2012 Watchman's Teaching Letters

Watchman's Teaching Letter #165 January 2012

This is my one hundred and sixty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourteenth year of publication. This is the fourth interruption of my series The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, which I started with WTL #137, giving a general overview, 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. Since then, I got sidetracked with the erroneous allegation that Queen Charlotte of England (who was the wife of King George III) had black ancestry, proclaimed by the so-called civil rights movement’s mouthpiece, The Nubian Times, which circulated the article among their adherents to promote that royalty is mixed with negro blood, plus other false claims.

With this lesson, I will finish Queen Charlotte’s history from:

The History Of Queen Charlotte from:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

... The queen also founded orphanages and a hospital for expectant mothers. The education of women was of great importance to her, and she saw to it that her daughters were better educated than was usual for young women of the day. However, she insisted that her daughters live restricted lives close to their mother, and refused to allow them to marry until they were well-advanced in years, with the result that none of her daughters had legitimacy issues (one, Princess Sophia, may have had an illegitimate son).

In 2004, the Queen’s Gallery at Buckingham Palace staged an exhibition illustrating George and Charlotte's enthusiastic arts patronage, which was particularly enlightened in contrast to that of earlier Hanoverian monarchs; it compared favorably to the adventuresome tastes of the king’s father, Frederick, Prince of Wales.

Up until 1788, portraits of Charlotte often depict her in maternal poses with her children, and she looks young and contented. However, in that year her husband fell seriously ill and became temporarily insane. It is now thought that the King was suffering from a genetic metabolic disorder, porphyria, but at the time the cause of the King’s illness was unknown. Sir Thomas Lawrence’s portrait of her at this time marks a transition point after which she looks much older in her portraits. Indeed, the Assistant Keeper of Charlotte’s Wardrobe, Mrs. Papendiek, wrote that the Queen was ‘much changed, her hair quite grey’.

Relations with Marie Antoinette:

Charlotte sat for Sir Thomas Lawrence in September 1789. His portrait of her was exhibited at the Royal Academy the following year. Reviewers thought it ‘a strong likeness’. The French Revolution of 1789 probably added to the strain that Charlotte felt. Queen Charlotte and Queen Marie Antoinette of France kept a close relationship. Charlotte was eleven years older than Marie Antoinette, yet they shared many interests, such as their love of music and the arts in which they both enthusiastically took an interest. Never meeting face to face they kept the friendship to pen and paper. Marie Antoinette confided in Charlotte upon the outbreak of the French Revolution. Charlotte had even organized apartments to be prepared and ready for the refugee royal family of France to stay in. After the execution of Marie Antoinette and the bloody events that followed, Charlotte was said to be shocked and overwhelmed that such a thing could happen to a kingdom, and right on Britain’s doorstep.

Husband’s illness: After the onset of his madness, George III was placed in the care of his wife, who could not bring herself to visit him very often, due to his erratic behaviour and occasional violent reactions. It is believed she did not visit him again after June 1812. However, Charlotte remained supportive of her husband as his illness, now believed to be porphyria, worsened in old age. While her son, the Prince Regent, wielded the royal power, she was her husband’s legal guardian from 1811 until her death in 1818.

Later life: The queen died in the presence of her eldest son, the Prince Regent, who was holding her hand as she sat in an armchair at the family’s country retreat, Dutch House in Surrey (now known as Kew Palace). She was buried at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. Her husband died just over a year later. She is the second longest-serving consort in British history (after the present Duke of Edinburgh), having served as such from her marriage (on 8 September 1761) to her death (17 November 1818), a total of 57 years and 70 days.

Her eldest son, the Prince Regent, claimed Charlotte’s jewels at her death, but the rest of her property was sold at auction from May to August 1819. Her clothes, furniture, and even her stuff was sold by Christie’s. It is highly unlikely that her husband ever knew of her death, and he died, blind, deaf, lame and insane, fourteen months later.”

Much of what I have written in my research defending Queen Charlotte is revealed on the front page of The Barnes Review, #10 for July 1995, with the headline announcement: “SHAKESPEARE WAS WRONG ABOUT OTHELLO”. The article The Untold Tale Of Othello, by John Tiffany is featured on pp. 3-7, of which I will quote important excerpts as follows:

... ‘He that is robb’d, not wanting what is stol’n, / Let him not know’t, and he’s not robbed at all’ Othello, III, iii. Have we been ‘robb’d’ of the truths of history? Was Othello, the Moor of Venice, really black? As Lago said: ‘Men should be what they seem; Or those that be not, would they might seem none!’ But was Othello what he seemed, racially speaking?’

Shakespeare wrote Othello, the Moor of Venice in, probably, 1604. This was more than 100 years after the last Moor was driven out of Europe and centuries after the Moorish civilization had reached its peak and entered into decline.

For nearly 800 years the Moors had held sway over most of what is today called Spain and Portugal. The post-Moorish history of those nations, by contrast, is a mere 500 years or so. Thus the civilization had ample time to go through its life cycle.

Shakespeare (as well as everyone who has since produced the play*) pictured the Othello character as a black man, but the bard was mistaken on this point. Othello, had he been a real-life person and not a fictional character, would have been white. As a true Moor (unless it was of the late, decaying stages of the civilization), he would have been a member of the Caucasian race, without a tinge of Negro blood.

[*Othello was performed by the King’s men in the banqueting house at Whitehall on Hallowmas Day, November 1, 1604. So far as is known this was the first public presentation of the play. It was probably written earlier that year.]

Shakespeare took the plot for his Othello a splendid, heroic and good man and a natural leader. Yet Shakespeare’s Othello is hotblooded, somewhat simple-minded and completely unable to understand his white wife, Desdemona. Nor is he any kind of intellectual match for his treacherous white friend-cum-enemy, the cynical Iago.

But the real-life Moors, at least until shortly before their downfall, were not Negro. Thus, as Shakespeare’s play was set during the hey-day of Moorish culture, Othello could not have been black.

The name ‘Moor,’ given to the Muslims of the Hispanic peninsula and North Africa by the Christians, derives from an ancient word for North Africans contained in ‘Mauretania,’ the Roman name of northern Morocco (not to be confused with today’s Mauritania, which of course is south of Morocco). The name acquired the sense of swarthy, even black or Negro, apparent in Shakespeare’s Othello, ‘the Moor of Venice,’ so that eventually it became necessary to talk of ‘white Moors,’ a redundancy somewhat like saying ‘white Scot’ or ‘white Frenchman.’

The Moors-as-blacks stereotype stems from the number of Negroes imported over the years from the western and central Sudan, and who were employed as servants and soldiers as well as concubines. Inevitably, as always happens when two races inhabit the same territory, racial mixing took place so that it was possible to call the great Moroccan sultan Abu’l-Hasan (r. from 1331, d. 1351) in the middle of the 14th Century Abu’1-Hasan ‘the Black.’

But the image also owes much to the identification by Christians of followers of the rival faith with the grotesque black fiend, as they envisioned Satan to be.

The word ‘Arab’ is probably derived from a Semitic root implying nomadism, ’abar, or pass, from which the word ‘Hebrew’ is also derived. The original Arabs were a white or Caucasoid people. The natives of the interior of the Arabian peninsula were (and still are) the Bedouin, a tribal people whose way of life centered around the camel. But in the south of the peninsula, the land known to the ancients as Arabia Felix (roughly corresponding with modern Yemen), although Arabic was spoken, the people had an ancient history of settled kingdoms and agriculture. Little, however, is remembered now of their ancient, pre-Islamic cultures. [ereb also = Arab, but means “mixed”.]

But an Arab today is not what an Arab has been over the centuries. More than 4.5 million square miles in Africa and Asia are Arabic-speaking. But there has been much racial mixing, because the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims, and in Islam there are supposedly no distinctions of race. Every physical type is represented today in so-called Arab communities. Some are [almost] entirely white; some are almost entirely black. The Hijaz is one of the most racially mixed areas on the Earth; Mecca has been a city of mulattos and quadroons [i.e., ¼ black], of all racial blends, since the 14th century. [brackets mine]

The ancient Arabs were aristocratically haughty, proud of the [purported] purity of their blood. The proof of being Arab by birth, of being a member of the true elite, was in the pedigree. Genealogies were carefully preserved [or contrived] and cultivated by anyone with any pretensions, pushed further and further back until they blended into the lineages of the Arab tribes before Islam ... Yet the vast number of unions with slaves (which included Turks and white Europeans as well as Negroes), in a polygamous society, had provoked such fantastic mingling of all sorts of stocks during the Abbasid period that from then on it was impossible even for the caliph to make a point of racial purity ....”

There is more to Tiffany’s article, The Untold Tale Of Othello, and I would recommend everyone who is interested to get a back copy from The Barnes Review for July 1995. As I see it, what I have written helps reinforce Tiffany’s The Untold Tale Of Othello, and Tiffany’s story helps reinforce my research defending Queen Charlotte’s pure White Caucasian Israelite bloodline! The evidence which I have presented in these last four Watchman’s Teaching Letters, 161-165, should demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Royal Family of Britain has remained racially pure down through history from king Zedekiah until today’s Queen Elizabeth II, who now occupies the throne of England. It does appear, though, that Queen Elizabeth II is the end of the line of pureblooded, qualified candidates from the house of David to take the throne, other than Yahshua Christ Himself, for Queen Elizabeth II violated Yahweh’s law of “kind after kind” when she married Philip Mountbatten (i.e. Battenberg). To review this evidence concerning Queen Elizabeth II and Philip Mountbatten, I will quote excerpts from my paper, How Long Can Queen Elizabeth II Live?:

Some are of the opinion that if the Queen were to suddenly die, the throne could be transferred to another branch of the family. That would be the usual process, but those who make that statement don’t take into account there were only to be three “overturns” as declared, Ezekiel 21:27, and all three have already happened (i.e., Jerusalem to Ireland, to Scotland, to England). Queen Elizabeth II undoubtedly represents the last surviving pureblooded heir to the throne on behalf of the third “overturn.” Let’s now document why the tainted-blood offspring of Elizabeth by Philip are unqualified to take that throne.

Philip was of the line of Battenberg until the name was changed to Mountbatten. I will now quote from two encyclopedias on the background of the Battenberg side of Philip’s lineage:

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1963), volume 3, page 281: ‘Battenberg, the name of a family of German counts, which died out about 1314, whose seat was the castle of Kellerburg, near Battenberg, in Hesse. The title was revived in 1851, when Alexander (1823-88), a younger son of Louis II, grand duke of Hesse, contracted a morganatic marriage with the Polish lady, Countess Julia Theresa von Hauke (1825-95), who was then created countess of Battenberg. In 1858 the countess and her children were raised to the rank of princes and princesses of Battenberg, with the title of Durchlaucht, or serene highness.

In 1917 the eldest son of this union, Louis Alexander (1854-1921), who had become an admiral in the British navy, was created marquess of Milford Haven ..., and, at the request of King George V, the members of the family who lived in England renounced, in 1917, the German title of prince of Battenberg and adopted the surname of Mountbatten. The second son, Alexander Joseph (1857-93), was elected Prince Alexander I of Bulgaria in 1879 ... Henry Maurice, the third son, married on July 23, 1885, Beatrice, youngest daughter of Victoria, queen of England, became a naturalized Englishman and was appointed captain general and governor of the Isle of Wight and governor of Carisbrooke. He died at sea on Jan. 20, 1896, of a fever contracted on active service with the British troops during the Ashanti War. The fourth son, Francis Joseph (1861-1924), married in 1897 Anna, daughter of Nicholas I, prince of Montenegro, and was the author of Die volkswirtschaftliche Entwicklung Bulgariens von 1879 bis zur Gegenwart (1891).

The only daughter of the princess of Battenberg, Marie Caroline (1852-1923), married in 1871 Gustavus Ernest, prince of Erbach-Schönberg. Princess Alice of Battenberg (b. 1885), daughter of Prince Louis Alexander, and Victoria Eugénie (Princess Ena of Battenberg; b. 1887), only daughter of Prince Henry Maurice, were both married before 1917, the former to Prince Andrew of Greece and the latter to Alphonso XIII, king of Spain. Prince Henry’s youngest son, Maurice of Battenberg, was killed in action near Ypres on Oct. 27, 1914’...”

For another witness I will quote from the Encyclopedia Americana (1991), volume 3, page 356: ‘Battenberg ... is a title of nobility taken from the name of a village near Marburg, West Germany. A family of counts held the title until it died out about 1314. In 1851, upon the morganatic marriage of Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt to Julia Teresa, countess von Hauke, the latter received the title of countess of Battenberg. The countess and her children were raised to the rank of princes and princesses in 1858. Their descendants retained the title until World War I, when those living in England anglicized it to Mountbatten’.”

LET’S EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

It seems that we have a castle by the name of Kellerburg, near a town called Battenberg in an area known as Hesse in Germany. It also appears that there was a family of German counts that lived there until they all died out in 1314. That area seems to have been settled mostly by Kelts in early times. Did the family physically die out, or did the succession of royal authority die out? It makes a lot of difference. Be that as it may, it also appears that this heir apparent, Alexander, married a Polish lady. Again, one must ask the question, what kind of ladies might one find in Poland at that time (actually Warsaw)? Then, we are told there was a “morganatic marriage” arranged between this Polish lady named Julia Theresa von Hauke and Alexander. Interestingly, we have another morganatic marriage to compare with that of Alexander to Julia Theresa von Hauke. The party was Constantine Pavlovich (1779-1831) grand-duke and Sarevitch of Russia, born to Paul Petrovich and Mary Feodorovna. His grandmother, empress Catherine II, arranged for his marriage to Juliana of Coburg, which failed miserably. Later, he fell in love with a Polish lady, Johanna Grudzinska, and signed a paper resigning all claim of succession to the throne. Question: Why wasn’t Alexander required to sign a similar paper?, Or did he?

Well, let’s investigate what is meant by a ‘morganatic marriage.’ From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), we read this: ‘morganatic ... adj. Of or pertaining to a type of legal marriage between a man or woman of royal or noble birth and a partner of lower rank, in which agreement is made that any titles or estates of the royal or noble partner will not be shared by the commoner or by any of the offspring. [New Latin morganaticus, from Medieval Latin matrimonium ad morganaticam, ‘marriage for (no dowry but) the morning-gift’ (i.e., the husband’s token gift to the wife on the morning after the wedding night), from Old High German morgan, morning’...”

ELIZABETH II AND PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN

HAVE SAME GREAT-GREAT-GRANDMOTHER

The marriage of Philip Mountbatten to Elizabeth II was a tragedy of the utmost magnitude, and is only part of the story. While they both had afont-family: [brackets mine]In 1917 the eldest son of this union, Louis Alexander (1854-1921), who had become an admiral in the British navy, was created marquess of Milford Haven ..., and, at the request of King George V, the members of the family who lived in England renounced, in 1917, the German title of prince of Battenberg and adopted the surname of Mountbatten. The second son, Alexander Joseph (1857-93), was elected Prince Alexander I of Bulgaria in 1879 ... Henry Maurice, the third son, married on July 23, 1885, Beatrice, youngest daughter of Victoria, queen of England, became a naturalized Englishman and was appointed captain general and governor of the Isle of Wight and governor of Carisbrooke. He died at sea on Jan. 20, 1896, of a fever contracted on active service with the British troops during the Ashanti War. The fourth son, Francis Joseph (1861-1924), married in 1897 Anna, daughter of Nicholas I, prince of Montenegro, and was the author of font-size: small; great-g align=font-family: In 1917 the eldest son ofspan style=/spanspan style=span style= this union, Louis Alexander (1854-1921), who had become an admiral in the British navy, was created marquess of Milford Haven ..., and, at the request of King George V, the members of the family who lived in England renounced, in 1917, the German title of prince of Battenberg and adopted the surname of Mountbatten. The second son, Alexander Joseph (1857-93), was elected Prince Alexander I of Bulgaria in 1879 ... Henry Maurice, the third son, married on July 23, 1885, Beatrice, youngest daughter of Victoria, queen of England, became a naturalized Englishman and was appointed captain general and governor of the Isle of Wight and governor of Carisbrooke. He died at sea on Jan. 20, 1896, of a fever contracted on active service with the British troops during the Ashanti War. The fourth son, Francis Joseph (1861-1924), married in 1897 Anna, daughter of Nicholas I, prince of Montenegro, and was the author of font-size: small;reat-grandmother in common the bad blood came through Louis Battenberg, and in turn through Julia Theresa von Hauke, not Victoria. Julia Theresa von Hauke (the Polish lady’s) father’s name was Maurice von Hauke who had married Sophia of Lafountaine. Alexander Louis George Frederick Emil contracted a ‘morganatic’ marriage to Julia Theresa von Hauke and had the following children: (1) Mary Battenberg, (2) Louis Alexander Mountbatten, (3) Alexander Joseph Battenberg, (4) Henry Maurice Battenberg, and, (5) Francis Joseph Battenberg. The bad blood followed down from Julia Theresa von Hauke to her son Louis Alexander Mountbatten, to his daughter Victoria Alice of Battenberg, to her son Philip Mountbatten (Queen Elizabeth II’s husband), to his son Charles, Prince of Wales (whose very telltale appearance defies all reasonable doubt of a “jewish” bloodline connection). Here is what the book Kings & Queens Of England

by David Willamson says on page 121:

Not long after the royal family’s return to England, the princess’s engagement to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, RN. was announced. He was born at Corfu on 10 June 1921, and like her was the great-great-grandchild of Queen Victoria, being the only son of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark and his wife, Princess Alice of Battenberg’.”

Because this may be somewhat confusing, I will show you that alleged bad bloodline from a different perspective:

Julia Theresa von Hauke.

Louis Alexander Mountbatten.

Victoria Alice of Battenberg.

Philip Mountbatten.

Charles, Prince of Wales.

Thus, I will repeat what I said before: ‘The present Queen Elizabeth II is the last pureblooded Israelite of the Tribe of Judah, of the House of David, to sit on David’s throne, and she has no legitimate heirs to take her place.’ If anyone has evidence to the contrary without an additional “overturn”, let’s please see it!

From the book Mountbatten by Philip Ziegler, ©1985, pages 21-22: ‘Prince Alexander of Hesse, Mountbatten’s grandfather, was the third son of Grand Duke Louis II and godson to the Tsar of Russia. When his sister married the Tsarevich, the future Tsar Alexander II, it seemed both sensible and in keeping with the national tradition that Alexander of Hesse should take service in the Russian army. He achieved distinction, had a regiment of the Lancers named after him and was awarded the Cross of St George. The Tsar intended him as a husband for his niece and his future in Russia promised to be secure and prosperous. For Alexander, however, at this stage of his life at least, security and prosperity did not count for much. He fell in love with Julia Hauke, one of his sister’s ladies-in-waiting, a Polish girl who, if hardly a nonentity [nobody], was not from a family sufficiently grandiose to justify so princely a match. The Tsar indignantly forbade the marriage. Alexander went to England to forget, remembered, returned to St Petersburg and in 1851 eloped with Julia to Warsaw and thence to Breslau where he married her.

This impetuous escapade effectively exiled him from Russia. It did little to improve his standing in his native Hesse. His elder brother, now Grand Duke Louis III, was almost as outraged as the Tsar, but felt that he could hardly let Alexander starve. An uneasy settlement was reached. Alexander was allowed to retain his status as a royal prince of Hesse; the defunct title of Battenberg — a pleasant town in the north of the Grand Duchy — and the quality of countess was conferred on his wife; any children of the marriage, though without claim to the throne of Hesse, would at least be of the same rank as their mother. Even this qualified disgrace did not last long. In 1858 Countess Julia of Battenberg was raised to the level of a Serene Highness and four years later the couple returned to Darmstadt. A new house had been born; royal, after a fashion, but bearing about it a faint aura of wildness and irregularity ... There had always been much to-ing and fro-ing between the courts of Great Britain and of Hesse, and this was intensified after the marriage in 1862 of the future Grand Duke Louis IV to Queen Victoria’s daughter Alice.’

From this, we can clearly see that indeed all heirs of Julia Hauke were disqualified as royal members entitled to the throne. The Almighty’s promise to David was a seedline promise. Therefore, take away the element of seedline, and we have nothing. The only way we have access to the Kingdom is through the seedline Promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If one cannot claim that kinsman seedline Promise, there is no Redemption in Messiah’s blood. As Hebrews 12:8 says, we are either ‘sons’ or we are ‘bastards.’ ...

THE DEMISE OF THE THRONE AS WE KNOW IT

In 1948 there was something grave that happened in England which was a catastrophic tragedy of the greatest magnitude. And, once that appalling disaster manifested itself, it could never be corrected, for there simply is no remedy once such a thing takes place. On November 14, 1948, Charles Philip Arthur George (a “jew”; a descendant of Cain) was born to Queen Elizabeth II by her non-Royal husband, Philip Mountbatten. By that birth, the ‘nail’ of Isaiah 22:25 was ‘removed’, ‘cut down’ and there was a great ‘fall.’ It marked the end of David’s Monarchy on that Throne until the rightful “Shiloh” comes. Absolutely none of Philip Mountbatten’s issue are Biblically, lawfully qualified to be coronated to that dignity. The day Charles was born brought death to that Great Royal line of kings. With the advent of Julia Theresa von Hauke, the ‘seed of the serpent’ of Genesis 3:15 entered that Royal line. Additionally, it should be noted that Julia Theresa von Hauke’s shield has no Israelite symbols as do other royal members. Hers’ is what appears to be a cartwheel on a red background; indeed, a befitting emblem for a ‘rolling-stone’ upon Satan’s color, RED!

Taking excerpts from the book Prince Charles, The Sustainable Prince by Joan Veon, pages 28-31:

... Prince of Wales, the future Charles III has an abundance of titles which include: Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and Great Master and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath ... Paget writes: His Royal Highness is cousin or nephew, in varying degrees, of all the six wives of King Henry VIII. ... In addition to Charlemagne and William the Conqueror, he numbers amongst his ancestors such historic characters as King Alfred the Great, King Harold, who was slain at Hastings, Llewelyn the Great Prince of North Wales, Owain Glyndwr, Warwick the Kingmaker, Margaret, Countess of Salisbury (the last of the Plantagenets), the Protector Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset and his rival John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland ... Louis IX, King of France, the Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg, Catherine I, Empress of Russia, Robert Bruce, Mary Queen of Scots ... Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa ... Hapsburg and Hohenstaufen, Guelph and Hohenzollern, Bavaria and Saxony, Hesse and Baden. ... the Dukes of Savoy and the Emperor Frederick II ... and the medieval Kings of Sicily, as also the Orsini of Rome (Pope Nicholas III was his ancestral uncle) ... Ferdinand and Isabella ... and thus El Cid himself ... Woden ... King Niall of the Nine Hostages ... kings of Tara ... Through the Lusignan crusader kings of Cyprus, titular kings of Jerusalem ... from King Tiridates the Great ... and thus from the divine Parthian imperial House of Arsaces (247 B.C.), which reigned over Persia and Babylonia and was in its time the mightiest dynasty in the Ancient World’...”

I would state emphatically that I believe the Bible over what some jew-blooded negro wrote in The Nubian Times about Queen Charlotte being a black. Here is an excerpt from my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #21:

JEREMIAH’S COMMISSION: The next thing we really need to know is all of what Yahweh commissioned Jeremiah to do. Jeremiah’s commission is recorded in Jeremiah 1:10:

“‘See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.’

This commission breaks down into six phases thusly: (1) to root out, (2) to pull down, (3) to destroy, (4) to throw down, (5) to build, and (6) to plant. You may search all the Bible commentaries, dictionaries, atlases or encyclopedias on this verse and find next to nothing worth repeating. It’s almost as if the verse didn’t exist, and this commission is probably one of the greatest ever authorized by Yahweh. All the great minds of nominal theology are stymied for an explanation. What few utterances these sources do have to offer are preposterous generalizations which have little, if any, application. It is only in British-Israel that a satisfactory answer can be found, especially on the ‘building and planting.’ All others are helplessly mute on the subject. On this among a very few other key verses, the entire Bible stands or falls. If the ‘building’ and ‘planting’ cannot be explained, Israel Identity is a myth as well as all Holy Writ. Without this verse, we might as well quit and join the world order.”

I would also state that British-Israel started out on the right foot with John Wilson, but with the advent of Edward Hine absorbed much error. But the fact remains that Yahweh gave Jeremiah a six fold commission, and the Bible records only the completion of four! If Jeremiah’s “building” and “planting” didn’t take place in old Britain, pray tell, where did it take place? The “building” and “planting” was personally given to Jeremiah, not Ezra or Nehemiah! So, if you presumed that the “building” and “planting” occurred when a small remnant of Judah returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian seventy years of captivity, you are terribly wrong.

I will next take excerpts from my paper Nine Covenants With Adam-Man, under the following subtitle:

THE DAVIDIC COVENANT: 1 Samuel 16:13: ‘Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the spirit of Yahweh came upon David from that day forward.’

Psalm 89: 34-37: ‘My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.’

Jeremiah 33:20-21: ‘Thus saith Yahweh; If ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne ...’

David, as a lad, was a shepherd. He spent many days and nights tending his father’s sheep. The sheep could never be left alone for there were a tremendous number of wolves in those days. Because of the gun, in our day, the wolf population has been brought under control. David’s defense against the wolves was a sling. No doubt, he practiced by the hour to become proficient with it, so, when it became necessary, he could kill a wolf with the first shot. Later, as a young man, he would put his skill to good use by killing a giant. Thus, David the warrior killed many men; a man after Messiah’s own heart foreshadowing His glorious return.

Many might say, ‘Yahweh has broken his word to David, as the Throne of David was nonexistent in Palestine for nearly 600 years during the inter-testament period.’ Though Zedekiah was taken captive by Babylon, and all of his sons killed before his eyes, he still had an heir, because in Israel there was a provision for daughters to inherit the throne if there were no male descendants (Numbers 27:7-8). Therefore, Jeremiah took Zedekiah’s two daughters (Ezekiel 17:22-24) to Spain and Ireland. No sooner had Jeremiah arrived in Ireland with Tea Tephi (Zedekiah’s daughter of the Pharez royal family) than he arranged for her marriage to Eochaidh, the Heremonn, a prince of the Tuatha de Danaans on his mother’s side and a direct descendant of Fenesia Farsa, and thus of the line of Zerah, twin brother of Pharez of the Royal House of Judah, uniting the Royal House of Pharez and the Royal House of Zerah. Lastly, Yahshua, at His First Advent, became priest, but He is yet to be crowned King at His Second Advent.”

This means that there would not be a single 24 hour day that one of David’s heirs wouldn’t be in kingly authority. The last time I checked, the sun and moon were still shining! If we chop it off with Zedekiah, that amounts to 2,600 years of Yahweh lying to David!

As one can clearly see, if Jeremiah’s Yahweh-given commission cannot be squared with Scripture, it creates all kinds of ambiguities that cannot be solved, and Yahweh is not the God of confusion. I believe that it all boils down to Jeremiah transplanting the glory of Yahweh from old Jerusalem to the New Jerusalem (America) via Britain.

All of this substantiates that Queen Charlotte of England had to be a pureblooded Israelite of the tribe of Judah, whom Yahweh married at Mt. Sinai and later divorced, and to meet the requirements of the law, came and died in order to remarry all of Israel back to Him.

Watchman's Teaching Letter #166 February 2012

This is my one hundred and sixty-sixth 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.

I am sorry that I had to interrupt this series to address some nonsensical speculation which only spawns confusion! It seems like there is always someone who wants to start a pretzel factory with the subject of Israel Identity, twisting the facts entirely out of shape. As usual, though, this kind of foolishness only motivates the rest of us to research and study the subject in question to a greater degree, which becomes an advantage to us and dishonor to the one making a false allegation. Thus, the more the pretzel-twisters practice their deception, the more we earnest Bible students learn!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 25

YAHWEH’S HONEYMOON WITH THE TWELVE TRIBES continued:

We left off in WTL #161 with the 24th Part of THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, and after refuting some bull-feces from the negro-oriented The Nubian Times, we can finally return to our subject. For those who don’t know what is going on, The Nubian Times was (and still is) spreading propaganda that the English Queen Charlotte of the German Mecklenburg-Strelitz (wife of King George III) was black, trying to de-stigmatize race-mixing, which is so prevalent today! Well, if Queen Charlotte Mecklenburg-Strelitz was indeed black, then Yahshua Christ will be committing adultery when He marries the twelve tribes of Israel at the “Wedding Supper of The Lamb”, Rev. 19:7-9. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” means “thou shalt not mix thy race with those not of thy kind”! When it says, “clean and white”, it damn well means genetically, as well as “fine linen”. Therefore, the kinds of marriages we make in this life should mirror the marriage that Yahshua Christ will make with us at the “Wedding Supper of The Lamb”! After all, the first marriage of our White race was “bone of my (Adam’s) bones and flesh of my (Adam’s) flesh, Gen. 2:23! So, if one of the two parties making up the marriage is not “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, it is miscegenation rather than marriage!

Laban surely was aware of this very fact when he gave his daughter Rebekah to Isaac for a wife and said at Gen. 29:14: “And Laban said to him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month.”

The subject of “bone and flesh” is brought up again at 2 Sam. 5:1, where all twelve tribes call king David, “Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh.”

Again, “bone and flesh” is mentioned during a time of trouble between all Israel and king David, whereupon David inquired of his priests, 2 Sam. 19:11-12: 11 ... Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house. 12 Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king?”

We find more on the topic of bone and flesh at 1 Chron. 11:1-2, where it states: 1 Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2 And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and Yahweh thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed My people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over My people Israel.”

The subject of the bones and flesh carries over into the New Testament at Eph. 5:28-31: 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Yahshua the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This conveys to us that we are genetically White Caucasians, and that Christ has the identical genetic makeup! This genetic pattern can only be distorted by race-mixing! Once the miscegenation has taken place, it is like being flushed down the toilet to enter the sewer-world of the unclean, never to return. And the flush handle was engaged, releasing a torrent of water around the rim of the toilet back in the 1960’s! All that is left to be done is a powerful sucking action, and it will be good-bye forever to the White Caucasian race! If you want your “bones and flesh” (your kith and kin) to enter the unclean sewer-world, then just do nothing!

Although we are in dire straits, this is not the end of the story! We have reached the point where the very Sworn Promises of Almighty Yahweh (His very Written Word) are at stake! Of the many Covenants Yahweh made with Adam-man, two are imperative that we understand for today, (1) a promise to David that he would always have a racially pure descendant on the throne, and (2) a promise that the whole house of Israel (all twelve racially pure tribes) would always exist as long as the “ordinances of heaven and earth” continue, Jeremiah 33:17-26:

17 For thus saith Yahweh; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. 19 And the word of Yahweh came unto Jeremiah, saying, 20 Thus saith Yahweh; If ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 21 Then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David My servant, and the Levites that minister unto Me. 23 Moreover the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families [house of Israel and house of Judah] 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. 25 Thus saith Yahweh; If My 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 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.”

Some may argue that we no longer have the Levites with us to do sacrifices, but that is not true! Everywhere the Gospel has been preached for the last 2,000 years, the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Christ has been proclaimed! Psalm 89:34-37 has:

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips. 35 Once have I sworn by My holiness that I will not lie unto David. 36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.” Well, today is Tuesday, December 13, 2011, and in Fostoria, Ohio the sun is shining bright enough to see a shadow under my 1990 Buick LeSabre, and a couple of nights ago, I saw the full moon. Either Yahweh is true to His Word, or He is not!

I will say this: I am absolutely not a prophet, but what I can dimly view from Biblical prophecy, evidently the UK (the United Kingdom of England) has flushed the “the throne of David” nearly down the toilet! If what I think I envision is true, I see the throne of David hanging from a weak unraveling thread. It has reached the point where among mortal men, only a non-royal person can take the throne.

From Internet website: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk

28 October 2011 Last updated at 09:43 ET

Girls Equal In British Throne Succession

If Prince William and Kate had a daughter first, she would take precedence over younger brothers. Sons and daughters of any future UK monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders agreed to change succession laws.

The leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state unanimously approved the changes at a summit in Perth, Australia. It means a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would take precedence over younger brothers.

The ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic was also lifted. Under the old succession laws, dating back more than 300 years, the heir to the throne is the first-born son of the monarch. Only when there are no sons, as in the case of the Queen’s father George VI, does the crown pass to the eldest daughter.

The succession changes will require a raft of historic legislation to be amended, including the 1701 Act of Settlement, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Royal Marriages Act of 1772. The change to the Royal Marriages Act will end a position where every descendant of George II is legally required to seek the consent of the monarch before marrying. In future, the requirement is expected to be limited to a small number of the sovereign’s close relatives.”

Analysis

Duncan Kennedy, BBC News, Perth

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

Equal rights for women in the British Monarchy? It’s quite a change. The new rules will reverse 300 years of tradition, custom and law, so it’s a big royal deal.

There have been at least 11 attempts to change the passage of succession down the years, but they’ve never got anywhere. Now, with the arrival of Kate and William on the public stage, a sense of urgency has overtaken the drag of inertia.

The leaders of the Commonwealth have, like David Cameron, recognised this and so decided to act, using Perth to give birth to these royal reforms.

The other modification, allowing future monarchs to marry Catholics, is just as radical, removing an anti-Catholic bias at the heart of the monarchy. Will these changes make a difference? Potentially, yes, particularly the daughter/son succession one, especially if William and Kate’s first-born is a girl. She could become queen and thereby alter the course of British history.

Overturning Centuries Of British Rules

Announcing the succession changes, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply to descendents of the Prince of Wales. They will not be applied retrospectively.

Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen,’ he said.

The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic - this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become.’

Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard said it was an extraordinary moment: ‘I’m very enthusiastic about it. You would expect the first Australian woman prime minister to be very enthusiastic about a change which equals equality for women in a new area.’

She said the changes appeared to be straightforward. ‘But just because they seem straightforward to our modern minds doesn’t mean that we should underestimate their historical significance, changing as they will for all time the way in which the monarchy works and changing its history.’

But the campaign group Republic - which wants an elected head of state in Britain - said ‘nothing of substance’ had been changed. ‘The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn’t born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd,’ spokesman Graham Smith said.

Queen’s Speech

On scrapping the ban on future monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, Mr. Cameron said: ‘Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church. But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so. After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith.’

David Cameron: ‘The idea a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he’s a man... is at odds with the modern countries we have become’

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster,/spanArial, sans-serif;margin-left: 0.span style=/span It shall be established for ever as the moon, and JUSTIFY01in; margin-right: 0.01in; text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in;JUSTIFY line-height: 105%; Vincent Nichols, said the elimination of the ‘unjust discrimination’ against Catholics would be widely welcomed. At the same time I fully recognise the importance of the position of the established church [the Church of England] in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today,’ he said.

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond also welcomed the lifting of the ban but said it was ‘deeply disappointing’ that Roman Catholics were still unable to ascend to the throne. ‘It surely would have been possible to find a mechanism which would have protected the status of the Church of England without keeping in place an unjustifiable barrier on the grounds of religion in terms of the monarchy,’ he said. ‘It is a missed opportunity not to ensure equality of all faiths when it comes to the issue of who can be head of state.’

In her opening speech to the summit, the Queen did not directly mention the royal succession laws, but said women should have a greater role in society. ‘It encourages us to find ways to show girls and women to play their full part,’ she said.

Previous Attempts

The BBC’s royal correspondent, Nicholas Witchell, said this was a hint that the Queen herself backed the change. The Queen will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee next year and there are already two generations of kings-in-waiting - Prince Charles and his son Prince William.

In January 2011, Labour MP Keith Vaz tabled a Succession to the Crown Bill in the Commons to end gender discrimination in the succession to the throne. He said his bill - due for its second reading on 25 November - could be used to introduce the reforms announced in Perth. ‘As a society that values gender equality so highly, this is long overdue,’ he said. ‘We will now have modern laws that fit our modern monarchy.’

The royal author Robert Hardman said there had been 11 attempts in recent years by individual MPs and peers to change the succession laws. The laws are not a matter for the 54-nation Commonwealth as a whole, only for the 16 countries which have the Queen as their head of state, known as realms.

These are Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas.

 

Chogm Summit

Mr. Cameron said the realms would work to implement the changes but that for historic reasons the UK would have to publish its legislation first. The necessary changes to laws will be introduced in the next session of Parliament and New Zealand will lead a working group co-ordinating the measures across the other nations.

In his speech, the prime minister also praised the Queen’s 60 years of public service and announced the creation of a Diamond Jubilee Trust to help those in need across the Commonwealth. The trust will be chaired by former Prime Minister Sir John Major.

Mr. Cameron said Britain would make a multi-million pound donation to the grant-making body and encouraged other commonwealth nations to do the same. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (Chogm) are held every two years, and present an opportunity for the 54 nations with current or former ties to Britain to discuss a range of issues.

The Chogm summit will also discuss economic growth, climate change and human rights at this year’s meeting.”

From the internet there is speculation that Kate Middleton may have a jewish background. I will present the evidence and the reader can draw his own conclusion. At website http://www.thecooljew.net/ 2011/05is-princess-kate-middleton-jewish.html we read:

Is Princess Kate Middleton Jewish? ... Source: Life in Israel

Princess Kate Middleton, or whatever her last name is now (Windsor?), might one day become the Queen of England. That is, if she should remain married to Prince William and should he one day actually ascend the throne and become king.

Ladaat.net has analyzed Middleton’s family records, and has found on her mother’s side of the family many Jewish names, leading them to conclude that there is a good chance that, even if she does not know it, Princess, and possibly future Queen of England, Kate Middleton might very well be Jewish.

I say we send some Chabadniks after her. Get her to start lighting candles and going to the Royal Mikveh. Maybe William will eventually convert. And then what? I don’t know what having a Jewish Queen of England might do for us, but it probably cannot hurt too much.”

This is from a Canaanite-jewish perspective, but having even one drop of jewish blood in either William or Kate is like having a wolf in the sheepfold! I researched and wrote a paper that Queen Elizabeth II’s husband, Philip Mountbatten, definitely benefited from the 537 year hiatus of identity theft committed by Julia Theresa von Hauke, entitled, How Long Can Queen Elizabeth II Live?

I checked out some other websites, and there seems to be no definitive answer to the question “Is Kate Middleton Jewish?”, but it seems almost definite that she has some Jewish ancestry. From http://www.jweekly.com/blog/full/59905/kate-middleton-jewish-or-not/ Posted by S. Goldsmith, 09/13/2011 at 02:34 PM

English Goldsmith’s

I am a Goldsmith. My family arrived in America and settled in Maryland in the 1600’s. We arrived a Catholic family on a land grant. My ancestor served as King Charles II’s physician. The Goldsmith family in England was an old, catholic family. I’m sure, through the generations, many joined the Church of England. ...”

When the Canaanite-jews were expelled from England in or about 1290, they didn’t all leave. There were two basic reasons for the English to allow them to stay, (1) if they would convert from Judaism to Christianity, and (2) if they were a physician attending a king or the Royal Family. We will see an example of this from the website:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/England.html

Readmission

The first evidence of Jews in Tudor England after the expulsion is in 1494. Under Henry VIII and Edward VI, small numbers of Spanish and Portuguese Conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity) worshiped secretly as Jews in London and Bristol. Henry VIII used Jewish scholars to justify his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. In 1588, the Converso Dr. Hector Nuñes was lauded as a hero for being the first to warn of the sailing of the Spanish Armada.

In 1589, Christopher Marlowe’s anti-Semitic play, The Jew of Malta, was first performed. In 1594, Queen Elizabeth I’s physician, a Converso named Dr. Roderigo Lopez, was implicated in a plot to assassinate Elizabeth. He was tortured, tried and hanged on what is suspected to be a false charge of treason. Anglo Jewry then fled to the Low Countries, often disguised as Spanish or Portuguese Roman Catholics. William Shakespeare’s famous play about a Jewish money-lender, The Merchant of Venice, was first acted out in 1597. In 1609, Portuguese merchants were expelled from London on suspicion of being Jewish. This did not stop the Jews, however, and in the mid-17th century, a new Converso colony grew in London, made up partly of refugees from Rouen and the Canary Islands ...”

Then from the website

http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/england_ articles/1290_to_1656.htm we read:

We know that English Jews were described as physicians, goldsmiths, soldiers, vintners and fishmongers, and that a significant number were merchants. Royal charters issued by Henry II and confirmed by his successors granted them freedom of residence, passage, the right to possess and inherit land, loans and property, as well as nominal judicial privileges. With time, however, Jews generally became associated with lending money at interest because the Papacy condemned usury as a sin (Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19–20, Luke 6:35); Church councils later compared it to homicide, sodomy and incest.” [underlining mine]

More information along this line can be found in the book A History Of The Jews In England by Albert M. Hyamson, first published by Methuen & Co., 1908, page 98:

CHAPTER XIII; THE MIDDLE PERIOD (1290-1550)

For [a] long [time] the opinion was held, that with the exile of the Jews of England by Edward all connexion between them and that country came to an end, and that for the three and a half centuries following the Expulsion no Jew touched English ground. Such a view has, however, now been proved incorrect. So far from the truth is it, that instead of a total exclusion of Jewry from England, hardly a year seems to have passed between the Expulsion and the Resettlement in which one or more Jews, often professing Judaism, could not be found in the country either as visitors or as residents. On the other hand, however, until the reign of Charles I no organized community seems to have existed, and interpreting the word Jewry in that sense rather than as the haphazard gathering of individual Jews, one is justified in saying that the history of the Jews in England closed in 1290, not to be resumed until 1655.”

From the same book, an interesting document has survived since 1277 which exhibits the negative attitude of the English and related people in the British Isles toward the Canaanite-jews, not realizing their genetic background, between pages 92 and 93:

AARON, SON OF THE DEVIL

A caricature of a Jew dated 1277, made In the margin of a contemporary legal document relating to a breach of the Forest Laws in which one of the offenders, Cok, son of Aaron, was a Jew. Presumably the caricature relates to the father of Cok. The cowl denotes that the wearer did not perform out of door work; the badge in the form of the two tables of the law was that imposed on all English Jews. Reproduced from the original document in the Public Record Office, Forest Roll, Essex, 5 Ed. 1.” (I am sorry that I don’t have room to display a facsimile here.)

It would seem that in 1277 the people of the British Isles had a pretty good conception of Two-Seedline from Gen. 3:15, although their priests from the catholic church failed to address the subject. Maybe some of them remembered the teachings of their former Celtic Church, which made Gen. 3:15 quite clear in a liturgy:

“• Who died but was never born? (Adam) Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk) Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch) Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth) How many languages are there? (Seventy-two) Who spoke with a dog? (St. Peter) Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet) Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent) How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet). (Hardinge cites R.E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages, 38-9, a translation of Ms. 908, “The Ioca monachorum”, an eighth-century Celtic text.) [The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge, chapter “The Role of the Scriptures”, p. 48.]

Whether or not one is convinced that Kate Middleton has Canaanite-jewish ancestry, there is yet another fly-in-the-ointment!

Exclusive: Kate Middleton Infertile from Cocaine & Ecstacy; Living Separate Life from Prince William. October 3rd, 2011, by Robert Kern, Truthquake.Com Staff:

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: According to Kate Middleton’s physicians, she is not able to conceive children. Prince William’s wife is being given vitamin supplements and is on a special diet. However, all of the expensive treatments are not expected to make up for the years of abuse Kate, 29, put her body through by using cocaine and ecstasy, according to royal family staff to Truthquake.com. The sources have asked to remain unnamed, out of fear of losing their jobs or worse.

Many journalists in the United Kingdom have already been arrested simply for researching stories about the royal family. Additionally, the Dutchess of Cambridge’s medical problems may be a moot point because there are murmurings in the Royal Court that Prince William has yet to even have consummated their marriage and is not interested in conjugal relations with his new wife because their relationship has changed since first dating.

Currently, Kate and William’s marriage is more of a friendship, photo opportunity and publicity generator, according to our sources. Workers at Buckingham Palace have made comments about the fact that the couple rarely share the same sleeping quarters. William apparently is often bedding down at the Royal Stables in Wales, his apartment in SW2 (downtown London), his country estate in Scotland, and in other words, anywhere but with Kate!

Drugs run in Kate Middleton’s family: Her millionaire drug-dealer uncle Gary Goldsmith was filmed giving hard drugs to an undercover reporter in 2009, which was exposed by News of the World. Goldsmith, 44, bragged about a vacation Prince William and his niece had taken at his multi-million dollar villa on Ibiza before ‘chopping’ up lines of cocaine and offering to set the journalist up with high-class prostitutes. At the time William was forced to cut ties with Goldsmith, but he was later allowed to attend their wedding.”

What about this millionaire drug-dealer “uncle Gary Goldsmith”? It is well known that in the Sicilian Mafia everyone under the godfather has his own territory, and if violated, that one is as good as dead! With a name like Goldsmith, Goldsmit or Goldsmid, it is a 90+% chance that he is jewish. Additionally, if one is higher up in the drug trade, it is a 90+% chance that he is jewish. Additionally, if one is higher up in the prostitution business, it is a 90+% chance that he is jewish. That leaves only about 1 or 2% that Gary Goldsmith is not jewish!

CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER

For the most part I have used secular sources for my documentation, which sometimes leaves room for doubt, but now we shall consult Biblical sources which would be difficult to gainsay! What we need to know is, what are the criteria for someone sitting on the Throne of David today? (1) It requires a pure descendant of Adam (with the Hebrew letters for blood “DM” in his name, #1818, to show blood in the face). If he can’t blush, he’s not an Adam! (2) He must be “bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh” or a White man. (3) Of the sons of Adam, he must be of the line of Seth (Abel’s replacement). (4) Of the three sons of Noah, he must be of the line of Shem. Between Peleg and Joktan, he must be of the line of Peleg. (5) Of Abraham’s seed, he must be of the line of Isaac! (6) Of Isaac’s two sons (Jacob and Esau) he must be of the line of Jacob (later called Israel). (7) Of Israel’s twelve sons, he must be of the line (or tribe) of Judah! (8) Of Judah’s five sons, the first three were bastards, making Pharez his 1st legitimate son and Zerah his 2nd legitimate son. (It should be pointed out that both Pharez and Zerah were Royal, but Christ’s lineage came through Pharez, although Christ also had the blood of Zerah in His lineage through Rahab of the “red thread”.) (9) Of all of the tribe of Judah, the royalty must descend from the House of Jesse alone; all other Judahites and Israelites being considered “commoners”. (10) Of all the house of Jesse, the royalty must descend from David, or (11) the house of David (those descended from David and his wives, (although wives – but not husbands – could be taken from the Zerah-Judah royal line, i,e., Rahab.) (12) As for Ruth, we know she lived in the former land of Moab which had been conquered by the Amorites, and re-conquered by the Israelites in the time of Joshua, and resettled by Gad, Reuben and half of the tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 18:7). Ruth may have even been of the tribe of Judah, for Boaz acted out the right of “next-of-kin” in order to purchase her. (13) The succession of royal kings would always be from father to the first son, or the first brother available, and if there was not a son to inherit, a daughter could ascend the throne. Let’s compare this criteria to the book MAJESTY, Elizabeth II And The House Of Windsor, by Robert Lacey, ch. 8, “Heir Presumptive”, p. 89:

Princess Elizabeth was heir presumptive, but she was not heir apparent. The latter title, meaning visible heir, is given to the first sons of British “/spansomargin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 105%;Arialfont-family: span style=span style=vereigns because, being oldest and male, nothing but death can prevent them ultimately c/pwesternoming into their inheritance. But Princess Elizabeth, right until the moment of her accession to the throne in February 1952, could only ever be heir presumptive, since she could only succeed presuming that no heir apparent, a brother, were born – and according to Lady Airlie, a baby brother was exactly what the Princess wished for. When first told of her position as successor to her father, she began fervently saying her prayers for a new male addition to the family.” What has happened is the entire 54-nation Commonwealth of the UK just said “HELL NO” to the Bible! They have all shaken their fist at Almighty Yahweh and declared, “We will follow Satan’s RED TALMUDIC agenda!”

Watchman's Teaching Letter #167 March 2012

This is my one hundred and sixty-seventh 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 26:

HOW YAHWEH PRESERVES THE FAMILY LINE:

There are many idiosyncrasies peculiar to wedlock. The ideal marriage, according to Yahweh’s sovereign will, is one virgin woman to one virgin man. But the ideal is not always possible, and this is where Yahweh’s permissive will comes into play, as long as the progeny of that union is of pure Adamic genetic seed. I covered this subject at length in my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #161. What I didn’t address in that lesson was that Yahweh commanded “levirate law”. I will now cite several commentaries on this subject, although I do not fully agree with everything they promote! Rousas John Rushdoony, in his book The Institute Of Biblical Law, has this to say (in part) about the Hebrew Levirate law, pages 375-378:

The Levirate: Mace observed, concerning ‘the true cause of Hebrew polygamy’, that ‘There can be no doubt that this was the desire for an heir.’ This is true if we realize that the desire for an heir was more than simply a love of a son. The family was basic to Biblical society and culture; the godly family had to be perpetuated, and the ungodly family cut off. The bastard was cut off from church, and state, insofar as any legal status was concerned, to the tenth generation [or for ever] (Deut. 23:2). He might be a godly man, but he was not a citizen. In canon law, ‘the church’ [sic] barred bastards [by their own definition] from church orders, although exceptions were made by papal dispensations. The purpose of Hebrew polygamy, which was usually bigamy, to be accurate, was thus the perpetuation of the family. Moreover, in terms of the facts, as Mace pointed out, ‘we are bound to envisage the community as being in general almost entirely monogamous.’

The family as the basic social and religious unit was forbidden by the law of incest from becoming ingrown and withdrawn from its society, because the law not only forbade consanguinity but consanguinity plus affinity, that is, a father’s wife, a son’s wife, a brother’s wife, or the like. These were classified as incest religiously although not incest genetically, although some scientific evidence for the woman’s physical change by marriage may exist.† The Bible clearly affirms that sexual relations do establish a profound physical relationship between two persons, so that even a casual sexual union with a prostitute establishes a union, according to St. Paul (I Cor. 6:16). As a result, union with in-laws is incest. Sexual union makes two people ‘one flesh’ (Gen. 1:24). They may not be ‘one mind,’ but they are ‘one flesh.’ (Older versions of the Book of Common Prayer carried Ussher’s ‘A Table of Kindred and Affinity,’ listing forbidden marital relationships.) [†Note: There is no possible way sexual intercourse can change the genetic code of another! If true, Christ would have been genetically impure! C.A.E.]

The recognition that sexual union does in some profound and as yet not understood sense establish a relationship or communicate something physically between the two parties is common to most cultures. Superstitious applications of this belief abound, as witness Tantra Yoga, and the donnoi relationships of the Troubadours, Cathars, and other such groups of the Middle Ages. Very commonly, old men slept with virgins, without sexual consummation, in the belief that this served as a rejuvenator. The practice was widely used in 18th century Paris, and was practiced regularly by Mahatma Gandhi. The doctors who ministered to King David may have been influenced by similar ideas in making use of Abishag (I Kings 1:1-4); however, in this case, consummation seems to have been the goal of the doctors.

In more recent years, a notable example of such thinking has been the artist Pablo Picasso, who has been given not only to young women but also to robbing his young son of articles of clothing in the hopes ‘that some of Claude’s youth would enter into his own body.’

These are manifest absurdities, but they do witness to the widely recognized fact* that physical union does communicate something. The Biblical ban on marriage and/or sexual relations with relatives by marriage is based on this fact. [*recognized fact or fiction? C.A.E.]

The ability of the skin to absorb and to be affected by touch and contact is not sufficiently appreciated, except where poisons are concerned. The vagina in particular is most absorbant as sexual insufflation reveals. Where a lover blows violently into the vagina, the air passes into the blood vessels and brings death to the woman from an embolism. Cases of rectal insufflation have been reported among homosexuals, with death usually resulting. [More conjecture C.A.E.]

Because sexual union makes, according to Scripture, the two ‘one flesh’, marriage by a widow or a widower to in-laws is barred as incest [More conjecture C.A.E.], with a single exception.

The one exception permitted is the law of the levirate (Deut. 25:5-10). According to this law, if a man died childless, his next of kin had the duty to take the widow as wife and rear up a family bearing the name of the dead man. This law was older than Moses, and was applied in Judah’s household (Gen. 38:8). In Ruth we have a later example of the law of the levirate. The levirate was common also to other peoples of antiquity ...

Josephus’ [Antiquities IV, viii 23] gives us his reaction to the meaning of the law of the levirate:

“‘.... for this procedure will be for the benefit of the public, because thereby families will not fail, and the estate will continue among the kindred; and this will be for the solace of wives under their affliction, that they are to be married to the next relation of their former husbands.

The protection and perpetuation of the family is thus the basic purpose of the levirate for Josephus. This is, of course, the clear intent of the law: ‘that his name be not put out of Israel’ (Deut. 25:6). According to Luther,

“‘The law that a man should take the wife left behind by his brother and raise up a seed for the deceased brother was established for a very good reason. First, as the text sets forth, households should not die out but should be multiplied; this concerns the fostering and enlarging of the commonwealth. Secondly, in this way God provides for widows and the pitiable sex, to sustain and support them; for the woman, by herself a weak and pitiable vessel, is even more so when she is a widow, since she is at the same time forsaken and despised. He enforces this charity, however, by means of an outstanding disgrace. Such a man is to be called shoeless, and people are to spit out before him: ‘Fie upon you!’ He deserves the contempt of all. They are to spit on the ground and say, ‘You have a ‘Fie on you!’ coming!’ because he does not cultivate or increase the commonwealth in which he sojourns and whose laws he enjoys. His bared foot is to be a sign of shame and a cause of unending denunciation. He deserves to be naked of foot, that is, without household and dependents, which are denoted by foot covering; for through this one deed he makes himself naked of foot in his obligation to sustain the household of his brother. Thus the sign is similar to the deed in which he sins.’ (Martin Luther Lectures on Deuteronomy, p. 248f.)

Calvin’s comments are also of interest, especially since he sees the denial of the levirate as a robbery of the dead man:

“‘This law has some similarity with that which permits a betrothed person to return to the wife whom he has not yet taken; since the object of both is to preserve to every man what he possesses, so that he may not be obliged to leave it to strangers, but that he may have heirs begotten of his own body: for, when a son succeeds to the father, whom he represents, there seems to be hardly any change made. Hence, too, it is manifest how greatly pleasing to God it is that no one should be deprived of his property, since He makes a provision even for the dying, that what they could not resign to others without regret and annoyance, should be preserved to their offspring. Unless, therefore, his kinsman should obviate the dead man’s childlessness, this unhumanity is accounted [as] a kind of theft. For, since to be childless was a curse of God, it was a consolation in this condition to hope for a borrowed offspring, that the name might not be altogether extinct.’ (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, III, 177f.)

Calvin doubted that the term ‘brother’ here meant literally that, since it contradicted, seemingly, the laws against incest. However, the law obviously meant ‘brother’ and any next of kin if no brother existed; the case of Judah’s sons confirms this (Gen. 38:8), as does the text case cited by the Sadducees concerning the seven childless brothers (Matt. 22:23-33), in which the lawfulness of their levirate marriages with the one woman is accepted by all.

The levirate, at any rate, was not treated as an obsolete legal relic by Luther and Calvin. It has existed through the centuries. The levirate was practiced in Scotland very commonly to the eleventh century. It still exists among Christian Abyssinians, with the additional factor that, if a man is emasculated in war, and is therefore incapable of begetting children, the levirate applies. There are evidences of its practice in Europe ...

To understand the meaning of the levirate, it is important to examine the Biblical doctrine of marriage afresh, and set it in a perspective which will throw light on the levirate.” .... Rousas John Rushdoony goes on to quote and comment on what the Cain-Canaanite-Edomite-jews say in their Babylonian Talmud, which I will not cite here.

Warren W. Wiersbe, in his The Bible Expository Commentary, raises “A Question about Moses (Luke 20:27-40)” – some of which is accurate – and some inaccurate:

Next in line were the Sadducees with a hypothetical question based on the Jewish [sic Israelite] law of ‘levirate marriage’ (Gen. 38; Deut. 25:5-10). The word levirate comes from the Latin levir, which means ‘a husband’s brother.’ The Sadducees accepted as Scripture only the Five Books of Moses, and they did not believe in angels, spirits, or the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:8). They claimed that Moses did not write about any of these doctrines. The priestly party in Israel [sic Judaea] was composed of Sadducees, which explains why the priests opposed the Apostles’ preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 4:1-2) and why they wanted to kill Lazarus, who was raised from the dead (John 12:10-11).

Jesus pointed out that His opponents were wrong and that their question revealed assumptions that limited God’s power and denied God’s Word. Resurrection is not reconstruction; it is the miraculous granting of a new body that has continuity with the old body but not identity. Paul compared our present body to a planted seed and the future resurrection body to the glorious flower and fruit (1 Cor. 15:35-50). Our Lord’s resurrected body was the same as before His death and yet different! His friends recognized Him and even felt Him; He could eat food and yet He could also walk through closed doors, change His appearance, and vanish suddenly.

The future life with God is not a mere continuation of the present life [but] only on ‘a higher scale.’ We will maintain our identities and know each other, but there will be no more death – hence, no need for marriage and procreation. Christians do not become angels. In heaven we will share the image of Jesus Christ and be much higher than the angels (1 John 3:2). Angels appear in Scripture as men, but they are spirit beings without sexuality. It is in this regard that we will be like them. There will be no marriage or childbearing in heaven.

Is not God powerful enough to raise the dead and give them new bodies suited to their new environment? If today He can give different bodies to the various things in creation, why can He not give people new bodies at the resurrection? (1 Cor. 15:35-44) In their attempt to be ‘rational,’ the Sadducees denied the very power of God!

But Jesus went beyond logic and referred them to the Word of God, particularly what happened to Moses as recorded in Exodus 3. There God identified Himself with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thus affirmed that these three patriarchs were very much alive. But if they were alive, then they were ‘out of the body,’ for they had died (James 2:26). There must be a real world of spirit beings or Moses would not have written these words. (By the way, Moses also affirmed the existence of angels: Gen. 19:1, 15; 28:12; 32:1.)

But Jesus said that Exodus 3:6, 15-16 taught not only the truth of life after death but also the reality of the resurrection. In what way? Not by direct statement but by inference. God is the God of the whole person – spirit, soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23) – because He created the whole person. He does not simply ‘save our souls’ and ignore the rest of our being. Inherent in the very nature of God’s creative act is His concern for the total person. Hence, He will not keep us disembodied spirits forever but will give us glorious bodies to match our heavenly perfection.

Another factor is God’s covenental relationship with the patriarchs. He made promises of earthly blessing to them and their descendants, but He cannot fulfill these promises if His people are going to live forever only as disembodied spirits. Can there be a glorious new heaven and earth but no corporeal glory for the people of God?

Jesus affirmed what the Sadducees denied: the existence of angels, the reality of life after death, and the hope of a future resurrection – and He did it with only one passage from Moses! Of course, He could have referred to other passages that teach a future resurrection, but He met His adversaries on their own ground (see Job 14:14; 19:25-27; Pss. 16:9-10; 17:15; Isa. 26:19; ... Dan. 12:2).”

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 1 by Walvoord & Zuck, pp. 306-307, states at Deut. 25:5:

... Levirate marriage (25:5-10). 25:5-6. In only one kind of circumstance was marriage to a close relative permitted. Marriage to a divorced or widowed sister-in-law was forbidden (Lev. 18:16) unless the following conditions were met. The brothers must have been living together (i.e., they inherited their father’s property jointly), [not true, note the case of Ruth, C.A.E.] and the deceased brother must have died without a male heir. If both of these conditions were met, then levirate (from the Latin levir, ‘brother-in-law’ or husband’s brother) marriage was to take place. Levirate marriage thus would provide a male heir who in turn could care for the parents in their old age and prevent the alienation of family property.

Furthermore the first son born from the levirate marriage was given the deceased brother’s name ... so that his name would not be blotted out from Israel. In this way even though a man died before the Lord fulfilled the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 15:5, 17:[19], 21; 22:17-18; 28:13-14; 35:12) he could participate, in a sense, in the glorious future of Israel through his descendants.

25:7-10. If a widow’s brother-in-law refused to fulfill his duty – either through greed (not wanting to share the family inheritance with his sister-in-law) or through dislike of his sister-in-law – she could tell the elders of his town about it. She could then remove one of his sandals and spit in his face. These actions would show her strong disapproval of his refusal. This embarrassment to him, along with the stigma of being known for his refusal, illustrates how God used social pressure to motivate His people to obedience.”

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2 by Walvoord & Zuck, pp. 162-153, states at Mark 12:18:

The Question concerning the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27) (Matt. 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40):

Mk 12:18. The Sadducees ... came to Jesus with a question in another attempt to discredit Him (cf. 11:27; 12:13). It is generally believed that they were the Jewish aristocratic party whose members came largely from the priesthood and the upper classes. Though less numerous and popular than the Pharisees, they occupied influential positions on the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme court and generally cooperated with the Roman authorities. They denied the truths of the resurrection, future judgment, and the existence of angels and spirits (cf. Acts 23:6-8). They accepted only the Books of Moses (the Pentateuch) as authoritative and rejected the oral traditions observed as binding by the Pharisees. This is Mark’s only reference to the Sadducees.

Mk. 12:19-23. After formally addressing Jesus as Teacher (cf. v. 14), they gave a free rendering of the Mosaic regulation concerning levirate (from Latin, levir, ‘husband’s brother’) marriage (cf. Deut. 25:5-10). If a husband died without leaving a male heir his (unmarried) brother (or, if none, his nearest male relative) was to marry his widow. The first son of that union was given the name of the dead brother and was considered his child. This was to prevent extinction of a family line and thereby kept the family inheritance intact.

The Sadducees made up a story about seven brothers who successively fulfilled the duty of levirate marriage to their first brother’s wife but all seven died childless. Then the woman died also. They asked Jesus: At the resurrection whose wife will she be? Clearly they were ridiculing belief in the resurrection.

Mk. 12:24. Using a two-pronged counterquestion expecting a positive answer in Greek, Jesus cited two reasons why they were in error (planasthe, ‘you are deceiving yourselves’; cf. v. 27): (a) they did not know the Scriptures – their true meaning, not merely their contents; and (b) they did not know the power of God – His power to overcome death and give life. Then Jesus amplified each reason starting with the second (v. 25) and then the first (vv. 26-27).

Mk. 12:25. The Sadducees wrongly assumed that marriages would be resumed after the resurrection. In resurrection-life people will neither marry (contract a marriage) nor be given in marriage (have a marriage arranged by parents). Rather, like the angels in heaven, they will be immortal beings in God’s presence.

Marriage is necessary and suitable for the present world order, in which death prevails, in order to continue the human race. But angels, whose existence the Sadducees denied (cf. Acts 23:8), are deathless and live in a different order of existence where they have no need for marital relations or reproduction of offspring. Their lives center totally around fellowship with God. So it will be in the afterlife for human beings rightly related to God.

The Sadducees did not grasp that God will establish a whole new order of life after death and resolve all apparent difficulties connected with it. In short, their question was irrelevant.

Mk. 12:26-27. The Sadducees wrongly alleged that the idea of a resurrection was absent from the Pentateuch. But Jesus, using a question expecting a positive answer, appealed to the Book of Moses, the Pentateuch, and spoke of the burning bush (Ex. 3:1-6).

In this passage God identified Himself to Moses, affirming, I am the God of Abraham ... Isaac, and ... Jacob (Ex. 3:6). God implied that the patriarchs were still alive and that He had a continuing relationship with them as their covenant-keeping God, even though they had died long before. This demonstrates, Jesus concluded, that He is not the God of the dead, in the Sadducean understanding of death as extinction, but of the living. He is still the patriarchs’ God which would not be true had they ceased to exist at death, that is, if death ends it all. And His covenant faithfulness implicitly guarantees their bodily resurrection.

Jesus’ answer clearly affirmed the fact of life after death. Apparently He assumed that this was enough to prove that the resurrection of the body will occur as well. In Hebrew thought people are regarded as a unity of the material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit). One is incomplete without the other (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-8). Thus authentic human existence in the eternal order of life demands the union of soul/spirit with the body (cf. Phil. 3:21). Both bodily resurrection and life after death depend on the faithfulness of ‘the God of the living.’

Jesus’ final remark, recorded only by Mark, emphasized how seriously mistaken (planasthe, ‘you are deceiving yourselves’; cf. Mark 12:24) they were to deny the resurrection and life after death.”

I will repeat again, here, that I don’t necessarily adhere to all the premises advanced by these above citations I have made! I will next cite the passages of Scripture where Christ assailed the Sadducees for their unreasonable supposition concerning the levirate law commanded in the Old Testament, at Matt. 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-26; Luke 20:27-38:

Matt. 22:23-32: 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Mark 12:18-27: 18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”

Luke 20:27-38: 27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, 28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world [sic age] marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world [sic age], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.”

All three of these passages add a dimension to this story, but of the three, one must admit that Luke’s account is the best. The Sadducees asked our Savior one question, but He gave them more answers of significance than they wanted. If one will studiously inspect Christ’s answers to the Sadducees, it will be discovered that He by speaking of the children of this age was also by inference referring to the the “god of this (i.e., the 1st century) age” and the “God of that age” (i.e., a future age to come). During the life of Christ with His disciples on earth, Satan (represented by the Kenite-Edomite-jews) was the “god of this world [age]”, and that has continued up until the present time. By this we know who “the children of this world” (v. 34) were, and still are! So, Christ on the one hand was addressing the Cain-Canaanite-Edomite-jews, and on the other, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the separate descendants of both. And, unless we completely segregate these two entities, we will err as greatly as did the Sadducees! Not only did Christ speak of two distinct entities, but He also identified only the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob as “living”, even after they are in their graves. Therefore, we have to rightly divide what He told the Sadducees from what He said to His true Israelite kinsmen! When Christ spoke of “the sons of this world” (i.e., “age”, Luke 20:34), He was addressing the Sadducees in particular, for they shall not share in the resurrection with the children of Yahweh.

While Luke 20:34 clearly states, “... but they that are accounted worthy to attain that world (i.e., age), and the resurrection from the [living] dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage ...” Inasmuch as they never entirely died, but like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are counted among the living, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be separated from their former earthly spouses, for they are of “Yahweh the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (v. 37). It appears, then, that the promise to our spouse, “till death do us part”, might be a lot longer than we ever anticipated! If this should be the case, evidently an earthly divorce would be eternal also, since we cannot sacrifice ourselves and raise ourselves back to life, as Yahweh in the flesh did!

Before we jump to an illogical conclusion on this matter, we should contemplate the fact that without Sarah, there would have been no Isaac, and without Rebekah there would have been no Jacob, and without Leah, Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah, there would have been no Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph or Benjamin! If in the future resurrection, Jacob’s four wives are no longer his, then will Jacob also be cut off from his twelve sons! It is evident, from Christ’s words, that Jacob and his four wives will not procreate more children in the life hereafter, but surely he will have some kind of close relationship with them. After all, it is stated at Gen. 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” And no where in Scripture is it stated that they will be divided back into two fleshes again, except in the case of divorce. And even if divorced, the children of the first union continue to be one flesh with their Adamic father and mother. If both parties are not Adamic, it is not counted as a marriage, and any children are counted as bastards!

As the serious Bible student should be beginning to comprehend, the levirate law plays an important part in Israel society. It is also apparent that Yahweh our creator knew all about DNA (i.e., deoxyribonucleic acid) and chromosomes, inasmuch as He knew that every brother in a family with the same father and mother was carrying the identical genetic sperm, and that in the case of the death of an older brother, a younger brother could donate his sperm to perpetuate his older brother’s family. It should be obvious, then, if Yahweh would go to the extreme length to preserve the seed (i.e., sperm) of a single Israelite man, He is not about to break up the family ties already established during our approximate 7,500 years since Adam. However, Yahweh is not interested in preserving the seed (i.e., sperm) of a half-and-half “satyr”!

YAHWEH WILL NOT NEGATE THE FAMILY UNIT

Just as Yahweh established the levirate law to preserve the family unit in this life, I am sure He will do the same for the children of the resurrection. I can still remember back in the 1930’s, during the summer months, in all of the city parks in northwestern Ohio, different families would organize a family reunion. Some of the family members would drive over a hundred miles to attend. I can still remember how my grandfather Keiser (on my mother’s side), when it came to the appointed day for the reunion, would take the large 30 to 40 foot “Keiser” banner to the Fostoria city park early on a Sunday morning and stringing it about 30 feet high between two large trees. As the various family members began to assemble, usually games of horse-shoes and softball would get under way, while the women cleaned the park tables and arranged the various foods they had brought for the occasion, with someone always bringing a full hand-cranked ice-cream freezer for desert. Sometimes the family conversations and other activities would last nearly to sunset. Nearly everyone from the various branches of the family attended, from the newest baby to the oldest man or woman. I can remember that every Sunday of the summer, when passing the various city parks in northwestern Ohio, there were family banners in every area they could squeeze one into.

Surely, at last, when we are either resurrected or we are transformed, there will be many family reunions, including the families raised up under Yahweh’s levirate law by a younger brother for his older brother who had died prematurely before he could establish a family. No doubt, in many cases that younger brother already had a wife and found himself obligated to support a second woman. This highly suggests that the older brother’s wife is still married to the older brother, even after his death! There’s more to this than many imagine!

 

 

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #168 April 2012

This is my one hundred and sixty-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 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 27:

THE ESTRANGEMENT”:

In the last lesson we discussed how Yahweh preserves the family lines of the twelve tribes of Israel by His levirate law. This is something which we don’t hear much about today. Had we known we were of the lost tribes of Israel, surely some could have taken advantage of it after World Wars I & II. I do know of one family, whom I will not identify, who did take advantage of it. With this family, the older brother was already dead (and I don’t know the circumstance), so I never met him. I only got acquainted with the younger brother and the older brother’s wife, and their children by the levirate law. And, back in the 1930’s and 40s, I know of no one who spoke objectionably of this marriage.

With this lesson we shall take up the subject of “The Estrangement Of The Wife”. Of course, we are speaking of the estrangement of the twelve tribes of Israel (the Cinderella wife) from her Husband, the Almighty Yahweh. Jeremiah 2:4-23 presents a very graphic illustration of what is about to take place to the married wife following her honeymoon and marriage:

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? 6 Neither said they, Where is Yahweh that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt? 7 And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination. 8 The priests said not, Where is Yahweh? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit. 9 Wherefore I will yet plead with you, saith Yahweh, and with your children’s children will I plead. 10 For pass over the isles of Chittim, and see; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there be such a thing. 11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. 12 Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith Yahweh. 13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. 14 Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave? why is he spoiled? 15 The young lions roared upon him, and yelled, and they made his land waste: his cities are burned without inhabitant. 16 Also the children of Noph and Tahapanes have broken the crown of thy head. 17 Hast thou not procured this unto thyself, in that thou hast forsaken Yahweh thy God, when he led thee by the way? 18 And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Sihor? or what hast thou to do in the way of Assyria, to drink the waters of the river? 19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken Yahweh thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith Yahweh God of hosts. 20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot. 21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh God. 23 How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways ...”

I would like to amplify vss. 21-22 for a better understanding:

21 Yet I had planted thee a noble [pure White racial] vine, wholly a right [genetic] seed [2233 zera]: how then art thou turned into the degenerate [race-mixed] plant of a strange [5237 nokriy-prick] vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much [strong lye] soap, yet thine iniquity [your half-breed offspring’s countenance] is marked before me, saith Yahweh God.”

It is important to understand the deteriorated social environment that existed among the twelve tribes, which caused Yahweh to have them led away into captivity. You will notice in this passage at v. 4, that Jeremiah was addressing all twelve tribes of Israel. At v. 13, Yahweh accused the twelve tribes thusly: “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. William Finck, in his brochures Broken Cisterns, #’s 1 & 2, goes into exhaustive detail on this subject and it can be found on his website both in text and audio podcast.

Additional evidence for these assertions is found in The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary On The Bible by Charles M. Laymon, on page 455, which makes the following comment concerning Hosea 4:10-19: The Absurdity of Baal Worship. The whole harlotrous system of Baal fertility rites is utterly ineffectual as well as degrading. Its purpose is to provide fertility for human beings, flocks, and crops; but though the people play the harlot, i.e. carry on the sexual fertility acts at the shrine, they do not multiply ... Despite woman’s usual secondary place in ancient society, there will be no double standard, for the men are responsible for the shame of cult prostitution. It is they who require their daughters to become cult prostitutes, lit. holy women’...” And further on concerning Hosea 5:7: In their Baal worship they give birth to alien children (vs. 7), the offspring of sexual cult rites ...” For Hosea 5:7 says: They have dealt treacherously against Yahweh: for they have begotten strange children ...

While Laymon here is commenting on Hosea, which applied to the northern house of Israel, later the southern house of Judah played the harlot to a greater degree. The half-breed children born as a result of these illicit unions became Jeremiah’s “naughty figs”. Jeremiah said at 24:2: “... the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad.” Here Jeremiah is using figurative language having sexual connotations. In essence, he is saying that because some of the Judahites engaged in sexual union with the Canaanites, one dare not marry and have children with such mixed offspring, as every generation down-line, they are just as rotten, with no hope of cleansing. On the other hand, the good-fig-Judahites are those who didn’t engage in sexual union with the Canaanites. Because of the general misunderstanding of the [non-word] term “jew”, I would advise that we start to designate the “naughty figs” as “bad-fig-jews” and the pure blooded members of the tribe of Judah as “good-fig-Judahites”.

This is why Brenton’s LXX translates Proverbs 5:15-20 thusly: 15 Drink waters out of thine own vessels, and out of thine own springing wells. 16 Let not waters out of thy fountain be spilt by thee, but let thy waters go into thy streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and let no stranger partake with thee. 18 Let thy fountain of water [i.e., sperm] be truly thine own; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let thy loving hart and thy graceful colt company with thee, and let her be considered thine own, and be with thee at all times; for ravished with her love thou shalt be greatly increased. 20 Be not intimate with a strange woman, neither fold thyself in the arms of a woman not [of] thine own [race].”

The KJV renders this same passage: 15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?”

With such Biblical instructions inspired by The Almighty Yahweh Himself, how in hell can anyone professing themselves to be Christian Israel Identity pastors teach the damnable LIE of universalism?

To give the reader a better idea of what Jeremiah was concerned with and prophesying about in chapter 2, I will quote from The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary On The Bible by Charles M. Laymon, on page 376:

Jer. 2:1-3. Israel’s Original Devotion. This is the 3rd of the messages from Yahweh with which Jeremiah illustrates and clarifies his mission. The prophetic tradition looked back on Israel’s desert period as the golden age of religion – it was the priestly tradition which thought of the desert generation as apostate (cf. Ps. 95:8-11) – and Jeremiah pictures the Israel of that time as Yahweh’s wholly devoted young bride. In those days no one dared lay a finger on Israel! Anyone eating first fruits instead of offering them in sacrifice was guilty of sacrilege. Similarly anyone attacking Israel in those golden days was despoiling Yahweh’s sacred preserve and woe betide him! Now, however, Israel is disloyal and no longer holy to the LORD; therefore anyone may attack her with impunity. This is the grim message which Jerermiah has been called to proclaim.

Jer. 2:4-4:4. The Indictment of Israel. 2:4 is an introduction to the section. As a man with strong northern ties – Benjamin (cf. 1:1) was originally allied to the Joseph tribes, as indicated by the tradition that Joseph and Benjamin were Rachel’s sons – Jeremiah often thinks of the nation under the northern terms of Jacob and Israel, and sometimes even addresses Judah thus (cf. e.g. 2:26-28). At other times he uses Israel especially for the northern kingdom (cf. e.g. 3:6-14). Here he mostly has Judah in mind.

Jer. 2:5-13. A Contention Oracle. This oracle is modeled on law-court practice. Jeremiah makes his point by presenting the plaintiff’s contention in the case ‘Yahweh verses Israel.’ The defendant is challenged to say why he has deserted Yahweh for other gods – in the full confidence that no sound reason can be produced. On vs. 5d cf. Ps. 115:1-8.

Jer. 2:7-8. Israel is perversely unmindful of her salvation history (cf. Mic. 6:4-5) and has defiled her inheritance. The priests do not understand their own law tradition. The rulers, i.e. the aristocracy, have transgressed, literally ‘rebelled,’ against Yahweh’s guidance. The prophets allow themselves to be inspired by Baal rather than Yahweh.

Jer. 2:9-13. What other nation has ever deserted its own gods, however worthless, to adopt those of another people? Cyprus represents the far west, while Kedar refers to northeast desert tribes (cf. 49:28 ...), and the two probably represent the prophet’s geographical horizon. Vs. 13 is an especially forceful image in a city where spring water was at a premium and the population must rely on cisterns and reservoirs.

Jer. 2:14-23. Israel’s Apostasy. A man enslaved had few rights, and one born a slave could not hope for redemption; but at least he was protected as property by his owner. Israel is Yahweh’s servant, as close to him as a homeborn servant (cf. Gen. 15:3; Ps. 116:16); and yet Yahweh is allowing her to be despoiled. This would not have happened if she had remained loyal to Yahweh as a servant should. But Israel has to learn that apostasy is evil in itself and bitter in its results (vs. 19).

Jer. 2:16-19. This oracle must be dated soon after the summer of 609, when Pharaoh Neco’s army invaded Palestine and slew King Josiah, to whom crown – i.e. scalp, not royal headdress – of your head may refer [to]. Memphis [which] was the Egyptian capital and Tahpanhes the frontier town through which communication with Egypt flowed ... Vs. 18 refers to the futility of relying on political alliances with Egypt and the declining power of Assyria, which Neco was trying to bolster against the Babylonians. Here fulfilling his role as prophet to the nations – he can assess their motives and dependability – but his main concern is Israel’s wanton behavior.

Jer. 2:20-25. Israel refuses Yahweh’s service and worships the local divinities. Canaanite worship was sexual in character – hence the frequent use of the metaphor of adultery and prostitution. This image leads Jeremiah to a vivid interpretation of Israel’s character. After describing her as a cultivated vine which has reverted to the wild strain and saying that her guilty stain is indelible, he returns to the sexual metaphor; like an animal in heat (vs. 24) she is in the grip of forces she cannot control – she is revolted by her own promiscuity but cannot break free from her degraded way of life ...

For more evidence concerning the “estrangement” of the twelve tribes of Israel, we will go to Jer. 3:6-14:

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. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, 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 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 ...”

While The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary On The Bible by Charles M. Laymon is not written from an Israel Identity perspective, I will cautiously quote again from page 377:

Jer. 3:1-5. An Irretrievable Situation. Cf. Deut. 24:1-4. Probably this law was a further definition of the Hebrew marriage code, and Jeremiah uses the new strictness of interpretation to emphasize the perversity of Israel’s behavior toward Yahweh. She is making their ruptured relationship irreparable. Rain was believed to be given or withheld by God as he was pleased or displeased with Israel, but not even drought has been effective in breaking down Israel’s shamelessness. Israel talks to God and about God in aggrieved tones (vs. 4) as if she were the injured party – but she has done all the evil possible.

Jer. 3:6-20. Faithless Israel, False Judah. The original oracle is in the poetical material (vss. 12b-14, 19-20) and was composed in Josiah’s reign. But in order to make it serve his purpose at the time of dictating his book to Baruch in the reign of Jehoiakim. Jeremiah composed vss. 6-10 as a prose introduction ... .

Jer. 3:6-10. The contemporary explanation of the disappearance of Israel – i.e. in this passage the former northern kingdom – was that the northern tribes were disloyal to the covenant while Judah, at least by comparison, was faithful. But Jeremiah denies this. Judah should have learned her lesson from the severity of the punishment which fell on Israel. The dissolution of that kingdom and the subsequent disappearance of the 10 tribes is expressed as a divorce (vs. 8) – but Yahweh’s other ‘wife’ has not taken the lesson to heart. To continue after such a warning is to compound the crime Judah as yet unpunished is more guilty than Israel, who paid the price dearly for her folly. How great a punishment must therefore be impending over Judah!

Jer. 3:11-14. The oracle itself is a feeling comment on the fortunes of the northern kingdom. Yahweh’s pity will yet lead him to gather the scattered one and two at a time and restore them to what is left of Israel, i.e., to Judah with its central shrine on Mt. Zion”. [Rather, the twelve tribes would ultimately migrate and become the “mountains (meaning “nations”) of new Zion. C.A.E.].

At this point, it should be made very clear that Yahweh divorced both the house of Israel and the house of Judah. There are many less-than-knowledgeable imbeciles making the outrageous claim that the house of Israel was divorced, but the house of Judah wasn’t! But such a flagrant assertion absolutely does not square with Scripture at Jer. 33:24 which clearly states:

24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families [Israel & Judah] 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.” All right, all of you “wise-guys”, if Israel and Judah weren’t the “two families” who were cast off, please name the two families who were! Also, please name the unknown family that was “chosen” instead of Judah! Maybe these jerks should have read the entire chapter of Jeremiah 33 for the context, for verse 7 emphatically states:

And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.”

This brings up another misconception which many people have, and that is Jeremiah’s six-fold commission. Jeremiah’s six-part commission was given to him by Yahweh, and is found at Jer. 1:10 thusly:

See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.Scripture records fulfillment of all of this commission except ... to build, and to plant.

Therefore, we have to look elsewhere to find what Jeremiah built and planted. The major object which Jeremiah was instrumental in throwing down” was the male part of the Pharez-Judah king line, but the line would survive through the daughters.

This commission breaks down into six phases thusly: (1) to root out, (2) to pull down, (3) to destroy, (4) to throw down, (5) to build, and (6) to plant. You may search all the Bible commentaries, dictionaries, atlases or encyclopedias on this verse and find next to nothing worth repeating. It’s almost as if the verse didn’t exist, and this commission is probably one of the greatest ever authorized by Yahweh. All the great minds of nominal theology are stymied for an explanation. What few utterances these sources do have to offer are preposterous generalizations which have little, if any, application. It is only in British-Israel that a satisfactory answer can be found, especially on the “building and planting” as far as they go. All others are helplessly mute on the subject. Among a very few other key verses (including this one), the entire Bible stands or falls. If the “building” and “planting” cannot be explained, Israel Identity is a myth, as well as all Holy Writ. Without this verse, we might as well quit and join the world order. Some make the grievous mistake of claiming that the “building” and “planting” was fulfilled with the advent of Ezra and Nehemiah. “Grievous”, because this six-fold commission was to happen during Jeremiah’s lifetime! The “building” and “planting” phase started with Jeremiah in Britain and later expanded to several of England’s colonies, a portion of which became the United States. Had Yahweh wanted Ezra and Nehemiah to do the “building” and “planting”, He would have given those commissions to them, but He didn’t! How long is it going to take to stop reading things into Scripture that it doesn’t say?

At Micah 6:2-5, Yahweh reminds the twelve tribes of Israel of some of their past failures thusly:

2 Hear ye, O mountains, Yahweh’s controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for Yahweh hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel. 3 O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me. 4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. 5 O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from Shittim unto Gilgal; that ye may know the righteousness of Yahweh.”

To back this up, I will now quote 5½ paragraphs from Josephus’ Antiq. 4:6:7-12, pp. 92-93, as he spells out the episode at Baal-Peor better than most Bibles:

7. So when the Midianites had sent their daughters, as Balaam had exhorted them, the Hebrew young men were allured by their beauty, and came to discourse with them, and besought them not to grudge them the enjoyment of their beauty, nor to deny them their conversation. These daughters of the Midianites received their words gladly, and consented to it and stayed with them; but when they had brought them to be enamored of them, and their inclinations to them were grown to ripeness, they began to think of departing from them: then it was that these men became greatly disconsolate at the women’s departure, and they were urgent with them not to leave them, but begged they would continue there, and become their wives; and they promised them they should be owned as mistresses of all they had. This they said with an oath, and called God for the arbitrator of what they promised; and this with tears in their eyes, and all other such marks of concern as might show how miserable they thought themselves without them, and so might move their compassion for them. So the women, as soon as they perceived they had made them their slaves, and had caught them with their conversation, began to speak thus to them:–

8. ‘O you illustrious young men! we have houses of our own at home and great plenty of good things there, together with the natural affectionate love of our parents and friends; nor is it out of our want of any such things that we came to discourse with you; nor did we admit of your invitation with design to prostitute the beauty of our bodies for gain; but taking you for brave and worthy men, we agreed to your request, that we might treat you with such honors as hospitality required: and now seeing you say that you have a great affection for us, and are troubled when you think we are departing, we are not averse to your entreaties; and if we may receive such assurance of your good will as we think can be alone sufficient, we will be glad to lead our lives with you as your wives; but we are afraid that you will in time be weary of our company, and will then abuse us, and send us back to our parents, after an ignominious manner.’ And so they desired that they would excuse them in their guarding against that danger. But the young men professed they would give them any assurance they should desire; nor did they at all contradict what they requested, so great was the passion they had for them. ‘If then,’ said they, ‘this be your resolution; since you make use of such customs and conduct of life as are entirely different from all other men, insomuch that your kinds of food are peculiar to yourselves, and your kinds of drink not common to others, it will be absolutely necessary if you would have us for your wives, that you do withal worship our gods; nor can there be any other demonstration of the kindness which you say you already have, and promised to have hereafter to us, than this, that you worship the same gods that we do. For has anyone reason to complain, that now you are come into this country, you should worship the proper gods of the same country? Especially while our gods are common to all men, and yours such as belong to nobody else but yourselves.’ So they said they must either come into such methods of divine worship as all others came into, or else they must look out for another world, wherein they may live by themselves, according to their own laws.

9. Now the young men were induced by the fondness they had for these women, to think they spake very well; so they gave themselves up to what they persuaded them, and transgressed their own laws and supposing there were many gods, and resolving that they would sacrifice to them according to the laws of that country which ordained them, they both were delighted with their strange food, and went on to do everything that the women would have them do, though in contradiction to their own laws; so far, indeed, that this transgression was already gone through the whole army of the young men, and they fell into a sedition that was much worse than the former, and into danger of the entire abolition of their own institutions; for when once the youth had tasted of these strange customs, they went with insatiable inclinations into them; and even where some of the principal men were illustrious on account of the virtues of their fathers, they also were corrupted together with the rest.

10. Even Zimri, the head of the tribe of Simeon, accompanied with Cozbi, a Midianitish woman, who was the daughter of Sur, a man of authority in that country; and being desired by his wife to disregard the laws of Moses, and to follow those she was used to, he complied with her; and this both by sacrificing after a manner different from his own, and by taking a stranger to wife. When things were thus, Moses was afraid that matters should grow worse, and called the people to a congregation, but then accused nobody by name, as unwilling to drive those into despair who, by lying concealed, might come to repentance; but he said that they did not do what was either worthy of themselves or of their fathers, by preferring pleasure to God, and to the living according to his will; that it was fit they should change their courses while their affairs were still in a good state; and think that to be true fortitude which offers not violence to their laws, but that which resists their lusts. And besides that, he said it was not a reasonable thing, when they had lived soberly in the wilderness, to act madly now when they were in prosperity; and that they ought not to lose, now they have abundance, what they had gained when they had little:– and so did he endeavor, by saying this to correct the young men, and to bring them to repentance for what they had done.

11. But Zimri arose up after him, and said, ‘Yes, indeed, Moses, thou art at liberty to make use of such laws as thou art so fond of, and hast, by accustoming thyself to them, made them firm; otherwise, if things had not been thus, thou hadst often been punished before now, and hadst known that the Hebrews are not easily put upon; but thou shalt not have me one of thy followers in thy tyrannical commands, for thou dost nothing else hitherto but, under pretense of laws, and of God, wickedly impose on us slavery, and gain dominion to thyself, while thou deprivest us of the sweetness of life, which consists in acting according to our own wills, and is the right of free men, and of those that have no lord over them. Nay, indeed, this man is harder upon the Hebrews than were the Egyptians themselves, as pretending to punish, according to his laws, everyone’s acting what is most agreeable to himself; but thou thyself better deservest to suffer punishment, who presumest to abolish what everyone acknowledges to be what is good for him, and aimest to make thy single opinion to have more force than that of all the rest: and what I now do, and think to be right, I shall not hereafter deny to be according to my own sentiments. I have married, as thou sayest rightly, a strange woman, and thou hearest what I do from myself as from one that is free; for truly I did not intend to conceal myself. I also own that I sacrificed to those gods to whom you do not think it fit to sacrifice; and I think it right to come at truth by inquiring of many people, and not like one that lives under tyranny, to suffer the whole hope of my life to depend upon one man; nor shall anyone find cause to rejoice who declares himself to have more authority over my actions than myself.’

12. Now when Zimri had said these things, about what he and some others had wickedly done the people held their peace, both out of fear of what might come upon them, and because they saw that their legislator was not willing to bring his insolence before the public any further, or openly to contend with him; for he avoided that, lest many should imitate the impudence of his language, and thereby disturb the multitude. Upon this the assembly was dissolved. However, the mischievous attempt had proceeded further, if Zimri had not been first slain, which came to pass on the following occasion; – Phineas, a man in other respects better than the rest of the young men, and also one that surpassed his contemporaries in the dignity of his father (for he was the son of Eleazar the high priest, and the grandson of [Aaron] Moses’ brother), who was greatly troubled at what was done by Zimri, he resolved in earnest to inflict punishment on him, before his unworthy behavior should grow stronger by impunity, and in order to prevent this transgression from proceeding further, which would happen if the ringleaders were not punished. He was of so great magnanimity, both in strength of mind and body, that when he undertook any very dangerous attempt, he did not leave it off till he overcame it, and got an entire victory. So he came into Zimri’s tent, and slew him with his javelin, and with it he slew Cozbi also. Upon which all those young men that had a regard to virtue, and aimed to do a glorious action, imitated Phineas’s boldness, and slew those that were found to be guilty of the same crime with Zimri ...”

With this lesson we can begin to comprehend some of the reasons for the estrangement in the marriage relationship between Yahweh and His Cinderella bride, the twelve tribes of Israel. Had Yahweh not taken drastic measures when He did, we would have become a bastard-mixture, negating any reconciliation and remarriage forever!

 

 

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #169 May 2012

 This is my one hundred and sixty-ninth monthly teaching letter and begins my fifteenth 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 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 28:

THE ESTRANGEMENT” continued:

In the first lesson on the “Estrangement”, I started by quoting Jer. 2:4-23, showing how the twelve tribes of Israel were slowly but surely falling from the grace of Yahweh, her Husband. Then, as today, Israel’s decline was due to their propensity toward multiculturalism and universalism. Had Yahweh not stepped in and scattered the house of Israel and the house of Judah to all the wildernesses of the four winds, we would long ago have become a corrupted multiracial people, and no longer acceptable to be part of His Kingdom.

Whether we White Adamic Israelites like it or not, our Almighty has other plans for us which He proclaimed at Ezekiel 29:33-38:

33 As I live, saith Yahweh Elohim, 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 Elohim. 37 And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you [true Israel] into the bond of the covenant: 38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they [the rebels] shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am Yahweh.”

This passage is not speaking about the 123 B.C. converso Edomite-Canaanite-jews masquerading today as “Israelis” , but rather the White Anglo-Saxon and related peoples who primarily colonized Europe and America and many other White countries around the world! It should be noticed in the passage above, we have one more experience like the “Red Sea” in our future. I wonder, what will it be?

Some people (that is pure-blooded White Israelite people), simply don’t get it! What it amounts to is, if you are a pure-blooded descendant of one or more of the twelve tribes of Israel, you are going to be Yahweh-Yahshua’s wife whether you like it or not! You have no choice in the matter. When Abraham placed Isaac on the altar, you were also placed on that altar with him! In other words, Yahweh owns you and any pure-blooded children you might have. Those pure-blooded children born to you don’t have a choice either! Secondly, when Yahweh came as Yahshua, He died to purchase us back after our ancestors sold themselves, 2 Kings 17:13-17:

13 Yet Yahweh testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. 14 Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in Yahweh their Elohim. 15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom Yahweh had charged them, that they should not do like them. 16 And they left all the commandments of Yahweh their Elohim, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke him to anger.”

In spite of all of this, Yahweh came as Yahshua to allow Himself to be sacrificed in order purchase His first wife back to Himself, 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.”

To accomplish this, by law it required the death of one of the two parties (husband or wife). So Yahweh took it upon Himself to come as Yahshua to purchase His first wife (and all of her pure-blooded descendants) to once more become His wife. Today many women have cursed their own seed by mixing their DNA with foreign aliens not of our own racial kind. Such offspring can never enter the Kingdom of Yahweh! See Christogenea New Testament, Philippians 2:12-16:

12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not while in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling you achieve your own deliverance. 13 For it is Yahweh who is operating in you, both to desire and to work for that approval. 14 Do all things apart from murmuring and disputing, 15 that you would be perfect and with unmixed blood, blameless children of Yahweh in the midst of a race crooked and perverted - among whom you appear as luminaries in the cosmos, 16 upholding the Word of Life for a boast with me in the day of Christ, that not in vain have I run nor in vain have I labored.” The words “unmixed blood” may not be in your KJV, or other Bibles, but they are supported by the Greek!

In analyzing the epoch which brought about the “estrangement” between Yahweh and His people, the twelve tribes of Israel, we must take into consideration four different periods of time:

(1) The conquest of Canaan under Joshua,

(2) The reign of the Judges,

(3) The reign of the Kings, and

(4) The nation of Israel divided into two kingdoms; the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

To give the reader an idea of just what kind of dilemma the twelve tribes of Israel were about to encounter in the land of Canaan, I will quote an excerpt from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 3, page 702, under the heading “Joshua, Book of”, and subheading “A. Background”:

By the period of Joshua and the Judges, Canaanite religion had become exceedingly degraded. The chief emphasis was upon fertility and sex. The Ras Shamra (Ugaritic) tablets reveal the licentious and brutal characteristics of Baal, Anath, Ashtoreth, Asherah, and other deities. The extant relics of fertility cult practices and serpent worship unearthed at Beth-shan, Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer, etc., and evidence of child sacrifice as in a foundation at Dothan bare mute testimony to the need for strong measures on the part of the invading Israelites. Since sacred prostitution and other religious practices were spiritually contaminating one can understand why God commanded Israel to exterminate the seven nations in Canaan. In holy war they and their cities were to be devoted to destruction lest the religious life of God’s people be endangered through contact with such idolatrous peoples” (W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity [1957], pp. 230-235, 281; A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Archer, p. 261). For more study on this subject, see William Finck’s Broken Cisterns #’s 1 & 2.

As we can see, at that time the occupants of the land of Canaan were a very immoral and repugnant people! At least one or more observant Biblical scholars believe that Christ was referring to them at Matt, 23:31-33, where He stated:

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

These observant Biblical scholars evidently were instrumental in placing a cross-reference to Gen. 15:16, where it is written: “But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” Here the term “Amorites” is used for all the ten tribes of Canaanites at Gen. 15:19-21:

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

One of these nations among the Canaanites were the Kenites (#7017) who were descendants of Cain. This satanic seedline would then infest their evil genetics among the other nine Canaanite nations.

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]

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]

The next mention of the descendants of Cain is found in 1 Chronicles 2:55: “And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”

The Wycliff Bible Commentary, editors: Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison have this to say on page 8, and this quote will cover Genesis 3:14-15: “14. Cursed (arûr) art thou. The Lord singled out the originator and instigator of the temptation for special condemnnation and degradation. From that moment he must crawl in the dust and even feed on it. He would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a symbol of the degradation of the one who slandered God (cf. Isa 65:25). He was to represent not merely the serpent race, but the power of the evil kingdom. As long as life continued, men would hate him and seek to destroy him.

15 I will put enmity. The word ’êbâ denotes the blood-feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf. Num. 35:19,20; Ezk. 25: 15-17; 35:5, 6). Thou shalt bruise (shûp). A prophecy of a continuing struggle between the descendants of woman and of the serpent to destroy each other. The verb shûp is rare (cf. Job 9:17; Ps. 139:11). It is the same in both clauses. When translated crush, it seems appropriate to the reference concerning the head of the serpent, but not quite so accurate in describing the attack of the serpent on man’s heel. It is also rendered lie in wait for, aim at or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate renders it conteret, ‘bruise’ in the first instance and insidiaberis, ‘lie in wait,’ in the other clause. Thus, we have in this famous passage, called the protevangelium, ‘first gospel,’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of woman. God’s promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. This assurance fell upon the ears of God’s earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption ...”[Emphasis mine]

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782: KENITES ... meaning metalworkers, smiths). Clan or tribal name of semi-nomadic peoples of South Palestine and Sinai. The Aramaic and Arabic etymologies of the root gyn show that it has to do with metal and metal work (thus the Hebrew word from this root, ‘lance’). This probably indicates that the Kenites were metal workers, especially since Sinai and Wadi ‘Arabah were rich in highgrade copper ore. W.F. Albright has pointed to the Beni Hassan mural in Egypt (19th century B.C.) as an illustration of such a wandering group of smiths. This mural depicts thirty-six men, women and children in characteristic Semitic dress leading along with other animals, donkeys laden with musical instruments, weapons and an item which Albright has identified as a bellows. He has further noted that Lemech’s three children (Genesis 4:19-22) were responsible for herds (Jabal), musical instruments (Jubal), and metal work (Tubal-Cain, or Tubal, the smith), the three occupations which seem most evident in the mural.”

Another quote from the same article: “4 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 ...

5 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.” I should point out that, in quoting this article, I used only what I considered pertinent to our topic.

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 114: “... 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 ...” [Emphasis mine]

The one volume 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 Kenite origin, who are here classified with the tribe of Judah, not as being descended from it, but as dwelling 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 ...”[Emphasis mine]

It is evident from these cited sources that the ten Canaanite tribes named at Gen. 15:19-21 eventually thoroughly mixed with the race of Cain and others! This is obviously what is meant at verse 16: “But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” And at Matt. 23:32: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” This would imply that the race of Cain had done a lot of miscegenation in the past, from Genesis 15 until the time of Christ, and would continue their race-mixing for another 2,000 years. Their own history, since the time of Christ’s First Advent until the present has substantiated such a premise! Josephus’ Antiq. 13.9.1:

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

A footnote on the same page makes the following comment: “This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterwards. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod were derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew. Ammonius, a grammarian, says:– ‘the Jews are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumeans are not Jews from the beginning ... but being afterwards subdued by the Jews and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Jews.’ Dio also says:– ‘That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion, though of other nations’.” (Actually, Herod was a full Edomite.)

Revelation 2:9: “... I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [sic of the tribe of Judah], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

Revelation 3:9: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [sic of the tribe of Judah], and are not, but do lie ....”

ISRAEL’S COMMISSION TO EXTERMINATE ALL CANAANITES

Yahweh gave the twelve tribes of Israel the land of Canaan for an inheritance, and at Deut. 20:16-18 we read:

16 But of the cities of these people, which Yahweh thy Elohim doth give thee for an inheritance (i.e., Canaan), thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth (i.e. man, woman or child): 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as Yahweh thy Elohim hath commanded thee: 18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against Yahweh your Elohim.” At this point, one must remember that Esau took two Hittite women as wives, so the above passage would also apply to all Edomites. With the conversion of the Edomites to the religion of the Judaeans of Judaea, it let the fox into the chicken-coop, and the fox is still there in all Israel countries, literally and figuratively corrupting everything they touch!

All of this is even explained more clearly at Num. 33:50-56:

50 And Yahweh spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, 51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; 52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: 53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. 54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. 55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. 56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.”

Another passage which sheds much light on this subject is Deut. 7:1-10. If one is under the illusion that complete extermination of the Canaanites is not meant, this next quotation will remove all doubt that total annihilation is demanded by Yahweh:

1 When Yahweh thy Elohim shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when Yahweh thy Elohim 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. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Yahweh be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto 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. 7 Yahweh did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because Yahweh loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath Yahweh brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that Yahweh thy Elohim, he is Elohim, the faithful El, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; 10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.”

Speaking of Edom, Psalm 137:7-9 describes Edom’s destruction thusly: 7 Remember, O Yahweh, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. 8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy [Edomite] little ones against the stones.” To understand this passage, one must comprehend that Edom had joined the army of Nebuchadnezzar against the Judahites of Judaea, and that they were the main instruments in razing the walls of Jerusalem to the ground. It was much later when the Edomites were converted to Israelism, which in time they perverted to a corrupted form of Judaism with their “traditions” (i.e., Talmud).

In order to grasp what kind of perverted lifestyle the Canaanite nations were exercising, we must study the entire chapter 18 of Leviticus, and heed the warning at verses 24-25 which state:

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.”

When one reads and studies Leviticus chapter 18, one will discover that Canaanites were doing the following:

> The sons were having incest with their mothers.

> The fathers where having incest with their daughters.

> The brothers were having incest with their sisters.

> The fathers-in-law were having incest with their daughters-in-law.

> The nephews were having incest with their aunts.

> The uncles were having incest with their nieces.

> The brothers-in-law were having incest with their sisters-in-law.

> The sons-in-law were having incest with their mothers-in-law.

> The grandfathers were having incest with their granddaughters.

> The grandsons were having incest with their grandmothers.

> They were laying every man carnally with their neighbor’s wife.

> They were also committing homosexuality.

Leviticus chapter 18 ends with these words (verses 26-30):

26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Yahweh your Elohim (i.e., Mighty One).

We are warned again at Num. 35:33-34: 33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. 34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I Yahweh dwell among the children of Israel.”

We are informed at Ezek. 36:16-22 that in time the Israelites did indeed defile the land given them for an inheritance:

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. 18 Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it: 19 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. 20 And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of his land. 21 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. 22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith Yahweh Elohim; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.”

Jeremiah also laments for both houses of Israel at Jer. 5:7-11:

7 How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. 8 They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. 9 Shall I not visit for these things? saith Yahweh: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? 10 Go ye up upon her walls, and destroy; but make not a full end: take away her battlements; for they are not Yahweh’s. 11 For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith Yahweh.”

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH US TODAY

If one is descended from one of the twelve patriarchs (sons of Jacob/Israel), it has everything to do with one’s relationship to Yahweh, and has nothing to do with anyone else. What it means is, if one is descended from one of the patriarchs, when one was born and took one’s first breath, one was under Yahweh’s contract with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! I name all three because, as the Covenant was passed down to each succeeding generation, it became narrower and narrower until it was exclusive with Jacob and his twelve sons, and their son’s progeny thereafter. If one is under this Covenant, one cannot decide not to be part of it, and if one is not under it, there is no way one can be included. The individual, whether under Yahweh’s Covenant or not has no choice in the matter. The one exception is: if an Adamic White female of pure blood of the lines of Ham, Japheth or some female of Shem’s line not under the Covenant of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob may marry a male under the Covenant, whereupon she, or any children born to such a union will be brought under the Covenant. But if an Israelite female under the Covenant should marry a male Adamite not under the Covenant, he nor any children fathered by him will not come under the Covenant. Yahweh’s Covenant is for a family line, and must be kept within the male side of the family.

Once one becomes aware that indeed they are an Israelite of one of the tribes, one is faced with certain responsibilities not beforehand realized. Many people descended from the lost tribes during the dark ages in Europe had no idea who they were, nor did they have the written Word to find out! The greater part of them couldn’t even read, and only knew what little their priest had told them. This was part of their seven-times punishment of 2520 years. People lived out their entire lives never grasping their purpose in this world. Yet, with little to piece together, they did hear of a “Jesus Christ” upon whom they believed, not knowing fully why. Under their pagan, blacked out circumstances, “believing” was all that was Biblically required of them then.

Today, nominal churchianity avoids Covenant theology like the plague, and they have dreamed up a sundry of church rituals whereby they demand one submit in order to obtain salvation. The ignorant pastors of today have adopted a dual gospel: (1) the covenants are for the so-called jews, and (2) the so-called gentiles are grafted in. Yet these same pastors seldom or never speak of Yahweh’s courtship of the twelve tribes of Israel; nor Yahweh’s marriage to His Cinderella bride; nor His honeymoon with them; nor His estrangement toward them; nor His divorce from them; nor His reconciliation to them; nor His future remarriage to them. In these churches they may occasionally sing about “The Marriage Supper of the Lamb”, but know little about (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, and (6) the reconciliation fit into the story.

In our present day, those who have been awakened to the Israel Identity message have a much greater responsibility than the blinded Israelites during the dark ages of Europe, for this message is the Elijah message spoken of at Mal. 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.” This is not speaking of Elijah bodily, but the same spirit that motivated Elijah to action. When I started this ministry, I did not plan it to be thus, but in doing much research in many areas, I discovered that no other type of ministry is “... turning the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers ...”

On the other hand, while we Israelites sleep, our most deadly enemy is turning the heart of our children away from our forefathers, thus separating our forefathers from their offspring forever. STOP IT NOW!

 

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #170 June 2012

 This is my one hundred and seventieth monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and have been expanding on the 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 29:

THE ESTRANGEMENT continued:

As I explained in the last lesson, there were four different periods of time in which the “estrangement” of Yahweh and His people (the house of Israel and the house of Judah) came about. In taking these eras into consideration they consisted of:

(1) The conquest of Canaan under Joshua.

(2) The reign of the Judges.

(3) The reign of the Kings.

(4) The nation of Israel divided into two kingdoms; the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Let’s examine this man Joshua. At Exodus 23:20, he is the angel who is God’s representative leading the people of Israel into the promised land. Let’s read vs. 20 through 23:

20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. 23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.” There is only one person who fits this description of “my name is in him”, and that is Joshua, who had the same name as Christ in the New Testament, or Yahshua. The letter “J” had not developed until the 17th century A.D. If one will pronounce Joshua with a “Y” sound rather than a “J”, the relationship will become obvious. Sometimes the combination of Hebrew #’s 4480 & 430 can mean “angels”, but at Exodus 23:20 the word translated “angel” is Strong’s #4397, “... mal’âk, mal-awk’; from the unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher:– [rendered in the KJV as] ambassador, king, angel, messenger.” Therefore, it is evident that this Hebrew word can mean both supernatural or natural beings.

I will now give the history of the English letter “J” from The Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary: “j J (j) n. pl. j’s or js, J’s or Js, jays (jaz) 1. The tenth letter of the English alphabet. The shape of the Phoenician consonant yod was adopted by the Greeks as iota and became Roman I. In the 17th century, the calligraphic practice of carrying the initial I (which usually had consonantal value) both above and below the line gradually developed into a graphic distinction between i the vowel and i or j the consonant. Also jay. 2. The sound represented by the letter j , usually a voiced affricate, as in judge (juj) or, in borrowings from Modern French, often (zh), as in jabot. –symbol In Roman numerals, one: used as a variant of i at the end of a number, as vij, especially in medical prescriptions.”

Upon understanding that the English letter “j” did not exist before the 17th century A.D., I challenge anyone to attempt to pronounce “Joshua”, “Jesus” or “Jezebel” without the sound of the letter “j”! Go ahead and try it, and see what kind of a result you get! It’s a long story, so I suggest you read William Finck’s essay, Yahshua To Jesus, Evolution Of A Name.

I will point out that, as recorded at Joshua 5:13-15, an angel did appear to Joshua, but the angel refused to give Joshua his name. However, as quoted here before, it was revealed that the “angel” at Exodus 23:20 was Joshua. It should be noted that only in a few isolated instances did angels reveal their name. This was to prevent men from worshipping angels (Josh 5:13-15):

13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of Yahweh am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15 And the captain of Yahweh’s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.” It is evident, here, that Yahweh didn’t invest His Name in angels, but inasmuch as He came in the flesh as Yahshua, it shows He did invest His Name in man.

Interestingly, there is much more that we need to know about the definable aspects of the name “Joshua” as used in Scripture. “Joshua” is #3091 in the Strong’s Hebrew dictionary:

3091. ... Yehôw shûwa, yeh-ho-shooah; or ... Yehôwshûa, yeh-ho-shooah; from 3068 and 3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshuä (i.e. Joshua), the Jewish [sic Israelite] leader:– [rendered in KJV] Jehosua, Jehosuah, Joshua. Compare 1954, 3442”

Here Strong’s definition is incorrect, as there was no “J” in the Hebrew. Notice that Strong has “yeh” for the Hebrew articulation, not “jeh”! Strong is correct, however, that shûwa means “saved”. Also, Strong’s reference to the Hebrew word #3068 is very important to our subject here.

3068. ... Yehôvâh, yeh-ho-vaw; from 1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish [sic Israelite] national name of God:– [rendered in KJV] Jehovah, the Lord. Comp. 3050, 3069.” While the Strong’s dictionary is a help in many ways, it is evident that Strong didn’t know the difference between the 123 B.C. converso Edomite- jews and the ancient Israelites! To get a better perspective on what Strong defines as “Jehovah”, we must explore #3050:

3050. ... Yâhh, yaw; contraction for 3068, and means the same as Jah, the sacred name:– [KJV renderings] Jah, the Lord, most vehement, Cp. names in ‘-iah,’ ‘jah.’” Here Strong has the Hebrew articulation of #3050 correct as “yaw”, but there still wasn’t any “J” in the Hebrew. Therefore, the better pronunciation for the Sacred Name would be “Yahweh”, and “Yah” would represent its contraction. So what we have in the name “Joshua” is the contraction of Yahweh, i.e. “Yah” and shûwa, i.e. “saved”.

But this is not all of the story! Before Joshua’s (i.e. Yahshua’s) name was Joshua, it is recorded at Num. 13:8, 16 as “Oshea”, and at Deut. 32:44 as “Hoshea”:

Num. 13:8, 16: 8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun. ... 16 These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.”

Deut. 32:44: “And Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he, and Hoshea the son of Nun.”

Oshea and Hoshea are both Strong’s #1954, and defined thus:

1954. ... Hôwshêä, ho-shay-ah; from 3467; deliver; Hosheä, the name of five Israelites:– [KJV renderings] Hosea, Hoshea, Oshea.”

Yes, the second part of Joshua’s name is the same as the prophet Hosea, Strong’s #1954. And to show how it was so badly translated from the Hebrew to the Greek (due to the differences in the articulation of the two languages), Hosea is recorded as “Osee” at Rom. 9:25. No wonder there is so much corruption of the name of Joshua (i.e., Yahshua, the same name which Christ bore).

We will now consider Matthew Henry’s Commentary, (vol. 2 of 6, p. 1), “On The Name ‘Joshua’, An Exposition, With Practical Observations, of The Book of Joshua” in part:

“… 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 Trypho. 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 names 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, particularly that the Joshua of the Old Testament saved the Israelites from the Canaanites of that day (attempted to give them rest). Matthew Henry almost gets it correct here, as our Joshua (Yahshua = Yah-saves) will also save us from the modern-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 by-and-large Zerah-Judah Israelites) of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15) surely trounced the hell out of the converso 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 (Zech. 14:21). 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 quite well here.

I will now quote from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 3, pp. 698 & 700, on the subject Joshua:

JOSHUA ... 1. Family. The son of Nun, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 13:8 RSV). He settled in Tinnath-serah (Josh. 19:50; Timnath-heres, Judg. 2:9) in the hill country of Ephraim, and was buried there (Josh. 24:30).

2. Training and experience. As Bezaleel and Oholiab (Exod. 31:1-6) undoubtedly had received training as slaves in the arts and crafts of Egypt, and as Josephus imagines that Moses led an Egyptian army against the Ethiopians (Jos. Antiq. II. x. 1, 2), it is likely that Joshua had served in Pharaoh’s army before the Exodus. Foreigners were common in the army of Egypt. Moses considered him sufficiently battle-tested to appoint him leader of the Israelite defense against the attack of the Amalekites at Rephidim (Exod. 17:8-16). Since Joshua was apparently known to Moses, he may already have been in charge of organizing the undisciplined crowd of slaves who had escaped from Egypt into orderly marching columns.

Joshua served as personal minister to Moses when the latter was on Mount Sinai receiving the law (24:13; 32:17). Joshua was in attendance whenever the Lord would speak to Moses in the tent of meeting outside the camp (33:11). From Moses he learned the value of the anointing of God’s Spirit when he would have forbidden certain elders to prophesy (Num. 11:27-29).

His selection as one of the twelve spies gave Joshua the opportunity to learn the nature of the Canaanites and the topography of the land at first hand. This information became invaluable when his time came to plan the campaigns to conquer Canaan. Furthermore, he grew in strength of character as he and Caleb stood against the majority with their minority report of the reconnaissance (14:6-9). They called upon the community of Israel to rise up in faith and expect Yahweh to give them the excellent land to the north. Caleb and Joshua were spared when the ten who had incited the Israelites to grumble against Yahweh by disparaging the land were struck dead (14:30, 36-38). Of the generation numbered at the beginning of the wilderness journey only Joshua and Caleb followed the Lord faithfully and remained alive to be registered at the end of the forty year period (26:65; 32:12; Deut. 1:34-40).

3. Commission. When Moses was told that he must die instead of being allowed to lead the Israelites into Canaan, the lawgiver asked God to give the community of Yahweh a new shepherd (Num. 27:12-17). Telling Moses to select Joshua, a man indwelt by the Spirit, the Lord replied: ‘You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey’ (27:20). Moses formally ordained Joshua in the presence of Eleazar the priest and the whole community (Num. 27:21-23; Deut. 3:21-28), and imparted to him the spirit of wisdom by the laying on of hands (Deut. 34:9). Later, Moses commanded Joshua before the entire nation to be strong and to lead Israel across the Jordan in order to possess the land promised to the patriarchs (Deut. 31:3, 7, 8). Then the two presented themselves at the door of the Tabernacle. There Joshua received the divine commission or charge from God (31:14, 15, 23). After Moses’ death the Lord graciously repeated this commission to Joshua privately and enlarged upon it, to prepare him for the overwhelming task lying ahead (Josh. 1:1-9).

4. Leadership qualities. Several outstanding characteristics enabled Joshua to perform the responsibilities committed to him. First, he was humble enough to recognize that he was not the gifted and educated man that Moses was. Joshua accepted himself and thus leaned all the more heavily upon the Lord in his comparative ordinariness. He was not too big for God to use; hence God could exalt him (3:7; 4:14). Second, he was a man of strong faith and faithful to his calling. When the divine Commander-in-chief appeared in theophany to him as he scouted the Jericho defenses, Joshua was quick to bow in worship (5:13-15) and to receive orders how to capture the enemy bastion (6:2-5). Even though the daily encirclement with trumpets blowing might seem militarily stupid, and be subjected to the ridicule of the defenders, Joshua obeyed implicitly. He cried to God in repentance for his nation after the Ai debacle (Josh. 7:2-5). At the foot of Mount Ebal he put worship and covenant before further war and conquest (8:30-35). At Gibeon he prayed for supernatural assistance, and God answered with a terrifying hailstorm (10:10-14). Third, he saturated his mind and heart with the word of God, meditating therein day and night. Thus the people had confidence to execute his decisions (see 1:13-18; 8:30-35; 11:12, 15; 14:1-5), and he could appeal to them at his life’s end to continue adhering to the law of Moses (23:6).

Fourth, he displayed sound military strategy. He established his base of operations at Gilgal with its easy access to the Trans-Jordan tribes as a source of supplies and in its position guarding two trade routes up into the central highlands. By capturing Ai and silencing Bethel (8:17; 12:16) he took the heart of Canaan first, and cut the land in two. He was able to campaign separately against the southern and the northern kings. His military policy was a combination of surprise and speed, of catching his enemies in the open and destroying their troops, since his own desert army was untrained in siege operations ...

Fifth, Joshua was an able administrator in peace as well as in war. His keen geographic judgment enabled him to draw up boundaries for the tribal allotments that were sensible and not provocative of inter-tribal wars. He did make mistakes, as LaSor points out (pp. 75f.), by allowing the crafty Gibeonites to keep their territory, by not capturing Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and by failing to dispossess the small but growing enclaves of early Philistines. These factions divided the country across the middle, so that after Solomon’s death the nation split apart forming two kingdoms. Some would criticize Joshua for failing to pick and train a successor; on the other hand, after the partitioning of the land God meant that each tribe should consolidate its own territory as Caleb did at Hebron ....”

[Note: after presenting a Biblical oriented article on Joshua, the author spoiled his creditability by comparing the Biblical Israelites with the converso Canaanite-Edomite-jews by stating: “Israel’s six-day war of June, 1967, illustrates the result of high morale and incentive, brilliant leadership, and swift attack against numerically superior but terror-stricken enemies.” Maybe the author should have cited how the impostor “Israelis” attacked the US Navy USS Liberty June 8, 1967!]

AFTER AN AMAZING BEGINNING, DISOBEDIENCE SETS IN

Even before the twelve tribes of Israel had entered the promised land of Canaan, Yahweh informed Moses that they would forget their nuptial agreement with their Husband, Yahweh, at Deut. 31:16-21 thusly:

16 And Yahweh said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? 18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. 19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. 20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. 21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.”

From Barne’s Note’s, The Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 332, we have the following concise remark on vs. 16:

16. The future apostasy of the people is announced in the presence of Joshua that the latter might be fully aware of the danger and strive in his day to avert it. This he faithfully did (cp. Josh. xxiv. 31); but we find him in his own last address to Israel repeating (Josh. xxiii. 15, 16) the self-same prediction and warning.”

From Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 of 6, p. 859 in part:

Verses 14-21 ... III. He tells Moses that, after his death, the covenant which he had taken so much pains to make between Israel and their God would certainly be broken. 1. That Israel would forsake God, v. 16. And we may be sure that if the covenant between God and man be broken the blame must lie on man, it is he that breaks it; we have often observed it, That God never leaves any till they first leave him. Worshipping the gods of the Canaanites (who had been the natives, but henceforward were to be looked upon as the strangers of that land) would undoubtedly be counted as deserting of God, and, like adultery, a violation of the covenant. Thus still those are revolters from Christ, and will be so adjudged, who either make a god of their money by reigning covetousness or a god of their belly by reigning sensuality. Those that turn to other gods (v. 18) forsake their own mercies. This apostasy of theirs is foretold to be the effect of their prosperity (v. 20): They shall have eaten and filled themselves; this is all they will aim at in eating, to gratify their own appetites, and then they will wax fat, grow secure and sensual; their security will take off their dread of God and his judgments; and their sensuality will incline them to the idolatries of the heathen, which made provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts of it. Note, God has a clear and infallible foresight of all the wickedness of the wicked, and has often covenanted with those who he knew would deal very treacherously (Isa. 48:8), and conferred many favours on those who he knew would deal very ungratefully. 2. That then God would forsake Israel; and justly does he cast those off who had so unjustly cast him off (v. 17): My anger shall be kindled against them, and I will forsake them. His providence would forsake them, no longer to protect and prosper them, and then they would become a prey to all their neighbours. His spirit and grace would forsake them, no longer to teach and guide them, and then they would be more and more bigoted [in the sense of their brothers CAE], besotted, and hardened in their idolatries. Thus many evils and troubles would befall them. (v. 17, 21), which would be such manifest indications of God’s displeasure against them that they themselves would be constrained to own it: Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? Those that have sinned away their God will find that thereby they pull all mischiefs upon their own heads. But that which completed their misery was that God would hide his face from them in that day, that day of their trouble and distress, v. 18. Whatever outward troubles we are in, if we have but the light of God’s countenance, we may be easy. But, if God hide his face from us and our prayers, we are undone ....” Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible is one of the few commentaries that has much to say on this passage. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, made the mistake of applying Deut. 31:16-21 to the converso Canaanite-Edomite-jews.

A similar warning like Deut. 31:16-21 is given at Exod. 34:10-16:

10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of Yahweh: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. 11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 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 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.”

Barne’s Note’s, The Bible Commentary, vol. 2, pp. 93-94, has a very important observation on this passage:

15, 16, An expansion of v. 12. The unfaithfulness of the nation to its Covenant with Jehovah [sic Yahweh] is here for the first time spoken of as a breach of the marriage bond. The metaphor is, in any case, a natural one, but it seems to gain point, if we suppose it to convey an allusion to the abominations connected with heathen worship such as are spoken of in Num. xxv. 1-3.” Since this Barnes’ note speaks of “the nation”, it can only be referring to Yahweh’s marriage to His Cinderella bride, the twelve tribes of Israel.

After Joshua died, we read at Judg. 2:11-23:

11 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh, and served Baalim: 12 And they forsook Yahweh Elohim of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked Yahweh to anger. 13 And they forsook Yahweh, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. 14 And the anger of Yahweh was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. 15 Whithersoever they went out, the hand of Yahweh was against them for evil, as Yahweh had said, and as Yahweh had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. 16 Nevertheless Yahweh raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. 17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of Yahweh; but they did not so. 18 And when Yahweh raised them up judges, then Yahweh was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented Yahweh because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. 19 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way. 20 And the anger of Yahweh was hot against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice; 21 I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died: 22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of Yahweh to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. 23 Therefore Yahweh left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.”

In order to comprehend this passage somewhat better, I will now quote from the Baker Commentary on the Bible (based on the NIV) on this citation from Judges ch. 2, found on pp. 161-162:

The immediate cause for the people’s disobedience is their neglect of God’s great deeds: the Israelites fail to teach these mighty acts to succeeding generations (2:6-10; cf. Deut. 6:20-25). Those who had seen these deeds kept the people faithful to God, but Joshua’s death marks the end of the generation that heeded these works.

The fourfold pattern of disobedience is made explicit in 2:10-19. The people’s sin is described as unfaithfulness to the covenant God who brought them out of Egypt. The people practice the pagan fertility rites of Canaan, worshiping the Baals and the Ashtoreths. Judgment comes with ‘raiders,’ who reflect the international upheavals and migrations of this historical period. Israel is defeated and distressed. Repentance and restoration follow. In response to his people’s cries, God raises up judges to save them.

Persistence in evil is one of the tragic facts of human depravity. Even after God’s gracious forgiveness and restoration, the Israelites forget and turn back to evil. Repentance lasts only as long as the judge who delivered them from oppression; then the people turn back to their evil ways.

Israel’s persistent disobedience to the covenant arouses God’s anger and calls forth judgment (2:20-3:6). Once more (cf. 2:3), God’s judgment is that the Canaanites will remain in the land (2:21). Yet God will use the presence of the Canaanites for two purposes. First, the Canaanites will test the future covenant obedience of the Israelites (2:22-23; 3:4). Second, they will teach war to Israel (3:1-2). But Israel defies God’s purposes by making peace with the nations that are left, intermarrying with them, and sharing in their pagan religion.”

From Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary, vol 2, pp. 74-75:

11. the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord – This chapter, together with the first eight verses of the next contains a brief but comprehensive summary of the principles developed in the following history; and an attentive consideration of them, therefore, it is of the greatest importance to a right understanding of the strange and varying phases of Israelitish history, from the death of Joshua till the establishment of the monarchy. served Baalim. The plural is used to include all the gods of the country ... 13. Ashtaroth – Also a plural word, denoting all the female divinities, whose rites were celebrated by the most gross and revolting impurities ... 14. the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel adversities in close and rapid succession befell them. But all these calamities were designed only as chastisements – a course of correctional discipline by which God brought His people to see and repent of their errors; for as they returned to faith and allegiance he ‘raised up judges’ (Judg. 2:16). 16. which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them – The judges who governed Israel were strictly God’s viceregents [sic] in the government of the people, He being the supreme ruler. Those who were thus elevated retained the dignity [as long as they lived; but there was no regular, unbroken succession of judges]. Individuals, prompted by the inward, irresistible impulse of God’s Spirit when they witnessed the depressed state of their country, were roused to achieve its deliverance. It was usually accompanied by a special call, and the people seeing them endowed with extraordinary courage or strength, accepted them as delegates of Heaven, and submitted to their sway. Frequently they were appointed only for a particular district, and their authority extended no farther than over the people whose interests they were commissioned to protect. They were without pomp, equipage, or emoluments attached to the office. They had no power to make laws; for these were given by God; nor to explain them, for that was the province of the priests – but they were officially upholders of the law, defenders of religion, avengers of all crimes, particularly of idolatry and its attendant vices ....”

We are now living in a day when we are witnessing a greater disobedience to Yahweh’s Covenant by White Anglo-Saxon Israel and related peoples, especially for the sin of miscegenation! Yahweh didn’t put up with such things in ancient times, nor will He tolerate it today! Inasmuch as the twelve tribes of Israel didn’t escape punishment in ancient times shows that we shall not avoid judgment for our miscegenation of today! Yahweh hated Esau for this very same reason!

 

 

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #171 July 2012

This is my one hundred and seventy-first monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and have been expanding on the 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 30:

THE ESTRANGEMENT” continued:

In my last lesson, I explained how the individual, whether under Yahweh’s Covenant or not, has no choice in the matter. The one exception is: that an Adamic White female of pure blood of the lines of Ham, Japheth, or some female of Shem’s line not under the Covenant of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, may marry a male under the Covenant, and thereupon she, or any children born to such a union will be brought under the Covenant. But if an Israelite female under the Covenant should marry a male Adamite not under the Covenant, neither he nor any children fathered by him will come under the Covenant. Yahweh’s Covenant is for a family line, and must be kept within the male side of the family. We see such an instruction at Deut. 20:10-15:

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13 And when Yahweh thy Elohim hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Yahweh thy Elohim hath given thee. 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these [seven Canaanite] nations.” [brackets mine.]

The criteria of this passage seems to conflict with the next three verses at Deut. 20:16-18, but it really doesn’t, as it is identifying two genetically different peoples, and we should take that into account as we read it:

16 But of the cities of these people, which Yahweh thy Elohim doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as Yahweh thy Elohim hath commanded thee: 18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against Yahweh your Elohim.”

The first thing that we should notice is the fact that not all of the seven nations of the Canaanites are mentioned here. We have to remember that sometimes one (or portion of one) were often absorbed by another, (or a portion of another). When we consider the various Canaanite tribes in the land of Canaan and surrounding territory, we must think of them as city-states rather than countries. In addition, we must always consider them to be in a state of continual flux rather than an established people; each city-state with its own local monarchy. The situation was, which city-state kings were paying tribute to other city-state kings or queens. The only thing consistent about the Canaanite tribes is that wherever they go they carry their satanic genetics with them. Modern mestizos are shirttail relations to the Canaanites!

Consider that Yahweh instructed the Israelites to take other White Adamic people not under the Covenant captive, and if they didn’t surrender peaceably and become tributaries, they were to kill all of the men, while keeping the women folk and children for themselves. We have to pause and ask the question: Why would Yahweh command such a thing? Thirteen hundred years before Abraham, Yahweh had to bring about a great flood to destroy all Adamites who had mixed their genetics with the nephilim (i.e., fallen angels), allowing only Noah, his wife and their three sons and their wives to survive of the Adamic family tree. Maybe if we will review Hebrews 11:1-10, we will find the answer to our question (KJV translation):

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”

Now the same passage from William Finck’s The Christogenea New Testament:

1 Now faith is expecting an assurance, evidence of the facts not being seen. 2 For by this were the elders accredited. 3 By faith we perceive the ages to be furnished by the word of Yahweh, in which that which is seen has not come into being from things visible. 4 By faith Abel offered to Yahweh a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he was accredited to be righteous, having testified of Yahweh by his gifts, and being slain because of it he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was translated, not to see death, and was not found because Yahweh translated him; for before the translation he was accredited to be well pleasing to Yahweh. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please. Indeed it is necessary for one approaching Yahweh to believe that He is, and for those seeking Him, He becomes a rewarder. 7 By faith Noah was warned. Being cautious about things not yet seen he prepared a vessel for preservation of his house; by which he condemned the Society, and of that righteousness in accordance with faith he became heir. 8 By faith Abraham being called had obeyed, to go out into a place which he was going to receive for an inheritance, and went out not knowing where he would go. 9 By faith he sojourned in a land of the promise, as an alien having dwelt in tents with Isaak and Jakob, the joint heirs of that same promise. 10 For he was awaiting a city having those foundations of which Yahweh is craftsman and fabricator.”

From this passage in Hebrews, it is clear that Abraham was the last Adamic man that believed Yahweh. Like Noah, Abraham was singled out to receive Yahweh’s inheritance in the form of a Covenant. Had there been any other Adamic man living that believed Yahweh at the time as Abraham did, Yahweh being a just Almighty One, He would have had to include that other person with Abraham. But there wasn’t any other! In other words, Abraham, in his day, was Yahweh’s last chance to select a chosen people; (possibly forever). We can only conclude that all other Adamic men (whether of Ham, Japheth, or the remaining portion of Shem) were excluded from the Abrahamic Covenant. Another way to put it is: The first ten chapters of Genesis concerns itself with the creation of the White Race, and the rest of the Bible pertains to one man and his family! This family is to be “patriarchal” in nature, not “matriarchal”, although our women hold a special honor in our White Israelite society, only if they don’t contaminate their wombs by a sexual encounter with an alien male. As a result of Yahweh’s Covenant with Abraham, those under the Covenant become “free”, while those not under the Covenant become “tributary” or servants to the “free”.

When we come to a comprehension of these things, we can better understand Paul where he wrote at Galatians 4:22-31:

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

Now the same passage from William Finck’s The Christogenea New Testament reads:

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one of the servant woman and one of the free. 23 Yet indeed he of the servant woman was born in accordance with the flesh, but he of the free by a promise. 24 Such things are, being allegorized: For these are two covenants, one from Mount Sinai having resulted in bondage, which is Hagar. 25 So Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem: for she is enslaved with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. 27 For it is written, ‘Be gladdened, barren who is not bearing; break fourth and shout, she who is not travailing; because many more are the children of the desolate than of she who has the husband.’ 28 And we, brethren, down through Isaak, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to flesh had persecuted him according to Spirit, so also now. 30 But what does the writing say? ‘Cast out the servant woman and her son, for by no means shall the son of the servant woman inherit along with the son of the free.’ 31 Well, brethren, we are not children of a servant woman, but of the free.”

Paul, in this passage, is speaking only of and to White Adamic people of the tribes of Ham, Shem and Japheth. What makes a difference between them is: some are under the Abrahamic Covenant, and many are not. To understand this, one must realize that Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham divides the “servant class” from the “free class”, and that the “free class” are under the Covenant, and the “servant class” are not. And, to be under the Abrahamic Covenant requires that one be born of a family line, who down through their generations, have been under the Covenant. Here, a White Adamic woman not under the Covenant has an advantage over a White Adamic man not under the Covenant, as she can marry a White Adamic man under the Covenant, whereupon her or any children born to such a union will automatically come under the Abrahamic Covenant. Thus, this last cited woman, by marriage, can change her status from a “servant class” to a “free class”. Evidently, this is what is meant at Gen. 9:27:

God [Elohim] shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” We don’t want to make more out of this verse than we honestly should, for this blessing and curse by Noah was 1300 years before Abraham, and the state of affairs were not entirely the same. What we do have in this verse is the record where Noah blessed Shem and Japheth, while cursing Ham’s illegitimate son, Canaan. What we can take from this verse is; Ham was neither blessed nor cursed at this time. We can only conjecture why Ham was not mentioned in this verse. The main point which should be made here is that the population of Japheth would increase while living under the roof of Shem. As I see it, this could only happen if one of Jacob’s sons or grandsons, whose ancestors throughout their generations were of Shem, took a Japhethite woman to become his wife. And, the instructions at Deut. 20:10-15 demonstrate how this could happen!

I will next use three paragraphs from Insight On The Scriptures, vol. 1, p. 1017, to show what Paul was referring to at Galatians 4:22-31:

HAGAR (Ha'gar). Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant; later, Abraham’s concubine and the mother of Ishmael. While in Egypt because of a famine in the land of Canaan, Abraham (Abram) came to have menservants and maidservants, and it may be that Hagar came to be Sarah’s maidservant at this time. – Gen. 12:10, 16.

Since Sarah (Sarai) remained barren, she requested that Abraham have relations with Hagar, giving her to Abraham as his wife. But upon becoming pregnant, Hagar began to despise her mistress to such an extent that Sarah voiced complaint to her husband. ‘So Abram said to Sarai: ‘Look! Your maidservant is at your disposal. Do to her what is good in your eyes’.’ Then Sarai began to humiliate her so that she ran away from her.’ (Gen. 16:1-6) At the fountain on the way to Shur, Jehovah’s [sic Yahweh’s] angel found Hagar and instructed her to return to her mistress and to humble herself under her hand. Moreover, she was told that Jehovah [sic Yahweh] would greatly multiply her seed and that the son to be born to her was to be called Ishmael. Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. – Gen. 16:7-16.

Years later, when Abraham prepared ‘a big feast on the day of Isaac’s being weaned’ at the age of about 5 years, Sarah noticed Hagar’s son Ishmael, now about 19 years old, ‘poking fun.’ This was no innocent child’s play. As implied by the next verse in the account, it may have involved a taunting of Isaac over heirship. Here Ishmael was making early manifestation of the antagonistic traits that Jehovah’s [sic Yahweh’s] angel foretold would be shown by him. (Gen. 16: 12) Apparently fearing for the future of her son Isaac, Sarah requested Abraham to drive out Hagar and her son. This displeased Abraham, but at Jehovah’s [sic Yahweh’s] direction he followed through on his wife’s request. Early the next morning he dismissed Hagar with her son, giving her bread and a skin water bottle. – Gen. 21:8-14.”

Inasmuch as Egypt was known as “the land of Ham”, Hagar may have been a Hamite, but we have no solid evidence that she was. We are not even told specifically how Abraham acquired Hagar as a handmaid. All we are told of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt is found at Gen. 13:1-2: 1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. 2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.” We learn a little more at Gen. 24:34-35 where it is stated: 34 And he said, I am Abraham’s servant. 35 And Yahweh hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.” We can see that it is only assumed that Abraham received Hagar as a maidservant from the Pharaoh of Egypt. But the thing we can be absolutely sure of is that Hagar was an Egyptian.

If you will also remember, the Bible narrative relates that the Egyptian pharaoh gave Joseph his wife. We also know that Joseph’s wife was of the House of Shem, for her father was a priest of On. On was called “Beth Shemesh”, meaning House of the people of Shem. Unless the pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife was also of the House of Shem, he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. At this point, I will relate to you what one of my proofreaders pointed out in one of his letters to me on this subject:

Concerning Beth-Shemesh, and we may have discussed this, and from your letters certainly you see it, but I am compelled to discuss it again here. ‘Shemesh’, I am convinced is surely a double-entendre. For the word means ‘sun’ in Hebrew, obviously from the Greek translation ‘Heliopolis’ which means ‘city (polis) of the sun (helios)’, but also, and just as well in palaeo Hebrew, means ‘people of Shem.’ For the people of Shem are the ‘light of the world’ (Matt. 5:14), and just like the ancient Pharaohs, Yahshua is represented as the source of light, Rev. 21:23; John 1:4-9; 8:12; Rev. 22:16.

About this Greek word , helios, Strong’s 2246 ‘hay-lee-os’ which means ‘the sun’, I am certain it is simply a version of the following Hebrew words: 1966 heylel ‘hay-lale’ from 1984 ... the morning star:– lucifer. 1984 halal ‘haw-lal’ a primitive root ‘... to shine ...’ which of course gives us ‘halo’, ‘halogen’, etc.” William Finck

Many are unaware that before the city of On was named “On” it was called Beth-shemesh, or house of Shem, also meaning house of the sun, and called Heliopolis by the Greeks. This information can be found in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia Of The Bible, vol. 4, page 535. From this it is quite evident that Joseph’s wife, Asenath, was as racially pure as the falling snow. How some of the tribe of Shem settled in Egypt, I have no answer, other than this evidence.

There is another aspect concerning Joseph’s wife Asenath, and that is the fact that she was not under the Covenant given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but she would come under the Covenant by her marriage to Joseph, so her two sons Ephraim and Manasseh were not half-breeds in any sense of the word! On the other hand, a male non-Israelite (not of Jacob’s lineage) from the house of Shem could not come under the Covenant by marrying an Israelite woman. Inasmuch as the house of Shem had a priesthood in Egypt during the time of Joseph, it is doubtful that Hagar was a Shemite, since she was a maidservant, which would be an unlikely rank for a priestly class.

After Hagar and her son, Ishmael, were banished from the home of Abraham, we are informed that they evidently attempted to go to Hagar’s home country, but fell short of that objective at Gen. 21:21-22:

20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.”

From The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, vol, 2, p. 750, under “Hagar ... Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael” states in part: “Of the subsequent history of Ishmael we have no account further than that he established himself in the wilderness of Paran, in the neighborhood of Sinai, was married by his mother to a countrywoman of her own, and maintained both himself and family by the produce of his bow,”

Since Hagar is declared to be an Egyptian at Gen. 16:3; 21:9 & 25:12, we can be sure she was headed for her homeland with her son Ishmael. We can also be confident that Sarah would have chosen a pure White Adamic woman to have mothered a son for Abraham. But we are not certain of the ethnicity of the woman that Hagar found for Ishmael. Gen. 21:21-22 seems to imply that Hagar and her son Ishmael didn’t make it all the way to Egypt, but settled in Paran in the vicinity of Mt. Sinai.

To demonstrate how some ethnic groups become mixed, I will refer how Egypt, much later, had gotten into a conflict with the Hittite empire, and after a long protracted war (which neither side was able to win) they declared a truce. As a token of goodwill they exchanged women, from which Hittite women entered the Egyptian royal harem and polluted the pharaonic line. To show the reader that Mt. Sinai has something to do with the story of Hagar and Ishmael, I will quote Paul at Gal. 4:22-31:

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is [H]Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

The sundry commentaries really have twisted this passage up like a pretzel. Adam Clarke, in his 6-volume Commentary, did manage to make a couple of observations on vv. 23 & 29, which are worth mentioning where it reads: 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. ... 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.” Clarke states in part, vol. 6, p. 228: “... Was born after the flesh – Ishmael was born according to the ordinary course of nature, his parents being both of proper [reproductive] age, so that there was nothing uncommon or supernatural in his birth ... By promise – The birth of Isaac was supernatural; the effect of an especial promise of God, and it was only on the ground of that promise that it was either credible or possible.” In other words, Sarah’s womb, along with her other female reproductive parts were essentially dead! Therefore, for Sarah to conceive past her childbearing time of life was an act of Yahweh’s Spirit resurrecting her womb along with her other female reproductive parts from the dead! For one who is a descendant of Isaac through Jacob, you in like manner are brought forth from the dead womb of Sarah. Hence, to be lineally from Sarah is to be categorically “free”. Otherwise one is categorically a “bond-servant.”

This last passage at Gal. 4:22-31 is based on Gen. 21:9-12 where it states:

9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. 11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” It should be very clear here that Sarah caused Ishmael, the son of Hagar, to be disinherited! Sarah goofed up once by suggesting that Hagar produce Abraham an heir, but she wasn’t about to blunder again by letting Ishmael become that heir instead of Isaac! This is Covenant Theology at its highest level! Its the difference between being “bond” or “free”! Covenant Theology began with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his twelve sons, and comes on down to us through the patriarchal father of each succeeding family. We can be thankful for our mother Sarah, and how she unyieldingly stood her rightful, lawful ground! (Can anyone imagine Yahweh telling Abraham, “In Ishmael shall thy seed be called”?) Had not Sarah stood up to Abraham, that is what might have happened! This is not the only time that a Covenant lady had to step into the fray and rectify an injustice. After all, Sarah was just acting like a she-bear protecting her natural-born cub.

THE SILLY NOTION THAT MAN CAN CHOOSE YAHWEH!

It is clearly stated at John 15:13-17: 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his master doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.”

This should convince one that if one is not “chosen” by Yahweh, one has no hope of ever coming to Him. Not only that, if one is not “drawn” by Yahweh, there is no hope that one can be “drawn” to Him, John 6:44-45, 65 (KJV): 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. ... 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”

Another passage that spells this out loud and clear is 1 John 4:9-10. We shall see that Yahweh in the flesh came to us, not we to Him!: 9 In this was manifested the love of God [i.e., Yahweh] toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

Yet again, Titus 3:4-6 explains Yahweh’s “kindness” toward man, not man’s “kindness” or affection toward Yahweh: 4 But after that the kindness and love of God [i.e., Yahweh in the flesh] our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Yahshua Christ our Saviour ...”

Commenting on John 6:44, Adam Clarke states in vol. 5 of 6, page 337: “... Except the father ... draw him – But how is a man drawn? St. Augustine answers from the poet, Trahit sua quemque voluptas: A man is attracted by that which he delights in. So God draws man: he shows him his wants – he shows him the Savior whom he has provided for him. Unless God thus draw, no man will ever come to Christ; because none could without this drawing, [nor] ever feel the need of a Saviour. [All outward influences and inward perceptions and dispositions, which lead men to God, and all the powers by which they seek him are divine bestowments, and the salvation of the sinner is therefore purely a matter of grace on God’s part toward him ....]” [underlining mine]

When are we ever going to learn that we as descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can do absolutely nothing to bring ourselves to Yahweh! I have said it before, and I will repeat it again, “The highest level of Israel Identity is Covenant Theology.” I have spent many of my 85 years in churchianity, and I can attest that the churches I attended and the many sermons I have heard taught very little about the Biblical Covenants, and when they did, they twisted them up like pretzels. In the book of Genesis, we have a very abbreviated story of the creation; Noah’s flood; the tower of Babel; and starting with Genesis chapter 12, we have the call of Abraham. With the call of Abraham, and throughout the rest of the Bible, the context is about one man (Abraham) and his family, and no one else! There were eight other Covenants with Adam-man, and all of Adam’s descendants will be in the resurrection. However, all those born of Sarah will be “free”, while those not born of Sarah were/will be “bond”. Other than these, I believe that the priest-line from Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Kainan, Salah, Heber, Peleg, Rue, Serug, Nahor, and Terah, as firstborn priests of the order of Melchizedek, (of which Christ became the greatest) will hold a special place among the Patriarchs, equivalent to those under the Abrahamic Covenant. (The Bible does not record the origin of the nonwhite races, nor do they fall under any of Yahweh’s nine covenants with Adam-man!) It’s a joke to believe otherwise!

Nominal churchianity attempts to tell us that John 3:16 is the “golden text of the Bible”. While John 3:16 is truly in the Scripture, it is best rendered in William Finck’s The Christogenea New Testament:

For Yahweh so loved the Society, that He gave the most-beloved Son, in order that each who believes in Him would not be lost but would have eternal life.”

In order to properly understand the context for this verse, it is imperative that we ask: what, when, where, why, how and to whom it is referring to. Inasmuch as the whole context of the Bible hangs on Covenant Theology, the “whom” can only be Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons! In other words, Yahweh loved whom? or which Society?

When Yahweh had taken one of Adam’s ribs and created Eve, then presented her to him, he exclaimed: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh ...”, Gen. 2:23.

At Eph. 5:29-30 we read: 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Yahshua the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” To rightly interpret this passage, it can only be referring to the Adamic race. And of that race, primarily Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons, and the offspring of Jacob’s twelve sons. That is why I still insist that the highest level of Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.) is Covenant Theology! The problem is (and I include myself), when we first learn C.I.I., we drag a lot of excess baggage out of the various denominations. My experience has been that I had to scrutinize everything I thought I had learned (or I thought I knew) and start all over from the very beginning! It’s known as becoming as a “child”, Matt. 18:4! Needless to say, its a never ending submission to the truth.


Watchman's Teaching Letter #172 August 2012

This is my one hundred and seventy-second monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and have been expanding on 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 31:

THE ESTRANGEMENT continued:

Recently I was reminded that many who have accepted the Christian Israel Identity Message (C.I.I.), are still not fully acquainted with Israel’s national Covenant Theology, and confuse it with personal salvation. Therefore, before I address more on “The Estrangement”, I will repeat an essay which I have distributed as a brochure for about 12 years:

CLERGY CLAIMS GOD COMMITTED FRAUD

This is a very serious charge to make against anyone, let alone the Almighty. I believe, though, once the evidence is weighed, there will be no alternative but to bring this very grave charge against Him, and penalize Him accordingly. After all, if He has committed such an appalling crime, why should He be treated differently from anyone else? The charge for this crime of fraud has already been alleged by a multitude of people, so it’s about time that charges are written up, and a summons be given Him to appear in court to face these allegations.

Before this charge of fraud is laid, let’s see just what the term “fraud” means. For this, we will use The World Book Encyclopedia, 1971, volume 7, page 421:

Fraud is an intentional untruth or a dishonest scheme used to take deliberate and unfair advantage of another person or group of persons. Actual fraud includes cases of misrepresentation designed specifically to cheat others ... Actual fraud includes something said, done, or omitted by a person with the design of continuing what he knows to be a cheat or a deception. Constructive fraud includes acts or words that tend to mislead others ... Ordinarily, a person wronged by another’s fraud may sue the wrongdoer and recover the amount of damages caused by the fraud or deceit. But the person wronged must be able to prove damages ...”

In order to grasp how, when, where and why the Almighty allegedly committed fraud, it will be necessary to comprehend the various legal contracts in which He engaged Himself with Adam-man. These include (1) Edenic, (2) Adamic, (3) Noahic, (4) Abrahamic, (5) Mosaic, (6) Palestinian, (7) Davidic, (8) Solomonic, and, (9) The New Covenant. The New Covenant is the binding legal agreement for which the Almighty is alleged to have committed fraud.

Many today call themselves “New Testament Christians.” The single Greek word for both “testament” and “covenant” in the Strong’s Concordance is #1242. In other words, when one claims one is a “New Testament Christian”, one is, in effect, saying one is a “New Covenant Christian.” This Greek word #1242 is used 17 times as “covenant” and 11 times as “testament.” The word for “testament” or “covenant” in the Old Testament is #1285, beriyth, in the Hebrew, and means essentially the same thing as “testament” in the Greek. Whether you want to call them contracts, covenants or testaments, they all have some of the same elements and are binding legal instruments. The word “testament” or “covenant”, in the New Testament, is treated much like a man’s Last Will and Testament. In order for a Last Will and Testament to be effective, the testator must die. Therefore, when Messiah died, He made provisions for His named beneficiaries in His Last Will and Testament. Unless the beneficiaries are named, any Testament is useless. In all legal binding agreements, contracts, compacts, covenants, testaments, treaties, trusts, or whatever, the parties thereto must be named.

Now, let’s take a look to see who Messiah named as beneficiaries in His Last Will and Testament. In the Old Testament, this can be found in Jeremiah 31:31, and at Hebrews 8:8 in the New.

Jeremiah 31:31: “Behold the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.”

Hebrews 8:8: “... Behold the days come, saith Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

Are we going to contest His Last Will and Testament, claiming the Redeemer must have been mentally incompetent when He made it because we don’t approve of who His beneficiaries are? Do you suppose we could rewrite the terms of His Will to meet our approval? For it would appear, if we are not of the House of Israel or the House of Judah, we have no legal claim to His Will!

Now, let’s take a look at this thing from a different perspective. Say, that a person of a family of several brothers and sisters found out their last surviving parent intended to leave him/her out of his Will. Say this person slipped into the parent’s house, found the Will, put it into a typewriter which could lift the print of the named beneficiaries off of the paper, and placed his/her name in their place. Would not this be considered fraud? Maybe this person had a substantial moral right to be named in the Will, but the last living parent didn’t see it that way. The question again is: would this be fraud? Maybe this person had done more for his/her parents than any of the others, but again, would this be fraud? Any way one might want to look at it, it is out-and-out fraud!

Let’s now apply this same situation to the Last Will and Testament of Messiah, where He had named the House of Israel and the House of Judah as His beneficiaries. There have been hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps more who have tried to disenfranchise the names of The House of Israel and the House of Judah, and place “Gentiles”, “church”, “whosoever will”, and “all men” in their place!

Their excuse is: they say that “God” gave up on the “Jews” and decided that if they didn’t want to be “saved”, He would open the door to the “Gentiles.” Poor old “God”; can’t do anything right! So, what did the Almighty do according to these various pastors? He allegedly disenfranchised the names of the House of Israel and the House of Judah from His Last Will and Testament and inserted “Gentiles”, “church”, “whosoever will”, and “all men” in their place. Can we now see why “God” must be “indicted” and tried for fraud? Well, if one can’t trust “God” to keep His Word, who can one trust?

If the House of Israel and the House of Judah were the true beneficiaries of His Will, it would appear they have a very sound case against the Almighty in this lawsuit of fraud, for changing names in the Will after the fact. I wonder how much in damages the House of Israel and the House of Judah might sue for in such a case? I wonder if this could be considered a class action suit? If I were to be the legal advocate for either Israel and Judah, or for “God”, I believe I would choose Israel and Judah in preference to “God”, as “God”, in this case, allegedly has little to no legal standing.

This brings up another sticky situation: if the Last Will and Testament of the New Covenant can be broken by changing the names of the assigned beneficiaries, then all the aforementioned Covenants can also be broken, from Adam to Messiah. If this were the case, why did the Almighty even bother making covenants in the first place? What good is the New Testament if “whosoever” can break in and claim to be a party of the second part? If “whosoever” is the rightful heir; a New Testament wouldn’t have been necessary. How would you like it if you were named in a Will and the probate court designated “whosoever” as the beneficiary? Yet, this is exactly what most of the modern-day clergy in most churches are doing with the NEW TESTAMENT, thus making it a fraudulent document.

It is imperative we stress one more significant fact: If the New Covenant/Testament was lawfully bequeathed to the House of Israel and the House of Judah, what right do any other entities have to that claim? It is obvious; They have no right whatsoever!

CONTEXT

Now that we have identified the House of Israel and the House of Judah as the proper beneficiaries within the context of the New Testament, let’s consider some of the other subjects which “surround” it. If you will look up the word “context” in the dictionary, it will tell you it means, “words surrounding a word or phrase.” In other words, the New Testament relates to the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and all other Scripture must “surround” or fit this concept. Let’s take a look at some of these Scriptures:

Acts 2:21: “And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Messiah shall be saved.”

Under the rule that the New Testament must fit around or “surround” this verse, it must apply only to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Anything else is criminal fraud!

Acts 17:26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Here again, to be in context, this must apply only to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. From a first reading, it may not appear to be that way, but an Old Testament passage from which this Scripture is derived must be taken into account:

Deuteronomy 32:8: “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.”

When it says in Acts 17:26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men”, it is not talking about all the men on the earth, but the Adamic-Israelites of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. If all men were descended from Adam, why would it be necessary to set boundaries to enforce the segregation of Israel and Judah from other peoples? When Acts 17:26 speaks of all nations (ethnos/goy) being of one blood, contextually it means the nations of Israel and Judah being of the same bloodline. Here again, to apply “all men” to someone other than the House of Israel or the House of Judah is criminal! – Yes, criminal!

Acts 11:18: ... “Then hath Yahweh also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

The term “Gentiles” is an unfortunate translation, and has become one of the greatest stumbling-blocks to our Bible understanding. Actually, the word in the Greek is “ethnos”, from which we get the term “ethnic” today (check your dictionary). The Latin term “Gentile” is misapplied and only causes confusion, as it can refer to an Israelite or non-Israelite depending on the context. (That “Gentile” is Latin, check any English to Latin dictionary.) In the Strong’s Concordance, the so-called word “Gentiles” (the Greek ethnos) is #1484, which can mean (1) race, (2) tribe, (3) heathen, (4) nation, and (5) people; each to be applied in its proper context. The counterpart word in Hebrew is #1471, “goy”, and is translated in Genesis 17:4 as “nations”, where Yahweh promised Abraham: “... thou shalt be a father of many [goy] nations.” The proper context should then be “nations”, as most of the time (but not all) in the New Testament, when the word “Gentile” is used, it is referring to all the 12 tribes of Israel! Again, to place non-Israel “Gentile” names into His Last Will and Testament is criminal! Does your pastor imply “God” committed fraud? Why don’t you ask him! [end of my essay]

As for the personal salvation of each individual Israelite, it is recorded at Isa. 45:15-17: 15 Verily thou art a God(El)410 that hidest thyself, O God(Elohim)430 of Israel, the Saviour. 16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. 17 But Israel shall be saved(yâsha‘)3467 in Yahweh with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.”

Again at Romans 11:25-26: 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the nations be come in. 26 And so all3956 Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob ...”

Greek #3956 meaning: “(pas), 1) individually 1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively 2a) some of all types”, Bible Works. Should one not like this meaning, one should simply take a razor blade and cut these two passages out of his Bible!

When it says that “all Israel shall be saved”, that is exactly what it means. Not only that, but all White Adamites will be resurrected all the way back to Adam, which will include all the aborted babies. But just because all Adamites will be resurrected doesn’t mean that everything will be peaches and cream, or fine and dandy! Nor does it mean that all the Adamites will be raised from the dead at the same time. Daniel the prophet wrote as follows at Dan. 12:1-2:

1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

There is one thing that a White Israelite can have a choice in making, and that is when they come to an understanding that the Gospel encompasses (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage of Yahweh to His Cinderella bride of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, they can decide to believe, or disbelieve! But whatever their decision, it won’t damn them to hell, although, by believing, and acting on that belief, their reward will be greater.

I would also like to comment on Dan. 12:1 above, as I believe we are now in the “... time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time ...”, but you will notice, “... at that time thy people shall be delivered ...” Notice that it is “thy people” [the twelve tribes of Israel], and not just any people. Proverbs 5:12-20 admonishes us to keep our race pure (KJV):

12 ... How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; 13 And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me! 14 I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly. 15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy [Israelite] fountains be dispersed abroad, and [Israelite] rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. 18 Let thy [Israelite] fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?” Notice: There is no room here for congo-niggers like “little black sambo”, or mexican squat-monsters or other unclean races!

Adam Clarke, in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 3, page 715 spells it out quite well (depending on what he considered a “bastard brood” to be):

Verse 15. Drink waters out of thine own cistern] Be satisfied with thy own wife; and let the wife see that she reverence her husband; and not tempt him by inattention [failure to pay attention] or unkindness to seek elsewhere what he has a right to expect, but cannot find, at home.

Verse 16. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad] Let thy children lawfully begotten be numerous.

Verse 17. Let them be only thine own] The off-spring of a legitimate connection; a bastard brood, however numerous, is no credit to any man.”

Then on verse 18, Clarke was a bit embarrassed to comment on sexual intercourse and stated in part: “Let thy fountain be blessed] ... But anatomical allusions must not be pressed into detail in a commentary on Scripture.” Question: Why not?

Verse 19. in part ... “Let her breasts satisfy thee] As the infant is satisfied with the breasts of its mother; so shouldst thou be with the wife of thy youth.”

Brenton’s Septuagint on this same passage reads:

12 and thou shalt say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart avoided reproofs! 13 I heard not the voice of him that instructed me, and taught me, neither did I apply mine ear. 14 I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly. 15 Drink waters out of thine own vessels, and out of thine own springing wells. 16 Let not waters out of thy fountain be spilt by thee, but let thy waters go into thy streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and let no stranger partake with thee. 18 Let thy fountain of water [i.e., sperm] be truly thine own; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let thy loving hart and thy graceful colt company with thee, and let her be considered thine own, and be with thee at all times; for ravished with her love thou shalt be greatly increased. 20 Be not intimate with a strange woman, neither fold thyself in the arms of a woman not thine own.”

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their 6-volume Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 427-428, states the following on this passage:

15. Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. As all desire resembles thirst, to drink water means to gratify desire, and the woman is compared to a well. Embrace thine own wife, and enjoy her love alone. Enjoy only lawful pleasures. So the heavenly spouse is called ‘a fountain sealed’ (Song iv. 12; contrast ch. xxiii. 27, ‘A whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit’). To allay thirst at poisonous and filthy waters would be suicidal folly. In Eastern countries the two sources of supply of water are wells of living water and cisterns of rain water, covered over. The appropriateness of the image appears from the fact, that each house had its own cistern (2 Ki. xviii: 31; cf. the same image, ch. ix. 17; Isa. xlviii. 1; li. 1). – As heretofore he had warned the youth against the strange woman so now he exhorts to faithfulness to the lawful wife. 16. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, (and) rivers of waters in the streets i.e., by being faithful to thine own wife thou shalt have an overflowing offspring from thee going forth into the streets to the various honourable duties of life (Num. xxiv. 7). As the wife is the well, so the children are the waters from it. An abundant progeny is a special gift from God (Ps. cxxvii. 3; cxxviii. 3). The promise here follows the precept in v. 15. The reward is the result of obedience. The negative reading rests on insufficient authority, ‘Let not thy fountains be dispersed.’ As to children ‘in the streets’, cf. Zech. viii. 5. The union of one husband to one wife tends to a numerous offspring; concubinage generally causes barrenness. 17. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. Let thy children know thee alone as their parent and do thou know them as the children of thyself, and not of strangers. The child of an adulteress or harlot, on the contrary, is the child of many fathers. Maurer, &c., understands ‘thy fountains’ (v. 16) of the wife, not of the children: Let thy wife be fruitful in giving birth to children. So here, Let thy wife be for thyself alone, and not common to thee with others. But the plural ‘fountains’ seems to refer rather to the children, as the singular, ‘thy fountain’ (v. 18), to the wife. 18. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. The first clause refers to verse 16, the second to verse 17. ‘Thy fountain’ is the womb of thy wife (Lev. xx. 18). Be so faithful to thy wife that God shall bless thee with a numerous offspring (Ps. cxxviii. 3, 4, ‘Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine, &c. Behold thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord.’ ‘Rejoice with,’ or ‘in the wife of thy youth,’ stands in beautiful contrast to v. 11, ‘And thou mourn at the last.’ Thou shalt have cause, when old and towards the end of life, to rejoice on account of thy long union with the wife whom thou didst wed in youth, the season of ardent love, and by whom thou hast a numerous offspring (contrast ch: ii. 17, where cf. note, Mal: ii. 14. 19. (Let her be as) the loving hind and pleasant roe – or antelope; chamois: from a Hebrew root to ascend or climb rocks. Emblems of beauty, love, and faithfulness (Sonq ii. 9; iv. 5; vii: 3). Let her be the husband’s chief delight. let her breasts satisfy thee at all times. ‘Satisfy’ – lit., ‘copiously water;’ i.e., satisfy thy (conjugal) thirst. Bayne translates, ‘inebriate’ ... and be thou ravished always with her lovelit., ‘err;’ i.e., be transported out of thyself with her love. If err, or be transported thou must let it be with thine own wife’s love, not with that of an harlot or adulteress (cf. v. 20). 20. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? When there are so many advantages in conjugal love, and losses in adulterous love, what madness, baseness, and danger it is to seek the embraces of a harlot or adulteress!”

Other Biblical passages cited by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown will help clear up the idiomatic language used in Proverbs 5:12-20:

Song 4:11-12:11 Your lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb; honey and milk are under thy tongue; And the smell of thy garments Is like the smell of Lebanon. 12 A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a spring shut up, A fountain sealed.”

Prov. 23:27: “For a whore is a deep pit, and a strange woman is a narrow pit.”

Prov. 9:16-17:16 ‘Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither; and as for him who wanteth understanding, she saith to him, 17Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant’.”

Isa. 48:1: “Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters [i.e., sperm] of Judah, which swear by the name of Yahweh, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.”

Isa. 51:1: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek Yahweh: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [i.e., womb] whence ye are digged. 2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.”

Ps. 127:3-5:3 Lo, children are an heritage of Yahweh: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Ps. 128:3: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.”

Song 2:7-10:7 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please. 8 The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills. 9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart [soft and tender like kid gloves]: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice. 10 My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.”

Song 4:5: “Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.”

Song 7:1-4:1 How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince’s daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman. 2 Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies. 3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins. 4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the [blue] fishpools in Heshbon ...”

All of this has everything to do with Israelite Covenant Theology and nothing to do with personal salvation, as all Israel shall be saved! What we really should be considering is the judgment at Hebrews 9:26-28: 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Next, we must take into consideration just what Christ’s judgment is going to be like, found at 1 Cor. 3:11-15:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Yahshua Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” [underlining mine] What is there about “... but he himself shall be saved ...” that we don’t seem to understand?

William Finck’s Christogenea New Testament is translated thusly on this same passage:11 For another foundation no one is able to place besides that which is established, which is Yahshua Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds upon that foundation gold, silver, precious stones, timber, fodder, straw, 13 the work of each will become evident; indeed the day will disclose it, because in fire it is revealed; and of what quality the work of each is, the fire will scrutinize. 14 If the work of anyone who has built remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If the work of anyone burns completely, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be preserved, although consequently through fire.” Again, what is there about “... but he himself will be preserved ...” that we don’t seem to understand?

The Greek word for the KJV rendering “saved” is: #4982 ... [sozo] ... (including all other cases) meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction 1a) one (from injury or peril) 1a1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health 1b1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue 1b) to save in the technical biblical sense 1b1) negatively 1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment 1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance”, Bible Works.

Spiros Zodhiates, in his New Testament Word Study, states in part under Greek #4982, p. 1354: “(III) Specifically of salvation from eternal death, sin, and punishment and misery consequent to sin. To save, and (by implication), to give eternal life. Especially of Christ as the Savior ...” Zodhiates goes on to contradict himself, but at least he got this part right!

It may not seem so at first reading, but there is another verse at 1 Cor. 1:18 which we should consider: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

William Finck’s Christogenea New Testament translates this same passage thus: “(For the account of the cross is folly to those who are going to die, but to those who are being preserved, to us, it is the power of Yahweh.)” Therefore, it is paramount that we differentiate between “... them that perish ...” and “... us which are saved ...” We have already learned beyond all doubt that all of Israel will be saved, at Isaiah 45:15-17; Romans 11:25-26, along with Dan. 12:1-2. Of course, the resurrection would include all of the line of Adam. However, Abraham and his “chosen seed” that believed the Gospel would be the cream of the crop. (The line of Adam would be “... us which are saved ...”). On the other hand “... them that perish ...” would be all those who are not of the pure line of Adam, or non-Adamites! This is not the end of the story, for Obadiah 15-18 states:

15 For the day of Yahweh is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. 16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain [America, and other White Israel nations], so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been. 17 But upon mount Zion [the White Israel nations] shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. 18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh hath spoken it.

Charles Thomson, in his Septuagint, renders this passage thusly:

[l5] Because the day of the Lord against all the nations is near, as thou hast done so shall it be done to thee: thy dealings shall be returned on thy head. [16] For in the same manner as thou hast drunk on My holy mountain, all the nations shall be drunk up as wine. They shall be drunk up and swallowed down, and be as if they had never been. [17] But on mount Sion shall be safety and a sanctuary; [18] and the house of Jacob shall possess those who possessed them; and the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph, a flame; and the house of Esau shall be as stubble; and upon these they shall kindle and consume them, so that there shall not be a torch-bearer to the house of Esau. For the Lord hath spoken.”

As one can clearly observe, the doctrine of Covenant Theology is quite different than that of churchianity’s teaching of personal salvation. Rather, what we need is “conversion” from following Baal to following the tenets taught by Yahshua Christ. It is amazing how the White Israelites of today cling to their Baal worship, and have done so ever since their dispersions from the land of Canaan to Assyria and Babylon, never to return. It doesn’t take very long, once one starts rejecting the various forms of Baal worship, for other members of one’s family, friends and coworkers to notice, and become offended!


Watchman's Teaching Letter #173 September 2012

This is my one hundred and seventy-third monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and have been expanding on 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.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 32:

THE ESTRANGEMENT continued:

This matter of the “estrangement” on the part of the twelve tribes of Israel from their Husband, Yahweh, is a very serious subject to discuss. Not only is it grievous to recollect, but it is one of the more lamentable recorded narratives found in Holy Writ. It is only regrettable for those who were/are under the Old and New Covenants (i.e., the house of Israel and the house of Judah), and no one else (see Jer. 31:31-33 & Heb. 8:8-12, which read pretty much alike). The former passage at Jeremiah is recorded 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 [united as ‘one-stick’] 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.”

With this lesson, we shall examine the second chapter of Jeremiah which addresses this topic in detail:

Jer. 2:1-2: 1 Moreover the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, 2 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.”

At the beginning of chapter 2, it would appear that Jeremiah was directing his message only toward the Judahites of Judaea, but at vv. 3-4, it becomes quite evident he was including the whole house of the twelve tribes of Israel whom Yahweh had married at Mt. Sinai. Here Jeremiah was commanded to leave Anathoth and proceed to Jerusalem where he was to loudly announce (actually yell, or vociferate; to utter or cry out loudly at the top of his voice) to every ear in Jerusalem the word he had received from Yahweh. At the time of Jeremiah’s commission to Jerusalem, near 629 B.C., the ten northern tribes of the house of Israel were already captive in Assyria. Nevertheless, Jeremiah’s words were to reach the ten tribes as well, and the admonish ment is still valid to this very day. In other words, if you are a descendant of one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the message of Jeremiah chapter two is for you at this very time, so listen up!

Although Jeremiah’s message was written originally nearly 2,630 years ago, it was directed to we Israelites of today as well, “... remember ... the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals ...” In this case it is Yahweh in the flesh, as Yahshua, that is remembering the “kindness” of Israel’s youth, as He patiently led them out of the slavery they had known in Egypt to become His Cinderella bride. When it is speaking of “espousals”, it means betrothal, wedding and nuptials. Therefore, it is our duty to look back in time to when our ancestors gave their wedding vows to Yahweh that they and their offspring would always be faithful to our Husband, Yahweh. When our forebears became unfaithful, we, their descendants, became unfaithful with them. That is why Paul stated at Romans 3:23 the following: “... for all have done wrong and fall short of the honor of Yahweh ...” (CNT). In other words, when our fathers did wrong and fell short of Yahweh’s honor, so we, as their descendants, fell short with them. Paul was not pointing out one’s personal sins at this passage, but our sins as a nation. Of course, though, it would be well to send our personal sins forward to the judgment, rather than allow them to follow us to the judgment. Inasmuch as sin is a transgression of the Law, and only Israelites ever had the Law, so only Israelites can sin. Non-Israelites never had the Law, so it is impossible for them to sin. How long is it going to take us to understand that Yahweh married only the twelve tribes of Israel, that He only divorced the twelve tribes of Israel, and He’ll only remarry the twelve tribes of Israel, and that until that remarriage we are all divorcees? This is where we fall short!

Adam Clarke, in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 256, concurs that, “Their espousals refer to their receiving the law at Mount Sinai, which they solemnly accepted, Exod. xxiv. 6-8, and which acceptance was compared to a betrothing or espousal ...” Clarke was born at Moybeg in County Londonderry, Ireland, somewhere between 1760 to 1763, and died August 26, 1832. His most extensive work was his Commentary, which he began May 1, 1798, and with many obstacles to overcome, he was finished March 28, 1825. On the other hand, the Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.) message was awakened by John Wilson in 1837, with his book Our Israelitish Origin, published in 1840. So there is a very slight chance that Clarke may have heard of it, but surely not enough time to address the subject fifteen years after the completion of his Commentary. Had Clarke been awakened to C.I.I., he might have used a more positive statement than “compared to a betrothing or espousal”, although he did quite well being one of the blind. Again, had Clarke comprehended that Yahweh actually married the twelve tribes, and that the Israelites became a wife in every respect, he, like all the other commentators, would have wrongly included in the marriage the converso Edomite-jews.

As for the phrase “... when thou wentest after me in the wilderness ...” it denotes how Israel, during her courtship with Yahweh in the wilderness, presented herself as a loyal bride-in-waiting. Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:20; Joel 1:8.

Ezek. 16:8: “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 Elohim, and thou becamest mine.”

Hos. 2:19-20, in respect to a future remarriage: “19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know Yahweh.”

Joel 1:8: “Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.”

Exod. 19:4-8: “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. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which Yahweh commanded him. 8 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.” This last passage represents the betrothal, wedding, and nuptials of Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel! No others need apply!

Concerning the phrase “... in a land ... not sown...”, Jeremiah contrasts the present unfriendly relations between Yahweh and His people with their past love. Israel, as often elsewhere, is portrayed as a young bride. ... Walking after Him in the wilderness was an act of love on Israel’s part. Israel did leave Egypt at Moses’ bidding, and at Sinai were solemnly espoused to Yahweh. (See Barnes’ Notes on Jeremiah, by F.C. Cook, abridged by J.M. Fuller, p. 149.)

From the 6-volume Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol. 4, pp. 3-4, we get some background history of the 2nd chapter of Jeremiah. Like Adam Clarke, they apply this passage to the converso Edomite-jews rather than the twelve tribes of Israel. Otherwise, as “blind” people, they do respectably well:

1. word of the Lord [sic Yahweh] came to me – probably in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (ch. i. 2; cf. ch. iii. 6; cf. with ch. ii. 20) The warning not to rely as they did on Egypt (v. 18) was in accordance with Josiah’s policy, who took part with Assyria and Babylon against Egypt and Pharaoh-nechoh (2 Ki. xxiii. 29). Jeremiah, doubtless, supported the reformation began by Josiah in the previous year (the twelfth of his reign), and fully carried out in the eighteenth. 2. cry – proclaim, in the ears of Jerusalem – the head-quarters and centre of their idolatry; therefore addressed first. thee – rather, ‘I remember in regard to thee’ (Henderson): for thee (Maurer), or, as margin, ‘for thy sake.’ The kindness of thy youth – not so much Israel’s kindness towards God, as the kindness which Israel experienced from God in her early history (cf. Ezek. xvi. 8 ; Hos, ii. 15). For Israel from the first showed perversity rather than kindness toward God (cf. Exod. xiv. 11, 12. See also Exod. xv. 24; xxxii. 1-7, The molten calf of gold). The, greater were God’s favours to them from the first, the fouler was their ingratitude in forsaking Him, (vv. 3, 5, &c.) espousals – the intervals between Israel’s betrothal to God at the exodus from Egypt, and the formal execution of the marriage contract at Sinai. Ewald takes the ‘kindness’ and ‘love’ to be Israel’s toward God at first (Exod. xix. 8; xxxv. 29; Josh. xxiv, 16, 17). But cf. Deut. xxxii 16, 17, and Ezek. xvi. 5, 6, 15, 22 (‘Days of thy youth’), implies that the love here meant was on God’s side, not Israel’s. thou wentest after me in ... wilderness – the next act of God’s love, His leading them in the desert without needing any strange god, such as they since worshipped, to help Him (Deut. xxxii. 12). V. 6, shows it is God’s ‘leading’ of them, not their following after God in the wilderness, which is implied ....”

I have examined this last quotation from Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, and some of the passages cited by them bear mentioning:

Hos. 2:15, (quoting vv. 13-17): 13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith Yahweh. 14 Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her. 15 And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. 16 And it shall be at that day, saith Yahweh, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. 17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.”

Here the word “Ishi” means “my husband”, as opposed to “Baali”, which also means “my lord”. Matthew Henry, in his 6-volume Commentary goes into detail on this subject, vol. 4, p. 1133. His position is that both words have the same meaning of “my husband”, which in some cases is true, but if there wasn’t something reprehensible about this Hebrew term Baali, we wouldn’t be advised by the prophet to stop using it, as prescribed at Hos. 2:16!

The valley of Achor was that in which Achan was stoned; it signifies the valley of trouble, because he troubled Israel, and there God troubled him. This was the beginning of the wars of Canaan; and their putting away the accursed thing in that place gave them ground to hope that God would continue his presence with them and complete their victories.” (See Matthew Henry in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 1132.) From this it would appear that for those who are holding the gold and silver today, the valley of Achor will be the door of “trouble” for them, and a door of hope for the descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel!

Josh. 24:16-17: 16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake Yahweh, to serve other gods; 17 For Yahweh our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed ...”

Ezek. 16:5-6, 15, 22: 5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. 6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. ... 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. ... 22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.”

Adam Clarke, in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, pp. 461-462:

Verse 5. Thou wast cast out in the open field] This is an allusion to the custom of some heathen and barbarous nations, who exposed those children in the open fields to be devoured by wild beast who had any kind of deformity, or whom they could not support.

Verse 6. I said – Live] I received the exposed child from the death that awaited it, while in such a state as rendered it at once an object of horror, and also of compassion. ...

Verse 15. Thou didst trust in thine own beauty] Riches, strength, alliances, &c.; never considering that all they possessed came from God; therefore it was his comeliness which he had put upon them. Witness their original abject state, and the degree of eminence to which they had arrived afterwards through the protecting power of God.”

Then Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol, 4, p.253, states at v. 22:

Verse “22: thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth. Forgetfulness of God’s love is the source of all sins. Israel forgot her deliverance by God in the infancy of her national life. See v. 43, to which v. 60 forms a lovely contrast (Jer. ii. 2; Hos. xi. 1).”

To sum up this part of our Bible study on Jer. 2:1-2, I will now quote Ezek. 16:43; 16:60; Hos. 11:1 & Exod. 4:22:

Ezek. 16:43: “Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted me in all these things; behold, therefore I also will recompense thy way upon thine head, saith Yahweh Elohim: and thou shalt not commit this lewdness above all thine abominations.”

Ezek. 16:60: “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee [as] in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.” (See Smith & Goodspeed)

Hos. 11:1: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”

Exod. 4:22: “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Yahweh, Israel is my son, even my firstborn ...”

It should also be noted at Exod. 4:23, Israel is spoken of collectively as “my son”: “And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”

After exhaustively researching nearly every aspect of Jeremiah 2:1-2, we are now in an advantageous position to continue with verses 3 through 5 thusly: 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?”

With verses 3-5 quoted immediately above, we do not lose the continuity of our context, for we were informed atHos. 11:1 and Exod. 4:22 that Israel was Yahweh’s “firstborn”. This has a significance that many may not completely comprehend! This brings to mind a very momentous question: When, where, why and how did “Israel” become Yahweh’s firstborn? In my opinion, it is referring to both Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, and to his offspring, where the entire twelve tribes of Israel were considered “firstborn” by Yahweh. The first Biblical passage that might give us a clue is found at Gen. 25:22-26, where it records a very unusual circumstance concerning Jacob and Esau while they were still in the womb of their mother, Rebekah:

22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of Yahweh. 23 And Yahweh said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. 24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. 26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.”

It is very clear from the above quoted passage that Esau was literally the firstborn of Isaac. But, in the foreknowledge of Yahweh, He knew beforehand that Esau would take two Hittites and one Ishmaelite as wives, and by doing so mingled his genetics with the evil descendants of Cain. Thus, Yahweh disinherited Esau before he was ever born, leaving Jacob (later named Israel) to inherit the position of the “firstborn” of Isaac. Today there are many White Israelite women and a lesser number of White Israelite men following the error of Esau.

What all of this amounts to is, if you are a lineal descendant of Jacob/Israel, even though you may be the last of several children in your family (male or female; no matter how large the family), you are a “firstborn Israelite” in Yahweh’s eyes, even though you may not be the firstborn of your immediate family. So Moses wasn’t wrong when he stated to Pharaoh, “... Israel is my son, even my firstborn ....” And Moses meant every last Israelite, regardless of tribe or gender. Provisions for women to inherit are given at Num. 27:3-8 thusly:

3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. 5 And Moses brought their cause before Yahweh. 6 And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, 7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.”

The only good observation that I have found so far in my collection of many commentaries about the “Holiness”, or Israel being collectively “Yahweh’s firstborn son”, is The Wycliffe Bible Commentary by Pfeiffer & Harrison, p. 600:

3. Holiness. Holy (cf. Exo. 19:5-6). Firstfruits. The harvest firstfruits were set apart as sacred (Exo. 23:19; Lev. 23:9-21); so Israel, God’s firstfruits-people among the nations were sacred. The firstfruits were offered to God and could not be eaten by lay Israelites. So here, those who devour Israel shall be guilty. Offend. Better, become guilty (cf. Gen. 12:3) ....” No doubt, Pfeiffer & Harrison consider today’s converso Edomite-jews to be the “firstfruits-people”, but they couldn’t be more mistaken! Rather, the White Anglo-Saxon and related people are the true “firstfruits-people”. As the harvest of firstfruits were set apart as sacred, so also were the twelve tribes of Israel set apart as sacred! Of the Scriptural passages cited here we should take note of Gen. 12:3:

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all [the Adamic] families of the earth be blessed.” So now you know why the word “White” has become a curse-word today! I would encourage everyone in Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.) to take heart during these evil days, as Scripture speaks out clearly that we are not alone at Deut. 32:9-12; Psa. 17:6-9 & Zech. 2:8.

Deut. 32:9-12: 9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. 10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. 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.”

Psa. 17:6-9: “6 I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me, and hear my speech. 7 Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them. 8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings, 9 From the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about.”

Zech. 2:8: “For thus saith Yahweh of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.”

The reason I have quoted these last three passages, where it speaks of “the apple of Yahweh’s eye”, is because I wanted to impress upon the reader’s mind how our Almighty is continually watching over us, and the fact that nothing is hidden from Him! One may not, during the last fifty to sixty years, get that impression, but I can assure the reader that it is true. Not only is He constantly watching over we Anglo-Saxon and related Israelites, but He is ever vigilantly keeping track of every evil scheme and maneuver of Israel’s many enemies, especially the much-mixed converso Cain-Edomite-jews!

I am sure that Yahweh was watching when the Edomite-jews presented their Broadway production “Hair”. I am sure that Yahweh was watching when a full page front cover of Life Magazine featured a naked White female and a naked negro pressed against her breasts. Again, I am sure that our Almighty was taking note when the Edomite-jews showed their Hollywood film, “Guess Whose Coming To Dinner?” in their theaters throughout North America and the rest of the world. Again, I am sure that Yahweh saw every detail when the Edomite-jews, with their communistic infiltration into nearly all of our colleges, brainwashed our White daughters with the lie that if they would have a child by a black, that it would be more intelligent than a purebred White! Again, I am sure that Yahweh witnessed, with His all-seeing eye, how the communistic National Educational Agency advanced the same multicultural agenda that the colleges had promoted!

I am also sure that Yahweh attentively observed the Edomite-jews taking a leading role in the control and distribution of the habitforming drug trade. It is strange how a seemingly coordinated army of blacks and mexicans were stationed on almost every corner of every city, town and hamlet, ready to make a sale. About the same time, here in Fostoria, Ohio, there was a negress at the head of the local N.A.A.C.P. who made the brag of how many White girls her black cotribesmen were going to cause to become pregnant! I had a customer who claimed that he had this negress’ words on an audio cassette tape. This is only hearsay, but you can judge for yourself. We’ll never know, this side of Yahweh’s White Throne Judgment how, many blacks, mexicans and other nonwhites slipped hard drugs into a Pepsi or a Coke in order to date-rape our White daughters. It is also strange that about the same time as these hard drugs were being distributed to our children, the cell-phone came into existence, and myriads of blacks and mexicans had a cell-phone which gave them the ability to keep track of where the police were. And, cell-phones were quite expensive back then. Not only did they have a cell-phone, but most of them had (at the time) a new, or nearly new, automobile.

In addition to this, I am sure that Yahweh took notice of the father with a daughter living just a few miles south of Bowling Green, Ohio, who sent his daughter to the Bowling Green State University, only to be brainwashed by the professors there. The father of this girl was a very friendly, outgoing, happy-go-lucky sort of person. That is, until his daughter became pregnant by one of the black students there. After that, this father became very disheartened to the point that he hardly ever fellowshiped with his friends and neighbors, and the few times he was out and about, he kept his eyes directed downward toward the ground, without the usual smile he formerly had on his face, all because of the overwhelming shame of what his daughter had done!

I am sure that the stories I have related to you here are only the tip of the iceberg, and that the whole account would fill volumes of books, for these evil machinations have been going on now for about 7,500 years! However, Yahweh has kept a record of every last misdeed, for Jeremiah stated at 2:3, “... all that devour him (i.e., any of the twelve tribes of Israel) shall offend; evil shall come upon them (i.e., the converso Edomite-jews), saith Yahweh.”

Adam Clarke, in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 256 states:

All that devour him shall offend] As they were betrothed to the Lord (sic Yahweh), they were considered his especial property; they therefore who injured them were considered as laying violent hands on the property of God. They who persecute God’s children have a grievous burden to bear, an awful account to give.”

Additionally, Barnes’ Notes has this on Jer, 2:3b:

Heathen, i.e., unconsecrated nations must not meddle with Israel, because it is the nation consecrated to God. If they do they will bring such guilt upon themselves as those incur who eat the firstfruits (Lev. xxii. 10, 16.”

Lev. 22:10, 16: 10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. ... 16 Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things: for I Yahweh do sanctify them.”

But to understand Lev. 22:10, 16, one must also read Lev. 22:9: “They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I Yahweh do sanctify them [i.e., Israel, the firstfruits]. In other words, the penalty was/is death! To fully comprehend this, one might be the sixteenth child, and a female, born to an Israelite family yet, she is firstborn like all of the rest of we (male or female) Israelites! If one cannot understand this concept, one simply cannot understand who the “firstfruits” are at Jer. 2:3! Further, the only way that we Israelites can be the firstfruits of Yahweh is because Esau was disinherited by the Almighty before he was born! It is similar to Judah’s literal first son Er, by the daughter of the Canaanite, Shua, who was a half-breed and was not recognized as a legitimate son. After Judah had a legitimate son by the full-blooded White woman, Tamar, her son Pharez was considered Judah’s firstborn son, although literally Pharez was Judah’s fourth son. Half-breeds are still considered Biblically illegitimate to this very day! So, John Hagee, how about that mexican squaw of yours’ and the unclean half-breed offspring you have fathered! John Hagee, you are no better than Esau! To all of the forgoing, Jeremiah proclaimed at vv. 4-5:

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?”

Here it is quite clear that Yahweh was instructing Jeremiah to address this message to all of the twelve tribes of Israel, not just to the house of Judah alone. In searching through my many commentaries, I found only one that satisfactorily interprets verses 4 and 5. That was The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 660:

4. Jacob ... Israel. The whole Hebrew nation is in view. The prophets frequently ignored the division of the kingdom and the exile of the northern tribes and addressed ‘the whole family which I brought up out of Egypt’ (Amos 3:1).

5. Vanity ... become vain. The noun and verb come from the same Hebrew root, which means basically ‘vapor,’ ‘breath’ and so ‘worthlessness’ or ‘worthless.’ It is frequently used (as here) as a synonym for idolatry (cf. 10:15; 16:19; and many others.)”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary cites Amos 3:1 on v. 4, but of necessity both vv. 1 & 2 must be quoted:

1 Hear this word that Yahweh hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary cites Jer. 10:15 & 16:19 on v. 5, but we shall first read Jer. 10:14-16 to get the context:

14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish. 16 The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: Yahweh of hosts is his name.”

Ibid. Now to Jer. 16:19, but I will include vv. 18 & 20 for context:

18 And first I will recompense their [Israel’s] iniquity and their sin double; because they have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance with the carcases of their detestable and abominable things. 19 O Yahweh, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the [Israel nations] shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. 20 Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?”

If one doesn’t get anything else out of this lesson, it is my prayer that one will not forget that Esau was bypassed as firstborn because Yahweh foresaw that he would mix his blood with some Hittite women. Therefore, all twelve of the Israel tribes are considered “firstborn”!

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #174 October 2012

This is my one hundred and seventy-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and have been expanding on its seven stages ever since: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 33:

THE ESTRANGEMENT continued:

In the last lesson, #173, it was established that when Moses declared to Pharaoh, Exod. 4:22, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Yahweh, Israel is my son, even my firstborn”, it might appear to be in the singular sense, but in reality Moses was speaking collectively of all the twelve tribes of Israel. Also with the last lesson, my objective was to carefully analyze all of Jeremiah chapter 2, with the subject of Israel’s “estrangement” from Yahweh in mind, but I was only able to cover verses 1 through 5. So, we shall begin where we left off with the last lesson, with Jer. 2:6-10:

6 Neither said they, Where is Yahweh that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt? 7 And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination. 8 The priests said not, Where is Yahweh? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit. 9 Wherefore I will yet plead with you, saith Yahweh, and with your children’s children will I plead. 10 For pass over the isles of Chittim, and see; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there be such a thing.”

Adam Clarke in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 256, states on verse 6: “Verse 6. Through the wilderness] Egypt was the house of their bondage: the desert through which they passed after they came out of Egypt, was a place where the means of life were not to be found; where no one family could subsist, much less a company of 600,000 men. God mentions these things to show that it was by the bounty of an especial providence that they were fed and preserved alive. Previously to this, it was a land through which no man passed, and in which no man dwelt. And why? because it did not produce the means of life; it was the shadow of death in its appearance, and the grave to those who committed themselves to it.”

Here, Clarke stating “600,000 men” may be somewhat correct if one were to also consider 600,000 women; one woman for each man. This number should also include a conservative estimate of 1,200,000 children, making the estimated number of Israelites 2,400,000. Other scholarly sources estimate the number of Israelites who were in the exodus out of Egypt to have been 2½ to 3 million.

Matthew Poole, in his 3-volume Commentary, vol. 2, p. 494, states on verse 6:

Neither said, i.e. with themselves, thought not. Brought us up: the expression may have some respect to the situation of the place, as lying lower than Canaan; but the design is to reprove their sloth and stupidity, charging herein their apostasy, not upon their ignorance, but wilfulness; their deliverance from Egypt, and therefore is it here mentioned, being such a deliverance as never greater was wrought for any people, wherein there was so much of his power and love seen; they never regarded the operations of his hands, never concerned themselves about what God had done for them, ver. 8, which should have engaged them to a more close cleaving to him. Through a land of deserts; desolate places, chap. i. 13; and then what follows is to amplify the greatness of their dangers in the wilderness, and therein the greatness of their deliverance. And of pits; either those natural dangerous pits that were there; or put for the grave, where passengers are so often buried quick in the heaps of sand suddenly blown up by the wind; or threatening in every respect nothing but death, which may be implied in that expression of' the shadow of death in this verse, which may allude to several kinds or fears of death in passing through a wilderness. ... A land of drought, where they had no water but by miracle; the LXX. renders it a land without water. The shadow of death: ... the LXX. renders it a land without fruit, bringing forth nothing that might have a tendency to the support of life, therefore nothing but death could be expected; and besides, it yielding so many venomous creatures, as scorpions, and serpents, &c., as also the many enemies that they went in continual danger of; all which could not but look formidable, and as the shadow of death. That no man passed through, and where no man dwelt; as having in it no accommodation for travel, much less for habitation. In these respects may it well be called a waste howling wilderness, Deut. xxxii. 10.”

Matthew Henry, in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 406, states on verse 6: “... He brought them out of Egypt with a high hand and great terror (Deu. 4:34), and yet with a kind hand and great tenderness led them through a vast howling wilderness (v. 6), a land of deserts and pits, or of graves, terram sepulchralem a sepulchral land, where there was ground, not to feed them, but to bury them, where there was no good to be expected, for it was a land of drought, but all manner of evil to be feared, for it was the shadow of death. In that darksome valley they walked forty years; but God was with them; his rod, in Moses’s hand, and his staff, comforted them, and even there God prepared a table for them (Ps. 23:4, 5), gave them bread out of the clouds and drink out of the rock. It was a land abandoned by all mankind, as yielding neither road nor rest. It was no thoroughfare, for no man passed through it – no settlement, for no man dwelt there. For God will teach his people to tread untrodden paths, to dwell alone, and to be singular. The difficulties of the journey are thus insisted on, to magnify the power and goodness of God in bringing them, through all, safely to their journey’s end at last ....”

Matthew Henry did quite well here, considering his Israelite blindness, but he really fouled-up his commentary by adding an untrue absurdity which I deleted from the above paragraph, stating: “All God’s spiritual Israel must own their obligations to him for a safe conduct through the wilderness of this world, no less dangerous to the soul than that was to the body.” !!!THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “SPIRITUAL ISRAEL”!!!

This one sentence by Matthew Henry is substantial evidence that he taught universal personal salvation rather than Covenant Theology! Not only did he use the phrase “spiritual Israel” here, but I did an electronic search of his 6-volume Commentary, and I found that he used it seventy-one times in all. Then I did a search in the Libronix Digital Library containing hundreds of books, and I got 190 hits, including the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume #’s 1 & 10. In Volume 1, Chapter 11: “The Law Abrogated; The New Testament Promised and Given by God.” it states:

If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers goes back a long way, and it is evident that the flawed doctrine of personal salvation taking the place of Covenant Theology (or what is termed “replacement theology”) is nothing new. But it is contrary to all Scripture

In volume 10, book 1, at “1. How Christians are the Spiritual Israel” it states: “That people which was called of old the people of God was divided into twelve tribes, and over and above the other tribes it had the Levitical order, which itself again carried on the service of God in various priestly and Levitical suborders. In the same manner, it appears to me that the whole people of Christ, when we regard it in the aspect of the hidden man of the heart, that people which is called ‘Jew inwardly,’ and is circumcised in the spirit, has in a more mystic way the characteristics of the tribes.” [Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.]

IT IS UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, REGARDLESS OF HOW “MYSTICAL”, FOR A NON-ISRAELITE TO COME UNDER OUR EXCLUSIVE COVENANT! And the expression “Jew inwardly” is simply an absurd misnomer! How in the world did the converso Edomite-jews become all the twelve tribes of Israel? or even the tribe of Judah for that matter (as jews and Judah are two different entities)? It makes one wonder how many times Origen’s work might have been edited!

Romans 2:28-29 in the KJV reads: 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

My personal unpolished paraphrase of this passage would read:

28 For a man who appears only as a Judahite outwardly may not be an authentic Judahite inwardly; and true circumcision consists not of something that is physical and external: 29 The true Judahite is one who belongs to Yahweh in heart, and true circumcision is achieved in the heart, attained by the spirit, not the letter of the law; not for the favor of men, but the praise of Yahweh.”

Some might conjecture that Romans 2:28-29 excluded the other eleven tribes of Israel, but that is incorrect. Paul simply addressed this passage to the Romans because they were of the tribe of Zerah-Judah! Before I got sidetracked with the phrase “spiritual Israel”, I was working with Jer. 2:6-10, so let’s return to Jer. 2:7 which reads:

Jer. 2:7: “And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.”

Here the context is definitely addressing Israel’s “estrangement” from Yahweh after the fact. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament), p. 1132, states concerning this:

... Israel’s faithfulness to God, however, did not last. Jacob (a synonym for Israel, v. 4) followed worthless idols (v. 5; cf. vv. 8, 11; 8:19; 10:8, 14-15; 14:22; 16:19; 18:15; 51:17-18) forgetting that the Lord (sic Yahweh) had led them through the desert (2:6) into a fertile land. And the people defiled the land with their idolatry (v. 7).”

Matthew Poole, in his 3-volume Commentary, vol. 2, p. 494, states on verse 7:

Plentiful country, Heb. land, of Carmel, Isa. xxix. 17; understand Canaan, Num. xiii. 27: see on Isa. xxxv. 2. To eat the fruit thereof and the goodness; to enjoy all the blessing of it. My land, i.e. consecrated to my name, Lev. xxv. 23; and this you have defiled by going a whoring after your idols, chap. iii. 1, and many other abominations, Psa. cvi. 29, 35, 37-39. Mine heritage; in the same sense that it is said in the foregoing clause my land, and which you received from me as your heritage, the place that I chose for my church’s present habitation, and earnest of their future heavenly one.”

To really get a good prophetic perception of the apostasy that the twelve tribes of Israel would eventually become involved with, and hasten her “estrangement” from her Husband, Yahweh, one should study Deut. 8:7-20. This will be necessarily a long quotation:

7 For Yahweh thy Elohim bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills; 8 A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; 9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. 10 When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless Yahweh thy Elohim for the good land which he hath given thee. 11 Beware that thou forget not Yahweh thy Elohim, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: 12 Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; 13 And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; 14 Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget Yahweh thy Elohim, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; 15 Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; 16 Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; 17 And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. 18 But thou shalt remember Yahweh thy Elohim: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. 19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget Yahweh thy Elohim, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. 20 As the nations which Yahweh destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of Yahweh your Elohim.”

With the Elijah message (Malachi 4:5-6, the last two verses in the Old Testament), the time is becoming short for we White Anglo-Saxon and related people to awaken and realize the fact that by-and-large we are the twelve lost tribes of Israel, and this admonition is for us to recognize our Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.)! To comprehend why the twelve tribes of Israel finally became “estranged” from Yahweh her Husband, the explanation is at Jer. 2:8, where it states:

Jer. 2:8: “The priests said not, Where is Yahweh? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.”

The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament), p. 1132, addresses this thusly:

Jeremiah singled out the three groups charged with leading the nation and exposed their lack of obedience (v. 8). The priests who were to instruct the people in the ways of God did not know God, that is, they themselves did not have an intimate relationship with the One about whom they were teaching (see comments on ”knew“ in 1:5).

The leaders (ro‘eh, lit., ‘shepherds’) were the political and civil leaders appointed by God to guide and protect the nation. In the early history of Israel this function was fulfilled by judges, but later the duty was assigned to kings. Ironically the ones who were to lead Judah were themselves in need of correction. They rebelled against the One who had appointed them to their task.

The prophets were the third group charged with leading the nation. But instead of declaring God’s words of rebuke and correction, they prophesied by Baal and urged the people to follow worthless idols ... Baal was a Canaanite god of fertility whose worship was a constant thorn in Israel’s side (cf. 1 Kings 18:18-40; 2 Kings 10:18-28; 21:1-3.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 660, states on v. 8:

The priests said not ... (v. 8). The defection of the people was caused by their leaders. Law. Probably law in the broad sense of ‘instruction in the will of God.’ Knew me. The lack of the knowledge of God is a frequent theme of the prophets (cf. Hos. 4:6). What is meant is that the priests had deliberately rejected their God ‘in the knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life’ (cf. Jer. 31:34). Pastors. Hebrew ro‘eh has the basic meaning ‘shepherd’ and here should be translated rulers. Baal. The Canaanite storm-and fertility-god. Things that do not profit. This expression (like vanity, v. 5) is often used of idolatry, as here (cf. v. 11) .”

From Barnes’ Notes, Jer 2:8, p. 149, reads thusly:

8. The guilt of this idolatry is ascribed to the four ruling classes. The accusation brought against (a) the priests is indifference. (b) ‘They that handle the law belonged also to the priestly class (Deut. xxxiii. 10). Their offence was that they knew not God. Cp. Mic. iii. 11. (c) The third class are the pastors or shepherds, that is the temporal rulers. Their crime is disobedience. (d) The fourth class are the prophets. It was their business to press the moral and spiritual truths of the law home to the hearts of the people: but they drew their inspiration from Baal, the Sun-god. Upon the corruption of the prophetic order at this time, see xiv. 13 note. things that do not profit] Here idols, which are merely unreal, but injurious. See 1 Sam. xii. 21; Isa. xliv. 9.”

The reference here, to Deut. 33:10, were the responsibilities assigned to the tribe of Levi:

Deut. 33:10: “They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.”

Micah 3:11: “The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon Yahweh, and say, Is not Yahweh among us? none evil can come upon us.”

Jer. 14:13: “Then said I, Ah, Yahweh Elohim! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.”

1 Sam. 12:21: “And turn ye not aside: for then should ye go after vain things, which cannot profit nor deliver; for they are vain.”

Isa. 44:9: “They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.”

This pretty well sums up the apostasy of Israel from Jeremiah’s day up until our present time, but in the next verse at Jer. 2:9, there is hope for our immediate future:

Jer. 2:9: “Wherefore I will yet plead with you, saith Yahweh, and with your children’s children will I plead.”

I am convinced that the pleading of Jer. 2:9 is no other than the Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.) message of our present time! As for Jer 2:10, I found only two commentaries that made sense which I will quote here. From Barnes’ Notes, Jer 2:10, p. 149, reads as follows:

10. Kedar signifies the whole East, and the isles of Chittim (Isa. xxiii. 12 note) the West. If then you traverse all lands from West to East, it will be impossible to find any nation guilty of such apostasy as that committed by Israel.”

Matthew Poole, in his 3-volume Commentary, vol. 2, p. 494, states on verse 10:

The isles of Chittim; a synecdochical expression, extending to all isles in the Mediterranean Sea, or any other of the neighbouring coasts; for the Hebrews call all people that are separated from them by the Mediterranean Sea ‘islanders’, because they come to them by shipping. See Chittim, Isa, xxiii. 1. Send unto Kedar; understand Arabia that lay east-south-east of Judea, as Chittim did more north or north-west: q.d. Go from north to south, east to west and make the experiment; look to Chittim, the most civilized, or Kedar, the most barbarous, yet neither have changed their gods. See if there be such a thing; not that they were to pass over locally, or send messengers thither actually but, q.d. Cast your eyes thither, and make your observations by what you have ever seen or heard, did you ever hear of such a prodigious thing? If you should either go or send, you will find it so.” [Note: “q.d.” = (in prescriptions) every day.]

Of lesser value, but still informative, Adam Clarke in his 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, pp. 256-257, which states on verse 10:

Verse 10. The isles of Chittim] This is the island of Cyprus, according to Josephus. In 1 Maccabees, chap. viii. 5, it is taken for Macedonia. Besides this how they (the Romans) had discomfited in battle Philip and Perseus, king of the Chittims. Chittim was the grandson of Japhet; and Bochart has made it appear that the countries inhabited by the Chittim were Italy and the adjacent provinces of Europe, lying along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea; and probably this is the prophet’s meaning. [This oversimplifies the early Japhethite and ignores the later Israelite settlements of Europe. ed.]

Send unto Kedar] The name of an Arabian tribe. See if nations either near or remote, cultivated or stupid, have acted with such fickleness and ingratitude as you have done! They have retained their gods to whom they had no obligation; ye have abandoned your God, to whom ye owe your life, breath, and all things!” [Note: I did an electronic search in William Whiston’s translation of Josephus, and could not find “Chittim”. If Whiston translated “Chittim” as “Cyprus”, he did it 14 times. The Roman empire was blindly called the “empire of the Chittim” by the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.]

For more data on this subject, I will cite The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol 1, pp. 1051-1052, where it states in part:

CYPRUS ... Cyprus, a large island measuring roughly 140 by 60 miles, lies in the northeast corner of the Mediterranean Sea south of Cilicia, with its major promontory thrusting toward Syria. In shape it looks like the flayed skin of an animal. In configuration it is a long plain closed on the north and southwest by mountain ranges, once heavily forested, but denuded in historical times by the same exploitation of natural timber resources which bared the Lebanon ranges, and changed the face of the whole Mediterranean basin (Ezek. 27:5, 6). The name Cyprus appears four times in the Old Testament (Isa. 23:1, 12; Jer. 2:10; Ezek. 27:6), and is transliterated as Kittim in four other passages (Gen. 10:4; Num. 24:24; 1 Chron. 1:7; Dan. 11:30). Kition, the old Phoenician foundation where Larnaka now stands, no doubt contains this name, though the area of geographical reference, both of Kittim and Kition, is difficult to determine exactly. The name Cyprus ... is of unknown origin, but gave a term for the metal for which, in the Bronze Age and in the heyday of Phoenician trade, the island was an important source. Copper from Cyprus and tin from Cornwall, carried in the holds of Phoenician ships, made the alloy bronze from which the 2nd millennium B.C. derived its historic name. It was for the sake of copper ore, no doubt, that the Phoenicians founded Kition and other trading centers in the island, and it was the same people who established the worship of the female deity, whom the Greeks called Aphrodite and the Romans named Venus. In both Greek and Latin, ‘the Cyprian’ was a common appellation for this goddess of fertility and carnal love ....”

Jeffrey Crosby, in his The first Open Church, Followers Of “The Way”, part 3, stated in part:

For many years the Phoenicians of Cadis (largely Semites – Israelite tribes of Dan, Asher, Zebulun, Gad and Napthali) held a monopoly on the source of the British tin they transported. Quoting [E. Raymond] Capt: ‘They guarded their secret jealously.’ Confirmation of this is found in the writings of Strabo, who died A.D. 25: ‘Anciently the Phoenicians alone, from Cadis, engrossed this [tin] market, hiding the navigation from all others. When the Romans followed the course of a vessel that they might discover the situation, the jealous pilot willfully stranded the ship, misleading those who were tracing him to the same destruction. Escaping from the shipwreck, he was indemnified for his losses out of the public treasury.’ Tin is the main alloy in the making of bronze, and therefore it can be assumed that the inception of the Bronze Age can be attributed to the tin mines in Britain.”

[Note: Here Crosby was using data from William Finck (from his many studies and essays on the Greek Classics), especially the data that the Phoenicians were of the “Israelite tribes of Dan, Asher, Zebulun, Gad and Napthali.” If one is not aware of this very important detail, he might want to make a note of it, and place the note someplace where it could be easily found.] This wraps-up our analysis of Jeremiah 2:6-10. Isn’t it simply amazing how much can be found on each and every verse of Scripture; especially verses like Jer. 2:10? It shows there’s a big difference between just reading the Bible, as opposed to doing a comprehensive study of each and every item found therein! To finish such a project would take at least a thousand years, so none of us will accomplish everything that needs to be addressed in a single mortal lifetime. We will now consider Jer. 2:11-12:

Jer. 2:11-12: 11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. 12 Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith Yahweh.”

For an appraisal of Jer. 2:11, I will cite three sources. The first will be Matthew Poole in his 3-volume Commentary, vol. 2, p. 494, where he comments on verse 11:

Hath a nation changed their gods? q.d. No, they are unmovable and fixed to their idols, although they are false gods; what they receive from their fathers they tenaciously hold. Their glory, viz. the true God, who was their glory, a metonymy of the adjunct, Psa. cvi. 20; and who always did them good, giving them cause to glory in him, and to make their boast of him. For that which doth not profit; for those which never did or can do them good, that have no essence or power; but of whom they must necessarily be ashamed, as ver. 26.”

From Barnes’ Notes, Jer 2:11, p. 150, reads thusly:

11. a nation] A Gentile [sic non-Israel] nation, in strong antithesis to people, the appellation of Israel. their glory] Though the worship of the one true God is a nation’s greatest glory, yet it is irksome because it puts a constraint on human passions. that which doth not profit] Israel had exchanged the prosperity which was God’s reward of obedience for the calamities which resulted from idol-worship.”

From the 6-volume Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol. 4, p. 5, we read:

11. glory – Jehovah [sic Yahweh], the glory of Israel (Psa. cvi. 20; Rom.. i. 23). The Shekinah or cloud resting on the sanctuary, was the symbol of ‘the glory of the Lord [sic Yahweh]’ (1 Ki. viii. 11; cf. Rom. xi. 4). The golden calf was intended as an image of the true God (cf. Exod. xxxii. 4, 5, ‘These be thy gods (Hebrew, Elohim), O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt. To-morrow is a feast to the Lord [sic Yahweh];’ yet it is called an ‘idol’ – Acts vii. 41, ‘They made a calf, and offered sacrifice unto the idol’). It (like Roman Catholic images) was a violation of the second commandment, as the heathen multiplying of gods is a violation of the first. not profit – (v. 8).”

We find a few Scriptural passages in these commentaries which should be cited here:

Psa. 106:20: “Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.”

1 Ki. 8:[10-]11: 10 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of Yahweh, 11 So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of Yahweh had filled the house of Yahweh.

Rom. 11:4: “But what saith the answer of Yahweh unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.”

Exod. 32:4-5: 4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to [our self existent one], Yahweh3068.”

Here, Aaron was as much as telling the Israelites that when Moses went up to meet Yahweh in the mountain, that Yahweh was a calf, and they believed him. In other words, the “feast day to morrow” would have been a feast-day to the golden calf instead of Yahweh! As there is not enough room remaining here to address Jer. 2:12, I will have to save that for the next lesson, WTL #175.

This whole story is a sad state-of-affairs, and is a loathsome narrative to bring to mind, for our ancestors, the twelve tribes of Israel, had a propensity to be unfaithful to her Husband, Yahweh, seemingly without end. But are we White Anglo-Saxon and related descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel any different? Our history for the last 3,800 years loudly proclaims a resounding NO! So we gave our Almighty Husband, Yahweh, no other alternative but to issue all Israel, including their offspring, a writ of divorce! Hosea 2:2-6 states:

2 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; 3 Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst. 4 And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms. 5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink. 6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.”

Therefore, we were to be put-away and punished for “seven times”, Lev. 26:18-19: 18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times (i.e., 2,520 years) more for your sins. 19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass ....” Question: Are we at this juncture today, or will these three things happen sometime in the future? I am not a prophet; I only try to understand what the prophets have already written!

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #175 November 2012

This is my one hundred and seventy-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. I started this series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told with WTL #137, and have been expanding on its seven stages ever since: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 34:

THE ESTRANGEMENT continued:

In the last lesson, #174, we left off by discussing Jeremiah 2:11-12. We will now continue with Jeremiah 2:13-17:

13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. 14 Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave? why is he spoiled? 15 The young lions roared upon him, and yelled, and they made his land waste: his cities are burned without inhabitant. 16 Also the children of Noph and Tahapanes have broken the crown of thy head. 17 Hast thou not procured this unto thyself, in that thou hast forsaken Yahweh thy Elohim, when he led thee by the way?”

We will not comprehend verse 13 above, concerning “living waters” and “broken cisterns”, unless we examine Prov. 5:15-20:

15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern [i.e., genetic clan], and running waters out of thine own well [i.e., race]. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a [racial] stranger?”

Therefore, a “broken cistern” can be no other than the product of a racially-mixed affair! I say an “affair”, as a racially-mixed union is not a legitimate marriage, but a pernicious violation of Yahweh’s marriage law of kind after kind! We can safely proclaim that “Yahweh hates the products of racially-mixed affairs”, as He hates the mixed-race offspring of Esau, who mixed his seed with Hittite women (Mal. 1:2-3)! I can say “safely proclaim”, inasmuch as Yahweh created a donkey, and He created a horse, but He didn’t create a mule! Even nature itself teaches us segregation of kind after kind. For instance, one will never behold a robin mating with a blackbird, or a blue jay mating with a sparrow! To declare otherwise, one has to be stark raving, foaming at the mouth mad! Hence, it is high time for mentally healthy people to condemn multiculturalism! To remain mute on the subject is the sin of omission, which gives the advocate of racial promiscuity license to commit racial violence!

We are warned concerning “blood toucheth blood” at Hos. 4:2, but I will cite vv 1-6: 1 Hear the word of Yahweh, ye children of Israel: for Yahweh hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of Elohim in the land. 2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood. 3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away. 4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest. 5 Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother. 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy Elohim, I will also forget thy children.”

It is interesting that in the margin of my KJV on Hos. 4:2, where it states “blood toucheth blood”, it indicates “Heb. bloods.” Therefore the context must be plural! Many of my commentaries verify that “blood”, in this case, is indeed “bloods”. The problem with the commentaries is that they do not separate the words “killing” from “bloods”, essentially giving both words the same Hebrew meaning. Primarily the Hebrew word for “killing” is Strong’s #7523 raw-tsakh' and means:

A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).”

Whereas the Hebrew word for “blood” is Strong’s #1818 dawm and means: “From H1826 (compare H119); blood (as that which when shed causes death) of man or an animal; by analogy the juice of the grape; figuratively (especially in the plural) bloodshed (that is, drops of blood): - blood (-y, -guiltiness, [-thirsty]), + innocent.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 805, states in part on v. 2:

2. They break out into acts of violence, and blood toucheth blood. One murder led to another, and the trail of blood was continuous. Idolatry and crimes of violence are closely related in Hosea’s thinking ....”

From the 6-volume Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol. 4, p. 470, we read in part: “... Thus, presently after Shallum murdered Zachariah after six months’ reign, Menahem smote Shallum after reigning a full month: then he attacked Tirzah, and ripped up the women with child ....”

What the commentaries fail to do is separate (1) “swearing” #422, (2) “lying” #3584, (3) “killing” #7523, (4) “stealing” #1589, and (5)committing adultery #5003, they break out, and (6) blood #1818, (7) toucheth #5060 blood #1818.” I hope the reader can now grasp how these commentaries are substituting “killing” #7523 for “blood” #1818. Not only that, but they are completely overlooking the Hebrew word used as an idiom in many cases, “toucheth” #5060. We will now review what I wrote in my Research Papers Proving Two Seedline Seduction Of Eve, in part:

WHAT WAS IT THAT EVE DID “EAT” ?

AND WHAT DID EVE “TOUCH” ?

RE. “EAT”, #398 (akal, to eat, also to lay), Scripture – Genesis 3:13, And Yahweh said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Supporting Scripture – Proverbs 30:20, Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she [eateth], and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness. Another Supporting Scripture – Proverbs 9:17, Stolen waters are sweet, and bread [eaten] in secret is pleasant. Note: The word “eat” of Genesis 3:13 is the same word for “eateth” and “eaten” of Proverbs 30:20 ... !!!

RE. “TOUCH”, #5060 (naga, to touch, also to have sexual intercourse) Scripture – Genesis 3:3, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Supporting Scripture – Genesis 26:10-11, 10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death. Second Supporting Scripture – Genesis 20:6, And Yahweh said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her (Sarah). Third Supporting Scripture – Proverbs 6:29, So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. Note: The word “touch” of Genesis 3:3 is the same word for “touch” or “toucheth” of Genesis 26:11, Geneses 20:6 and Proverbs 6:29! [end of citation]

My contention is that regarding committing adultery and bloods toucheth bloods Hosea didn’t flippantly and randomly go from one topic to another, but stayed on the same subject where he stated: “... and committing adultery, they break out, and blood[s] toucheth blood[s] ....” In addition to this, the Hebrew word for “toucheth” (Strong’s #5060) at Hosea 4:2 is the same as the word “touch” at Genesis 3:3 where Eve was instructed:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, Elohim hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch5060 it, lest ye die.” Of course, if we don’t understand that “touch” in this case is a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse, we’ll not grasp what either this passage or Hosea 4:2 are saying! Nor will we comprehend what a “broken cistern” is at Jer. 2:13-17. Actually, Cain was the first “broken cistern” (as all half-breeds are), as he was conceived by “bloods touching bloods”!

Before we go any farther, it is paramount that we discern the meaning where the Biblical word “blood” is used in a singular sense! We find a clarification at Acts 17:26:

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ....”

If this passage meant all the races on the earth, as nominal churchianity insists, there would be no need of “... appoint[ing] ... the bounds of their habitation ....” Rightly, my KJV center-reference from Acts 17:26 sends me to Deut. 32:8, which states:

When the most High divided to the (the Genesis 10 White Adamic) 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.” Therefore, it is blatant heresy to attempt to include all races of men at Acts 17:26 & Deut. 32:8!

From these two passages we can clearly see that all of the White nations that descended from Adam are considered as “ONE BLOOD”! So when we read at Hosea 4:2, “... committing adultery, they break out, and blood[s] toucheth blood[s], we can comprehend that there were some hanky-panky, illicit sexual encounters going on among some of the members of the tribe of Judah with unclean, nonwhite aliens!

Jeremiah at 23:13-14 spells it out in clear language what kind of “adultery” the nation of Judah was committing: 13 And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. 14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.”

This is more serious than recorded at Jer. 5:7-8: 7 How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. 8 They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” This informs us that the men of Judah (like the men of Israel before them) were flocking themselves like herds into Canaanite whorehouses. It should be apparent to all that this is even more grievous than, “... every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” Both situations are intolerable! And if one is of the opinion that women back then didn’t engage in such activities, just take a look at what kind of activities our beautiful White women are indulging in today with nonwhite alien races! There is no doubt about it, it is still like Hos. 4:2, “... blood[s] toucheth blood[s] ....” Brenton’s Septuagint reads on Hos. 4:2:

Cursing, and lying, and murder, and theft, and adultery abound in the land, and they mingle blood with blood.” Charles Thomson’s Septuagint also reads similar, “... and blood mingleth with blood.” I checked on how the original Greek reads on this verse, and William Finck advised me that the Septuagint Greek reads “... they mingle bloods with bloods”! On top of this evidence, both Gesenius’ (p. 532) and Strong’s under #5060 define nâga in part: Gesenius: “... to touch a woman, to lie with her ....” Strongs: “... euphemism, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach ....”

Also, it should be pointed out that often the term “blood” simply means near of kin, or one’s own race. In the Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 152, under the word “blood”, five of the thirteen definitions read: “... 7. parental heritage; family line; lineage 8. racial heritage; race; a loose unscientific usage, for there are no ethnic differences in blood 9. relationship by descent in the same family line; kinship 10. descent from nobility or royalty 11. descent from purebred stock ....” It appears like the lexicographer added a very inappropriate excerpt “... for there are no ethnic differences in blood ...” in order to confuse the unwary (i.e., easily fooled). I have to agree that it is a very “... loose unscientific usage ...” Otherwise the segment “... racial heritage; race ...” under definition #8, is outstandingly proper! [underlining mine]

To get an idea of how the Hebrew word translated “blood” (Strong’s #1818) is used in the Old Testament in relation to kinship, I will quote from the 6-volume The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. #1, p. 422 in part: AVENGER OF BLOOD ... In the Old Testament the goel (Redeemer, Avenger) is one – usually the nearest relative (which ‘goel’ consequently has also come to mean) – charged with vindicating justice either by redeeming family property expropriated or sold under constraint or (in the case of goel haddam, the avenger of blood) avenging the unlawful slaying of a family member.

The avenger of blood is a figure that appears in primitive justice. By ancient custom it was the right, indeed the duty, of persons (the nearest of kin) to avenge the slaying of a relative. This is perhaps why Cain feared for his life after slaying Abel (Gen. 4:14), and why Lamech justified himself (Gen. 4:23-24). It also is likely that Jehovah [sic Yahweh] sanctioned this kind of retributive justice in the still un-institutionalized society of the immediate post-flood period when He announced the principle of reckoning and reprisal reported in Genesis 9:5-6.

Since individual blood vengeance was widespread in the Near East before the formation of the people of Israel, it is evident that Moses did not institute the custom. The Mosaic legislation did, however, recognize and allow it; the Avenger of Blood was a figure wellknown in Israel at least until the time of David (2 Sam. 14:7-8).

Significant however, is the fact that the Mosaic legislation did not leave the custom of individual blood vengeance unregulated. For one thing the Mosaic law made a distinction between accidental and deliberate homicide (Deut. 19:4-5; Num. 35:22). Second, it provided escape from the wrath of the avenger by establishing cities of refuge to which any killer might flee in order to escape the immediate and non-judicial judgment of the avenger (Num. 35:9-15). Third, it interposed between the killer and the avenger the judicial judgment of the elders, the acknowledged representatives of society as a whole (Deut. 19:12). Fourth, it stipulated that no person should be put to death on the testimony of merely one witness (Num. 35:30). By these provisions the ancient custom of individual blood vengeance was in effect outlawed; the avenger now becoming little more than the public executioner ....”

What I would like the reader to comprehend is that when the KJV reads “blood toucheth blood”, or the LXX “... and blood mingleth with blood” at Hos. 4:2, it has reference to race-mixing, a violation of Yahweh’s law of kind after kind! Here is an example:

Genesis 1:4: “And God saw the light, that it was good ...”

Genesis 1:10: “... and God saw that it was good ...”

Genesis 1:12: “... and God saw that it was good.”

Genesis 1:18: “... and God saw that it was good.”

Genesis 1:21 “... and God saw that it was good.”

Genesis 1:25 “... and God saw that it was good.”

Genesis 1:31 “... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

You will notice from all of this that God didn’t create anything in Genesis chapter 1 that was not good. Any living being that has DNA from two different genetic species, are two kinds of seed encapsulated into one genetic mule-type hybrid. This brings us to the Bible’s most serious offense. Everywhere in the Old Testament the Hebrew word for “seed”, “sperm” or “descendant” (i.e., “offspring”) is Strong’s #2233 “zera”, except Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:9, where the Strong’s #3610 is used for “seeds”, “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled”; (once for “seeds” at Deut. 22:9, and three times as “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled” at Lev. 19:19) in the KJV. These two passages, with their four occurrences, are an exception to the rule. I will now quote these two verses from e-Sword, with words for Strong’s #3610 underlined along with each of the four King James Version renderings:

Deut. 22:9: “Thou shalt not3808 sow2232 thy vineyard3754 with divers seeds3610: lest6435 the fruit4395 of thy seed2233 which834 thou hast sown,2232 and the fruit8393 of thy vineyard3754, be defiled6942.”

Lev. 19:19: “Ye shall keep8104+853 my statutes2708. Thou shalt not3808 let thy cattle929 engender7250 with a diverse kind3610: thou shalt not3808 sow2232 thy field7704 with mingled seed3610: neither3808 shall a garment899 mingled3610 of linen and woolen8162 come5927 upon5921 thee.”

I will repeat again that these four occurrences are the only places where Strong’s Hebrew #3610 is used, and from the KJV it is rendered once as “seeds” at Deut. 22:9, and three times as “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled” at Lev. 19:19. But, the KJV cannot always be trusted. Sometimes, when the lexicographers can’t find a root word in Hebrew, they will often turn to the Arabic because of the similarity of the two languages.

Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary:

3610. ... kil’ayim, kil-ah´-yim; dual of 3608 in the original sense of separation; two heterogeneties:– divers seeds (-e kinds), mingled (seed).”

#’s 3610 and 3608 seem to be a strange pair of Hebrew words! #H3610 is rendered “divers seeds”, “diverse kind”, “mingled seed”, and “mingled”, from #H3608 which means “a prison”. It would appear what we have here are two individual seeds with dissimilar genetics imprisoned or locked into one capsule from which neither can escape. In other words, “two, of a twofold kind” imprisoned in a single living being or plant. In Bible times, the prophets and priests knew nothing about DNA or chromosomes, so they used other descriptions.

From The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ch. 4, Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, speak of something similar: “‘... 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 that there is no record that Yahweh created the nonwhite races, we are naïvely doomed to adopt dangerous premises. It is my desire that the reader is beginning to grasp the meaning of the Hebrew word “kil’ayim”, being two dissimilar seed[s] permanently imprisoned together, which in reference to people it would be in the body of a beast, along with the offspring thereafter. I hope the reader can now see the difference between “kil’ayim” and “zera”!

This has been an over-protracted amount of comprehensive Biblical research in order to comprehend how a single verse at Jeremiah 2:13 fits the context of the rest of Scripture, which reads:

13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

In short, a “broken cistern” is a person of mixed-race. In 2012 America has a “broken cistern” for a president! What’s more, a “broken cistern” cannot be fixed, as it is the unforgivable sin! When a “broken cistern” is conceived, the White party contributes 23 beneficial chromosomes while the nonwhite party contributes 23 non-compatible, defective chromosomes. During the nine months gestation period, from conception until birth, these two incompatible pairs of 23 chromosomes unite to become 46 discordant chromosomes to begin the development process which becomes the organs and extremities of the baby’s body. And because of the confusion of the DNA, the final product is distorted and misshapen in many unusual ways, both mentally and physically. Should one pontificate that this condition could be remedied, consider the following: First of all, one must understand that every single cell making up the body of a person contains the original chromosomes contributed by the father and the mother! Inasmuch as the body of a man [or woman] has more than a million million (1,000, 000,000,000) cells, if a medical procedure were developed to remove and replace the defective 23 chromosomes from each individual cell, it would require a million million (or 1,000,000,000,000) separate medical operations! This would take a multitude of lifetimes on the operating table to complete! And where would they find a chromosome bank to obtain the genetically pure chromosomes to replace the defective ones? Is it any wonder that Yahweh is so strict on maintaining racial purity? It appears we White Israelites should take this “blood touching blood” thing very seriously!

To demonstrate just how grievous this matter is, I will quote from a very excellent 241-page book entitled, Racial Hybridity, by Philip Jones B.A., page 38-41, under the subtitle, “Once Mixed, Always mixed”. Before I make this citation, I would explain that Philip Jones is a brother to Stephen E. Jones, whom I have had to criticize big time. But I would advise the reader that, although Philip and Stephen are brothers, their belief systems are 180° opposed to each other! Stephen Jones has a daughter of color (and since I served in the Navy in 1945-1946 in the Philippines, I am familiar with Filipino appearance). Therefore I believe Jones’ daughter of color is a Filipino. From my observation, Stephen teaches the false doctrine of “universalism”, while Philip is strongly non-universal, and highly promotes purity of race.

ONCE MIXED, ALWAYS MIXED

When the races mix, genes become hopelessly intertwined and nothing can ever be done to unscramble the mixture. No amount of breeding will breed back a mongrel into a pure-bred. It has been said that once the chromosome is halved, it is lost irretrievably.

David Jordan says: ‘Two individuals of diverse race differ in a very great number of genes: In crosses the genes of the two races become inextricably intermingled in many different combinations. Consequently the different characteristics of the two races likewise become inextricably combined. After a cross, there is no chance of recovering either pure race in later generations.’ (emphasis added by Philip).

Reuter agrees with Mr. Jordan: ‘But however wide the variations, however numerous the varieties, the mixed race can never become, biologically, either Negro or white. Interbreeding or further crossing produces new hybrids. No amount of interbreeding or of crossing can ever produce a White man or a negro from a hybrid ancestry. The hybrid individual is a biologically unstable type and he and his descendants remain hybrid and physically unstable ...’

Scheinfeld explains: ‘... the same gene which directed the fashioning of your big toe, will also be found in your eye cells – or in your ear and liver cells, for that matter. Probably, then, in addition to every special task that each gene performs, it also takes part in general activities which makes its presence required everywhere.’ We see then that one alien gene is capable of influencing many of the workings of the body. In race-mixing the genes for building hair in the negro desire to build kinks, while Nordic genes work to make the hair smooth and straight. The result is either dominance by one over the other or compromise. Dawkins says: ‘More usually when two alternative genes are not identical, the result is some kind of compromise – the body is built to an intermediate design or something completely different.’

Morris states that each gene ‘affects many characteristics and every characteristic is controlled by many genes ... ‘Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype [the genetic constitution of an individual or a group] as a whole.’ The genes affect all parts of the organism and determine the color, size, and shape which each part must assume. Man has been given the responsibility to set his own genes into motion, to impart his genes to the right mate for the purpose of building his own race. Since this is not taught in school, our children must be instructed thus in the home.

Dr. Clarence Oliver, former president of both the Genetics Society of America and the American Society of Human Genetics, says that ‘a gene in its customary combination with the other genes in the pool can lose its beneficial effects if other alleles are brought into the pool.’ Race-mixing not only introduces disunity and disharmony but it also destroys the excellence which God placed in White seed.

Ruth Benedict tells how long it takes for scientists to breed out certain impure strains of character in animals to their satisfaction: ‘Geneticists count that with the strictest inbreeding for some seventeen generations – which would mean today the continuous inbreeding of some strain since before Columbus was born – they can get a strain which satisfies genetic requirements of purity; it would breed true. To get this strain in the laboratory they cross only descendants of one pair and are satisfied with nothing less.’ Let this be a warning to those who take the issue of racial purity so lightly.

Some ministers use Deut. 23:2 as justification that a mongrel can become pure in the ‘tenth’ generation, but this is a precarious idea, and a false supposition! It is based on the assumption that the mongrel strain, over a nine-generation span (maybe 300 years), would concentrate genetic efforts repeatedly in order to purify itself by the tenth generation. A second supposition is that women of pure seed over a ten-generation span would be willing to transgress God’s law against such unions so as to bring the errant seed back to a state of purity. Such ‘propositional marriages’ do not exist in reality, and these problems point out the fallacy of such an interpretation of Deut. 23:2 and the re-purification idea.

The Bible clarifies itself in Deut. 23:3 and Neh. 13:1-3 that mongrels may not enter the congregation of Yahweh at any time (i.e. forever). A mongrel cannot be accepted on the basis of outward looks or acts or by any amount of education, religiosity, or even by genetic surgery.

God offers the following solution. The judges of Israel were instructed by Moses to slay anyone who joined himself to Baalpeor (the god of race-mixing). While many Israelites did repent of this sin, Phineas saw a man named Zimri walk brazenly into camp with a Midianite woman and enter his tent. Phineas was so incensed at the sight of this that he took his javelin, went to the tent, and drove his spear through the two people. God was so pleased with Phineas’ zeal that the plague upon Israel was stopped immediately! God does not believe in ‘rehabilitation by mongrelization’ as moderns do, because He knows that neither the body, the mind, or the spirit of mongrels can be made holy once the genes are adulterated. This is the thrust behind, the command ‘Thou shalt not adulterate!’ ....”

While I have to highly agree with Philip Jones, in this excerpt from his book he holds a few views with which I cannot accept. By-and-large his work is excellent. I will here cite one instance where I feel he could have done better. On pp. 43-44, Philip cites Alexander Winchell’s PreAdamites on pp. 248-249, a superb eye-opener which I have also made use of in several papers. Philip states:

Dr. Winchell says that ‘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’ That the negro is specifically different from the White Man and more closely resembles the ape is evident: ‘All genera of animals and vegetables embody the elements of those below them, but some principle above or superior to them, which gives or embodies a specific difference; yet the lowest as well as the highest is perfect in itself. Thus the negro, being the lowest type of man, embodies all the attributes and senses of the lower animals in a much greater degree than the white; but in addition he possesses the faculty of speech ... which distinguishes him from the gorilla and monkey; yet the positive and absolute limit to his mental development fixes him in a different sphere or species to the Adamic race, which has no limit, but is created after-the-image of-God’. The fact that the negro is the head of the animal kingdom and Man the overseer of the negro is very important. The negro’s superiority consists of his faculty of speech. That alone distinguishes him from the apes.”

I have to highly disagree with Philip Jones on his last two sentences in the above paragraph. Scripture clearly states that Yahweh placed Adam-man directly in charge of the animal kingdom, and the negros are in charge of nothing (Gen. 2:19-20; Psa. 8:4, 6-8)! My position concerning how the negroids gained the faculty of speech was from the fallen angels who mixed their seed with the primate family of apes or monkeys. Philip cited one important source in this excerpt from his book, where he quoted thusly:

Dawkins says: ‘More usually when two alternative genes are not identical, the result is some kind of compromise – the body is built to an intermediate design or something completely different’.” If Dawkins is correct, it is very possible that Winchell’s evaluation was plausible, stating, “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.” If the reader wishes to critique more of Philip Jones’ book, I would suggest he search for a copy, that is, if a copy can still be found! Philip also wrote, The Negro, Beast & Devil.

 

Watchman's Teaching Letter #176 December 2012

This is my one hundred and seventy-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my fifteenth year of publication. Since WTL #137, I have been tutoring a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, and have been expanding on its seven stages ever since: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 35:

THE ESTRANGEMENT continued:

In lesson #175, we Israelites were severely rebuked at Jeremiah 2:13 thusly: 13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

We learned that a “broken cistern” was a product of race-mixing, and the action which causes such a mixture is described at Hosea 2:2 thusly: 2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.”

What is immensely clear from these passages is that our Almighty Yahweh is very demanding that we White Israelites keep our genetic seed racially pure! I would point out that William Finck wrote two papers entitled Broken Cisterns, #’s 1 & 2 several years back, and I would recommend that everyone get copies of his insightful study on the subject.

From the 3-volume The Popular And Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, edited by Rev. Samuel Fallows, vol. 1, pp. 428-429, we read the following concerning “cisterns” in Scripture:

CISTERN (sis'tern), (Heb. ... bore', well, pit). In a country which has scarcely more than one perennial stream, where fountains are not abundant, and where the months of summer pass without rain, the preservation of the rain water in cisterns must always have been a matter of vast importance, not only in the pasture grounds, but in gardens, and, above all, in towns. Hence the frequent mention of cisterns in Scripture, and more especially of those which are found in the open country. These were, it seems, the property of those by whom they were formed (Num. xxi. 22). They are usually little more than large pits, but sometimes take the character of extensive subterranean vaults, open only by a small mouth, like that of a well. They are filled with rain water; and (where the climate allows) with snow during winter, and are then closed at the mouth with large flat stones, over which sand is spread in such a way as to prevent their being easily discovered. If by any chance the waters which the shepherd has thus treasured up are lost by means of an earthquake or some other casualty, or are stolen, both he and his flocks are exposed to great and imminent danger; as are also travelers who hasten to a cistern and find its waters gone. For this reason a failure of water is used as the image of any great calamity (Isa. xli. 17, 18; xliv. 3). There is usually a large deposit of mud at the bottom of these cisterns, so that he who falls into them, even when they are without water, is liable to perish miserably (Gen. xxxvii. 22, sq.; Jer. xxxviii. 6; Lam. iii. 53; Psa. xl. 2; lxix. 15). Cisterns were sometimes used, when empty, as prisons, and indeed prisons which were constructed underground received the same name ... (Gen, xxxix. 20; xl. 15).

In cities the cisterns were works of much labor, for they were either hewn in the rocks or surrounded with subterranean walls, and lined with a fine incrustation. The system which in this respect formerly prevailed in Palestine is, doubtless, the same that exists at present; and indeed there is every probability that most of the cisterns now in use were constructed in very ancient times. The main dependence of Jerusalem at the present day [i.e., 1920 A.D.] is on its cisterns, and this has probably always been the case. There are immense cisterns now and anciently existing within the area of the temple, supplied partly by rain water and partly by an aqueduct from Solomon’s Pools, and which, of themselves, would furnish a tolerable supply in case of a siege. But, in addition to these, almost every private house in Jerusalem of any size is understood to have at least one or more cisterns, excavated in the soft limestone rock on which the city is built. The cisterns have usually merely a round opening at the top, sometimes built up with stonework above, and furnished with a curb and a wheel for the bucket, so that they have externally much the appearance of an ordinary well. The water is conducted into them from the roofs of the houses during the rainy season, and, with proper care, remains pure and sweet during the whole summer and autumn. In this manner most of the larger houses and the public buildings are supplied. The Latin convent, in particular, is said to be amply furnished, and in seasons of drought is able to deal out a sufficiency for all the Christian inhabitants of the city.

Most of these cisterns have undoubtedly come down from ancient times, and. their immense extent furnishes a full solution of the question as to the supply of water for the city. Under the disadvantages of its position in this respect, Jerusalem must necessarily have always been dependent on its cisterns; and a city which thus annually laid in its supply for seven or eight months could never be overtaken by a want of water during a siege: Nor is this a trait peculiar to the Holy City; for the case is the same throughout all the hill country of Judah and Benjamin. Fountains and streams are few, as compared with Europe and America, and the inhabitants, therefore, collect water during the rainy season in tanks and cisterns in the cities, in the fields and along the high roads, for the sustenance of themselves and of their flocks and herds and for the comfort of the passing traveler. Many, if not the most, of these are obviously antique, and they exist not unfrequently along the ancient roads which are now deserted. Thus, on the long-forgotten way from Jericho to Bethel, ‘broken cisterns’ of high antiquity are found at regular intervals. That Jerusalem was thus actually supplied of old with water is apparent also from the numerous remains of ancient cisterns still existing in the tract north of the city, which was once enclosed within the walls, and which modern excavations have investigated carefully.

Figurative. The left ventricle of the heart, which retains the blood till it be redispersed through the body, is called a cistern (Ecc. xii. 6). Wives are called cisterns, as they, when dutiful, are a great pleasure, assistance and comfort to their husbands (Prov. v. 15). The comparison of a wife to a cistern, in the passage just quoted, means, ‘Keep at home, wander not to others,’ follow not her who says, ‘Stolen waters are sweet.’ Idols, armies and outward enjoyments, when trusted to, are ‘broken cisterns that can hold no water;’ they can afford no solid or lasting happiness and comfort (Jer. ii. 13). They are soon emptied of all the aid and comfort which they possess and cannot fill themselves again.”

While Fallows does better at explaining a comprehensive description of the ancient Biblical cisterns than all of the other books and data that I have at hand, he falls somewhat short of connecting the term “broken cisterns” with a person born of mixed-race, or a nation or empire that succumbs by-and-large to miscegenation. At the time of Jeremiah, the two greatest empires were Assyria and Egypt. In the 1970 Collier’s Encyclopedia, under the topic “Mesopotamia: Ancient Civilization” and sub-topic “The Historic Age” and 2nd sub-topic “Alien Inroads”, vol. 15, p.738, we read:

Alien Inroads. The Dynasty of Amurru was forced to relinquish its long hold on Babylonia when its capital was sacked by the Hittite king Mursilis I, toward the middle of the second millennium B.C. This was the signal for other non-Semite invaders, the Kassites, to move in and take over. Meanwhile, Assyria came under the domination of Mitanni, a state founded by Aryans but peopled mainly by Hurrians. These foreign inroads were part of a larger pattern of ethnic intrusions, the brunt of which was borne by Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine ....” [Note: While the tribal history is correct, the labels of Aryans and Semites are confused due to the misleading factors of the jewish issue. The Assyrians, Kassites, and apparently the founders of Mittani, were all Aryans and Semites. The Amurru and Hurrians were Canaanite peoples (Amorites and Horites), as were the original Hittites, to all of whom today’s jews are more closely related.]

Speaking in this same context, the book History of Assyria, by Olmstead, page 37, states in part:

The accession of Amenhotep II found all central Syria in full revolt, which can only mean that the cities had gone over to the Hittites. Again the defeat of Naharina is proclaimed, and for the first time we have direct mention of Mitanni ....”

Jacquetta Hawkes, in her The First Great Civilizations, stated that this kind of political relationship continued, pages 81-82: “In the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C., Mitanni extended from the Zagros to the Mediterranean and the kings of Assyria were no more than her vassals. It was the hostile policy of Mitannian kings against Egypt that provoked Thutmose III to march to the Euphrates. Later they made friends with the Egyptians and three generations of princesses, with hundreds of followers, made the hazardous journey to Thebes, where they were given in marriage to Pharaoh and lived out their days in the royal harem ...

Thutmosis I had four children with his chief queen, only one of which lived beyond childhood, a girl named Hatshepsut. Among other children with lesser queens was a son named Thutmosis II who married his half-sister, Hatshepsut. The two could produce no immediate heirs but Thutmosis II fathered a son, Thutmosis III, with a concubine from his harem. The father, now king, named his son as co-regent. Thutmosis II died soon after and Thutmosis III, still a child, ascended to the throne. Hatshepsut, however, had great ambitions. At first she ruled in the name of the young king; but with guile and skill she gained support from the chief viziers, nobles, commanders, and priests, and thrust Thutmosis III into the background, and claimed co-regency by right of her birth.”

From The Bible As History by Werner Keller ©1956, Keller gives additional information, that not only did the Egyptians mix with the Hurrians, as stated by Hawkes, but they also mixed with the Hittites. I will be using excerpts from pages 96-98:

The multicolored army of mercenaries which the Egyptians controlled, consisting of Negroes, Asiatics, and Nubians, marched on northward through Canaan. The new Pharaohs had learned a lesson from the bitter experience of the past. Never again would their country be taken by a surprise attack [as from the Hyksos]. Egypt lost no time in creating a buffer state far in advance of its frontier posts. The remainder of the Hyksos empire was crushed, and Palestine became an Egyptian province. What had once been consular stations, trading posts, and messengers’ quarters in Canaan and on the Phoenician coast became permanent garrisons, fortified strong points, and Egyptian fortresses in a subjugated land ...

Shortly before 1400 B.C. the warlike Mitanni (Hurrian) proposed a peaceful settlement with the Egyptians. The enemy became a friend. The kings of Mitanni turned their attention purposefully to dynastic politics. With great pomp and lavish gifts they sent their daughters down to the Nile and married their princesses to the Pharaohs. In three successive generations of rulers Indo-Aryan[?] [meaning Hurrian] and Egyptian blood was mixed for the first time.

What was the reason for the unexpected desire for peace on the part of the warlike Mitanni? The impulse came from the outside. Their kingdom was suddenly threatened with war on two fronts. A second powerful opponent began to storm the frontiers with his armies from Asia Minor in the northwest. This was a nation about which scholars until this century knew hardly anything, but which plays a considerable part in the Old Testament – the Hittites ... Their long hair hung over their shoulders like a full-bottomed wig; on top sat a high-dented cap; their short aprons were fastened with a wide belt and their shoes had pointed toes ....”

Thus, we can see that both the empires of Assyria and Egypt became “broken cistern” nations. By the time of Jeremiah, the greater part of Egypt had absorbed negroid blood! In my research on “broken cisterns”, I found some rather interesting remarks in the 38-volume Ante- & Post- Nicene Fathers on the subject of “broken cisterns”, and thought you might be amused at some of the rather unusual positions they held on various related topics!

From the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ch. 19 we read:

This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for your selves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised; would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning [sic, tenth] of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest. Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. Which precept, however, you have not observed; nay, you sacrificed your children to demons. And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, ‘That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you’.”

At the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ch. 114, it is written:

For the Holy Spirit sometimes brought about that something, which was the type of the future, should be done clearly; sometimes He uttered words about what was to take place, as if it was then taking place, or had taken place. And unless those who read perceive this art, they will not be able to follow the words of the prophets as they ought. For example’s sake, I shall repeat some prophetic passages, that you may understand what I say. When He speaks by Isaiah, ‘He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb before the shearer,’ He speaks as if the suffering had already taken place. And when He says again, ‘I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people;’ and when He says, ‘Lord, who hath believed our report?’– the words are spoken as if announcing events which had already come to pass. For I have shown that Christ is oftentimes called a Stone in parable, and in figurative speech Jacob and Israel. And again, when He says, ‘I shall behold the heavens, the works of Thy fingers,’ unless I understand His method of using words, I shall not understand intelligently, but just as your teachers suppose, fancying that the Father of all, the unbegotten God, has hands and feet, and fingers, and a soul, like a composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the Father Himself who appeared to Abraham and to Jacob. Blessed therefore are we who have been circumcised the second time with knives of stone. For your first circumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises us from idolatry and from absolutely every kind of wickedness by sharp stones ... And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life. But you do not comprehend me when I speak these things; for you have not understood what it has been prophesied that Christ would do, and you do not believe us who draw your attention to what has been written. For Jeremiah thus cries: ‘Woe unto you! because you have forsaken the living fountain, and have digged for yourselves broken cisterns that can hold no water.’ Shall there be a wilderness where Mount Zion is, because I gave Jerusalem a bill of divorce in your sight?”

At the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, ch. 30, it is written:

But since many heresies have existed, and the people of God have been rent into divisions at the instigation of demons, the truth must be briefly marked out by us, and placed in its own peculiar dwelling-place, that if any one shall desire to draw the water of life, he may not be borne [carried] by broken cisterns which hold no water, but may know the abundant fountain of God, watered by which he may enjoy perpetual light. Before all things, it is befitting that we should know both that He Himself and His ambassadors foretold that there must be numerous sects and heresies, which would break the unity of the sacred body; and that they admonished us to be on our guard with the greatest prudence, lest we should at any time fall into the snares and deceits of that adversary of ours, with whom God has willed that we should contend. Then that He gave us sure commands, which we ought always to treasure in our minds; for many, forgetting them, and abandoning the heavenly road, have made for themselves devious paths amidst windings and precipices, by which they might lead away the incautious and simple part of the people to the darkness of death: I will explain: how this happened. There were some of our religion whose faith was less established, or who were less learned or less cautious, who rent the unity and divided the Church ....”

I will now use a passage from the book Be Decisive, by Warren W. Wiersbe. While Wiersbe does quite well on the 2nd chapter of the book of Jeremiah, I find that I will have to edit portions of his remarks inasmuch as he designates all Israelites as jews. Wiersbe also uses the NIV, which I am not particularly fond of, but his references of supporting scriptures are excellent. Also, he is somewhat blind (but not always) to the powerful affiliation that idol worship has with sexual prostitution and fornication. Should one want to read the original unedited text of his book, I would suggest that one get a copy:

Rebellion: God sees His people’s sins (Jer. 2:1–37)

Jeremiah had a gift for expressing theological truth in pictorial language. In fact, much of his preaching can be read as poetry. In this chapter, he paints ten pictures that expose the sins of the people.

An unfaithful wife (vv. 1-8). When Yahweh gave the Israelites His covenant at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19–20), He entered into a loving relationship with them that He compared to marriage. ‘... they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them... ’ (Jer. 31:32, NIV; see 3:14). In the Old Testament, Israel’s idolatry is compared to adultery and even prostitution (see Isa. 54:5; Hosea 2:16). At the beginning of this covenant relationship, the Israelites were devoted to Yahweh and loved Him, but once they conquered the Promised Land, their hearts lusted after the gods of the nations around them and they sank into idolatry (Judg. 1–3). Although God had taken them safely through their wilderness journey and given them a wonderful inheritance in Canaan, they abandoned Him for man-made gods. What kind of loyal love is that?

Broken cisterns (vv. 9-13). ‘Go from west to east,’ said the prophet, ‘and you will not find a nation that changed its gods.’ But Israel forsook the true God for false gods, which was like abandoning a spring of fresh flowing water for a cracked muddy cistern that couldn’t hold water. In the Holy Land, water is a valuable possession, and nobody would do a foolish thing like that. No wonder Yahweh said, ‘Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror’ (Jer. 2:12, NIV). The second phrase literally means ‘Let your hair stand on end!’

A plundered slave (vv. 14-19). God redeemed the Israelites from Egypt and gave them freedom in Canaan, but now their nation had gone back into bondage because of its idolatry. By allying with its pagan neighbors – Egypt and Assyria – instead of trusting Yahweh, Judah had become a vassal state and was being plundered and enslaved. Instead of drinking at the pure river that Yahweh gave them, the Judahites drank the polluted [racially-mixed] waters of the Nile and the Euphrates. Memphis and Tahpanhes were Egyptian cities, and Shihor was a branch of the Nile River.

A basic principle is enunciated in verse 19: God punishes us by allowing our own sins to bring pain and discipline to our lives. ‘Your own conduct and actions have brought this upon you. This is your punishment. How bitter it is!’ (4:18, NIV) ‘Your wrongdoings have kept these [rains] away; your sins have deprived you of good. (5:25, NIV). The greatest judgment God can send to disobedient people is to let them have their own way and reap the sad, painful consequences of their sins.

The word ‘backsliding’ literally means ‘to turn away’ and describes the nation’s repeated apostasy. The Book of Judges records at least seven occasions when Israel turned from Yahweh and had to be chastened, and there were numerous other times during the period of the monarchy when the Israelites deliberately turned from Yahweh. The word ‘backslide’ is not used in the New Testament, but the experience is described in other ways: falling from grace (Gal. 5:4), leaving your first love (Rev. 2:4), loving the world (1 John 2:15-17; 2 Tim. 4:10), and walking in darkness (1 John 1:5-10).

A stubborn animal (v. 20). Jeremiah often used animals to picture the behavior of people, and here he compared the Israelites to an unruly animal that won’t wear the yoke. One of his recurring phrases is ‘the stubbornness of their evil hearts’ (3:17; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17, NIV). When people, made in the image of God, refuse to obey God, they become like animals (see Psa. 32:9; Prov. 7:21-23; Hosea 4:16).

A degenerate vine (v. 21). Judah [or Israel] as a vine is a familiar image in the Old Testament (Isa. 5:1-7; Psa. 80:8-16; Ezek. 17: 1-10; Hosea 10:1-2). God planted His people in the good land He gave them, but they didn’t produce the harvest of righteousness He desired. ‘So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes [i.e., mixed-race children] (Isa. 5:2, NKJV). Because they worshiped false gods, they became like their degenerate neighbors. How could dead [mixed-race children] ever produce living fruit in their nation? [See 2nd from last paragraph at end of lesson.]

A defiled body (v. 22). No amount of good works or religious ceremonies could wash away their sins [of race-mixing], because the heart of the nation’s problem was the problem in their hearts. They had sinful hearts because they had stubborn hearts – hearts that refused to listen to God’s servant and obey God’s Word. Josiah’s reformation was only a cosmetic change in the kingdom of Judah; it never reached the hearts of the people so that they repented and sought forgiveness from Yahweh.

Jeremiah is preeminently the prophet of the heart, for he used the word over sixty times. ‘O Jerusalem, wash the evil from your heart and be saved’ (Jer. 4:14, NIV). ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?’ (17:9) Judah needed to return to Yahweh with their whole heart, for only then could He bless them.

An animal in the desert (vv. 23-25). Even if the people denied that they were defiled, their actions proved otherwise, for they were like animals: a lost camel, looking for an oasis; or a donkey in heat, running here and there, looking for a mate. As the Israelites pursued the false gods of the pagan nations, their shoes wore out and their throats became dry. How much better had they drunk the refreshing water from the [racial] river of God!

But they had given themselves so much to sin that they despaired of being saved. ‘It’s no use!’ (2:25, NIV) was their excuse. ‘It’s hopeless!’ They sounded like confirmed alcoholics or compulsive gamblers who can’t break the habit, or like the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda who had been sick for so long that he’d given up hope (John 5: 1-9). Jesus Christ, however, specializes in hopeless cases. ‘He breaks the power of canceled sin/He sets the prisoner free.’

A disgraced thief (vv. 26-28). A thief caught in the act may protest his or her innocence, but the evidence is there for all to see. Any visitor to the kingdom of Judah could see what God saw: people turning their backs on God and talking to deaf idols, but then turning desperately to Jehovah [sic Yahweh] for help when they found themselves in trouble. They were caught red-handed!

Incorrigible children (vv. 29-35). God chastened them many times for their sins, but they refused to change their ways, and then they even blamed God! He brought charges against them (Jer. 2:9), but instead of confessing and repenting, they complained and brought charges against Him! None of His discipline seemed to do any good. ‘You struck them, but they felt no pain; you crushed them, but they refused correction’ (5:3, NIV; see 7:28; 17:23; 32:33; 35:13).

God reminded the people how richly He had blessed them. Yet they had rebelled against Him (2:29), forgot Him (v. 32), and lied to Him (vv. 33-35), claiming to be innocent. One of the major themes of the Book of Deuteronomy is that the nation remember Yahweh and what He had done for them. Yet the people took their blessings for granted and gave their allegiance to dumb idols. They were so skilled at their harlotry (i.e., prostitution), along with worshiping false gods, that even the most wicked prostitute could learn new things from them! They exploited the poor and were stained by their blood, and yet they pleaded innocent (see Amos 2:6-8; 5:10-12).

Because the nation at that time was enjoying a measure of political and economic prosperity, they concluded that God’s blessing was proof of their innocence! They didn’t realize that God can bless the wicked (Psa. 37 and 73; Matt. 5:45) and that the goodness of God should instead lead them to repentance (Rom. 2:4-5; Luke 15:17-18).

Prisoners of war (vv. 36-37). In its attempt to keep peace with its neighbors, Judah had flitted between Egypt and Assyria (Jer. 2:14-19), both of whom would ultimately disappoint Judah. The description in verse 37 is that of prisoners of war, their hands tied above their heads, being led away captive. Any decisions we make that are contrary to God’s plan will lead to bondage, because only the truth can set us free (John 8:32). The Babylonian army would eventually overrun the land, take Jerusalem and destroy it, and lead the people away into captivity ....”

Here are a few of the Biblical reference passages that Warren W. Wiersbe cited, and one that he didn’t:

Jer. 2:9: “Wherefore I will yet plead with you [Judah], saith Yahweh, and with your children’s children will I plead.” KJV

Jer. 5:3: “O Yahweh, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them [Judah], but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them [Judah], but they have refused to receive correction: they [Judah] have made their faces harder than a rock; they [Judah] have refused to return.” KJV

Jer. 7:28: “But thou shalt say unto them, This [Judah] is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of Yahweh their Elohim, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.” KJV

Jer. 17:23: “But they [Judah] obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction.” KJV

Jer. 32:33: “And they [Judah] have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.” KJV

Jer. 35:13: “Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, the Elohim of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith Yahweh.” KJV

Amos 2:6-8: 6 Thus saith Yahweh; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes; 7 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name: 8 And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god.” KJV

Jer. 5:7-8: 7 How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. 8 They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” KJV ... NIV reads: “... They are well-fed lusty stallions, each neighing for another man’s wife,”

Amos 5:10-12: “10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. 11 Forasmuch therefore as your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them. 12 For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right.” KJV

While Warren W. Wiersbe cited Jeremiah 2:21 (see above), his comment was wholly inadequate where he stated: “So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes [i.e., mixed-race children] (Isa. 5:2, NKJV).” I edited this sentence by inserting “[i.e., mixed-race children] two times. To comprehend the significance of Jer. 2:21-22, I will amplify it to make the matter more evident:

21 Yet I had planted thee a noble [racially-pure] vine, wholly a right [racial] seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate [race-mixed] plant of a strange [5237 nokrîy] vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre [c.f. strong lye], and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity [mischievous miscegenation] is marked [indelibly inscribed] before me, saith Yahweh Elohim.”

Note: The Hebrew word “nokrîy”, Strong’s #5237, is strange/stranger in the very worst sense (i.e., foreigner, non-relative, adulterous, different, etc.), used with regard to illicit sexual intercourse.