Vada, modern Ras Kaboudia in Tunisia and found support there by people who were opposed to rule by the Vandals. The cavalry and the infantry set off to the north towards Carthage, over 140 miles, with the fleet keeping pace with them offshore. During their march, Vandal towns fell to them without a fight, as many old fortifications were razed during the reign of King Gaiseric. The reasons for this razing of fortifications had been to deny the Romans a strong base from which to begin a rebellion and to prevent the emperor from capturing a city and establishing a stronghold from which to trouble the Vandals. Procopius wrote that, would it have been a five day journey for an unencumbered traveller, with their baggage and equipment; it took the army twice that time to march toward Carthage before meeting the Vandal army at the tenth Milestone from the capital on 14th September, AD 533.

The Battle of Ad Decium (near Tenth Milestone): Once the Roman fleet had been sighted off the coast and then landed [in] Vandal territory, Gelimer knew [he was] in trouble, with part of his army and fleet away in Sardinia and the Roman’s marching on Carthage. He needed to wait for his brother to return from Sardinia, but he had only two options: abandon Carthage or offer a battle. He ordered his cousin Hilderick, an old king who was in prison to be killed, and acted quickly, organising his available army at home. The number of his army was much larger than that of Belisarius’ (over 30,000 Vandals compared to about 16,000 Romans/allies).

Gelimer chose a place at the tenth Milestone for the confrontation. He divided his main army into three groups: his brother Ammatas would attack the vanguard, his nephew Gibamund, with 2,000 men, would attack the Roman left flank via a salt plain, and he himself with his main army would fall upon Belisarius’ rear by far marching around the Roman left. His plans seemed to be working, [but] unfortunately for him, his communications let him down.

Ammatas moved too early. Belisarius was informed about the enemy’s movement and so was allowed to wait for the advance of Ammatas with his few men. Ammatas and his men ran into the vanguard. He was killed after he had accounted for a dozen Romans. His men saw their leader fall, lost heart and fled toward Carthage, leaving half the force to be cut to pieces around him.

The flanking attack was no more successful. If Gibamund had moved in quickly enough to the assistance of Ammatas, the two divisions might yet have saved the day. But Gibamund, at the salt plain, met [the White]-Huns and [the] Romans who outnumbered him at a ratio of 3:1 and was killed.

Gelimer, with his main army advanced at Belisarius’ rear. Roman and [White]-Hun cavalry rode to meet the Vandals. Gelimer ordered a halt and began carefully drawing up his army in the line of battle before facing the enemy cavalry. The Vandals won as the Roman and [White]-Hun cavalry were in disorder and rode back to the main force. Belisarius feared for his main force, as Gelimer would have won by riding through the Roman force and killing them before heading for Carthage. Gelimer started well, somehow contriving to cut Belisarius and his generals off from the main army. But Gelimer got upset by noticing the dead body of his brother Ammatas and the fight went out of him. He remained motionless, refusing to leave the spot until the corpse had been carried from the field and arrangements made for it’s proper burial. Belisarius saw his chance and took advantage, [by] leading his main army down upon the Vandals at the right and left sides. This battle was over; the Vandals fled westward into the deserts of Numidia as a path to Carthage was blocked by the Romans. Carthage lay open to Belisarius and his army.

Carthage opens its Gates: The day after the battle, Belisarius marched on Carthage. He ordered his army not to camp outside the city walls, suspecting a Vandal trap. Before entering the city, he ordered his army not to kill or enslave any of the people of Carthage, as they were Roman citizens under the Vandal tyranny for a century. Carthage now in Belisarius’ hand, [allowed] many citizens [to welcome] him and his army as they entered through the wide-open gates. Carthage became a Roman city again for the first time in nearly a century. He went straight to the palace where he sat on the throne of the Vandal King. He set to rebuilding the fortifications of the city, and his fleet sought shelter in the lake of Tunis five miles south of Carthage.

The Battle of Ticameron: Gelimer sought not to struggle on alone from his temporary refuge at Bulla Regia in Numidia, some hundred miles west of Carthage. He sent an urgent message to his brother Tzazo who was still on his Sardinian expedition with his army. Victorious Tzazo received the bad news and rushed back to North Africa to reunite with Gelimer and his forces. Gelimer settled down to reorganise and regroup his own army and called to his aid local Punic and Berber tribes. He offered them generous rewards for every Roman head that they could lay before him. He sent his secret agents into Carthage to persuade the [White]-Huns and some citizens who were fellow-Arians to transfer their allegiance, to betray Belisarius. When Tzazo and his army joined Gelimer early in December, AD 533 he felt himself strong enough once more to take the offensive. He ordered his army to ready itself to march out of Bulla toward Carthage. With the two brothers at the head of the army, the Vandal force paused on the way to demolish the great aqueduct on which the capital chiefly depended for it’s water supply.

Belisarius had spent the weeks since the Battle of Ad Decium strengthening the city defences. He did not want to face a siege and he was beginning to grow suspicious of the loyalty of the [White]-Huns and other barbarians under his command, knowing some of his army was being approached by agents of Gelimer. He gave the order to march to [and] meet the [White]-Vandals in battle, putting the [White]-Huns and barbarians in the rear of his force.

The battle was fought on 15th December, AD 533. Belisarius places the Roman cavalry in the first line and the infantry formed the second line. Immediately the Roman cavalry charged three times into the thick of the Vandals ranks: hand to hand fighting [ensued]. In the third charge, Tzazo was cut down in front of Gelimer, who lost heart. The Vandal lines began to retreat in a rout. Gelimer fled back into Numidia, his army pell-mell after him. The battle was over, the Vandals having lost over 3,000, either killed or taken prisoner. Belisarius marched on the city of Hippo, which opened its gates to him at once.

Gelimer was aware that his kingdom was lost but did not at first surrender. He planned instead to transport his part of Vandal treasure and surviving supporters to Visigothic Spain where he would seek refuge. In Spain were some long lost Vandal cousins, descendents of those who had remained in the south of Spain when King Gaiseric led the big migration of his people to North Africa a century earlier.

But the Romans intercepted Gelimer, who lost his treasure and fled into the mountains, sheltered by Berber tribesmen. The year after he was found and surrounded by a Roman force under commander Pharas the Herulian who urged him to give up. Gelimer received emperor Justinian’s word that the Romans would treat Gelimer as a king and would arrange for him a dignified and comfortable retirement. But he refused and asked to be sent a sponge and a loaf of bread. In the book I read, it doesn't say whether his wishes were granted or not. In March, after a long and extremely disagreeable winter, Gelimer finally surrendered to Belisarius at Mount Papua. The Vandal Kingdom was at an end in North Africa. The Vandal provinces of Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic Islands were returned to [the] Eastern Roman Empire without a fight.

Triumph: After Belisarius had loaded all captured treasure and Vandal prisoners aboard his fleet, he returned to Carthage, from where he was recalled by emperor Justinian to Constantinople as Justinian feared he might make himself king of Africa. Belisarius’ fleet carried all prisoners, treasure as well as the chained Gelimer back to Constantinople. The people of the great city greeted general Belisarius as he led his army and allies into the Hippodrome, followed by Gelimer, his family and all the tallest and best looking Vandal prisoners. Wagons that carried the spoils of war including the menorah, that sacred seven-branched candle stick that had been brought to Rome by Emperor Titus in AD 71 from the Temple of Jerusalem and which had then been taken to Carthage by King Gaiseric nearly a century ago. [underline at “his family ...” mine, CAE]

Gelimer, The last King of the Vandals: Gelimer was led into the Hippodrome in chains, to the cheers of Roman citizens, where he saw an emperor seated on a throne at the end of [the] Hippodrome. ‘Vanity of vanities, all is vanity’ the last King of the Vandals is said to have murmured as he grovelled in the dust beside his conqueror. He refused the offer [of] Patrician rank for which he would have to abandon his Arian faith. He accepted Justinian’s offer of rich estates in Galatia where he and his family were to spend their lives in safety, free to worship as they liked. Over 2,000 Vandal prisoners were less fortunate and were formed into five imperial regiments known as the Vandali Justiniani. They were marched off to the Persian front to fight for Justinian’s empire and to survive as best they could.”

After all of this History of the Vandals by Brian Adam (‘Gaiseric’), are we to believe that the Vandals (who took on the epithet of “Moor”, derived from the geographic area known as “Mauretania”) were negroid? Mauretania was a Roman province and should not be confused with today’s Mauritania, although at sometime in the past there may have been some small connection. Mauretania extended roughly from today’s Casablanca to today’s Tunis (ancient Carthage), and was a strip roughly 150 to 300 miles in width along the southeast shore of the Mediterranean Sea in northwestern Africa. The most important thing we must understand about the city of Carthage is that it was founded by Israelite Phoenicians who can be identified with the tribes of Dan, Asher, Zebulun, Gad and Naphtali (according to William Finck in his research of Biblical and Classical history). Descendants of these, along with those of many later Roman colonists, comprised the pre-Vandal population of the area. Now that we have covered the fundamental history of the Vandals, of which Queen Charlotte’s mother was a descendant, we will address:

The History Of Queen Charlotte from:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (19 May 1744 – 17 November 1818) was the Queen consort of the United Kingdom as the wife of King George III. She was also the electress consort of Hanover in the Holy Roman Empire until the promotion of her husband to King of Hanover on 12 October 1814, which made her Queen consort of Hanover.

Queen Charlotte was a patroness of the arts, known to Johann Christian Bach and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, among others. She was also an amateur botanist who helped expand Kew Gardens. George III and Charlotte had 15 children, 13 of whom survived to adulthood.

Early life: Schloss Mirow Sophia Charlotte was born on 19 May 1744. She was the youngest daughter of Duke Charles Louis Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Prince of Mirow and his wife, Princess Elizabeth Albertine of Saxe-Hildburghausen. Mecklenburg-Strelitz was a small north German duchy in the Holy Roman Empire.

She was a granddaughter of Adolf Frederick II, Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz by his third wife, Christiane Emilie Antonie, Princess of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen. Her father’s elder half brother reigned from 1708 to 1753 as Adolf Friedrich III.

The children of the duke were all born at Schloss Mirow, a modest palace, or rather country house. The daily life at Mirow was nearly that of the family of some simple English country gentleman. The morning was devoted to study and instruction in needlework, embroidery, and lace-making, in which the daughters were very skillful. They were brought up in the most careful way, receiving an admirable education, and were grounded in religious principles under the direction of their mother. They were further directed by M. Gentzner, a Lutheran minister of many accomplishments, who had a particular knowledge of botany, mineralogy, and science.

Marriage: When King George III succeeded to the throne of Great Britain upon the death of his grandfather, George II, it was considered right that he should seek a bride who could fulfill all the duties of her exalted position in a manner that would satisfy the feelings of the country at large. George was originally smitten with Lady Sarah Lennox, sister of the Duke of Richmond, but his mother the Dowager Princess of Wales and his political advisor Lord Bute advised against the match, and George abandoned the idea.

Charlotte’s husband, George III of the United Kingdom Colonel Graeme, who had been sent to the various courts of Germany on a mission of investigation, reported the charms of character and the excellent qualities of mind possessed by the seventeen year old Princess Charlotte. While she certainly was not a beauty, her countenance was very expressive and showed extreme intelligence; she was not tall, but had a slight, rather pretty figure; her bright eyes sparkled with good humour and vivacity; her mouth was large, but filled with white and even teeth; and her hair was a beautiful light brown colour.

The King announced to his Council in July 1761, according to the usual form, his intention to wed the Princess, and Lord Hardwicke was despatched to Mecklenburg to solicit her hand in the King’s name. Charlotte’s brother Adolf Friedrich IV, Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and widowed mother, who actively sought a prominent marriage for the young princess, received him with every honour that the little court was capable of showing him, and he returned within a month of departure after having completed all the necessary preliminaries, well pleased with his mission.

By the end of August 1761, the escort arrived that was to conduct Princess Charlotte to England: the Duchess of Ancaster, the Duchess of Hamilton, both Ladies of the Bedchamber; Mrs. Tracey, [the] Bedchamber Woman; Earl Harcourt, Proxy for the King; and General Graeme, set out on their route. A most dreadful storm of thunder overtook them, and lightning set fire to several trees along a road through which they had to pass.

They arrived nevertheless in safety at Cuxhaven, and embarked on a squadron of British yachts and warships under Admiral Anson (including the specially renamed HMY Royal Charlotte). They were nine days at sea due to a storm, the voyage being usually accomplished in about three days. Instead of going on to land at Greenwich, where everything was prepared for the reception of the Princess, Admiral Anson thought it better to make for the nearest port and docked at Harwich, where they remained at anchor for the night. This was on Sunday, the 6th of September, and landing the next morning they travelled to Essex, where they rested, and then continued their journey towards London. Arriving at St. James’s Palace on 7 September, she met the King and the royal family. The following day at nine o’clock (8 September) the ceremony took place in the Chapel Royal and was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Secker.

Life as Queen: Queen Charlotte with her children and brothers, by John Zoffany, 1771-72: In 1767, Francis Cotes drew a pastel of Queen Charlotte with her eldest daughter Charlotte, Princess Royal. Lady Mary Coke called the likeness ‘so like that it could not be mistaken for any other person’. Unfortunately, there can be little doubt that the early married life of the young Queen was scarcely a happy one. The King was worried with ministerial troubles, and the princess dowager, secure in the support of the favourite Lord Bute, was able to exert all the influence and authority which age and knowledge of the world and the position of a parent would give her over a young and inexperienced couple. The young queen was unable to resist, and a sort of palace despotism developed where her mother-in-law controlled all her actions. The king himself, strongly under his mother’s influence, was not inclined to interfere, and assumed that all was done rightly. Already she was not allowed to be too intimate with the English ladies of her household. It was laid down as being formal etiquette of the court that they should not approach her save under the direction of her German attendants. Card-playing, which she loved, was presently interdicted.

Naturally, too, there were the German and the English factions of dependents; each jealously contending for their royal mistress’s favour, dictating the terms and conditions of their service, and threatening to go back to Germany unless particular privileges were given them. The poor queen had about as much anxiety and trouble with her dependents as her husband had with his insubordinate ministers or servants.

Despite this the marriage was a success, and on 12 August 1762, the Queen gave birth to her first child, the Prince of Wales, who would later become George IV. On 13 September, the Queen attended the Chapel Royal to offer the usual thanksgiving which took place after childbirth. The ceremony of christening the Prince of Wales, which took place at St. James’s Palace, was attended with every circumstance of splendour. The cradle upon which the infant lay was covered with a magnificent drapery of Brussels lace. In the course of their marriage, they had 15 children, all but two of whom (Octavius and Alfred) survived into adulthood.

Around this time the King and Queen moved to Buckingham House, at the western end of St. James’s Park, which would later be known as Buckingham Palace. The house which forms the architectural core of the present palace was built for the first Duke of Buckingham and Normandy in 1703 to the design of William Winde. Buckingham House was eventually sold by Buckingham’s descendant, Sir Charles Sheffield, in 1761 to George III for £21,000 (£3,000,000 as of 2011). The house was originally intended as a private retreat, and in particular for Charlotte, and was known as The Queen’s House [as] their 15 children were born there. St. James’s Palace remained the official and ceremonial royal residence.

Interests and patronage: ‘Patroness of Botany, and of the Fine Arts’ George III and Queen Charlotte were music connoisseurs and passionate admirers of George [Frederick] Handel; both had German taste, and gave special honour to German artists and composers. In 1764 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, then aged eight, arrived in Britain with his family as part of their grand tour of Europe and remained from April, 1764, until July, 1765. The Mozarts were summoned to court on 19 May, and played before a limited circle from six to ten o’clock. Johann Christian Bach, eleventh son of the great Johann Sebastian Bach, was then music-master to the Queen, [and] put the difficult works of Handel, Bach, and Abel before the boy. He played them all at sight, and those present were quite amazed. Afterwards he accompanied the Queen in an aria which she sang, and played a solo work on the flute. On 29 October, they were in town again, and were invited to court to celebrate the fourth anniversary of the King’s accession. As a memento of the royal favour, his father Leopold Mozart published six sonatas composed by Wolfgang, known as Mozart’s Opus 3, and were dedicated to the Queen on 18 January 1765, dedication she rewarded with a present of fifty guineas.

Queen Charlotte was an amateur botanist who took a great interest in Kew Gardens, and, in an age of discovery, when travellers and explorers such as Captain Cook and Sir Joseph Banks were constantly bringing home new species and varieties of plants, saw that the collections were greatly enriched and expanded. Her interest in botany led to the magnificent South African flower, the Bird of Paradise, being named Strelitzia reginae in her honour.

Among the royal couple’s favored craftsmen and artists were the cabinetmaker William Vile, silversmith Thomas Heming, the landscape designer Capability Brown, and the German painter Johann Zoffany, who frequently painted the king and queen and their children in charmingly informal scenes, such as a portrait of Queen Charlotte and her children as she sat at her dressing table ....” (The rest of Queen Charlotte’s history will be continued in the next lesson.)

The first historically known occupants of Mauretania were the White Israelite Phoenicians, who settled colonies all around the western Mediterranean, along both the northern and southern shorelines. In Mauretania alone, (Strabo, xvii, 826) speaks of 300 cities on the Mauretanian coast beyond the Pillars of Hercules. As a result, the Phoenician colonists and Carthaginians stamped west Africa with a thoroughly Phoenician character, including their language, (1894 Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. 18, page 819). Originally, the Moors were White! How absurd to claim otherwise!